Board index ‹ Bible

[Jaan]

> It can't be viewed directly or reconstructed precisely or exhaustively. It can't be subject to scientific observation and experimentation.

And as such, the value of this evidence can't be considered equal to more rigorously scrutinized evidence.

But that's not what I'm even talking about when I said "This isn't evidence either". What I meant by that, is the sentence you wrote isn't evidence. The sentence you wrote vaguely refers to some kind of evidence, yet you didn't specify what that was. Your reference to a vague suggestion of evidence isn't evidence.

> Surprising that in your admittance of not understanding you're still coming to the conclusion that it's not true. That's called bias.

No. This is you not meeting the burden of proof for your claim. Until you can demonstrate the truth of your claim, it would be irrational for me to believe it. And if your evidence is such that I don't even understand what you're saying, then you're not going to meet your burden of proof. I'd suggest you clarify your point.

> We don't deal with certainties but with plausibility.

You don't deal with one extreme or the other. We deal with how likely something is to be the case.

> History and literature are often abductive reasoning.

And the more extraordinary the claim, the more history and literature you'll need to correlate your claim before it should be accepted. And extraordinary claims that defy what we know about the laws of physics, you're also going to have to show that it's possible to defy those laws of physics.

> Hyperbole is a useful literary device often employed to make a point.

Maybe, but it doesn't make the point true.

[jimwalton]

> And as such, the value of this evidence can't be considered equal to more rigorously scrutinized evidence.

History deals with a different kind of evidence than science does, as I've explained. History can never be considered equal to the more rigorously scrutinized evidence of the natural sciences. But it's not so much an inequality as it is a different quality of evidence.

> the sentence you wrote isn't evidence

It wasn't meant to be. It was explanatory, not evidentiary.

> No. This is you not meeting the burden of proof for your claim.

What you said was, "I don't even know what you're saying here." And then you said, "This doesn't make any of it true." How can you arrive at a conclusion before you arrive at understanding? As far as the burden of proof, are you asking me to prove this statement of mine: "History and science are different disciplines. Science depends on reproducibility; there is no such thing in history. It can't be viewed directly or reconstructed precisely or exhaustively. It can't be subject to scientific observation and experimentation. History is philosophy and method, intelligence and imagination. Historiography is always rhetorical and requires at least a minimum of speculation, but it's still based data, information and evidence."?

Those are philosophical statements of the philosophy of science and the philosophy of history. They are part and parcel of the disciplines. What do you mean I didn't fulfill the burden of proof?

If you're asking me to support my view of Genesis, it's a lengthy proof set. Briefly, the ancient cosmologies (the Atrahasis Epic, The Enuma Elish, and the Gilgamesh Epic) show a concern with order, non-order, and disorder. The mythographies deal with bringing order out of chaos. Darkness and the sea are considered non-order & chaos. Tiamat is the ocean goddess in the Enuma Elish. She is killed by Marduk. Chaos was a central concern. the gods demonstrate their power by defeating or holding at bay the forces of chaos. Sometimes this motif accompanies creation narratives as in the Babylonian Enuma Elish. Other times it simply displays the emerging status of the deity being featured, as in the Myth of Anzu or the Ugaritic Baal Epic. *Tohu* and *vabohu* from Genesis 1.2 are terms of disorder in the ancient world. The starting point of Genesis 1 is a lack of order. It portrays God as bringing order and functionality to what is disordered and characterized by chaos. As you read through the days of Genesis, you read about God order the cosmos so that it functions in a certain way.

Day 1: the light and dark function to give us day and night, therefore TIME

Day 2: the firmament functions to give us WEATHER and CLIMATE

Day 3: The earth functions to bring forth vegetation: plant life and AGRICULTURE

Day 4: The heavenly bodies function to mark out the times and seasons

Day 5: The species function to fill the earth, creating the circles of life, the food chain, and FOOD.

Day 6: Humans function to subdue the earth and rule over it: God's representatives on the earth, scientific mandate, responsible care of the planet.

Day 7: God comes to "rest" in His Temple, meaning that He comes to live with the humans He has made and to engage them in daily life, to reveal Himself to them and be their God.

> You don't deal with one extreme or the other. We deal with how likely something is to be the case.

Exactly what I said. We weigh the evidences and infer the most reasonable conclusion—how likely something is to be the case.

> And extraordinary claims that defy what we know about the laws of physics, you're also going to have to show that it's possible to defy those laws of physics.

??? What claim did I make that defies the laws of physics?

> "Hyperbole is a useful literary device often employed to make a point." Maybe, but it doesn't make the point true.

Correct. We weigh truthfulness on many bases, not just because someone makes a hyperbolic statement about it. That's pretty foolish to think that making a statement makes something true.