Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

he razor is a logical tool, it is not evidence.

The application of a logical tool (Occam’s razor) to a proposition (purposive earth) produces information. Information is evidence.

Likelihood does not mean a claim to knowledge.

Yes it does. All knowledge is probabilistic – necessarily so unless you’re claiming omniscience too?

Having reason to believe a horse will win a race does not amount to knowledge that it will win.

That’s right, but having sound reasons to believe there’s a computer in front of you does justify the claim to knowledge about that, even though you could be wrong about that nonetheless. There’s a much lower probability of knowing which horse will win so your bet falls short of the status of knowledge, but it’s all probability nonetheless.   

Not having a reason to believe something is not equivalent to knowledge that it is not the case.

It is for the purpose of justifying a claim to knowledge. How otherwise do you think you “know” that gravity is an effect of the warping of spacetime and not pixies with very thin strings? How though? 

[SteveH]

Maybe we should then say why does something exist rather than nothing exist. That has the advantage that we can conceive of non existence and it would seem to cover non naturalistic and naturalistic definitions of existence.

I don't think we can conceive of non-existence in the strictest sense, which would include no space and no time. Empty space and time, yes, but that's not strict non-existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you are measuring something non existing, you are stating that at a time it does not exist. Existence is time based.

That falls down in terms of thing that never have, do not,
Will not exist and things that have no beginning or no end.
Existence doesn't seem to be time based then.

[Nearly Sane]

That falls down in terms of thing that never have, do not,
Will not exist and things that have no beginning or no end.
Existence doesn't seem to be time based then.

Things that have 'never' existed? Never is time based.

Things that always existed. Always is time based. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

The application of a logical tool (Occam’s razor) to a proposition (purposive earth) produces information. Information is evidence.

Yes it does. All knowledge is probabilistic – necessarily so unless you’re claiming omniscience too?

That’s right, but having sound reasons to believe there’s a computer in front of you does justify the claim to knowledge about that, even though you could be wrong about that nonetheless. There’s a much lower probability of knowing which horse will win so your bet falls short of the status of knowledge, but it’s all probability nonetheless.   

It is for the purpose of justifying a claim to knowledge. How otherwise do you think you “know” that gravity is an effect of the warping of spacetime and not pixies with very thin strings? How though?

So there's a threshold for you calling your belief knowledge. What is it? How do you measure that in terms of non purposive vs purposive?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Things that have 'never' existed? Never is time based.

Things that always existed. Always is time based.

Considering we are just comparing the merit of the notion of nothing with the notion of non existence this is a bit of a red herring.

That's aside from the multiple conceptions of time we could throw in.

The point is those who wish to appeal to ockham's razor necessarily buy in to there being a necessary entity beyond which they shouldn't add anymore.

If there can be no "nothing" then something necessarily exists.
What then is it?

[Nearly Sane]

Considering we are just comparing the merit of the notion of nothing with the notion of non existence this is a bit of a red herring.

That's aside from the multiple conceptions of time we could throw in.

The point is those who wish to appeal to ockham's razor necessarily buy in to there being a necessary entity beyond which they shouldn't add anymore.

If there can be no "nothing" then something necessarily exists.
What then is it?

That it may be that nothing cannot be, doesn't mean that any specific something is necessary.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That falls down in terms of thing that never have, do not,
Will not exist and things that have no beginning or no end.
Existence doesn't seem to be time based then.

Whatever that word salad was supposed to mean has nothing to do with your claim that the quantum of logical steps in an argument has something to do with Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor is about the number of assumptions, not the number of logical steps. If it were not so "leprechauns put them there" (ie my iteration of your "goddidit") would be a better explanation for rainbows than all that meteorology and atmospherics and stuff.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So there's a threshold for you calling your belief knowledge. What is it?

Yes – there are various such thresholds. This one for example:

https://home.cern/resources/faqs/five-sigma

How do you measure that in terms of non purposive vs purposive?

You tell me – how do you measure that in terms of your belief that you know that warped spacetime rather than invisible pixies causes gravity? 
   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes – there are various such thresholds. This one for example:

https://home.cern/resources/faqs/five-sigma

You tell me – how do you measure that in terms of your belief that you know that warped spacetime rather than invisible pixies causes gravity? 
   

