>There is no evidence except that of an uncorroboratable historical record (Ex. 3).
So, if we're going to believe in this, why not believe that Mohommad rode to the moon on a winged horse? We have only the Qua'ran to back up that claim (an uncorroboratable "historical" record). If you are going to declare that Moses talked to a burning bush and you are going to be consistent in your logic, shouldn't you also believe that Mohammad rode to the moon on a winged horse? If such "evidence" is good enough for one claim, why not for the other?
>This one is more substantial. I might refer you to the "Resurrection of Christ" forum on the website for lengthy discussions of the resurrection.
I'm sorry, but it seems about all that you have is this idea that surely the apostles wouldn't have died for their beliefs if they didn't really believe. The problem is, there isn't much evidence for the existence of the apostles either. On top of that, what about the similar claims that are made from Mormons about the tablets. Hey, the people who said they saw them didn't later say that they didn't. If it's evidence enough for one, shouldn't be enough for the other?
Board index ‹ God
38 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Re: What happens to people who never heard?
by jimwalton » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:48 am
> So, if we're going to believe in this, why not believe that Mohommad rode to the moon on a winged horse?
Because we are examining the whole of the biblical record and the whole of the Qur'anic record.
> I'm sorry, but it seems about all that you have is this idea that surely the apostles wouldn't have died for their beliefs if they didn't really believe.
Then you didn't read very thoroughly. Try these:
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=10886
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=10490
> The problem is, there isn't much evidence for the existence of the apostles either.
You're right about this. Even in the Bible most of the apostles get lost in the record. We just don't know what became of them. There are legends and traditions, but most are unreliable. We do have some reliable historical records for Peter and for James. Other than that, the record is sketchy at best, and even non-existent for some of them.
Because we are examining the whole of the biblical record and the whole of the Qur'anic record.
> I'm sorry, but it seems about all that you have is this idea that surely the apostles wouldn't have died for their beliefs if they didn't really believe.
Then you didn't read very thoroughly. Try these:
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=10886
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=10490
> The problem is, there isn't much evidence for the existence of the apostles either.
You're right about this. Even in the Bible most of the apostles get lost in the record. We just don't know what became of them. There are legends and traditions, but most are unreliable. We do have some reliable historical records for Peter and for James. Other than that, the record is sketchy at best, and even non-existent for some of them.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9110
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: What happens to people who never heard?
by TrakeM » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:22 pm
>Because we are examining the whole of the biblical record and the whole of the Qur'anic record.
And you've already shown that the evidence for the whole of bible is limited at best. Certainly no better than what we have for the Qua'ran. Keep in mind, we have far more evidence for the existence of Mohommed than we do for Jesus and just as much evidence for the super natural events in the Qua'ran as the Bible. What grant thing do we have for evidence of the Bible that we don't have for the Qua'ran that makes the Bible so much more logically justifiable than the Qua'ran?
>You're right about this. Even in the Bible most of the apostles get lost in the record. We just don't know what became of them. There are legends and traditions, but most are unreliable. We do have some reliable historical records for Peter and for James. Other than that, the record is sketchy at best, and even non-existent for some of them.
Therefore, given the lack of solid evidence, the most logical thing to do is to reject the claim.
And you've already shown that the evidence for the whole of bible is limited at best. Certainly no better than what we have for the Qua'ran. Keep in mind, we have far more evidence for the existence of Mohommed than we do for Jesus and just as much evidence for the super natural events in the Qua'ran as the Bible. What grant thing do we have for evidence of the Bible that we don't have for the Qua'ran that makes the Bible so much more logically justifiable than the Qua'ran?
>You're right about this. Even in the Bible most of the apostles get lost in the record. We just don't know what became of them. There are legends and traditions, but most are unreliable. We do have some reliable historical records for Peter and for James. Other than that, the record is sketchy at best, and even non-existent for some of them.
Therefore, given the lack of solid evidence, the most logical thing to do is to reject the claim.
- TrakeM
Re: What happens to people who never heard?
by jimwalton » Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:22 am
> And you've already shown that the evidence for the whole of bible is limited at best.
Actually the evidence for the whole Bible is decent. It's astoundingly better for what we have for the Qur'an. A better comparison would be with general history, and the evidence for the Bible is decent when we compare and contrast it to what we know about other historical personages, places, and events.
