On 01/01/2013 05:59 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > No, I am suggesting that you count the facts written in the Bible that > have found to be true. Then count the facts found to be false and > then count the facts that have not be found true or found false yet. > If the number of facts that have found to be true is 51% or greater, > then the Bible has satisfied the principle of preponderance of > evidence and should be treated as a verified document, and a reliable > witness. > > Shall we do this? > > To be fair, I will count the facts found to be true, you count the > facts that have been found to false and the facts found to be neither > true nor false. > > > > Jojo
But no, that's not the way to ascertain truth. Each assertion has to be evaluated on its own merits. 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. 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
