Atheist objections to evidence for God's existence

[OzSpen]

The term "implicit empirical basis" means the objects and events described in the claim have been demonstrated to empirically exist in other contexts even if we cannot directly observe the exact objects and events from the historical claim itself.

BGE,

This is false epistemology when it comes to investigating historical data. There cannot be any 'implicit empirical basis' when there was no repeatability in the past. Captain James Cook (representing England) sailed up the east coast of what was to become Australia and circumnavigated NZ in 1770.

There is no way to imply an 'empirical basis' for these actions as they are actions in history that need to be examined, not using any form of empirical method, but by historical science.

With OT and NT, these are historical documents that need to be investigated using the historical method. I thinkyou are on the wrong boat when examining Noah's 'boat' and James Cook's boat and journey on the HMS Endeavour.

Oz

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

Oh...you're not paying attention again!

I specifically said NOT "believe." But now here you go right back and couple me with those who "believe."

Try harder.

However, to answer your question: An "objective observer" under those circumstances should determine that one is not telling the truth and one perhaps is. But that doesn't help, because those are not the circumstances here. You should not be searching for the one who "believes" the correct information and trying to determine how or why they are different from all the other believers. That would be a gamble (and I don't blame you for your objections). But instead consider how a blind person would "objectively observe" the claims of those claiming to have sight. Such an exercise should show you that your approach is flawed and will get you nowhere.

The correct approach would be to determine if it is possible that there is life beyond the bonds of the organic man. Ask yourself: Is humanity only organic...do I care? If you care to pursue it and have any idea that it might be possible, then pursue it. If not, then don't. But nothing will come of a blind man debating sunsets with those who may or may not have sight.

The real question then, becomes: On what shall I establish my own trust and belief? If on the words of another--take your pick, or do your homework. In which case there is only one consistent (however confusing) ribbon of witness testimonies since the beginning of time...and the others are all organic, man-made junk. Or you could appeal to the Source. The alternative is to waste this time allotted for this purpose.

In your search, consider this parable: If you were born into a large room and no one inside the room had been out or seen outside the room, who in the room could tell you what is outside...a teacher, a scientist, a great leader? No. The only way that anyone inside such a room could actually "know" anything about the outside...is if the knowledge came in to them from the outside. This is the knowledge that you are looking for.

I continue to refer to your claim about divinely revealed knowledge as being a belief for the same reason I refer to the flat Earth claim as being a belief. At one time, people claimed to "know" the Earth was flat based on their restricted and limited perspectives, yet their "knowledge" was eventually demonstrated to be a mistaken belief. Similarly, I understand how you could be so convinced by subjective experiences within your restricted and limited perspective to believe you "know" an unfalsifiable claim about God is true. Unfortunately, your subjective perspective is not enough to rule-out the possibility that your "knowledge" about God could be a mistaken belief. This isn't to imply that we should dismiss your claims about God as being false, but nothing you've offered thus far rules-out that possibility. What information or experience would falsify your "knowledge" claims about God? Please describe how can we rule-out that possibility?

In the analogy, the ability of the human eye to see the perceived external world can be demonstrated to know that a blind person is incapable of objectively observing the color of an apple. Meanwhile, the supernatural perception you claim to possess cannot be objectively demonstrated. Therefore, your claim about having divinely revealed knowledge is not analogous to people having a functional perception of sight, and my inability to perceive the supernatural is not analogous with people who have an inability to see the perceived external world with their eyes.

As for your comment about trusting the "Source" instead of "man-made junk," how can we rule-out the possibility that your identified "Source" isn't just another form of "man-made junk?" To presuppose your identified "Source" is sufficiently trustworthy to serve as evidence for the existence of your identified "Source" is circular reasoning. We need an objective method for determining if your identified "Source" actually exists and is deserving of our trust. For example, your parable about the isolated room with no way to observe anything outside it presupposes something exists outside the room and has a mechanism for transmitting knowledge from outside to inside the room. However, for parable to be truly representative, there cannot be any such presupposition. When someone in the room claimed to have received a message from outside the room, there would need to be a way to determine if that person actually received an external message or mistakenly believed a message was received from outside the room.