> Therefore, given the lack of solid evidence, the most logical thing to do is to reject the claim.
This is illogical and biased. There are basically three ways to approach historical evidence:
1. If we have no evidence, assume it's true. This is illogical and a positive bias. We'd be assuming all kinds of craziness.
2. If we have no evidence, reject the claim. This is also illogical and a negative bias. There is much from history we don't have evidence for, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I don't have any evidence of my great-great grandfather's death. Should I assume he didn't die? We don't know when Clement of Rome was born. Should we assume he wasn't born? Nor do we have particular evidence of when he wrote his book. Should we reject the claim that he wrote a book?
3. If we have no evidence, suspend judgment until further evidence is uncovered.
The most logical thing to do is to withhold judgment. When we don't know, we relegate it to the category of "I don't know," not of "Then it's not true." As I said, we don't know when and where the last pterodactyl died, so are we to reject the claim that it indeed died? Of course not, that's nonsense. Of course it died. We have to say "I don't know the details about it" instead of "Well, then, I guess it never died because, given the lack of solid evidence, I reject the claim that it died."
Actually the evidence for the whole Bible is decent. It's astoundingly better for what we have for the Qur'an. A better comparison would be with general history, and the evidence for the Bible is decent when we compare and contrast it to what we know about other historical personages, places, and events.
> Therefore, given the lack of solid evidence, the most logical thing to do is to reject the claim.
This is illogical and biased. There are basically three ways to approach historical evidence:
1. If we have no evidence, assume it's true. This is illogical and a positive bias. We'd be assuming all kinds of craziness.
2. If we have no evidence, reject the claim. This is also illogical and a negative bias. There is much from history we don't have evidence for, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I don't have any evidence of my great-great grandfather's death. Should I assume he didn't die? We don't know when Clement of Rome was born. Should we assume he wasn't born? Nor do we have particular evidence of when he wrote his book. Should we reject the claim that he wrote a book?
3. If we have no evidence, suspend judgment until further evidence is uncovered.
The most logical thing to do is to withhold judgment. When we don't know, we relegate it to the category of "I don't know," not of "Then it's not true." As I said, we don't know when and where the last pterodactyl died, so are we to reject the claim that it indeed died? Of course not, that's nonsense. Of course it died. We have to say "I don't know the details about it" instead of "Well, then, I guess it never died because, given the lack of solid evidence, I reject the claim that it died."
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9110
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: What happens to people who never heard?
by TrakeM » Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:01 pm
You seem to be claiming that Moses saw a burning bush, not that we shouldn't believe in it unless we get some evidence. Am I misunderstanding you? Are you saying we should not reject the claim that Mohamed rode on a horse to the moon or should we withhold judgement on that issue?
- TrakeM
Re: What happens to people who never heard?
by jimwalton » Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:36 am
I am claiming that Moses saw a burning bush. We have no evidence to support it, nor any evidence to the contrary. So evidence in this particular case is not how we determine the veracity of the account. To me it's better to weigh the evidence of the entire Pentateuch according to the measures of truth I wrote to you (which I'm not sure you read, but if you did you seem to ignore). And if in general the Pentateuch has historical reliability, then we have reason to believe the burning bush account as well.
1. The Intention Test: Did the author state or imply his intention to be writing history or mythology? Without a direct statement, we can still perceive that the place names, the nature of the journey, the narrative elements, and the sober and responsible manner in which the account is written, with accurate incidental details, would indicate that author considers himself to be writing history. You don’t find outlandish flourishes and blatant mythologizing (as on riding on a horse to the moon) that you see in a lot of other ancient writings.
2. The Ability Test: Even if he intended to write history, was he able to do so? Given the accurate cultural, geographical, and historical facts embedded all through the account, we would have to conclude yes.
3. The character Test: Was it in the character of the writer to be truthful? If the author of the Pentateuch was Moses, the answer is an unqualified yes. If it is not Moses, then the author is unknown and we can't answer this question.
4. The Consistency Test: Are the five books contradictory to each other or to the rest of the Bible? Not at all.
5. The Bias Test: Are there biases present that skew the material? The writer was obviously not neutral on Israel. This one is tough to answer about the Pentateuch.
6. The Cover-up Test: Are they trying to protect themselves by avoiding all embarrassing or hard to explain details? Absolutely not. If they're trying to show how great Israel is, then they have missed the mark. The nation comes out looking embarrassingly bad, and Moses even makes mistakes.
