Eyewitness reliability examined in a real-life setting

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Leaving aside your use of reification, since the "two are obviously different" they are in different categories so that each will require  methods of investigation that are suited - so, what methods are suited to "the detection of the divine"?

I've already said.  In christianity, revelation and appropriate response
No I'm not: I'm simply asking, yet again, what steps you guys have taken to exclude the risks of human artifice but it seems that you theistic types would prefer to avoid that issue at all costs.

Not true, the reasons not to accept Human artifice based on History and other arguments have been outlined to you. May I remind you I have put some of them them in bold already on this thread.

All I see is your personal incredulity, Vlad: people can't naturally walk on water without aids, so how have you excluded the risk that the walking on water story is fictitious propaganda? Note also that I'm not claiming that it is fictitious propaganda, and it isn't my claim anyway, I'm just curious as regards how you addressed the risk that it might be.

Since belief in aquatic pedestrianism doesn't feature as part of salvation, I'm obviously not concerned as you seem to be about it. Resurrection i'll give you.
My view on that is outlined in bold earlier on and on this thread.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

   

The analogy fails: in your case you’re asserting that such a thing happened before technologies were available that would have enabled it. You’re conflating a miracle narrative with a material one - a basic category error.   

You are talking about technologies for humans to do it. But what about advanced Aliens, Universe simulators or God? There is nothing logically that dictates they did not have the technology earth date whatever.

Also a resurrection has material elements so your argument is a non starter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except it isn't reasoning, is it? It's all about how you felt and what you believed.

There is some consideration of what we would agree are ideas. That, in my book, is reasoning.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

…Any way since you have brought it now for The rebuttal of Dead people cannot become alive again.

1: Argument from materialism: Life is a phenomenon dependent on the organisation and arrangement matter. Organisation and rearrangement are not impossible. Resurrection would be even less possible if ''Life'' was an entity of it's own as in vitalism or the soul.

2: Argument from ''Advanced aliens'', An advanced technology could perform such
technology.

3: Argument from improbable event. Resurrection could be a highly improbable set of circumstances.

4: Argument from induction; The black swan argument.

5: Argument from simulated universe theory (AKA the death knell of many an atheist argument), The creator could resurrect any of the simulants.

First, the rebuttal of leprechauns cannot leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbows.

1: Argument from materialism: Rainbows and pots of gold are phenomena dependent on the organisation and arrangement matter. Organisation and rearrangement are not impossible. Gold at the ends of rainbows would be even less possible if gold and rainbows were was entities of their own.

2: Argument from ''Advanced aliens'', An advanced technology could perform such technology.

3: Argument from improbable event. Gold at the ends or rainbows could be a highly improbable set of circumstances.

4: Argument from induction; The black swan argument.

5: Argument from simulated universe theory. Colin the grand Pooh-Bah of the leprechauns could magic the gold to be there.

Anything wrong with all that?

Second, your “arguments” here are just another repetition of your burden of proof mistake (I told you you should have taken my advice on this). They try to address the claim “resurrection impossible”. As you keep being told though, that’s not the claim – rather that claim is that the gospels’ narratives about the supposed resurrection cannot be treated as reliable. If you have any arguments to address that different point then make them, but for now all you’re doing is tilting at a straw man of your own making.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You are talking about technologies for humans to do it. But what about advanced Aliens, Universe simulators...

What about them? All possible material explanations, as they would be for any other supposed miracle claim.

... or God?

That's your cheat there. You've just conflated a material possibility with a non-material one as if they were the same category. Basic fail - you need to demonstrate first a non-material reality for your "god" to occupy.

There is nothing logically that dictates they did not have the technology earth date whatever.

Leaving aside you aliens/god category error, no-one says otherwise. The argument is about the reliability of the accounts, not the impossibility of the event remember?

Also a resurrection has material elements so your argument is a non starter.

That's backwards. It's because the (supposed) resurrection has "material elements" that the argument applies - the accounts cannot be treated as reliable unless they find away to address the problem this gives them. Try to grasp this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Where is Bluehillsides evidence that it probably didn't happen this way or yours?

Where is your evidence that leprechauns probably don’t leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbows?

I can't prove it materially but then is it a material event?