So have you carried out those tests?

As to warped spacetime, I wouldn't say I know that its true. I'm far from being expert enough to say that. As to pixies, I have no reason to believe it, or even that it is possible, especially as pixies are a supernatural claim and I have no methodology to evaluate such claims, or to believe that such claims make sense.

ETA - one of the other problems with the pixie example is that it's too specific to align with purposive/nom purposive.

[Spud]

So what - the notion that the writer gets some basic detail correct tells us nothing about the veracity of the claims. There are plenty of examples where the gospel writers get stuff demonstrably wrong too.

But try this for size. Walnut trees are native to the UK - we have one is our garden. So I might write the following:

'Last night I climbed up a walnut tree just before sunset. Looking west I could see five golden dragons circling just a few yards from me. One swept down and attacked the pink unicorn on the lawn. The leprechaun who was tending the unicorn was furious.'

So Spud, you simply accept everything in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sentences as true just because walnut trees grow in the UK.

Oh, and by the way - that particular type of tree is mentioned numerous times in the old testament so a NT writer would be on a pretty safe bet in naming this to be the type of tree. But none of this tells us one iota about the veracity of the claim about the blind man (or the dragons, unicorn and leprechaun).

Gordon originally said:

My guess is that the propaganda and theobollocks didn't get added until much later - this being one or the risks if mistakes and lies cannot be meaningfully excluded.

This is true for the apocryphal gospels, but in Luke's record of Jesus' journey to Jerusalem, and passing through Jericho, Luke has added the story of Zacchaeus the tax collector to that of the healing of the blind man, which is part of the original narrative. What you have done in your example, professor, is take a reasonable setting, a walnut tree in your garden in the UK, and embellished it with several fanciful claims, which is what the apocryphal gospels do. In Luke it is the other way around - the miracle was already in his source, Matthew (the first gospel written, in my view), in a non-fanciful form, and Luke added the plausible story of Zacchaeus.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So have you carried out those tests?

No, but there being codified “thresholds” and whether I apply them are different matters. When I cross a road on foot for example, I deem it knowledge that the speed of approaching vehicles means I will do so safely, and I deem it knowledge too that a spaceship won’t land on my head half way across – even though I acknowledge that I could be wrong on either or both counts.

Indeed, I’m so confident that my knowledge on these matters is sound (in a way that I wouldn’t be about the winner of the 4.30 at Kempton Park by the way) that I’m willing to risk my life on it by crossing the road, as I suspect are you.   

As to warped spacetime, I wouldn't say I know that its true. I'm far from being expert enough to say that.

I don’t believe you. I suspect instead that you’re content to accept that the overwhelming body of evidence that supports the warped spacetime theory and the total absence of evidence for my pixies conjecture are sufficient for you to think you have knowledge about which is the more robust explanation.   

As to pixies, I have no reason to believe it, or even that it is possible, especially as pixies are a supernatural claim and I have no methodology to evaluate such claims, or to believe that such claims make sense.

So…what does that suggest to you about your state of knowledge about the nature of gravity? Would you for example cancel your next flight to Ibiza for a week’s debauchery for fear that a gravity pixie might have a day off and so cause your ‘plane to crash, or are you so confident in your knowledge about the non-pixicological and thus consistent nature of gravity (whether or not you personally had reproduced the scientific work that gives us the theory of gravity) that you’d bet your life on it by taking the flight nonetheless?   

ETA - one of the other problems with the pixie example is that it's too specific to align with purposive/nom purposive.

Why is that a problem? If AB (if it was AB) wants to propose a “goddidit” purposive world then pixies give us an equivalence as just an alternative supernatural entity. If he wants to propose instead a non-specific supernatural agency with purpose though, then I can easily tweak “pixies” to something equally non-specific. Moreover, if he wants to posit instead of either of these a naturalistic agency with purpose such as very advanced aliens (which I don’t think he does, but ok), then I could propose the same substitute for my (now alien) pixies.   

The point here isn’t dependent on the characteristics of the possible cast of characters; it’s actually about when it’s justifiable to deem a belief to be knowledge rather than just guessing or speculating.   