7. The Corroboration Test: When the author mentions places, people, and events, can they be verified? Where there is evidence, it corroborates the Bible. The account rings true on every front.
8. The Adverse Witness Test: Were others present who would have contradicted or corrected the account if it were distorted or false? None others were present. This one is unknown.
All in all the weight of reason is in favor of this being a historical account, unlike the account of Muhammad riding a horse to the moon.
1. The Intention Test: Did the author state or imply his intention to be writing history or mythology? Without a direct statement, we can still perceive that the place names, the nature of the journey, the narrative elements, and the sober and responsible manner in which the account is written, with accurate incidental details, would indicate that author considers himself to be writing history. You don’t find outlandish flourishes and blatant mythologizing (as on riding on a horse to the moon) that you see in a lot of other ancient writings.
2. The Ability Test: Even if he intended to write history, was he able to do so? Given the accurate cultural, geographical, and historical facts embedded all through the account, we would have to conclude yes.
3. The character Test: Was it in the character of the writer to be truthful? If the author of the Pentateuch was Moses, the answer is an unqualified yes. If it is not Moses, then the author is unknown and we can't answer this question.
4. The Consistency Test: Are the five books contradictory to each other or to the rest of the Bible? Not at all.
5. The Bias Test: Are there biases present that skew the material? The writer was obviously not neutral on Israel. This one is tough to answer about the Pentateuch.
6. The Cover-up Test: Are they trying to protect themselves by avoiding all embarrassing or hard to explain details? Absolutely not. If they're trying to show how great Israel is, then they have missed the mark. The nation comes out looking embarrassingly bad, and Moses even makes mistakes.
7. The Corroboration Test: When the author mentions places, people, and events, can they be verified? Where there is evidence, it corroborates the Bible. The account rings true on every front.
8. The Adverse Witness Test: Were others present who would have contradicted or corrected the account if it were distorted or false? None others were present. This one is unknown.
All in all the weight of reason is in favor of this being a historical account, unlike the account of Muhammad riding a horse to the moon.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9110
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: What happens to people who never heard?
by TrakeM » Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:11 pm
>I am claiming that Moses saw a burning bush. We have no evidence to support it, nor any evidence to the contrary. So evidence in this particular case is not how we determine the veracity of the account. To me it's better to weigh the evidence of the entire Pentateuch according to the measures of truth I wrote to you (which I'm not sure you read, but if you did you seem to ignore). And if in general the Pentateuch has historical reliability, then we have reason to believe the burning bush account as well.
I'm sorry, but if you have no evidence, you have no evidence. The Bible is not reliable in terms of history as Noah's flood is not an accurate account and therefore the Bible cannot be trusted as a reliable source of history. As we know, it can't be trusted as a reliable source of science. It can't be trusted a a reliable source of theology either since such claims can't be tested. I'm sorry, but this idea that we should trust all claims made by the Bible isn't logical since it contains flaws even when it comes to historical accounts. It's not enough to simply say it's in the Bible and some stuff in the Bible is true therefore it's true. If we did that, we could point to some cases where the Qua'ran is accurate and then just say that Mohamed rode to the moon on a hflying winged horse. Sorry, that's not how it works. It's not enough to show that some of the historical events in the Bible happened to show a high degree of confidence in the burning bush. You'd have to show that the Bible is infallible. It's not. It's account of Noah's flood shows it's not reliable in terms of history, so it's claim alone isn't enough to justify much confidence in it's claim that Moses witnessed the burning bush.
>1. The Intention Test: Did the author state or imply his intention to be writing history or mythology? Without a direct statement, we can still perceive that the place names, the nature of the journey, the narrative elements, and the sober and responsible manner in which the account is written, with accurate incidental details, would indicate that author considers himself to be writing history. You don’t find outlandish flourishes and blatant mythologizing (as on riding on a horse to the moon) that you see in a lot of other ancient writings.