 

[ScottA]

I continue to refer to your claim about divinely revealed knowledge as being a belief for the same reason I refer to the flat Earth claim as being a belief. At one time, people claimed to "know" the Earth was flat based on their restricted and limited perspectives, yet their "knowledge" was eventually demonstrated to be a mistaken belief. Similarly, I understand how you could be so convinced by subjective experiences within your restricted and limited perspective to believe you "know" an unfalsifiable claim about God is true. Unfortunately, your subjective perspective is not enough to rule-out the possibility that your "knowledge" about God could be a mistaken belief. This isn't to imply that we should dismiss your claims about God as being false, but nothing you've offered thus far rules-out that possibility. What information or experience would falsify your "knowledge" claims about God? Please describe how can we rule-out that possibility?

In the analogy, the ability of the human eye to see the perceived external world can be demonstrated to know that a blind person is incapable of objectively observing the color of an apple. Meanwhile, the supernatural perception you claim to possess cannot be objectively demonstrated. Therefore, your claim about having divinely revealed knowledge is not analogous to people having a functional perception of sight, and my inability to perceive the supernatural is not analogous with people who have an inability to see the perceived external world with their eyes.

As for your comment about trusting the "Source" instead of "man-made junk," how can we rule-out the possibility that your identified "Source" isn't just another form of "man-made junk?" To presuppose your identified "Source" is sufficiently trustworthy to serve as evidence for the existence of your identified "Source" is circular reasoning. We need an objective method for determining if your identified "Source" actually exists and is deserving of our trust. For example, your parable about the isolated room with no way to observe anything outside it presupposes something exists outside the room and has a mechanism for transmitting knowledge from outside to inside the room. However, for parable to be truly representative, there cannot be any such presupposition. When someone in the room claimed to have received a message from outside the room, there would need to be a way to determine if that person actually received an external message or mistakenly believed a message was received from outside the room.

You are still looking for proof like a blind man. I am not lacking what you seek...you are. That is not what you describe and accuse me of, but is called: psychological projection.

The analogy stands. The sight ability of one proves nothing to one who cannot see. It's only an example. A fine one.

I have no need to demonstrate what I can see to you who cannot see. Again, your shortcoming, not mine.

You don't get to "rule out" the Source of true knowledge. That option was not a supposition, it was an option. I recommend it. But your need for "an objective method for determining" anything is your problem. It is a roadblock of your own making.

As for my "presupposition" of the large room analogy, there is no presupposition. There is no room. It is only an explanation of how and why your approach to finding the knowledge you are lacking is futile. It works. You may not know how, but it works. As for a "need to be a way to determine if that person actually received an external message or mistakenly believed a message was received from outside the room"...you are wrong, that does not change the truth at all. Again you describe your own deficit issue...nothing more.

You are striking out with all foul balls. What you need is not what you think. You need to change your approach. If you were indeed born blind, you would not do what you are now doing. If you did, it would make you an _________ (fill in the blank). But you're not an idiot, you can do this.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

BGE,

This demonstrates your ignorance of faith founded on the facts - not of personal experience - but of historical Christianity. A personal encounter with Christ is not based on existential experience. it is founded on the historical Jesus.

Subjective experiences hold no more weight that your subjective understanding here: 'All such claims are inherently based on personal experiences'. They are your presuppositional, subjective claims.

As for an objective method, read:

• Dr Paul W Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History (IVP 1997). Dr Barnett is a retired professor of ancient history at Sydney's Macquarie University. He is a former Anglican Bishop of North Sydney.
• Dr John R Meier, A Marginal Jew (Doubleday 1991).

Acts 1:3 (NRSV) provides a pointer to the objective method used: 'After his suffering he presented himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over the course of forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God'.

Note that it is not 'by many convincing experiences'.

Oz

The so-called "historical facts" referenced by those historians do not demonstrate any of the associated supernatural claims about Jesus are historically verifiable. At best, the historical facts merely allow for the Biblical character of Jesus to have been based on a historical apocalyptic Jewish preacher who may have been crucified by the Romans but with no historical justification to believe he was supernaturally resurrected from the dead. I can back-up this assessment with evidence and will provide that information in a subsequent post. I will also demonstrate where skepticism towards information contained within Luke-Acts and other New Testament sources is justified.