According to you, in part at least yes: “Also a resurrection has material elements…” (Reply 276). You also I think claim a Jesus who “suffered for our sins”. “Suffering” would presumably be a physical phenomenon no?

Inevitably your position on this is going to depend on your world view, or life stance or how you think but can't prove the way the universe is.

My reasoning is partly this:
1:Having been introduced to Sagan's cosmic community I did not reject the idea.
2:I developed an overwhelming wonder and joy at Sagan's hypothesis.
3.I identified this with Lewis feeling of the Numinous.
4.I identified the happenings in the world particularly human on human violence and the excuses made for it with a certain moral argument.
5. I found I held what is knownas the moral argument in a good part.
6: I percieved something behind what I was reading and identified it as the reality behind the words.
7: The bible became unusually open to me, I found my understanding of it strangely increased.
8: I no longer felt out of place in a church.
9: I believed that this greater and base reality was God.
10: I find myself praying to God to know more about Jesus
11: I read the Bible and identified the call to the disciples was like the call I was feeling.
12. Recognising Revelations 3:20 personally
13: My weighing up commitment period  Approx 2 hours
13: Asking Jesus to take my life(Not kill me, obviously.)
14: Assurance he had done.

Where’s the reasoning? You’re describing your feelings here – not presenting reasoning (premises, connecting logic, conclusions etc). “God is real because it feels that way to me” is epistemically no more valid than, “leprechauns are true because they feel real to me”.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Where is your evidence that leprechauns probably don’t leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbows?

According to you, in part at least yes: “Also a resurrection has material elements…” (Reply 276). You also I think claim a Jesus who “suffered for our sins”. “Suffering” would presumably be a physical phenomenon no?

Non sequitur to the context which was my encounter with God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where’s the reasoning? You’re describing your feelings here – not presenting reasoning (premises, connecting logic, conclusions etc). “God is real because it feels that way to me” is epistemically no more valid than, “leprechauns are true because they feel real to me”.

Not merely feelings but feelings around Ideas which are considered through reasoning. You can't really be saying ''where's the reasoning?'' with a straight face Hillside.

[Stranger]

Not merely feelings but feelings around Ideas which are considered through reasoning. You can't really be saying ''where's the reasoning?'' with a straight face Hillside.

Why not? I saw feelings and ideas but where was the reasoning bit?

[ProfessorDavey]

1:Having been introduced to Sagan's cosmic community I did not reject the idea.
2:I developed an overwhelming wonder and joy at Sagan's hypothesis.
3.I identified this with Lewis feeling of the Numinous.
4.I identified the happenings in the world particularly human on human violence and the excuses made for it with a certain moral argument.
5. I found I held what is knownas the moral argument in a good part.
6: I percieved something behind what I was reading and identified it as the reality behind the words.
7: The bible became unusually open to me, I found my understanding of it strangely increased.
8: I no longer felt out of place in a church.
9: I believed that this greater and base reality was God.
10: I find myself praying to God to know more about Jesus
11: I read the Bible and identified the call to the disciples was like the call I was feeling.
12. Recognising Revelations 3:20 personally
13: My weighing up commitment period  Approx 2 hours
13: Asking Jesus to take my life(Not kill me, obviously.)
14: Assurance he had done.

Thanks for telling us about your believes Vlad - how lovely.

Now can you explain how beliefs have any relevance to whether an event actually happened or not - in other words history.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Non sequitur to the context which was my encounter with God.

(Yet again) that’s not what non sequitur means, and worse you’ve just repeated your basic reification error. You can’t a just assume your premise (that there is a “god” a priori even to be “encountered”) when the discussion is about the epistemic value of that premise. 

Not merely feelings but feelings around Ideas which are considered through reasoning. You can't really be saying ''where's the reasoning?'' with a straight face Hillside.

As you haven’t provided any reasoning, why not? You claimed to set out reasoning, then produced a list of emotional responses. The only reasoning you even imply here is, “my subjective responses give me my objective truths too” which as a matter for you (albeit that some of us set the evidence bar a lot higher than that) but it gives nothing to the rest of us that would make us think you’re right about that.

If I just assert that I’ve encountered leprechauns (and maybe too that I found the experience “numinous”) would you therefore accept as fact my claim “leprechauns”?