[Maeght]

Gordon originally said:This is true for the apocryphal gospels, but in Luke's record of Jesus' journey to Jerusalem, and passing through Jericho, Luke has added the story of Zacchaeus the tax collector to that of the healing of the blind man, which is part of the original narrative. What you have done in your example, professor, is take a reasonable setting, a walnut tree in your garden in the UK, and embellished it with several fanciful claims, which is what the apocryphal gospels do. In Luke it is the other way around - the miracle was already in his source, Matthew (the first gospel written, in my view), in a non-fanciful form, and Luke added the plausible story of Zacchaeus.

What is the earliest copy of a Gospel we have? Second Century? How do you know that the copies we have are the same as the originals?

[Spud]

What is the earliest copy of a Gospel we have? Second Century? How do you know that the copies we have are the same as the originals?

When I came into this chapter of the thread, I said it was my belief that it can be demonstrated that the order of writing of the synoptics is Matthew, Luke, Mark. That means the question you ask should be asked of Matthew. I also said that it's possible to identify the bits in Matthew that have been edited in as distinct from those which belong to the original narrative. I mentioned the 20-odd doublets, but there are other many other bits that look as though they interrupt the continuity of the narrative. Also some bits appear to be written in a different style or using words not characteristic of the main narrative. (By the way, that doesn't mean these bits aren't true).
Scribes copying the originals for circulation may have changed words or made mistakes here and there. But when you have coherence in the underlying narrative, it's logical to believe that what we have is essentially the same as what was in the original of that underlying document, with bits edited in - similar to what looks to have happened at the end of Mark.
When it comes to the later two, Luke and Mark, it appears that Luke has used Matthew as a template and rewritten parts of it in his own style, and also added material from his other sources. Mark has conflated Matthew and Luke, and expanded parts of it for dramatic effect, adding details of his own.
So in a sense I agree with you that the original has been changed over time, but I believe the synoptic trilogy gives us the record of the changes.
As an example to prove it, take the healing of the paralytic, told by Mark. It's undeniable that he has reworded Matthew and Luke at one point: he has lifted the phrase 'to the paralytic' out of its natural context  as used by the narrator in Matthew and Luke, and inserted it into direct speech where it doesn't belong. Similarly, the phrase, 'take up your mat' belongs with 'and go home' but Mark lifts it out of that context and inserts it where it doesn't belong - 'rise, take up your mat and walk'.
These are undeniable evidence that Mark has made changes to the other two.
So I think we can put to bed the idea that we don't have an accurate copy of what was originally written.

[Maeght]

When I came into this chapter of the thread, I said it was my belief that it can be demonstrated that the order of writing of the synoptics is Matthew, Luke, Mark. That means the question you ask should be asked of Matthew. I also said that it's possible to identify the bits in Matthew that have been edited in and which belong to the original narrative. I mentioned the 20-odd doublets, but there are other many other bits that look as though they interrupt the continuity of the narrative. Also some bits appear to be written in a different style or using words not characteristic of the main narrative. (By the way, that doesn't mean these bits aren't true).
Scribes copying the originals for circulation may have changed words or made mistakes here and there. But when you have coherence in the underlying narrative, it's logical to believe that what we have is essentially the same as what was in the original of that underlying document, with bits edited in - similar to what looks to have happened at the end of Mark.
When it comes to the later two, Luke and Mark, it appears that Luke has used Matthew as a template and rewritten parts of it in his own style, and also added material from his other sources. Mark has conflated Matthew and Luke, and expanded parts of it for dramatic effect, adding details of his own.
So in a sense I agree with you that the original has been changed over time, but I believe the synoptic trilogy gives us the record of the changes.
As an example to prove it, take the healing of the paralytic, told by Mark. It's undeniable that he has reworded Matthew and Luke at one point: he has lifted the phrase 'to the paralytic' out of its natural context  as used by the narrator in Matthew and Luke, and inserted it into direct speech where it doesn't belong. Similarly, the phrase, 'take up your mat' belongs with 'and go home' but Mark lifts it out of that context and inserts it where it doesn't belong - 'rise, take up your mat and walk'.
These are undeniable evidence that Mark has made changes to the other two.
So I think we can put to bed the idea that we don't have an accurate copy of what was originally written.

You are satisfied of that but others aren't of course. We can speculate and reach conclusions from textual analysis but without the originals I think saying we can put something to bed is going to far.

