At 12:13 AM 1/2/2013, Craig wrote:
You can have a book that contains many truths, along with many un-proven
assertions. This is why books, per-se, cannot be used to ascertain
truth. They can only add to available evidence.
As a general principle, one of the known techniques of deception is
to put together a series of statments that will be accepted as true,
and only introduce the desired deceptive statement after the habit of
agreement is established.
Basically, no statement can be assumed to be true merely because it
was preceded by true statements.
Legal principles were asserted, but out of context.
The common-law principle is that testimony is presumed true unless
controverted.
But there are basic principles involved. They are:
1. Legal accountability for perjury.
2. An ability to cross-examine a witness, to determine *how the
witness knows* what the witness claims to know.
3. The lack of contrary evidence (as implied by "controverted")
"God" is not an explanation for anything, except within certain
narrow parameters. To say that "God did something" is no more
explanatory than to say that "something is real."
When we want explanations, and we think of God as Reality, we are
seeking to know *how* God did or does something. That may or may not
be accessible to us, it depends on the something. Generally, I assume
that if a thing happens in the observable world, it has observable
causes. That doesn't negate that "God did it," because God can act
through observable causes. God is not limited by time, which is an
illusion that appears to limited consciousness. (To light, there is
no time, it all happens at once. That's how Einstein reasoned, in fact.)
no more original text below.
But notice, that when an assertion is made, that the truth of the
assertion has to be evaluated within the context of existing, known,
truths. So when we hear of stories that a wheel came down from the sky,
as in Ezekiel, we have to immediately dismiss it as hearsay, unless
there is other evidence that such a thing occurred. If it turns out that
numerous other sources confirmed the event, then we have to interpret
the event in the context of known truths. So the immediate explanation
would be that it's an illusion. If there was enough evidence that such a
thing was NOT an illusion, then the best interpretation is that the
event was conducted by an alien species with superior technology.
What you cannot do is manufacture an explanation which defies
metaphysics and epistemology. You cannot say that such an event was the
act of a God -- because the concept of God cannot be defined and does
not exist within the Universe, as I've mentioned before.
So when you allude to the idea that we have to interpret words, written
in a book, in such a way that the explanation defies metaphysics and
epistemology, then you are on very thin ice. If such a thing could be
absolutely ascertained to have occurred, (such as a wheel coming down
from the sky in an era when there was no flight), and it could be
absolutely ascertained that it was not an illusion, and was not the
product of alien manufacture... Then if all this could be ascertained,
then we would simply be stumped as to the explanation. It still could
not be the produce of a God because 'God' cannot be defined, as I've
mentioned in a previous post. Without an explanation which exists in
this Universe, you simply have no reference by which you could tie such
an event to another Universe.
Craig