Noah's ark is insane, every bit as much so as riding to the moon on a winged horse. I'm sorry, but we do find ridiculous crap in the bible. There's TONS of ridiculous stuff in there. You can't simply point out a few cases where it's historically accurate and then say it must all be true. In order to show it's all true (IE: a claim should be accepted just because the Bible says it) you'd have to show that Noah's flood account is accurate. It's clearly not, even by your own admission. Therefore we can't accept claims simply because they are made by the Bible. The story of Noah's flood shows that the Bible is not accurate enough to accept it's claims simply because it comes form the Bible. The Bible is not THAT accurate, as shown by the fact that it got Noah's flood wrong.
I don't need to go through each one of these because you are claiming that the Bible is SO reliable, that we should accept any claim it makes just because it made the claim. That is a VERY VERY high bar. The Bible containing any errors of any kind, especially since it contains both historical and scientific errors, we cannot claim it to be a reliable source. Therefore, the claim that we should accept the Bible cart blank is not accepted.
I'm sorry, but if you have no evidence, you have no evidence. The Bible is not reliable in terms of history as Noah's flood is not an accurate account and therefore the Bible cannot be trusted as a reliable source of history. As we know, it can't be trusted as a reliable source of science. It can't be trusted a a reliable source of theology either since such claims can't be tested. I'm sorry, but this idea that we should trust all claims made by the Bible isn't logical since it contains flaws even when it comes to historical accounts. It's not enough to simply say it's in the Bible and some stuff in the Bible is true therefore it's true. If we did that, we could point to some cases where the Qua'ran is accurate and then just say that Mohamed rode to the moon on a hflying winged horse. Sorry, that's not how it works. It's not enough to show that some of the historical events in the Bible happened to show a high degree of confidence in the burning bush. You'd have to show that the Bible is infallible. It's not. It's account of Noah's flood shows it's not reliable in terms of history, so it's claim alone isn't enough to justify much confidence in it's claim that Moses witnessed the burning bush.
>1. The Intention Test: Did the author state or imply his intention to be writing history or mythology? Without a direct statement, we can still perceive that the place names, the nature of the journey, the narrative elements, and the sober and responsible manner in which the account is written, with accurate incidental details, would indicate that author considers himself to be writing history. You don’t find outlandish flourishes and blatant mythologizing (as on riding on a horse to the moon) that you see in a lot of other ancient writings.
Noah's ark is insane, every bit as much so as riding to the moon on a winged horse. I'm sorry, but we do find ridiculous crap in the bible. There's TONS of ridiculous stuff in there. You can't simply point out a few cases where it's historically accurate and then say it must all be true. In order to show it's all true (IE: a claim should be accepted just because the Bible says it) you'd have to show that Noah's flood account is accurate. It's clearly not, even by your own admission. Therefore we can't accept claims simply because they are made by the Bible. The story of Noah's flood shows that the Bible is not accurate enough to accept it's claims simply because it comes form the Bible. The Bible is not THAT accurate, as shown by the fact that it got Noah's flood wrong.
I don't need to go through each one of these because you are claiming that the Bible is SO reliable, that we should accept any claim it makes just because it made the claim. That is a VERY VERY high bar. The Bible containing any errors of any kind, especially since it contains both historical and scientific errors, we cannot claim it to be a reliable source. Therefore, the claim that we should accept the Bible cart blank is not accepted.
- TrakeM
Re: What happens to people who never heard?
by jimwalton » Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:58 pm
> There's TONS of ridiculous stuff in there.
Only if you have an a priori negative bias that God doesn't exist. If we accept, on the virtue of evidences and logic, that God exists, the "ridiculous stuff" is actually within reason.
> It's not enough to simply say it's in the Bible and some stuff in the Bible is true therefore it's true. ... You can't simply point out a few cases where it's historically accurate and then say it must all be true.
First of all, I never claimed that it's true just because it's in the Bible. Secondly, there's more than just "some stuff in the Bible" that's true. There's an immense amount of material that is corroborated.
> Noah's ark
Already address this.
Only if you have an a priori negative bias that God doesn't exist. If we accept, on the virtue of evidences and logic, that God exists, the "ridiculous stuff" is actually within reason.
> It's not enough to simply say it's in the Bible and some stuff in the Bible is true therefore it's true. ... You can't simply point out a few cases where it's historically accurate and then say it must all be true.
First of all, I never claimed that it's true just because it's in the Bible. Secondly, there's more than just "some stuff in the Bible" that's true. There's an immense amount of material that is corroborated.