I find the discussions interesting and have read about the various hypotheses, all of which have problems, all of which explain some aspects but not others and I would say that in reality we don't really know what order they were written in or when. You say it is undeniable that Mark has made changes to the other two but many scholars consider Mark to be the first Gospel so is different to the others rather than that.

Essentially though they are records of early beliefs rather than unbiased reporting of events and for me I'm not going to believe in something just because some other people believed something and wrote it down. I think you recognise that from things you have said before.

[Gordon]

So I think we can put to bed the idea that we don't have an accurate copy of what was originally written.

Don't be silly, Spud: none of them have any provenance of note so that, for example, the effects of any subsequent editing and translations of whatever the original sources were are unknown, and from this distance can probably never be known. Then there is issue of whether or not a series of anecdotes, which may contain mistakes or outright fabrications, are sufficient to accept that the normal state of affairs, such as that dead people do remain dead, were upended in specially selected cases in accounts that may reflect the biases and credulity of the writers, and the readers ever since. I'd say not.

I'd also say that if anyone take these accounts literally then they are, at best, chronically gullible. Moreover, as regards the order of writing, I can't see that it matters anyway if they are all potentially suspect. 

[Spud]

You are satisfied of that but others aren't of course. We can speculate and reach conclusions from textual analysis but without the originals I think saying we can put something to bed is going to far.

I find the discussions interesting and have read about the various hypotheses, all of which have problems, all of which explain some aspects but not others and I would say that in reality we don't really know what order they were written in or when. You say it is undeniable that Mark has made changes to the other two but many scholars consider Mark to be the first Gospel so is different to the others rather than that.

Essentially though they are records of early beliefs rather than unbiased reporting of events and for me I'm not going to believe in something just because some other people believed something and wrote it down. I think you recognise that from things you have said before.

There's a general agreement that there was copying among the synoptists. When scholars claim Mark was first, they use examples that at first sight appear to support their theory, but in reality the direction of copying could be either way: Mark's omission of the Lord's prayer, for example; the truth is that Mark could have omitted it or Matthew could have added it.  The example I gave is one of many differences between the synoptics that can only be explained if Mark was rewriting Matthew and Luke. People need to check it for themselves to see why.
Regarding not having the originals, Jeremy p here thinks what we have is close enough.

[ProfessorDavey]

What you have done in your example, professor, is take a reasonable setting, a walnut tree in your garden in the UK, and embellished it with several fanciful claims, which is what the apocryphal gospels do.

But that is what all the gospels do when they posit a miracle claim alongside some down to earth plausible stuff.

That you see this only for the apocryphal gospels but not for the canonical ones is a faith position, as there is no more (or less) credible evidence within the canonical gospels compared to apocryphal gospels to support miracle claims. You accept the former but not the latter, not on the basis of evidence, but because your religion tells you the former are true and the latter not. That is a faith position.

[ProfessorDavey]

Regarding not having the originals, Jeremy p here thinks what we have is close enough.

With respect to JP - he is no expert, and nor are you, and nor am I.

However Bart Ehrman is an expert, arguably the leading expert on biblical textual analysis. He thinks that we do not know what was in the originals and that we cannot know what was in the originals until or unless we find extant copies from much earlier than the ones we have.

And even if the originals, written likely from about 70-110CE in places far removed from Judea, by unknown authors, and in a different language, were very similar to the later versions (they cannot be identical as the later version have numerous variations) then that still doesn't provide any kind of credible evidence that the claims are true, merely that decades later certain traditions had arisen which were being formally recorded.

[Maeght]

There's a general agreement that there was copying among the synoptists. When scholars claim Mark was first, they use examples that at first sight appear to support their theory, but in reality the direction of copying could be either way: Mark's omission of the Lord's prayer, for example; the truth is that Mark could have omitted it or Matthew could have added it.  The example I gave is one of many differences between the synoptics that can only be explained if Mark was rewriting Matthew and Luke. People need to check it for themselves to see why.
Regarding not having the originals, Jeremy p here thinks what we have is close enough.

Well if Jeremy P thinks it then that's the end of that discussion ......

[Walt Zingmatilder]

With respect to JP - he is no expert, and nor are you, and nor am I.