 

[OzSpen]

The so-called "historical facts" referenced by those historians do not demonstrate any of the associated supernatural claims about Jesus are historically verifiable. At best, the historical facts merely allow for the Biblical character of Jesus to have been based on a historical apocalyptic Jewish preacher who may have been crucified by the Romans but with no historical justification to believe he was supernaturally resurrected from the dead. I can back-up this assessment with evidence and will provide that information in a subsequent post. I will also demonstrate where skepticism towards information contained within Luke-Acts and other New Testament sources is justified.

BGE,

Again you demonstrate you don't have a clue about historical science, historical facts and historical verification.

The steps taken in demonstration of historical facts are:

1. Use the criteria of historicity to demonstrate a document is reliable historically.
2. Then go to this reliable historical document to discover what it states about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection.

You have demonstrated that your atheistic presuppositions prevent you from examining the historical claims of the Bible objectively.

Even a secular news source such as The Huffington Post knows the criteria of historicity when you don't:

2,500 year old Babylonian tablets have been discovered in Iraq which provide a glimpse of Jewish life in Babylonian exile. Put simply, the tablets corroborate the Biblical tale. They describe a town called Al-Yahudu i.e., “the village of the Jews”, by the river Chebar, mentioned in Ezekiel 1:1. They also attest to Judaic names such as “Gedalyahu”, “Hanan”, “Dana”, “Shaltiel” and a man with the same name as Israel’s current Prime Minister, “Netanyahu”. The “yahu” ending to these names is called “theophoric”, meaning, they attest to a belief in the God of the Torah, by including part of God’s name in people’s personal names. The tablets also record everyday business transactions and witness to the Jewish return to Jerusalem (Nehemiah 6:15-16), as commemorated in personal names such as “Yashuv Zadik”, meaning, “the righteous shall return [to Zion]”.

This discovery is a remarkable confirmation of the historical reliability of the Biblical text (2,500 Year Old Jewish Tablets Discovered in Iraq, Huff Post, 6 December 2017).​

This is an image of the tablets that provide historical verification of that portion of the OT through archaeology - historical science:

Oz

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

BGE,

This is false epistemology when it comes to investigating historical data. There cannot be any 'implicit empirical basis' when there was no repeatability in the past. Captain James Cook (representing England) sailed up the east coast of what was to become Australia and circumnavigated NZ in 1770.

There is no way to imply an 'empirical basis' for these actions as they are actions in history that need to be examined, not using any form of empirical method, but by historical science.

With OT and NT, these are historical documents that need to be investigated using the historical method. I thinkyou are on the wrong boat when examining Noah's 'boat' and James Cook's boat and journey on the HMS Endeavour.

Oz

First of all, there is no such thing as a false epistemology because every epistemology is based on arbitrarily established axioms. However, that point is not relevant to this issue. You seem to be arguing that historical claims do not have an empirical basis because we cannot go back in time to observe them repeated. I do not dispute this objection but never suggested historical claims had to be empirically verified, only that they should have an "implicit" empirical basis to be justifiably believed. My explanation demonstrated where an implicit empirical basis for a claim is not the same thing as having direct empirical evidence for a claim. For example, we have a justifiable reason to believe Captain James Cook sailed up the east coast of Australia and circumnavigated New Zealand because because we have implicit empirical evidence that people from the 18th century possessed the technology and skills to build and sail ships that were capable of undertaking such a journey. If necessary, we could test the plausibility of the claim by reconstructing Captain James Cook's ship using only 18th century technology and have a group of sailors attempt to complete the identical journey. It is not necessary for us to go back in time to observe Captain James Cook's voyage to justify our belief that it occurred as described in the historical documents. Now, if the historical documents describing Captain James Cook's journey included eyewitness testimonies of sailors claiming to have encountered mermaids somewhere along the coast of New Zealand, that portion of the story would not have an implicit empirical basis and must not be accepted as historical evidence for the existence of mermaids.

