Eyewitness reliability examined in a real-life setting

[ProfessorDavey]

If we compare Mark and Matthew's versions of the empty tomb, it is clear that Matthew's is more original:

It isn't clear at all Spud - you are simply making stuff up.

And whether the claimed words in either Matthew or Mark come close to what might have been said is unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable. And that the version we have of this section of the gospels are from hundreds of years after the purported events makes it exceptionally unlikely that action words were captured, reported and transmitted accurately.

[ProfessorDavey]

So it looks as though Matthew has recorded the conversation in the form in which it originally took place.

There is absolutely no evidence for that claim and there is no way you could plausibly provide evidence. We have a complete black hole for decades if not centuries in which any words spoken at the purported empty tomb are entirely lost to us. To make a completely unsubstantiated claim that Matthew's wording (from extant copies from about 150-250AD) are somehow an accurate record of the words actually said is just bonkers. And it goes against the whole notion of the transmission of oral histories which aren't based on accurate recording and reporting of small details (e.g. the actual words used) but providing broad stories and sayings.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Philosophy rests on logic. When the principles and rules of logic are applied to the claims of theology, they fail – which is why theology gives up the struggle and relies instead on “faith”.

Astronomy and chemistry rest on logic. When the principles and rules of logic are applied to astrology and alchemy they fail too.

Why is this difficult for you to grasp?   

Try reading what I actually said.

Oh, and as ever I see you’ve just ignored the rebuttals you were given. Never explain, never apologise eh? What do you get from this behaviour?

Theology fails on logic except when considering it's age old claim that the universe has a creator. Since that is perhaps the central claim of abrahamic theism apart from prophetic revelation, it is perhaps, given SU theory which not only is premised on a creator but the model leaves room for avatars and revelation

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Theology fails on logic except when considering it's age old claim that the universe has a creator.

Nope – that’s also a fail: “has” is overreaching again. All that logically can be said is “could have had” (and it’s creator or creators too by the way).

How many times does this have to be explained to you?

Since that is perhaps the central claim of abrahamic theism apart from prophetic revelation, it is perhaps, given SU theory which not only is premised on a creator but the model leaves room for avatars and revelation

Still wrong – see above. Moreover, “the model” also "leaves room" for unicorns, for the Loch Ness Monster and for shape-shifting lizard aliens on Alpha Centauri. Leaving room for something that isn’t necessary for the premise (ie, universe creation) tells you nothing at all about whether other, non-necessary characteristics would also be present. This is just your eternal burden of proof mistake restated.

Again, how many times does this have to be explained to you?

(Oh, and still no attempt to address your previous screw ups I see. Oh well – ‘twas ever thus I guess.) 

[Spud]

It isn't clear at all Spud - you are simply making stuff up.

No I'm not, I read it somewhere else.

And whether the claimed words in either Matthew or Mark come close to what might have been said is unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable.

Ok then, Matthew's version is more consistent with the rest of the story. I've already given another example of this in the discussion about ceremonial defilement (Mt 15/Mk 7). If it doesn't tell us anything about which is primary, what does it tell us?

And that the version we have of this section of the gospels are from hundreds of years after the purported events makes it exceptionally unlikely that action words were captured, reported and transmitted accurately.

As the text stands though, Matthew is primary so we can't say that Matthew embellished Mark's account.

[ProfessorDavey]

No I'm not, I read it somewhere else.

Then they are making stuff up and you are gullibly simply going along with it.

Ok then, Matthew's version is more consistent with the rest of the story.

But as we've discussed many times, the clunkiness of a narrative (including inconsistencies) is often the hall-mark of an account that hasn't been doctored or edited. As stories get edited they tend to have details added and inconsistencies removed to try and make them appear more plausible. In fact the reverse is the case - it makes them less plausible as eye witness accounts as eye witnesses typically do not remember every detail nor the exact words used in conversation.

[jeremyp]

If we compare Mark and Matthew's versions of the empty tomb, it is clear that Matthew's is more original:

No it isn't.

Earlier, Jesus had told the disciples that he would rise from the dead. Matthew reports that the angel said, "he is risen, just as he said". Mark does not add "as he said" to "he is risen". Instead Mark adds "as he told you" to "He is going into Galilee before you, there you will see him".

Indeed Jesus had told the disciples he would go before them into Galilee, but Jesus didn't say they would see him there, only that he would rise and would go there before them.

So it looks as though Matthew has recorded the conversation in the form in which it originally took place.

Or Matthew fixed up issues he thought were in Mark.

