Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Ecurb]

The Bible is literature whatever else some people think it may be.
Sort stories into comedies and tragedies.
Harry Potter and Superman are winners in life due to magical gifts and sheer good luck so their stories are comedies. Jesus and Socrates were not magical or lucky and their stories are tragedies.

Comedy entertains and amuses whereas tragedy tells it like it is.

Life of Brian is comedy at its best because it shows how the Jesus of myth is ridiculous.

Father Ted is comedy at its best because it shows how some Roman Catholic behaviours are ridiculous.

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is also literature. In fact, it is the kind of literature we call a "history". Despite calling it a "history", some of the purported facts it recounts about Rome have since been debunked. It is likely that all histories contain some inaccuracies. Still, it would be misleading to call "Decline and Fall" a "work of fiction". Different literary genres belong in different categories, and most of the Bible (which comprises many books) cannot be accurately called "fiction". By labelling it as such, the labelers are accusing the authors of INTENTIONALLY inventing fictional tales. Of course it's possible that is correct. But I doubt it.

Most scholars think that much of the Bible (the book of Kings, as one example) is a reasonably accurate history. Jonah is a fable. The Psalms are poems. The Gospels read to me more like "biography" than anything else, although, of course, some of the action strains credulity.

[Count Lucanor]

I’m not ignorant of philosophy at all.My philosophy is sound.I accept that no definitive proof is given for the possibility or impossibility of God.I accept that all I have is a hope in the possibility or impossibility of God.

I see you are full of opinions and beliefs, none of which you can justify with logical arguments, nor you are able to present a counterargument to those who don't endorse your opinions and beliefs. Your only point is a well-known fallacy: the ad ignorantiam fallacy.

The logic I offer is not a false or misleading statement.It is not a “red herring”.It is natures logic and does offer support for the claim that all anyone has is hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God.

You have offered nothing worthy of being called an argument. Just stated your opinions and beliefs, including what you believed to be a "red herring", which is obviously dead wrong.

How do you know that a God doesn’t offer support?

What "God"? How that thing differs from the Flying Teapot or the Dragon in my Garage?

You can have a hope that God does or doesn’t exist without definitive proof,that’s all.

My philosophy is totally sound and I have proved a point very clearly.

So far, your philosophy amounts to a set of beliefs and opinions which you can't justify properly, only making use of the ad ignorantiam fallacy. So you come up with the idea of an entity you just made up and then say: "you can't prove it doesn't exist". That's the poorest level of thought one could imagine, but thoughts that come to your mind while showering or gardening are not philosophy.

[Jacob10]

I’m not ignorant of philosophy at all.My philosophy is sound.I accept that no definitive proof is given for the possibility or impossibility of God.I accept that all I have is a hope in the possibility or impossibility of God.

I see you are full of opinions and beliefs, none of which you can justify with logical arguments, nor you are able to present a counterargument to those who don't endorse your opinions and beliefs. Your only point is a well-known fallacy: the ad ignorantiam fallacy.

The logic I offer is not a false or misleading statement.It is not a “red herring”.It is natures logic and does offer support for the claim that all anyone has is hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God.

You have offered nothing worthy of being called an argument. Just stated your opinions and beliefs, including what you believed to be a "red herring", which is obviously dead wrong.

How do you know that a God doesn’t offer support?

What "God"? How that thing differs from the Flying Teapot or the Dragon in my Garage?

You can have a hope that God does or doesn’t exist without definitive proof,that’s all.

My philosophy is totally sound and I have proved a point very clearly.

So far, your philosophy amounts to a set of beliefs and opinions which you can't justify properly, only making use of the ad ignorantiam fallacy. So you come up with the idea of an entity you just made up and then say: "you can't prove it doesn't exist". That's the poorest level of thought one could imagine, but thoughts that come to your mind while showering or gardening are not philosophy.

My philosophy is totally sound and nature agrees with me.

Natures logic is based upon 0,0..0,1..1,0…1,1 logic and not 0,1…1,0 logic.

The 4 off magnetic force combination interactions definitively confirm natures 0,0….0,1…1,0…1,1 logic and definitively confirms that 0 does not equal 1 and 1 does not equal 0.

If 0 and 1 were the same then the 4 off magnetic force interactions would be the same and they are not.

The 2 off magnetic forces in nature are ABSOLUTES.

[Count Lucanor]

There are tons of eye witness accounts of Superman flying over buildings and lifting aircrafts with his bare hands. There are eye witness accounts of the god Asclepius raising people from the dead and healing the blind. There are eye witness accounts of a kid named Harry Potter performing magic. I could go on and on, there are pages and pages of evidence. These are all "accounts", no less credible than the accounts from your book of preference.