 

[OzSpen]

First of all, there is no such thing as a false epistemology because every epistemology is based on arbitrarily established axioms. However, that point is not relevant to this issue. You seem to be arguing that historical claims do not have an empirical basis because we cannot go back in time to observe them repeated. I do not dispute this objection but never suggested historical claims had to be empirically verified, only that they should have an "implicit" empirical basis to be justifiably believed. My explanation demonstrated where an implicit empirical basis for a claim is not the same thing as having direct empirical evidence for a claim. For example, we have a justifiable reason to believe Captain James Cook sailed up the east coast of Australia and circumnavigated New Zealand because because we have implicit empirical evidence that people from the 18th century possessed the technology and skills to build and sail ships that were capable of undertaking such a journey. If necessary, we could test the plausibility of the claim by reconstructing Captain James Cook's ship using only 18th century technology and have a group of sailors attempt to complete the identical journey. It is not necessary for us to go back in time to observe Captain James Cook's voyage to justify our belief that it occurred as described in the historical documents. Now, if the historical documents describing Captain James Cook's journey included eyewitness testimonies of sailors claiming to have encountered mermaids somewhere along the coast of New Zealand, that portion of the story would not have an implicit empirical basis and must not be accepted as historical evidence for the existence of mermaids.

You desperately need to learn the criteria of historicity so you can verify the authenticity of any historical document, whether the writings of Plato, OT & NT, The New York Times from 50 years ago, and the Brisbane Courier-Mail from a week ago.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to wake up to the criteria of historicity to pursue historical investigation.

You refuse to examine the historical evidence:

if the historical documents describing Captain James Cook's journey included eyewitness testimonies of sailors claiming to have encountered mermaids somewhere along the coast of New Zealand, that portion of the story would not have an implicit empirical basis and must not be accepted as historical evidence for the existence of mermaids.

Again you demonstrate you don't know how to pursue historical research.

Oz

 

[Truth]

I disagree. I searched for 18 years and came to the conclusion that there is not good evidence that god exists. Many times I begged god for knowledge but he never revealed himself. I wish god does exist. If there is sufficient evidence to believe I will. Many will lie about me and claim that I was never sincere or that I just want to live in my sin or some hogwash like that. When they say things like that it only proves to me how morally bankrupt they have become due to their religion because they are saying things about me that I know are not true and they refuse to acknowledge the possibility that I am telling the truth. I am not trying to prove evidence wrong, I am looking for evidence with reasonable skepticism.

Well this is just my nickel as Nancy said! Ok if you search the web, look for Sodom, Gamora, Adma, and Zebiom, for they have been discovered outside of Israel, and there is positive proof of chunks of Brimstone scattered over the areas in Question. There are only 4 places on the Planet where these chunks of Sulphur are found!! all in the very places mentioned above, scatterd about as if it had Hailed down from above! Peter states that they will be for an example, for the end times, that God does send Judgement on the wicked! The Red sea crossing also has been discovered, right where it was emphasized in Scripture. Pi-hahiroth, between migdol, and the sea,over aginst Baal-zephon . Pi-hahiroth and Midol are on the Egyptian side of the Red sea, 8 miles across the sea is Baal-zephon, on the Saudi side of the sea. for about a mile out from either side they have found Corel encrusted remains of Chariot wheels and other parts, that fit the description of chariots of that time period, also the real Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia also has been discovered with great amounts of evidence of Israel being in that location, including the Alter to the Golden Calf! Petroglyphs of sandaled feet, alabaster pillars, just outside of what is believed to be stone corals leading to an Alter of Sacrifice. After its discovery, the Saudi's erected 12 foot chain link fence all around the Mount, and erected a chain link fence around the Alter of the Golden Calf, and built a Guard House and posted basically, No Trespassing, by Authority of Royal Decree. I have heard that the Saudi's are goin to build a Tourist Attraction for the Area, we must remember that Saudi Arabia has never allowed Tourism in there country! Check these things Out. WoW that was more than a nickel. I have DVD's of all these areas, The problem is that wealthy men sent Archeologists out to discover these places, and they never went to the areas that the Bible expressed, so they laid claim that the Bible wasn't true, because they never found any evidence! The Info is out there, I pray that you look for yourself.
Shalom

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

You are still looking for proof like a blind man. I am not lacking what you seek...you are. That is not what you describe and accuse me of, but is called: psychological projection.