> Noah's ark
Already address this.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9110
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: What happens to people who never heard?
by TrakeM » Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:57 am
>Only if you have an a priori negative bias that God doesn't exist. If we accept, on the virtue of evidences and logic, that God exists, the "ridiculous stuff" is actually within reason.
A talking Donkey? A talking snake? A tree that has fruit that bestows knowledge on those that eat it? A person coming back from the dead? I'm sorry, but that's no less insane than Mohamed riding a winged horse to the moon. I don't see how one is less ridiculous than the other.
>First of all, I never claimed that it's true just because it's in the Bible.
>Secondly, there's more than just "some stuff in the Bible" that's true. There's an immense amount of material that is corroborated.
None of that can be considered as evidence that it's true because you're not comparing all of it's claims against actual reality. You can't pick and chose. You can't compare some of it's claims against just what the people at the time thought and then others to actual reality. The writers would have considered every bit of it true. Sure, it's possible that god wrote it and decided to just be accurate to what people at the time thought, but do you have any actual evidence to show that this would be the case? You can't say that it doesn't matter when it's claim isn't accurate because god was talking to them in the terms of what they thought was true at the time and then say that the parts that are actually true mean something. If inaccuracy doesn't mean anything, neither does accuracy. The writers didn't mean Genesis as just an allegory. Sure, it was accurate to what they thought but it wasn't accurate to reality. You can't just compare certain claims to actual reality and then say others are fine because they were what the writers thought was true. You can't have it both ways.
A talking Donkey? A talking snake? A tree that has fruit that bestows knowledge on those that eat it? A person coming back from the dead? I'm sorry, but that's no less insane than Mohamed riding a winged horse to the moon. I don't see how one is less ridiculous than the other.
>First of all, I never claimed that it's true just because it's in the Bible.
>Secondly, there's more than just "some stuff in the Bible" that's true. There's an immense amount of material that is corroborated.
None of that can be considered as evidence that it's true because you're not comparing all of it's claims against actual reality. You can't pick and chose. You can't compare some of it's claims against just what the people at the time thought and then others to actual reality. The writers would have considered every bit of it true. Sure, it's possible that god wrote it and decided to just be accurate to what people at the time thought, but do you have any actual evidence to show that this would be the case? You can't say that it doesn't matter when it's claim isn't accurate because god was talking to them in the terms of what they thought was true at the time and then say that the parts that are actually true mean something. If inaccuracy doesn't mean anything, neither does accuracy. The writers didn't mean Genesis as just an allegory. Sure, it was accurate to what they thought but it wasn't accurate to reality. You can't just compare certain claims to actual reality and then say others are fine because they were what the writers thought was true. You can't have it both ways.
- TrakeM
Re: What happens to people who never heard?
by jimwalton » Sun Jul 23, 2017 12:18 pm
> A talking Donkey?
Oddly enough, Balaam doesn't seem phased that the donkey was speaking to him, which tells us it wasn't the donkey, really, at all, but the message of an angel coming to Balaam. He recognized the voice of a "God," so to speak, coming from the direction of the donkey (ventriloquism, if you wish). If it were the donkey actually speaking, Balaam would likely have died of a heart attack! Instead, he recognized the voice of the Lord.
> A talking snake?
We have already covered this. Do you not read anything I write?? And if you don't believe anything I say, why are you interested in continuing the conversation?
> A tree that has fruit that bestows knowledge on those that eat it?
The fruit wasn't magical, but representative.
> A person coming back from the dead?
We have already covered this. Do you not read anything I write?? And if you don't believe anything I say, why are you interested in continuing the conversation?
Oddly enough, Balaam doesn't seem phased that the donkey was speaking to him, which tells us it wasn't the donkey, really, at all, but the message of an angel coming to Balaam. He recognized the voice of a "God," so to speak, coming from the direction of the donkey (ventriloquism, if you wish). If it were the donkey actually speaking, Balaam would likely have died of a heart attack! Instead, he recognized the voice of the Lord.
> A talking snake?
We have already covered this. Do you not read anything I write?? And if you don't believe anything I say, why are you interested in continuing the conversation?
> A tree that has fruit that bestows knowledge on those that eat it?
The fruit wasn't magical, but representative.
> A person coming back from the dead?
We have already covered this. Do you not read anything I write?? And if you don't believe anything I say, why are you interested in continuing the conversation?
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9110
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
38 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests