Search results

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

I fail to understand how the sources of the claims about divine revelation make a difference since all such claims are inherently based on personal experiences. The Scriptures are just the written descriptions of divine revelation claims from the authors who wrote those texts based on their...

We know intelligent agency is behind the design of roller skates because we've observed intelligent agents designing and producing roller skates. We don't observe roller skates occurring naturally. So, in that context, it is appropriate to use the word "design." Yes, when a complex thing...

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. For instance, imagine someone claims a window...

When two people with competing theological beliefs each claim to have received knowledge directly from God through the process of divine revelation, how does an objective observer determine which person actually received knowledge from God and which person is mistaken or if they are both mistaken?

Please describe the objective and reliable method you use to distinguish knowledge from belief.

I propose we simplify this conversation a bit. Let's begin with a single Christian claim that you believe is true and describe a reliable reason other people should agree to share your belief.

If you don't understand something I've written, please just indicate as such and I'll try to clarify it for you. If you can disprove something I've written, then please demonstrate where it is false. If you are frustrated by something I've written, please explain why it frustrates you and we...

The word "design" is a loaded term in that it implies agency and should be avoided until it can be objectively established that an agent designed the universe. Scientific recognition of complexity does not imply agency. There are many examples of complex things which occur naturally.

Well, the question you asked required a highly nuanced answer to be properly understood. I've been burned before for not having clearly articulated my perspective and prefer not to be burned again.

I accept historical evidence that has an implicit empirical basis. For example, I can accept that a Jewish apocalyptic preacher named "Yeshua" could have existed and may have died from being crucified by the Romans. This is because we know from examining ancient records that there were men...

We recognize design by comparing it to things which occur naturally, not by beauty or complexity. The reason we know a watch found on a beach was intelligently designed is because we never observe watches occurring naturally. If watches grew naturally on trees, then we wouldn't recognize a...

Epistemology: Part 5 To summarize, an epistemology is a set of rules and conditions people construct for themselves to distinguish what they know to be true or false from what they believe to be true or false. Language is a necessary component of an epistemology, and the words people use to...

Epistemology: Part 4 Finally, the word “faith” generates a disproportionate amount of confusion in conversations about epistemology. Colloquially, the word “faith” is interchangeable with the word “trust.” The accusation that we all exhibit faith in our sources of knowledge is grounded on an...