The analogy stands. The sight ability of one proves nothing to one who cannot see. It's only an example. A fine one.

I have no need to demonstrate what I can see to you who cannot see. Again, your shortcoming, not mine.

You don't get to "rule out" the Source of true knowledge. That option was not a supposition, it was an option. I recommend it. But your need for "an objective method for determining" anything is your problem. It is a roadblock of your own making.

As for my "presupposition" of the large room analogy, there is no presupposition. There is no room. It is only an explanation of how and why your approach to finding the knowledge you are lacking is futile. It works. You may not know how, but it works. As for a "need to be a way to determine if that person actually received an external message or mistakenly believed a message was received from outside the room"...you are wrong, that does not change the truth at all. Again you describe your own deficit issue...nothing more.

You are striking out with all foul balls. What you need is not what you think. You need to change your approach. If you were indeed born blind, you would not do what you are now doing. If you did, it would make you an _________ (fill in the blank). But you're not an idiot, you can do this.

When we look for evidence that will prove our claim is true, we are submitting to confirmation bias. The only way to mitigate for confirmation bias is to look for evidence that would disprove rather than prove our claim. If we cannot describe what would be required to disprove our claim, then we cannot test if it is false. If we cannot test if the claim is false, then there is no way to rule-out the possibility that it is false. So, if I were to have the kind of personal experience you suggest is necessary for me to "know" the truth, I would be submitting to confirmation bias by accepting the proposed supernatural explanation over a natural explanation as the cause of that personal experience. Instead, the only objective method would be to consider what kind of information or evidence would disprove the supernatural explanation for my personal experience and try to rule-out that possibility. If I cannot think of any information or evidence that would disprove the supernatural explanation for my personal experience, then the claim is unfalsifiable and cannot be tested. If I cannot test if the supernatural explanation for my personal experience is false, then I cannot rule-out the possibility that it is false. This leaves me with only the ability to test the falsifiable natural explanations for my personal experience. The falsifiable natural explanation for my personal experience that survives every test designed to disprove it will be the most reasonable and objective.

Given the obvious need to mitigate for confirmation bias, what information or evidence would you require in order to know if the proposed explanation for your personal experience is false? How can you test if that explanation is false? Is the explanation untestable? If the explanation is untestable, how else could you rule-out the possibility that is false? If you can't rule-out the possibility that the proposed explanation for your personal experience is false, what is your justification for having confidence that the explanation is not a product of confirmation bias? Once you've honestly considered and answered these questions, I will be happy to proceed with the discussion. With all due respect, I will not respond again if you fail to address these valid concerns and continue to attack me with condescending rhetoric. For the time being, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't been deliberately dishonest in using bad faith arguments.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

BGE,

Again you demonstrate you don't have a clue about historical science, historical facts and historical verification.

The steps taken in demonstration of historical facts are:

1. Use the criteria of historicity to demonstrate a document is reliable historically.
2. Then go to this reliable historical document to discover what it states about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection.

You have demonstrated that your atheistic presuppositions prevent you from examining the historical claims of the Bible objectively.

Even a secular news source such as The Huffington Post knows the criteria of historicity when you don't:

2,500 year old Babylonian tablets have been discovered in Iraq which provide a glimpse of Jewish life in Babylonian exile. Put simply, the tablets corroborate the Biblical tale. They describe a town called Al-Yahudu i.e., “the village of the Jews”, by the river Chebar, mentioned in Ezekiel 1:1. They also attest to Judaic names such as “Gedalyahu”, “Hanan”, “Dana”, “Shaltiel” and a man with the same name as Israel’s current Prime Minister, “Netanyahu”. The “yahu” ending to these names is called “theophoric”, meaning, they attest to a belief in the God of the Torah, by including part of God’s name in people’s personal names. The tablets also record everyday business transactions and witness to the Jewish return to Jerusalem (Nehemiah 6:15-16), as commemorated in personal names such as “Yashuv Zadik”, meaning, “the righteous shall return [to Zion]”.

