Aha, but there is this concept of "Preponderance of Evidence". While this
is a legal concept, we can nevertheless apply its principles in our
discussion.
Basically, what Preponderance of Evidence says is that if one side can
present a preponderance of evidence to support his side, what he is saying
may be considered true. If one side can present 51% evidence, his argument
may be construed as true. This is the standard of Preponderance of
Evidence. While absolute 100% certainty may not be reached, it is
acceptable to acknowledge its truth based on the amount of evidence one has
supplied. Preponderance of Evidence is a legal standard that a Judge in a
civil case may use to decide a case. If it is acceptable in our legal
system, I submit to you that it should be acceptable in our discussion.
We can apply the standard of Preponderance of Evidence when we evaluate the
integrity of the Bible. Has the Bible stated facts that can be proven and
does that constitute 51%. If so, the Bible may be considered a verified and
reliable source in our legal system. In other words, it is considered a
reliable witness.
Has the Bible satisfied the Preponderance of Evidence criteria. I submit to
you that it has. There are thousands of scientific, historical,
archeological, literary, etc facts that can be and has been verified. Based
on that, we can not legally say that the Bible is an "unverified" source.
By law, it is considered a verified source by virtue of Preponderance of
Evidence.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
On 01/01/2013 11:59 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
But this is exactly where you're wrong. You can in fact verify the
Bible. It's very simple. find one, just one fact that has been
categorically found to be false. This one erroneous fact alone would
sink the entire credibility of the Bible.
With regard to epistemology, it's not up to anyone to disprove a source.
Rather, it's up to the proponent of an idea to PROVE his assertions.
There is nothing to disprove here.
You can't take a source and claim that all the wild assertions in it are
true, just because you can't find anything wrong with it. I can write a
book about life on Pluto, and you won't be able to prove it wrong.
Craig