However Bart Ehrman is an expert, arguably the leading expert on biblical textual analysis. He thinks that we do not know what was in the originals and that we cannot know what was in the originals until or unless we find extant copies from much earlier than the ones we have.

And even if the originals, written likely from about 70-110CE in places far removed from Judea, by unknown authors, and in a different language, were very similar to the later versions (they cannot be identical as the later version have numerous variations) then that still doesn't provide any kind of credible evidence that the claims are true, merely that decades later certain traditions had arisen which were being formally recorded.

What makes you say Bart Ehrman is arguably the leading expert?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What makes you say Bart Ehrman is arguably the leading expert?

Well, to be fair it was you who cited him a while back, presumably because you thought he was authoritative – albeit that the citation didn't say what you thought it said.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No, but there being codified “thresholds” and whether I apply them are different matters. When I cross a road on foot for example, I deem it knowledge that the speed of approaching vehicles means I will do so safely, and I deem it knowledge too that a spaceship won’t land on my head half way across – even though I acknowledge that I could be wrong on either or both counts.

Indeed, I’m so confident that my knowledge on these matters is sound (in a way that I wouldn’t be about the winner of the 4.30 at Kempton Park by the way) that I’m willing to risk my life on it by crossing the road, as I suspect are you.   

I don’t believe you. I suspect instead that you’re content to accept that the overwhelming body of evidence that supports the warped spacetime theory and the total absence of evidence for my pixies conjecture are sufficient for you to think you have knowledge about which is the more robust explanation.   

So…what does that suggest to you about your state of knowledge about the nature of gravity? Would you for example cancel your next flight to Ibiza for a week’s debauchery for fear that a gravity pixie might have a day off and so cause your ‘plane to crash, or are you so confident in your knowledge about the non-pixicological and thus consistent nature of gravity (whether or not you personally had reproduced the scientific work that gives us the theory of gravity) that you’d bet your life on it by taking the flight nonetheless?   

Why is that a problem? If AB (if it was AB) wants to propose a “goddidit” purposive world then pixies give us an equivalence as just an alternative supernatural entity. If he wants to propose instead a non-specific supernatural agency with purpose though, then I can easily tweak “pixies” to something equally non-specific. Moreover, if he wants to posit instead of either of these a naturalistic agency with purpose such as very advanced aliens (which I don’t think he does, but ok), then I could propose the same substitute for my (now alien) pixies.   

The point here isn’t dependent on the characteristics of the possible cast of characters; it’s actually about when it’s justifiable to deem a belief to be knowledge rather than just guessing or speculating.   

So for the sake of clarity, what you ate trying to justify is that you know that the 'world' is non purposive.
Your case seems to be there are known thresholds for knowledge in physics which you have not applied, and it's not clear can be applied to justify this.

That though those thresholds haven't been applied, they are just like basic empiricism, and mean whether the 'world' is non purposive is just like crossing the road.

That though you accept there can be rational belief that isn't knowledge, you know that the 'world' is non purposive because it's much easier to measure even though you haven't measured it or shown that it can be, than what horse will win the 4.30 at Kempton.

That I'm lying about rating my understanding of warped space time as not great.


That when I dismiss an explanation as not knowledge apt, I am somehow saying it is knowledge apt and valid.

That if you have 2 explanations, which still don't contradict outcomes, clash I somehow need knowledge of warped space time to trust getting on a plane. Just like I need to understand quantum physics to not sit on a chair.

That looking at a general concept non purposive/purposive as regards the 'world',  you can say you know it's non purposive by suggesting a non knowledge apt purposive 'explanation' and dismissing that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Well, to be fair it was you who cited him a while back, presumably because you thought he was authoritative – albeit that the citation didn't say what you thought it said.

Being authoritative doesn't make necessarily make one one THE leading expert.
What Ehrman has said is there for everyone to read.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, folks around here bypass that and accept your erroneous interpretations.

What is it you think I thought Ehrman said?

[ProfessorDavey]

Being authoritative doesn't make one a leading expert.

I think it is beyond doubt that Ehman is a leading expert in this research field, given his academic position and the quality of his research outputs. Whether he is the leading expert, rather than just a leading expert would be a matter of debate amongst his peers - this is entirely consistent with my statement that 'arguably the leading expert on biblical textual analysis'.