This discovery is a remarkable confirmation of the historical reliability of the Biblical text (2,500 Year Old Jewish Tablets Discovered in Iraq, Huff Post, 6 December 2017).​

This is an image of the tablets that provide historical verification of that portion of the OT through archaeology - historical science:

Oz

Again, nothing in your example demonstrates a justification for believing any of the supernatural claims in the Bible which have no implicit empirical basis. Consider a hypothetical situation where future archaeologists 4,000 years from today dig up a newspaper article that corroborates an ancient 21st century Spider Man comic book describing an attack on a tall building in New York City by a group of dastardly villains. The newspaper article describes a City named "New York" and an event where several "hijackers" flew two airplanes into tall buildings known as the "World Trade Towers". Does the discovery of this newspaper article validate the historical claim that Spider Man was a historical Super Hero who actually existed and battled evil doers in New York City? Granted, the analogy has its obvious flaws but should function to make my point nonetheless. This point has nothing to do with my presuppositions but has everything to do with intellectual honesty. I do not presuppose the supernatural is not possible or that god doesn't exist. As previously explained, I will consider the plausibility of a theistic explanation when someone demonstrates it is falsifiable and survives every test designed to falsify it.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

You desperately need to learn the criteria of historicity so you can verify the authenticity of any historical document, whether the writings of Plato, OT & NT, The New York Times from 50 years ago, and the Brisbane Courier-Mail from a week ago.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to wake up to the criteria of historicity to pursue historical investigation.

You refuse to examine the historical evidence:

​

Again you demonstrate you don't know how to pursue historical research.

Oz

The established criteria for historicity is precisely the reason why historians cannot classify ancient claims about a supernatural resurrection to be historical, even if they believe the Biblical character of Jesus could be based on a historical apocalyptic Jewish preacher from the 1st century. Attempting to extrapolate a supernatural resurrection from the historical record is an abuse of the historical method and intellectually dishonest. Belief in the resurrection claim must remain as a matter of religious faith and cannot be historically verified in the way that is currently only possible for other historical claims which have an implicit empirical basis as previously explained. If you want to have faith that the historical claims about the supernatural resurrection of Jesus are true, that is your prerogative. However, you will just have to learn to accept the fact that historians cannot verify the claimed supernatural resurrection of Jesus actually occurred as described in the texts. Meanwhile, you can at least take comfort in knowing that historians haven't yet discovered any evidence that demonstrates your religious beliefs are false.

 

[Giuliano]

Now, consider a scenario where the source of everything you perceive through your senses including site, taste, touch, hearing, and smell is a sophisticated illusion (like in “The Matrix” movies). When you observe yourself eating that apple you purchased from the grocery store, the entire experience would really be an elaborate simulation which you are completely unaware of and unable to escape from. In that situation, none of your senses or cognitive faculties provides you with an ability to “absolutely” know if the sources of your experiences actually exist in the external world you are observing. You would have no way to determine if the apple actually exists independently of your perception of it because, unlike the holographic apple, there is no way to falsify the claim. For instance, if you suddenly found yourself in a completely different reality where an entity identifying itself as the “Master Programmer” demonstrates your previous existence and everything in it including the apple was just a sophisticated virtual reality, how would you know this new reality is not also part of the same or another elaborate illusion? You could not rule out that possibility and would be no closer to knowing the absolute truth of your reality. No philosophical argument, regardless of how convincing it may be, will prove the external world you are experiencing actually exists apart from your perception of it. Therefore, the only “absolute truth” available to you is knowledge of your own conscious existence. This predicament is described in philosophy as the problem of hard solipsism. The problem of hard solipsism cannot be resolved using any type of philosophical reasoning. Therefore, the first epistemological rule must be as follows:

Rule 1: Any Claim which invokes the existence of anything beyond your perceived external reality (the metaphysical) as an explanation for a phenomenon observed within your perceived external reality is unfalsifiable and unknowable.

I agree with this; and this leaves us with only one "known" fact that I can see: Awareness exists.

I could be dreaming, I could be hallucinating, I could be viewing "reality" accurately. There may or may not be some external reality. Matter itself may not even exist independent of my imagining it. The only thing I can be sure of is that awareness exists.

Then I ask what is awareness? Who knows? Then I ask if "awareness" exists "here", is there "awareness" out there somewhere? Figure out who or what "you" are as "awareness" (or make an assumption or two) and you're on the path to discovering what "God" as awareness may be.

