Jump to content


Photo

History


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
47 replies to this topic

#41 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • ca

Posted 20 June 2009 - 07:06 PM

You might've chosen a better term to emphasize. History is always valid if it accurately conveys a true story. There are no exceptions, and there cannot be any.



I couldn't of said it better myself. However, every historical account that purports to convey a true story does not always prove to be infallible. If someone came to you and fervently told you that they were abducted by aliens whom of which revealed to them that their alien kin were in fact the source for the creation of humans on this planet long ago, and did it by changing dirt into human beings, would you then consider the whole story to be true even if the abduction part is right? In deciding whether to even believe them at all, you would have to take several things into consideration. First and foremost is their credibility. If it was some base-head off the streets you could most likely dismiss it as delusion. However, if it was a close relative or friend whom you absolutely trust completely, and who has always been level headed with no history of psychosis, you might consider that they actually had the experience. Does it mean what the aliens told them is true? Absolutely not, unless your confidant was there at the beginning of this planet and observed the aliens do this, then you can only entertain the idea inasmuch as your current knowledge allows.

Compare this scenario to the creation story in the bible and two important factors for validity arise. First, in the alien scenario, you have a personal relationship with the person. You have witnessed their behavior and understand to a very good extent their psychology. You know they would not just make something up and believe it whole heartily to be true. Therefore, you have more of a basis for believing them as accurately conveying a true story. However, is all the information in the story infallible? Hardly. This because you know that dirt cannot turn into a human by any natural process. So to even consider the information valid, you would have to entertain the idea that the aliens were somehow magical.

The second factor in considering the validity of historical accuracy, is that your are getting your information from someone who actually had the experience. Your confidant, should you choose to believe them, was actually there on the spaceship, an actual witness to the event. Therefore you are one person removed from the actual historic event.

In contrast, you have no idea what kind of person the author of genesis was. All you have to go on is based on what they wrote, which is hardly an accurate profile to determine their lifestyle or psychological state of mind. They could have used drugs, been two faced liars, or simply delusional; in any event, you would never know. Anyone can write a book and claim it as truth, it is up to the reader to analyze the contents and compare it to what they know to determine if the information is valid. Another factor working against the story of the creation of Adam, is that the storyteller was not there to witness the actual event, nor were they able to interview Adam so that they could convey a firsthand account. Consequently, to decide whether or not the biblical creation story of Adam is true or not, one would have to base their judgment entirely on believing what an ancient author has said he knows about a past event, despite him not witnessing it or interviewing some one who was actually there. If you retreat to the notion that god told him, you will have to explain why god has told different men conflicting things and how you can know if any of them are telling the truth without appealing to personal bias.

#42 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 21 June 2009 - 04:49 AM

I couldn't of said it better myself. However, every historical account that purports to convey a true story does not always prove to be infallible. If someone came to you and fervently told you that they were abducted by aliens whom of which revealed to them that their alien kin were in fact the source for the creation of humans on this planet long ago, and did it by changing dirt into human beings, would you then consider the whole story to be true even if the abduction part is right? In deciding whether to even believe them at all, you would have to take several things into consideration. First and foremost is their credibility. If it was some base-head off the streets you could most likely dismiss it as delusion. However, if it was a close relative or friend whom you absolutely trust completely, and who has always been level headed with no history of psychosis, you might consider that they actually had the experience. Does it mean what the aliens told them is true? Absolutely not, unless your confidant was there at the beginning of this planet and observed the aliens do this, then you can only entertain the idea inasmuch as your current knowledge allows.

Compare this scenario to the creation story in the bible and two important factors for validity arise. First, in the alien scenario, you have a personal relationship with the person. You have witnessed their behavior and understand to a very good extent their psychology. You know they would not just make something up and believe it whole heartily to be true. Therefore, you have more of a basis for believing them as accurately conveying a true story. However, is all the information in the story infallible? Hardly. This because you know that dirt cannot turn into a human by any natural process. So to even consider the information valid, you would have to entertain the idea that the aliens were somehow magical.

View Post

You have chosen to introduce several issues and muddle them together. There is the issue of whether or not one believes the word of the friend about the abduction. There is the issue of whether the report of the aliens' words is accurate. There is the issue of whether or not the alien report was accurate.

Still, one can apply the procedure I advocate. You have presented the discovery. Now can you verify and reconcile?

The second factor in considering the validity of historical accuracy, is that your are getting your information from someone who actually had the experience. Your confidant, should you choose to believe them, was actually there on the spaceship, an actual witness to the event. Therefore you are one person removed from the actual historic event.

Methodological history isn't a matter of believing what one likes and discarding what one dislikes. This business of "choosing" to believe is something some folks do; but how can we rationally discuss it?

