Fuck me, Collin, you really are the master when it comes to talking bollocks.
B On 19 Nov 2015, at 19:14, Collin B <[email protected]> wrote: >> Since you mention abductive reasoning, apparently without understanding > what >> it is, the simplest explanation for the apparent fit between the Gospels' >> account and the OT scriptures is the one I have given, by essentially the >> same reasoning that Hume gives for rejecting belief in miracles. >> >> B > > I hope you've had the chance to read Peter Lipton's "Inference to the Best > Explanation." I think it's the current standard on abductive logic and > reason. All historical inquiry is abductive. How we deal with the > artifacts of history can vary from empirical/inductive to just inductive, > depending on the material and the test. One example of this would be > documents. The empirical approach would be to test the media > (papyrus/paper/metal/skin/ink). But verifying the content would be > inductive -- evaluating its truth value). How it fits into the historical > narrative remains abductive. > > You've made an assertion without evidence (that of retrofitted narrative), > assuming that simplicity == accuracy. I don't know that such an assumption > would stand up. Ockham not withstanding. > >> At the very least you have to believe that the Old Testament prophets could > predict the future > > No, that the future was revealed to them. This is a matter of externalism > rather than internalism. > >> indeed, in Jewish thought Jesus is not the messiah > > That's reading the present into the past. Until roughly AD49 Christians and > Jews worshipped together. The big split came when Jews (Christians with > them) were expelled from Rome. Along with other persecution matters the > groups tended to separate. After that period ended they never did come back > together. > > Hume is a funny character. On the one hand he pushed hard for empiricism, > contributing greatly to the 20th c. empiricism movement. > On the other hand he understood the problem of induction. In the end he was > not able to reconcile the problem of empirical certainty and inductive > sufficiency. > Now, if you think your level of epistemic certainty rates at a 0.7 or 0.8, > I'd love to hear the reasoning behind it. > > What you've presented is a straw man. It is one that many accept without > question, but a straw man it remains. > > Faith is not a sense. But neither is it simply knowledge. It is a response > to a presentation, roughly the same as what we call today a "considered > opinion" or "philosophical commitment." In Biblical language it is a > response to historical facts. Hebrews 11, esp. v. 6. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