As someone who does believe in God, I say if you can separate awareness that is the essential you from its conditions to see what you are as unconditioned awareness, you have discovered a clue about what I would call God.

 

[ScottA]

When we look for evidence that will prove our claim is true, we are submitting to confirmation bias. The only way to mitigate for confirmation bias is to look for evidence that would disprove rather than prove our claim. If we cannot describe what would be required to disprove our claim, then we cannot test if it is false. If we cannot test if the claim is false, then there is no way to rule-out the possibility that it is false. So, if I were to have the kind of personal experience you suggest is necessary for me to "know" the truth, I would be submitting to confirmation bias by accepting the proposed supernatural explanation over a natural explanation as the cause of that personal experience. Instead, the only objective method would be to consider what kind of information or evidence would disprove the supernatural explanation for my personal experience and try to rule-out that possibility. If I cannot think of any information or evidence that would disprove the supernatural explanation for my personal experience, then the claim is unfalsifiable and cannot be tested. If I cannot test if the supernatural explanation for my personal experience is false, then I cannot rule-out the possibility that it is false. This leaves me with only the ability to test the falsifiable natural explanations for my personal experience. The falsifiable natural explanation for my personal experience that survives every test designed to disprove it will be the most reasonable and objective.

Given the obvious need to mitigate for confirmation bias, what information or evidence would you require in order to know if the proposed explanation for your personal experience is false? How can you test if that explanation is false? Is the explanation untestable? If the explanation is untestable, how else could you rule-out the possibility that is false? If you can't rule-out the possibility that the proposed explanation for your personal experience is false, what is your justification for having confidence that the explanation is not a product of confirmation bias? Once you've honestly considered and answered these questions, I will be happy to proceed with the discussion. With all due respect, I will not respond again if you fail to address these valid concerns and continue to attack me with condescending rhetoric. For the time being, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't been deliberately dishonest in using bad faith arguments.

You are not being honest.

You are trying to intellectually rationalize your own lack of knowledge as if you had something. The point is you don't have that something, while countless others do. You are out of your element. Your intellect has failed you. You are as one blind debating sunsets, one who has never been kissed.

That's me being honest. You, on the other hand are kidding yourself and blaming everyone else. And you won't listen.

So be it.

 

[farouk]

You desperately need to learn the criteria of historicity so you can verify the authenticity of any historical document, whether the writings of Plato, OT & NT, The New York Times from 50 years ago, and the Brisbane Courier-Mail from a week ago.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to wake up to the criteria of historicity to pursue historical investigation.

You refuse to examine the historical evidence:

​

Again you demonstrate you don't know how to pursue historical research.

Oz

In the end I come back to Hebrews 11.6... :)

 

[ScottA]

The established criteria for historicity is precisely the reason why historians cannot classify ancient claims about a supernatural resurrection to be historical, even if they believe the Biblical character of Jesus could be based on a historical apocalyptic Jewish preacher from the 1st century. Attempting to extrapolate a supernatural resurrection from the historical record is an abuse of the historical method and intellectually dishonest. Belief in the resurrection claim must remain as a matter of religious faith and cannot be historically verified in the way that is currently only possible for other historical claims which have an implicit empirical basis as previously explained. If you want to have faith that the historical claims about the supernatural resurrection of Jesus are true, that is your prerogative. However, you will just have to learn to accept the fact that historians cannot verify the claimed supernatural resurrection of Jesus actually occurred as described in the texts. Meanwhile, you can at least take comfort in knowing that historians haven't yet discovered any evidence that demonstrates your religious beliefs are false.

Now that's just snobbery.

You don't know. You claim historians don't know. You admittedly can't even say whether OzSpen is right or wrong...but still you assume to take the intellectual high ground by negativity and doubt.

That's just plain ugly.

 

[Berserk]

My complaint is more basic--a matter of courtesy and intellectual fairness. I have read through all the pages of your epistemology and only asked you in return to watch 2 short Shared Death Experience videos to start a conversation which might become far reaching. If you were open-minded enough to honor this small request, I would have been willing to engage your epistemological principles in a separate thread point by point, where they are relevant to Christian theism.