Matthew's description of the angel is similar to the way Daniel described an angel in one of his visions.

So? If I describe a blast ended skrewt in the same way as JK Rowling, it doesn't make them real, it only means I've read the Harry Potter books.

Apparently this is the first account of the incident; Mark has toned down the appearance of the angel for some reason,

No, Matthew has exaggerated the appearance for some reason, but then people often exaggerate stories with the retelling.

[Spud]

Then they are making stuff up and you are gullibly simply going along with it.
But as we've discussed many times, the clunkiness of a narrative (including inconsistencies) is often the hall-mark of an account that hasn't been doctored or edited. As stories get edited they tend to have details added and inconsistencies removed to try and make them appear more plausible. In fact the reverse is the case - it makes them less plausible as eye witness accounts as eye witnesses typically do not remember every detail nor the exact words used in conversation.

If Matthew was writing the first account, why wouldn't he have in mind Jesus' repeated prediction of his resurrection, thus writing "he has risen, as he said"? I'd have thought that was quite possible and not the result of needing to correct Mark.

It would be good if you could provide an example of editing tending to smooth out inconsistencies? In saying "trying to make them more plausible" you seem to be assuming that the empty tomb account is, at least in part, made up.

[Gordon]

It would be good if you could provide an example of editing tending to smooth out inconsistencies? In saying "trying to make them more plausible" you seem to be assuming that the empty tomb account is, at least in part, made up.

How do you know it wasn't, in full or in part, made up?

[ProfessorDavey]

In saying "trying to make them more plausible" you seem to be assuming that the empty tomb account is, at least in part, made up.

The story of the empty tomb might be made up, or it might not. There is no way of knowing as, from a historical perspective, the evidence for the empty tomb story is as non-existent as any other myth.

But even if it were true there are many clearly plausible explanations for why an occupied tomb might be later found empty. And those plausible explanations do not include 'dead man suddenly comes alive again'.

[Spud]

But as we've discussed many times, the clunkiness of a narrative (including inconsistencies) is often the hall-mark of an account that hasn't been doctored or edited. As stories get edited they tend to have details added and inconsistencies removed to try and make them appear more plausible. In fact the reverse is the case - it makes them less plausible as eye witness accounts as eye witnesses typically do not remember every detail nor the exact words used in conversation.

Okay, but I'm sure you'll agree that if one account is fully coherent and the other is less so, that doesn't automatically mean the more coherent one has edited the less coherent one? I don't think it's a stretch to believe that Matthew originated the angel's comment without having seen Mark. If however you assume from the start the angel is made up then you are more likely to conclude that Matthew has also moved "as he said" in Mark to its more appropriate context. This would be confirmation bias.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nope – that’s also a fail: “has” is overreaching again. All that logically can be said is “could have had” (and it’s creator or creators too by the way).

How many times does this have to be explained to you?

Still wrong – see above. Moreover, “the model” also "leaves room" for unicorns, for the Loch Ness Monster and for shape-shifting lizard aliens on Alpha Centauri. Leaving room for something that isn’t necessary for the premise (ie, universe creation) tells you nothing at all about whether other, non-necessary characteristics would also be present. This is just your eternal burden of proof mistake restated.

Again, how many times does this have to be explained to you?

(Oh, and still no attempt to address your previous screw ups I see. Oh well – ‘twas ever thus I guess.)

Golly , how many theistic principles can an atheist take on and still technically be an atheist?
Accepting a universal creator is a reasonable idea certainly isn't one of those principles.
 principles.

The creation of this universe is a  divine ability and certainly if true or reasonable then you cannot as far as this universe say that that divine ability is unnecessary.

You are disqualified from the race before you are off the blocks.

Naturalism of the type you propose isn't even proven in this universe. ALL WE CAN SAY is we dont know what universe or rules are necessary for creating the universe, so any appeal to any supposed superiority of the naturalistic philosophy outside and independent of nature is too much of a presumption.

Having endorsed SU as reasonable do you now wish to walk that endorsement back.

As far as unicorns and Leprechauns are concerned I would put money on it that we can say they are contingent on their existence ultimately on the creator.

It might be wise to check with NdGT whether SU is an argument for Leprechauns although he is obviously not of your intellectual standing.

[Stranger]

Golly , how many theistic principles can an atheist take on and still technically be an atheist?

Just how many theistic principles does a theist have to ignore and still technically be a theist?

You cannot be a believer in both god as any universe simulator(s) and god as Feser's base of hierarchy. They are entirely different concepts.