Why not?

Now can you see your problem here?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

(Yet again) that’s not what non sequitur means, and worse you’ve just repeated your basic reification error. You can’t a just assume your premise (that there is a “god” a priori even to be “encountered”) when the discussion is about the epistemic value of that premise. 

As you haven’t provided any reasoning, why not? You claimed to set out reasoning, then produced a list of emotional responses. The only reasoning you even imply here is, “my subjective responses give me my objective truths too” which as a matter for you (albeit that some of us set the evidence bar a lot higher than that) but it gives nothing to the rest of us that would make us think you’re right about that.

If I just assert that I’ve encountered leprechauns (and maybe too that I found the experience “numinous”) would you therefore accept as fact my claim “leprechauns”?
 

Since you've effectively being ''crying wolf about them'' for the past n years we have atheistically and theistically been together. No. If you went on about how lovely your relationship with the little fellers was while maintaining your underlying cosmic view that would be a bit of a give away. Also I'd ask you to provide photos of them or there accoutrements for apparently they are diminutive Irish folk whatever else

My last visit to the erse-twhile Free state, was a holiday with hitchiking and long walks. Nary a shillelagh, green Jacket or wee pipe let alone a leprechaun and me having a young man's broad outlook and that.

Could Leprechauns yield a sense of what Lewis calls the numinous? Not on there own.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 

As you haven’t provided any reasoning, why not? You claimed to set out reasoning, then produced a list of emotional responses. The only reasoning you even imply here is...........

So we've gone from no reason to the only reason.........Some progress I suppose.
I outline the intellectual ideas which are handled (reasoning) but I also wanted to remind everybody that christianity is not merely intellectual assent, encounter and response comes into it and if as it seems God has opened himself to all that must include the least intellectually able....cue insult.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Since you've effectively being ''crying wolf about them'' for the past n years we have atheistically and theistically been together. No. If you went on about how lovely your relationship with the little fellers was while maintaining your underlying cosmic view that would be a bit of a give away. Also I'd ask you to provide photos of them or there accoutrements for apparently they are diminutive Irish folk whatever else

My last visit to the erse-twhile Free state, was a holiday with hitchiking and long walks. Nary a shillelagh, green Jacket or wee pipe let alone a leprechaun and me having a young man's broad outlook and that.

Why on earth have you returned to the same mistake you’ve been corrected on so many times already? Yet again…

…leprechauns are immaterial, but are able to flit in and out of materiality at will. I know this because that’s my “faith”.

You claim an immaterial god, also able at will to flit in and out of materiality. There’s even a word for this supposed phenomenon – “theophany”. According to texts you assert to be “holy”, your god appeared in physical form on numerous occasions – as a burning bush, as men, as “angels” even.

In short, the two claims are epistemically the same even though the characteristics differ. Do you get it now?

Could Leprechauns yield a sense of what Lewis calls the numinous? Not on there own.

And your justification for this baseless claim would be what? If you find your belief that you “encountered god” to be “numinous”, why shouldn’t I find that my beliefs in encounters with leprechauns numinous too? Finding experiences numinous is after all just our respective subjective responses to something.   

So we've gone from no reason to the only reason.........Some progress I suppose.

Try reading what I actually said. You said you’d set out your “reasoning”, and then provided no reasoning at all. What you did instead was to list some emotional responses to a belief, so the only reasoning I could infer (but that you hadn’t set out out all) was that you’d just jumped from the subjective to the objective without troubling with any connecting logic or argument.
 

I outline the intellectual ideas which are handled (reasoning)…

No you didn’t. I saw the opinions – where was the reasoning though?

…but I also wanted to remind everybody that christianity is not merely intellectual assent, encounter and response comes into it and if as it seems God has opened himself to all that must include the least intellectually able....cue insult.

No, cue rebuttal – again this is a basic reification fallacy. You’ve just jumped straight to “god” being real as your premise without troubling to establish it. “Because god is real I know met him” fails ab initio with the “because” (and you do the same thing sometimes with “since” too).

See whether you can work out for yourself why you’ve gone wrong again here. 