 

[OzSpen]

In the end I come back to Hebrews 11.6... :)

Is it faith founded on the facts of history of OT and NT or a leap of faith?

For years of my Christian life, parents, youth group leaders and pastors did not equip me for the assault on my faith in university. In Australia, many youth in high school and university are swimming in a sea of faith without having it grounded in facts. Therefore, they succumb to the secular assaults on their faith.

How do we demonstrate that Noah was an historical figure and the OT is a reliable set of documents? We face the same issue with the NT. Fortunately Christians today have access to Christian scholars who have done the hard yards for them. See Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament.

Read an interview with Craig Blomberg on this topic HERE.

Kenneth Kitchen researched a large volume: On the Reliability of the Old Testament.

Oz

 

[Josho]

Look at the stars, look at the sky, look at the sun, look at the moon, look at the way the earth turns, look close at the human eye and how detailed it is, look at the detail on a single leaf under your microscope, watch the way an Eagle flies, watch the way a plant grows, watch the way a baby grows, watch the billions and billions of little ants make their nest, watch the bees make honey, watch the ways the little streams and creeks flow, see the beauty in the waterfalls, look at the detail inside of caves, explore our massive ocean, so much detail underwater, so deep, sea creatures are still being discovered, and was this all just happen by some accident? No it is the blessing of God.

@BlueGreenEarth What you need to do is take a look at the simple things of life, take it slower, stand back and appreciate the beauty and detail of the natural world. And then re-ask yourself, was it just an accident everything is here? Was it just accident we live in some highly detailed great painting? A painting didn't create itself on its own.

Food for thought. ;)

Anyway welcome to this forum.

 

[brakelite]

The established criteria for historicity is precisely the reason why historians cannot classify ancient claims about a supernatural resurrection to be historical, even if they believe the Biblical character of Jesus could be based on a historical apocalyptic Jewish preacher from the 1st century. Attempting to extrapolate a supernatural resurrection from the historical record is an abuse of the historical method and intellectually dishonest. Belief in the resurrection claim must remain as a matter of religious faith and cannot be historically verified in the way that is currently only possible for other historical claims which have an implicit empirical basis as previously explained. If you want to have faith that the historical claims about the supernatural resurrection of Jesus are true, that is your prerogative. However, you will just have to learn to accept the fact that historians cannot verify the claimed supernatural resurrection of Jesus actually occurred as described in the texts. Meanwhile, you can at least take comfort in knowing that historians haven't yet discovered any evidence that demonstrates your religious beliefs are false.

You choose to believe historical accounts of other less luminary folk based on testimony, but choose to reject the biblical account of the resurrection of Jesus....eye witness accounts no less. Your choice in the matter is just that, your choice. Your choice doesn't impose any more nor less credibility upon the evidence, and it certainly doesn't remove said evidence. Eye witness testimony is customarily the best and most reliable there is, particularly when there is no opposing testimony to the contrary.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

As I read everyone's responses to my posts, it has become evident to me that many members of this forum are doxastically closed. Therefore, I won't continue to waste my time here since most of this forum's members are obviously more interested in submitting to confirmation bias than thinking critically. I'm also disappointed but not surprised that so many professed "Christians" fail to recognize the hypocrisy in their condescending and discourteous attitude towards people like me. I've tried continuously to be respectful and considerate in my interactions with everyone only to receive ad-hominem attacks in return. If your goal is to establish an echo chamber by driving away anyone who might offer valid reasons to challenge your beliefs, then my departure should bring you closer to achieving that goal. I'm confident that the particular forum members for whom this message refers will likely entrench themselves even further in their unfalsifiable beliefs and respond to this post with even more ad-hominem attacks and other logically fallacious arguments, but maybe some of you will recognize where such behavior only serves to validate my point about the effects of confirmation bias. I sincerely want Christians, other religious people, and nonbelievers to peacefully coexist in this world where we can agree to cooperate towards maximizing well-being and minimizing unnecessary harm for the most people, but this can't happen if we aren't willing to acknowledge the possibility of being mistaken in our unfalsifiable beliefs. With that, I take my leave from this forum and will seek collaboration with a more receptive audience.