If there were eye witnesses to Superman, their accounts would constitute "evidence" (I've never heard of such witnesses). YOu seem to be confused. "Evidence" is not "proof". We need not believe all things for which there is some "evidence". Asclepius had the same advantages as Jesus: his father was a God (Apollo). I'd say there is probably some evidence that Asclepius raised people from the dead (i.e. the Greek stories about him doing so), but that it is even weaker than the evidence of Jesus doing the same. It remains "evidence", however unconvincing.

You are truly confused. You call evidence whatever is claimed to have a direct association with a thing or event, so if one says "an ancient creature was seen at Loch Ness" that constitutes some kind of evidence. Well, no. That's just a claim, which will need to be substantiated with evidence. Evidence is anything with the potential of providing objective, independent confirmation of a given claim. None of that is what we get from the biblical narratives that you described, which actually only amount to claims. Claims of eye witnesses in a written book based on oral traditions are not evidence of eye witnesses. And even if one managed to confirm that there were real people claiming to have witnessed something, their claims themselves would not constitute good evidence, because of the obvious reason that they could be lying or having an illusion. Eye witness accounts are usually the less valuable pieces of evidence.

[Count Lucanor]

I’m not ignorant of philosophy at all.My philosophy is sound.I accept that no definitive proof is given for the possibility or impossibility of God.I accept that all I have is a hope in the possibility or impossibility of God.

I see you are full of opinions and beliefs, none of which you can justify with logical arguments, nor you are able to present a counterargument to those who don't endorse your opinions and beliefs. Your only point is a well-known fallacy: the ad ignorantiam fallacy.

The logic I offer is not a false or misleading statement.It is not a “red herring”.It is natures logic and does offer support for the claim that all anyone has is hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God.

You have offered nothing worthy of being called an argument. Just stated your opinions and beliefs, including what you believed to be a "red herring", which is obviously dead wrong.

How do you know that a God doesn’t offer support?

What "God"? How that thing differs from the Flying Teapot or the Dragon in my Garage?

You can have a hope that God does or doesn’t exist without definitive proof,that’s all.

My philosophy is totally sound and I have proved a point very clearly.

So far, your philosophy amounts to a set of beliefs and opinions which you can't justify properly, only making use of the ad ignorantiam fallacy. So you come up with the idea of an entity you just made up and then say: "you can't prove it doesn't exist". That's the poorest level of thought one could imagine, but thoughts that come to your mind while showering or gardening are not philosophy.

My philosophy is totally sound and nature agrees with me.

Natures logic is based upon 0,0..0,1..1,0…1,1 logic and not 0,1…1,0 logic.

The 4 off magnetic force combination interactions definitively confirm natures 0,0….0,1…1,0…1,1 logic and definitively confirms that 0 does not equal 1 and 1 does not equal 0.

If 0 and 1 were the same then the 4 off magnetic force interactions would be the same and they are not.

The 2 off magnetic forces in nature are ABSOLUTES.

Yeah, sure, keep repeating your nonsensical mantra to fool yourself. It isn't fooling me for sure. Come back when you're able to construct an argument or a counterargument.

[Jacob10]

I’m not ignorant of philosophy at all.My philosophy is sound.I accept that no definitive proof is given for the possibility or impossibility of God.I accept that all I have is a hope in the possibility or impossibility of God.

I see you are full of opinions and beliefs, none of which you can justify with logical arguments, nor you are able to present a counterargument to those who don't endorse your opinions and beliefs. Your only point is a well-known fallacy: the ad ignorantiam fallacy.

The logic I offer is not a false or misleading statement.It is not a “red herring”.It is natures logic and does offer support for the claim that all anyone has is hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God.

You have offered nothing worthy of being called an argument. Just stated your opinions and beliefs, including what you believed to be a "red herring", which is obviously dead wrong.

How do you know that a God doesn’t offer support?

What "God"? How that thing differs from the Flying Teapot or the Dragon in my Garage?

You can have a hope that God does or doesn’t exist without definitive proof,that’s all.

My philosophy is totally sound and I have proved a point very clearly.

So far, your philosophy amounts to a set of beliefs and opinions which you can't justify properly, only making use of the ad ignorantiam fallacy. So you come up with the idea of an entity you just made up and then say: "you can't prove it doesn't exist". That's the poorest level of thought one could imagine, but thoughts that come to your mind while showering or gardening are not philosophy.

My philosophy is totally sound and nature agrees with me.

Natures logic is based upon 0,0..0,1..1,0…1,1 logic and not 0,1…1,0 logic.