[Owlswing]

Since you've effectively being (the word you want is "been") ''crying wolf about them'' for the past n years we have atheistically and theistically been together. No. If you went on about how lovely your relationship with the little fellers was while maintaining your underlying cosmic view that would be a bit of a giveaway. Also, I'd ask you to provide photos of them or there (the word you want here is "their" accoutrements for apparently they are diminutive Irish folk whatever else

My last visit to the erse-twhile ((erstwhile) is one word! Unhyphenated!)  Free state, was a holiday with hitchiking (Two H's - Hitchhiking) and long walks. Nary a shillelagh, green Jacket or wee pipe let alone a leprechaun and me having a young man's broad outlook and that.

Could Leprechauns yield a sense of what Lewis calls the numinous? Not on there (their) own.

Your murder of the spelling of the English Language (and I am minorly dyslexic, but I CAN and DO use a dictionary) is an annoyance second only to your attachment to the contention that the early history of Christianity is factual.

 At least I am willing to admit that my religion is based upon faith and not fact.

Owlswing

Bright Blessings, Love and Light, and may the Old Ones watch over you and yours always.

)O(

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Owls,

Your murder of the spelling of the English Language (and I am minorly dyslexic, but I CAN and DO use a dictionary) is an annoyance second only to your attachment to the contention that the early history of Christianity is factual.

 At least I am willing to admit that my religion is based upon faith and not fact.

Vlad has poor literacy – spelling, grammar, ability to construct coherent sentences etc are all weak. I generally don’t comment on it though because I think it’s unfair to do so. If I can work out what I think he’s trying to say then I do my best to respond to that.

That said, I find it hard to see how someone who claims to have read around his subject hasn’t learnt from his reading what clear writing should be.

Bright Blessings, Love and Light, and may the Old Ones watch over you and yours always.

As you know I don’t share your beliefs, but that seems rather lovely to me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
…leprechauns are immaterial, but are able to flit in and out of materiality at will. I know this because that’s my “faith”.

Ah, Leprochology.
What is your feeling about the school of leprochology which would say Leprechauns are material but flit in and out of immaterial.

Have you encountered a leprechaun? Or is  what you have just intellectual assent.

A localised supernatural or natural being bestowed supernatural abilities doesn’t possibly fit into what Lewis describes as the numinous.

As for theophany, that pertains to gods. The clue is in the “Theo”

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Ah, Leprochology.
What is your feeling about the school of leprochology which would say Leprechauns are material but flit in and out of immaterial.

The same as your feeling about the school of theology that says that god(s) do the same thing.

Have you encountered a leprechaun? Or is  what you have just intellectual assent.

Neither of us can demonstrate that we have “encountered” either god or leprechauns alike – these are just narratives that satisfy each of us for the experiences we’ve had. 

A localised supernatural or natural being bestowed supernatural abilities doesn’t possibly fit into what Lewis describes as the numinous.

Why not? And for that matter so what – are you claiming Lewis (of all people) to be inerrant in some way? Numinosity is adjectival – it just describes one subjective response to phenomena. There’s no reason why I couldn’t find my belief that I’d encountered leprechauns just as numinous for me as your belief that you encountered god is for you. 

As for theophany, that pertains to gods. The clue is in the “Theo”

Yes I know – that’s why I defined it that way when I told you about it (you’re welcome by the way). The leprechaunal equivalent would be “lepreophany” or similar.

Oh, and why have you just avoided every rebuttal I gave to you too?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The same as your feeling about the school of theology that says that god(s) do the same thing.

Neither of us can demonstrate that we have “encountered” either god or leprechauns alike – these are just narratives that satisfy each of us for the experiences we’ve had. 

Why not? And for that matter so what – are you claiming Lewis (of all people) to be inerrant in some way? Numinosity is adjectival – it just describes one subjective response to phenomena. There’s no reason why I couldn’t find my belief that I’d encountered leprechauns just as numinous for me as your belief that you encountered god is for you. 

Yes I know – that’s why I defined it that way when I told you about it (you’re welcome by the way). The leprechaunal equivalent would be “lepreophany” or similar.

Oh, and why have you just avoided every rebuttal I gave to you too?

Hillside........Why Leprechauns?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside........Why Leprechauns?