Until you stop this mindless drivel about SU being about god(s) and simulators being 'divine' or give up entirely on most of the characteristics of the god of monotheistic religions, you have no consistent view of something you claim to believe in. Not only does that make you look stupid, it makes all talk with you about the existence of god utterly pointless.

Get a grip.

Perhaps it's also worth reminding you that you never did answer the question about how much of a universe needs to be simulated, and in what detail, for the simulators to be called 'gods' in your bizarre and ever-changing belief system. The argument for SU would suggest that the simulators would have to build up to a full simulation (whatever that would mean), so would it count if just you were being simulated in full detail, and everything else in just enough detail to fool you into thinking you're in a universe? What about just a handful of people? Just the Earth? Just the solar system? If the point is to study ancestor simulations (which the argument talks about) there really wouldn't be much point in simulating much more than the solar system in any great detail. Would they still be gods, at a time of day when you happen to be think god means simulator?

[Spud]

Today's brain bender:

If Matthew was writing the first account, why wouldn't he have in mind Jesus' repeated prediction of his resurrection, thus writing "he has risen, as he said"? I'd have thought that was quite possible and not the result of needing to correct Mark.

Let's suppose Matthew and Luke are using Mark. They come to Mk's "there you will see him, as he said to you" and re-read the part of the last supper where Jesus says that after he has risen, he will go ahead of the disciples into Galilee. They notice that Jesus is not recorded as saying, "there you will see me". So Mt decides to change Mk's "there you will see him, as he said to you" to "There you will see him. Behold, I have told you". Lk omits the angel's instruction to tell the disciples.

It is questionable whether Mt and Lk would notice this minor inaccuracy in Mk. It is incredible that they realise that there happens to be a perfect context for "as he said" - after "he has risen". So they both rearrange Mk's two phrases, "he has risen. He is not here". Mt inserts "as he said" after, "he has risen", and Lk provides a quote: "...he has risen. Remember how he told you while he was still with you in Galilee: the Son of man must...be raised again"

Alternatively, Matthew and Luke writing before Mark, record the angel's actual words concerning the meeting in Galilee. Mark, using both Mt and Lk, has "as he said" in the back of his mind from reading Mt, and having omitted it from its original context in Mt, he inserts it to a less appropriate context, after "there you will see him" instead of Mt's "Behold, I have told you".

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Golly , how many theistic principles can an atheist take on and still technically be an atheist?

This atheist has taken on none so far.
 

Accepting a universal creator is a reasonable idea certainly isn't one of those principles.

I don’t know what’s wrong with you, I really don’t. Yet again, all I’ve accepted is that the possibility (of a creator/simulator or creators/simulators of the universe we observe) is reasonable inasmuch only as there’s nothing inherently contradictory about it. 

The creation of this universe is a  divine ability…

How on earth did you jump to that conclusion? 

…and certainly if true or reasonable then you cannot as far as this universe say that that divine ability is unnecessary.

Or true. For all you know our observable universe could be a simulation by an entirely non-divine species that itself inhabits a universe simulated by another non-divine species, that in turn etc through infinite regress. If you seriously want to jump from what’d be necessary for a simulator (ie, the ability to simulate) to a simulator that's also divine you have a huge amount of work ahead of you to define "divine" and to make a case for it. Just asserting it to be so is idiotic.     

You are disqualified from the race before you are off the blocks.

Such a pity you have no concept of irony.

Naturalism of the type you propose isn't even proven in this universe.

Depends what you means by “proven”, but it certainly provides an understanding of the universe that’s consistent, predictable, workable etc – as opposed to “faith” that provides, well, what exactly? 

ALL WE CAN SAY is we dont know what universe or rules are necessary for creating the universe, so any appeal to any supposed superiority of the naturalistic philosophy outside and independent of nature is too much of a presumption.

This is just gibberish. What’s actually being said is that if you want to jump straight to an assertion of supernaturalism (whatever that would mean) then the burden of proof is all yours to make a case for it. Just asserting “divine” doesn’t even get its trousers off for that purpose.   

Having endorsed SU as reasonable do you now wish to walk that endorsement back.

Why would I want to “walk back” your straw man? Try to understand here the difference between the possible and the probable – it would help you not to get in such a mess if you could do that much at least. 

As far as unicorns and Leprechauns are concerned I would put money on it that we can say they are contingent on their existence ultimately on the creator.