The 4 off magnetic force combination interactions definitively confirm natures 0,0….0,1…1,0…1,1 logic and definitively confirms that 0 does not equal 1 and 1 does not equal 0.

If 0 and 1 were the same then the 4 off magnetic force interactions would be the same and they are not.

The 2 off magnetic forces in nature are ABSOLUTES.

Yeah, sure, keep repeating your nonsensical mantra to fool yourself. It isn't fooling me for sure. Come back when you're able to construct an argument or a counterargument.

All sciences are interconnected.

I’m just letting you know where the logic for my sound philosophy comes from.

Natures logic.

[Ecurb]

Claims of eye witnesses in a written book based on oral traditions are not evidence of eye witnesses. And even if one managed to confirm that there were real people claiming to have witnessed something, their claims themselves would not constitute good evidence, because of the obvious reason that they could be lying or having an illusion. Eye witness accounts are usually the less valuable pieces of evidence.

Huh? You are (as usual) contradicting yourself. Are eye witness accounts "less valuable pieces of evidence"? Or not evidence at all?

All witnesses "could be lying or having an illusion". Does that mean their testimony is not "evidence"?

I give up.

[Tegularius]

We may require better evidence before believing supernatural or incredible events than we do for mundane events. Nonetheless, the "evidence" for both of them is identical.

Not really...or should I say not at all. The value of "evidence" is measured by its probability, how it comes together, how it fits into what is already known; not least, the extent to which it is or isn't contradictory and so on. In that respect the difference between these two levels of probability are so extreme as to almost make them opposites and the bible mostly a work of fiction. I say "mostly" because Jesus very likely was a historical character but certainly not one who performed a Lazarus feat or rose from the dead himself. There were plenty of his type roaming around in those days also performing miracles! If it weren't for Paul, Jesus would barely have been a footnote!

[Ecurb]

Not really...or should I say not at all. The value of "evidence" is measured by its probability, how it comes together, how it fits into what is already known; not least, the extent to which it is or isn't contradictory and so on. In that respect the difference between these two levels of probability are so extreme as to almost make them opposites and the bible mostly a work of fiction. I say "mostly" because Jesus very likely was a historical character but certainly not one who performed a Lazarus feat or rose from the dead himself. There were plenty of his type roaming around in those days also performing miracles! If it weren't for Paul, Jesus would barely have been a footnote!

At least you seem to think that the evidence has little value, instead of being non-existant (as Lucanor claims). Good grief! I don't believe Lazarus rose from the dead either. Nonetheless, the notion that oral histories have no evidentiary value is both silly and obnoxious. It's as if people are saying, "Those poor benighted savages who didn't even write anything down until years later, can't possibly have any notion of history, or truth. They may think that there is good evidence for their stories, but we sophisticated modern people are so much smarter that we know better."

Maybe we do know better. But we should have some minor respect, at least, for the histories other people tell about themselves. The Jews were not benighted savages, but sophisticated intellectuals, who had scribes trained in the arts of history. Herodotus, of course, has been called both the "father of history" and the "father of lies", but much of what we know about the ancient Greeks derived from him.

A great many stories from the Bible have confirmation from other stories (don't ask me which ones, I don't know and don't much care). Same with other oral histories and myths. The discovery of the ruins of Troy added some credence to the Iliad, although I douby many of us believe that Athena and Ares participated in the battles. Other oral histories (some of which have supernatural features) can be partly confirmed by archaeology, or history from other sources. I wrote a masters thesis about a Hopi myth for which there was written confirmation (in part) by Spanish monks (the massacre at Old Oraibi, in 1620). But the evidence provided by the Bible (and other ancient or oral histories) for mundane events is precisely identical to that for supernatural events. We don't believe the supernatural stories not because there is no evidence supporting them, but because we require better evidence before believing things that strain our credulity. If my sasquatch-hunting friend told me he saw a deer peeking out from behind a tree at night, I'd have no trouble believing it. When (as happened) he said he saw a sasquatch, of course I am sceptical. But the "evidence" (the eye witness testimony of the same person) is identical.

[Ecurb]

A great many stories from the Bible have confirmation from other stories (don't ask me which ones

That was supposed to read "from other sources".

[Sy Borg]

Then again, there were no claims that Alexander the Great was the son of God, born of a virgin, who healed the sick, conjured up food supplies, and was resurrected from the dead.

If such fantastical claims were made about Alexander the Great then he would have been consigned to legend, like King Arthur.

[Belindi]

The Bible is literature whatever else some people think it may be.
Sort stories into comedies and tragedies.
Harry Potter and Superman are winners in life due to magical gifts and sheer good luck so their stories are comedies. Jesus and Socrates were not magical or lucky and their stories are tragedies.