Why god?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The same as your feeling about the school of theology that says that god(s) do the same thing.

Neither of us can demonstrate that we have “encountered” either god or leprechauns alike – these are just narratives that satisfy each of us for the experiences we’ve had. 

Why not? And for that matter so what – are you claiming Lewis (of all people) to be inerrant in some way? Numinosity is adjectival – it just describes one subjective response to phenomena. There’s no reason why I couldn’t find my belief that I’d encountered leprechauns just as numinous for me as your belief that you encountered god is for you. 

Yes I know – that’s why I defined it that way when I told you about it (you’re welcome by the way). The leprechaunal equivalent would be “lepreophany” or similar.

Oh, and why have you just avoided every rebuttal I gave to you too?

Given what Leprechauns are Hillside outside of your equation of their nature with the divine. Leprechauns inspire neither spiritual or religious awe them being wee Irishmen.

The only wonder in fact they inspire is wondering why you keep referring to them. So far we’ve had horses laugh on your part..... and you haven’t offered any alternative to that conclusion.

Top of the morning to ya.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Given what Leprechauns are Hillside outside of your equation of their nature with the divine. Leprechauns inspire neither spiritual or religious awe them being wee Irishmen.

What’s the relevance, and how do you know that in any case? I could just as easily use “leprechaunal” rather than “spiritual” or “religious", and how do you know that I’m not in awe of leprechauns (what with believing I’ve “encountered" them and all)?

The only wonder in fact they inspire is wondering why you keep referring to them.

What relevance do you think wonder has to epistemic truth?

So far we’ve had horses laugh on your part..... and you haven’t offered any alternative to that conclusion.

Top of the morning to ya.

Lying about this again doesn’t help you. I’ve explained to you often in the past exactly why the analogy isn’t the horse’s laugh fallacy at all (because it's actually a reductio ad absurdum). As you’ve never managed (or even tried) to rebut that, it stands. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Just to correct you once again on this point, the “horse laugh” fallacy (or the appeal to ridicule) entails the deliberate trivialisation of an argument with an unflattering comparison. If, say, you said, “I believe in God” and I replied with, “well I believe in leprechauns then” to make your belief look foolish that would be the horse laugh fallacy.

I have never done this.

The reductio ad absurdum on the other hand entails taking a proponent’s arguments to justify his belief, and showing that the identical argument also justifies absurd conclusions – like leprechauns.

This is what I’ve only ever done.

Here (again) is Wiki to set you straight on this:

“It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion…”

“…Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[5] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις, lit. "demonstration to the impossible", 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.”

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)

Do you understand the difference now?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Just to correct you once again on this point, the “horse laugh” fallacy (or the appeal to ridicule) entails the deliberate trivialisation of an argument with an unflattering comparison. If, say, you said, “I believe in God” and I replied with, “well I believe in leprechauns then” to make your belief look foolish that would be the horse laugh fallacy.

I have never done this.

The reductio ad absurdum on the other hand entails taking a proponent’s arguments to justify his belief, and showing that the identical argument also justifies absurd conclusions – like leprechauns.

This is what I’ve only ever done.

Here (again) is Wiki to set you straight on this:

“It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion…”

“…Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[5] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις, lit. "demonstration to the impossible", 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.”

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)

Do you understand the difference now?

What have Leprechauns got to do with the impossible?.what has god got to do with the impossible? What has Hillside, the forum’s leading proponent of the idea that anything’s possible, got to do with the impossible? Neigh. You’ve got it wrong again Hillside.

This is horses laugh of course wivabiroff gaslighting chucked in. Get help.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What have Leprechauns got to do with the impossible?.what has god got to do with the impossible? What is Hillside the forums leading proponent of the idea that anything’s possible got to do with the impossible? Neigh. You’ve got it wrong again Hillside.

This is horses laugh of course wivabiroff gaslighting chucked in.

What on earth has “the impossible” got to do with it? I’ve just taken the trouble to explain to you again the difference between the horse laugh fallacy and the reductio ad absurdum. You, typically, have ignored that in favour of incoherence and irrelevance. Do you genuinely not understand even simple, carefully laid our argument in plain words or are you so pathologically dishonest that you will not engage with it?

Get help.

Get educated.