Why? And once more I see you’ve failed to grasp the point of these analogies. Yet again: if you want to try an argument for there being “the creator” and the same argument also justifies unicorns and leprechauns, then either all three are true or it’s a bad argument. Surely even you can grasp this simple point by mow can’t you? Can’t you?   

It might be wise to check with NdGT whether SU is an argument for Leprechauns although he is obviously not of your intellectual standing.

Gibberish.

Oh, and after once again having had your arse handed to you in a sling I see you’ve failed even to try to address any of the arguments that undid you.

Why is that?   

[ProfessorDavey]

... record the angel's actual words concerning the meeting in Galilee.

Spud - hate to break it to you but there is no evidence whatsoever that angels exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

This atheist has taken on none so far.
 
I don’t know what’s wrong with you, I really don’t. Yet again, all I’ve accepted is that the possibility (of a creator/simulator or creators/simulators of the universe we observe) is reasonable inasmuch only as there’s nothing inherently contradictory about it. 

How on earth did you jump to that conclusion? 

Or true. For all you know our observable universe could be a simulation by an entirely non-divine species  that itself inhabits a universe simulated by another non-divine species, that in turn etc through infinite regress. If you seriously want to jump from what’s be necessary for a simulator (ie, the ability to simulate) to a simulator that's divine you have a huge amount of work ahead of you to define your terms and to make a case for it. Just asserting it to be so is idiotic.     

Such a pity you have no concept of irony.

Depends what you means by “proven”, but it certainly provides an understanding of the universe that’s consistent, predictable, workable etc – as opposed to “faith” that provides, well, what exactly? 

This is just gibberish. What’s actually being said is that if you want to jump straight to an assertion of supernaturalism (whatever that would even mean) then the burden of proof is all yours to make a case for it. Just asserting “divine” doesn’t even get its trousers off for that purpose.   

Why would I want to “walk back” your straw man? Try to understand here the difference between the possible and the probable – it would help you not to get in such a mess if you could do that much at least. 

Why? And once more I see you’ve failed to grasp the point of these analogies. Yet again: if you want to try an argument for there being “the creator” and the same argument also justifies unicorns and leprechauns, than either all three are true or it’s a bad argument. Surely even you can grasp this simple point by mow can’t you? Can’t you?   

Gibberish.

Oh, and after once again having had your arse handed to you in a sling I see you’ve failed even to try to address any of the arguments that undid you.

Why is that?

Back for more, I see.

A creator of the universe IS supernatural, this is because they/it are not dependent for existence on the universe, are impervious to naturalistic methods of investigation, are able to reveal truths about themselves, are able to make avatars of themselves/itself in this universe. And those are the Central beliefs of Christianity. Divinity in your scheme is an arbitrary term certainly not a word for the attributes which confirm divine status.

You seem to be taking an Ockhams razor approach to clutch onto your atheism or at least your brand of atheism.
Previously it was creators you thought you had demonstrated were unnecessary, now you or at least Bostrom, Greene and NdGT believe the notion that the universe is created is reasonable. THIS IS contradictory to your use of Ockhams Razor to refute God. Where you have the creator as the unnecessary or '' beyond necessary entity.'' By accepting that a creator is reasonable YOU CONTRADICT yourself.

Have you heard of the Japanese soldier that defended his position against the americans from 1945 to 1975? You have a lot in common.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Back for more, I see.

A creator of the universe IS supernatural...

And he opens with more utter bollocks. Why would you assume that creator(s)/simulator(s) of the universe whose natural laws and forces apply to us wouldn’t be just as subject to the natural laws and forces of the universe that they inhabit?   

… this is because they are not dependent for existence on the universe, are impervious to naturalistic methods of investigation, are able to reveal truths about themselves, are able to make avatars of themselves in this universe.

None of which baseless assertions you can support with arguments. Why would you just assume any of these things to be true?

And those are the Central beliefs of Christianity

No doubt.

You seem to be taking an Ockhams razor approach to clutch onto your atheism or at least your brand of atheism.

You’ve revealed before now that you don’t understand Occam’s razor, but by all means to try show its relevance here.

Previously it was creators you thought you had demonstrated were unnecessary,…

Lying again won’t help you here. I make no comment on whether creator(s)/simulator(s) of the universe we observe are necessary – I merely question your positive assertion that it/they are. This is just your continuing burden of proof mistake again. 

…now you or at least Bostrom, Greene and NdGT believe the notion of the universe is created is reasonable.