Comedy entertains and amuses whereas tragedy tells it like it is.

Life of Brian is comedy at its best because it shows how the Jesus of myth is ridiculous.

Father Ted is comedy at its best because it shows how some Roman Catholic behaviours are ridiculous.

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is also literature. In fact, it is the kind of literature we call a "history". Despite calling it a "history", some of the purported facts it recounts about Rome have since been debunked. It is likely that all histories contain some inaccuracies. Still, it would be misleading to call "Decline and Fall" a "work of fiction". Different literary genres belong in different categories, and most of the Bible (which comprises many books) cannot be accurately called "fiction". By labelling it as such, the labelers are accusing the authors of INTENTIONALLY inventing fictional tales. Of course it's possible that is correct. But I doubt it.

Most scholars think that much of the Bible (the book of Kings, as one example) is a reasonably accurate history. Jonah is a fable. The Psalms are poems. The Gospels read to me more like "biography" than anything else, although, of course, some of the action strains credulity.

Historiography as a modern academic discipline has enough of scientific research in it so it's not fiction. No book of The Bible is modern historiography, and the writers and most editors of books in The Bible had no notion of modern historiography. If Kings is historiography in the modern sense then it must be written by someone who has access to scientifically accurate investigation. Recording man's past is a different activity from what it once was.

Nonetheless The Bible may be mined for historical or anthropological source material. People who use The Bible for religious devotions are behaving neither as historiographers or anthropologists and are often confused as to the nature of history and anthropology . Besides religious devotions, historiography, and anthropology , The Bible books are also used for poetry ,folk mythology, and political propaganda.

[Ecurb]

Then again, there were no claims that Alexander the Great was the son of God, born of a virgin, who healed the sick, conjured up food supplies, and was resurrected from the dead.

If such fantastical claims were made about Alexander the Great then he would have been consigned to legend, like King Arthur.

Actually, Alexander claimed to be the son of Zeus, and there were lots of claims that he was the son of a God. His birth attendant was none other than Artemis (which is why her temple at Ephesus burned down on the day of his birth -- she was busy attending Olympia, Alexander's mother). Yet nobody says Alexander didn't conquer Persia and Egypt and that the stories about him are all "fiction".

[Ecurb]

Historiography as a modern academic discipline has enough of scientific research in it so it's not fiction. No book of The Bible is modern historiography, and the writers and most editors of books in The Bible had no notion of modern historiography. If Kings is historiography in the modern sense then it must be written by someone who has access to scientifically accurate investigation. Recording man's past is a different activity from what it once was.

Nonetheless The Bible may be mined for historical or anthropological source material. People who use The Bible for religious devotions are behaving neither as historiographers or anthropologists and are often confused as to the nature of history and anthropology . Besides religious devotions, historiography, and anthropology , The Bible books are also used for poetry ,folk mythology, and political propaganda.

Herodotus is credited with originating modern history and historiography, although, of course, the methods of historians have changed over the last 2500 years. Still, most ancient histories and oral histories probably have some evidentiary value, although they are also influenced by literary motifs, religious intentions, and the imaginations of a myriad of story tellers.

[Count Lucanor]

Claims of eye witnesses in a written book based on oral traditions are not evidence of eye witnesses. And even if one managed to confirm that there were real people claiming to have witnessed something, their claims themselves would not constitute good evidence, because of the obvious reason that they could be lying or having an illusion. Eye witness accounts are usually the less valuable pieces of evidence.

Huh? You are (as usual) contradicting yourself. Are eye witness accounts "less valuable pieces of evidence"? Or not evidence at all?

All witnesses "could be lying or having an illusion". Does that mean their testimony is not "evidence"?

I give up.

I see you need apples and oranges. OK.

There are claims of eye witness accounts, that is, there is people claiming, assuring that somewhere, some time, some people, witnessed something. Those claims are not eye witness accounts themselves and unless the supposed eye witness accounts were documented, all we can do is either believe or not believe that there were actual people claiming such things. There is no evidence of real eye witness accounts there. If I say some people witnessed a goal by Maradona in the 1966 World Cup in England, that claim is not an eye witness account. If I can show records of people claiming such thing, or if I claim I witnessed it myself, that's an eye witness account.

And then, even if one did get the evidence that there were people claiming they saw something, that's only evidence of their claims, not of the truth of their claims. In a court of law where evidence is weighed, real eye witnesses will tell their story of what they saw, and their story, if it's credible, will amount to evidence, but one of the weakest piece of evidence. Since they are present, it is obvious that their testimony is an eye witness account. But if they come up with a story of having heard or read about someone else saying that some other people witnessed something, that's not an eye witness account, that's hearsay.

Get it now?