In contrast, you have no idea what kind of person the author of genesis was. All you have to go on is based on what they wrote, which is hardly an accurate profile to determine their lifestyle or psychological state of mind. They could have used drugs, been two faced liars, or simply delusional; in any event, you would never know. Anyone can write a book and claim it as truth, it is up to the reader to analyze the contents and compare it to what they know to determine if the information is valid.

I have no idea what drugs you're on either, and scant clues on your lifestyle and state-of-mind. You misportray both investigations as a simple matter of "choosing" to believe or not, and if that's the case, why bother discussing historical methodology at all!

You have no idea what I know about the author of Genesis, and what I don't know, yet you claim to have such knowledge.

Another factor working against the story of the creation of Adam, is that the storyteller was not there to witness the actual event, nor were they able to interview Adam so that they could convey a firsthand account. Consequently, to decide whether or not the biblical creation story of Adam is true or not, one would have to base their judgment entirely on believing what an ancient author has said he knows about a past event, despite him not witnessing it or interviewing some one who was actually there. If you retreat to the notion that god told him, you will have to explain why god has told different men conflicting things and how you can know if any of them are telling the truth without appealing to personal bias.

View Post

You propagandize when you should be trying to make sense. Much of Genesis can be verified and reconciled. If, as you let on, history is merely a matter of "choosing", we already know your choice. What you haven't explained is how come you're trying to influence the choices others make.

Some fundamental questions:
0. Is it possible to learn?
1. Is there a single, objective past which is subject to at least partial discovery?
2. Is the past subject to being altered by wishes and desires?
3. Is the past better discovered by investigating, or by making up one's own stories?

#43 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 22 June 2009 - 09:57 AM

The second factor in considering the validity of historical accuracy, is that your are getting your information from someone who actually had the experience. Your confidant, should you choose to believe them, was actually there on the spaceship, an actual witness to the event. Therefore you are one person removed from the actual historic event.

View Post


The whole space ship scenario, although cute, bears no resemblance to the Gospel story. Your theorem is knocked down by the fact that there were multiple witnesses to the same life, ministry, miracles, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. There is no singular “confidant”, but multiple “Witnesses”. Therefore we are not “one person removed from the actual historic event”.

#44 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 22 June 2009 - 08:53 PM

The whole space ship scenario, although cute, bears no resemblance to the Gospel story.

View Post


Compare this scenario to the creation story in the bible


I think he's talking about Genesis, not the Gospel. In which case the only 'witness' we have is that someone who we don't know wrote the creation story. That's pretty far removed in my opinion.

Regards,

Arch.

#45 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 23 June 2009 - 04:18 PM

For some reason, another thread was started for the purpose of discussing the role played by forensic science in historical investigations. The orange dot at the end of the quote is a link. Here is the bulk of my response.

Forensics, by its very nature, cannot say what happened. It can only yield evidence which is or is not consistent with a story. It doesn't do much in the way of providing a story in the first place.

Take for example, a shoe print found at a crime scene. It cannot tell you how it got there. It can only indicate that such-and-such type of shoe was present. It cannot tell you who owns the shoe. It cannot indicate whether or not the owner or someone else was wearing the shoe at the time.

Or suppose two people are believed to have been in a fight and one is dead. Blood which does not match either combatant is found. This is inconsistent with the two-party story. (Evidence can be faked, so perhaps one of them somehow brought someone else's blood along?)

Furthermore, forensic science relies upon other historic records in order to even exist. Without documentation from firearms manufacturers, they could not know which type of weapons may or may not be involved?

Forensic crime scene investigation does not exist in a vacuum. It is a supplement to other investigative methods. The testimony of witnesses will always be a factor. With the aforementioned shoe print, there may be thousands of such shoes manufactured; you'll need something to link the specific type of shoe to a given individual. Can you say "witness"?

Another huge problem is that forensic evidence is almost always subject to fakery. Framing someone is how hard, if we only need to obtain some possession of theirs and drop it at the scene?

View Post



#46 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 25 June 2009 - 09:43 AM

I think he's talking about Genesis, not the Gospel. In which case the only 'witness' we have is that someone who we don't know wrote the creation story. That's pretty far removed in my opinion.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


That would be incorrect if the Gospel story is true Arch... And that is the point.

#47 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 25 June 2009 - 05:08 PM

That would be incorrect if the Gospel story is true Arch... And that is the point.

View Post


Which makes it an assumption built on an assumption. Try proving the first point before you jump off and have to prove another.

I'm quite happy to discuss the validity of the Gospels here:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1957

Regards,

Arch.

#48 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 27 June 2009 - 03:10 PM

That would be incorrect if the Gospel story is true Arch... And that is the point.

View Post


Hey Skudd, Archie is missing the whole point of correlation between Jesus and the Old Testament. He’s presupposing against historical facts, and cannot understand the follow-through.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users