FFS! “Reasonable” (ie, not inherently contradictory) and “reasoned” (ie substantiated by argument) are fundamentally different positions. If you could try at least to grasp why this is perhaps you’d be less likely to make a fool of yourself here again.
 

THIS IS contradictory to your use of Ockhams Razor to refute God. Where you have the creator as the unnecessary or '' beyond necessary entity.'' By accepting that a creator is reasonable YOU CONTRADICT yourself.

“THIS” is just another of your straw men, for the reasons I’ve just set out (and that you will ignore as you ignore everything else that undoes you).

Have you heard of the Japanese soldier that defended his position against the americans from 1945 to 1975? You have a lot in common.

That may or may not be the case, but until and unless you finally manage to engage with and rebut the arguments that justify my atheism you have no way of knowing that. I set out these arguments perfectly plainly over and over again – if you really think them to be wrong, why not finally tell us why rather than ignore or misrepresent them?

What are you so afraid of?

(And you should try to find out what Occam’s razor actually entails too by the way.)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And he opens with more utter bollocks. Why would you assume that creator(s)/simulator(s) of the universe we inhabit wouldn’t be just subject to the natural laws and forces of the universe that they inhabit?   

None of which baseless assertions you can support with arguments. Why would you just assume any of these things to be true?

No doubt.

You’ve revealed before now that you don’t understand Occam’s razor, but by all means to try show its relevance here.

Lying again won’t help you here. I make no comment on whether creator(s)/simulator(s) of the universe we observe are necessary – I merely question your positive assertion that it/they are. This is just your continuing burden of proof mistake again. 

FFS! “Reasonable” (ie, not inherently contradictory) and “reasoned” (ie substantiated by argument) are fundamentally different positions. If you could try at least to grasp why this is perhaps you’d be less likely to make a fool of yourself here again.
 
“THIS” is just another of your straw men, for the reasons I’ve just set out (and that you will ignore as you ignore everything else that undoes you).

That may or may not be the case, but until and unless you finally manage to engage with and rebut the arguments that justify my atheism you have no way of knowing that. I set out these arguments perfectly plainly over and over again – if you really think them to be wrong, why not finally tell us why rather than ignore or misrepresent them?

What are you so afraid of?

(And you should try to find out what Occam’s razor actually entails too by the way.)

I get it Hillside.''It's just a flesh wound''

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I get it Hillside.''It's just a flesh wound''

No you don't - it's much worse than that: you're actually dead in the water (for the reasons I consistently set out and you consistently either misrepresent or ignore). 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And he opens with more utter bollocks. Why would you assume that creator(s)/simulator(s) of the universe whose natural laws and forces apply to us wouldn’t be just as subject to the natural laws and forces of the universe that they inhabit?   

Well any God inhabits or may actually be the universe it inhabits. It would be subject to it's own laws which effectively are itself and it's own forces which effectively are itself.

And before you POO POO this , The same argument is made by atheists for the universe.

Bad luck old boy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well any God inhabits or may actually be the universe it inhabits…

So what happened to your previous claim of a god “outside time and space” then?

It would be subject to it's own laws which effectively are itself and it's own forces which effectively are itself.

So now you’re claiming a god subject to its laws? How would that work for a god that can do supposedly do anything it wants to do?   

Do you have any sense at all of how all over the place you are here?

Anything?

And before you POO POO this…

Too late.

The same argument is made by atheists for the universe.

No it isn’t. See whether you can work out for yourself where you’ve gone wrong again as every time I correct you you just ignore or misrepresent the correction. 

Bad luck old boy.

Irony: “a rhetorical device, literary technique, or event in which what on the surface appears to be the case or to be expected differs radically from what is actually the case.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So what happened to your previous claim of a god “outside time and space” then?

A creator of the universe is out of time and space. That comes from not being dependent for one's existence on the universe you create.

[ProfessorDavey]

... or may actually be the universe it inhabits.

...

And before you POO POO this , The same argument is made by atheists for the universe.

Hmm - so your 'killer' argument seems to be that some people (and not just atheists) consider that the universe may be ... err ... the universe. Well glad we've cleared that one up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


So now you’re claiming a god subject to its laws? How would that work for a god that can do supposedly do anything it wants to do?   

Not all gods can do anything they want to. They sometimes have to obey more superior gods of their pantheon.

That and the example of Zeus being Cronus son and Cronus being the son of Uranus(and therefore brother to your posts)supports the divinity of any extra universal creator you can come out with.

Or God could be his own universe subject to his own rules, occupying the whole of whatever ''space'' analogue you can come up with.

Have a nice day.