Originally posted by StarrmanThe question is actually c.
If your question is can we have a claim to knowledge without any supporting facts, or in possession of incorrect beliefs, then yes (see Gettier). If the question is can we know something as true, even when it is in opposition to the body of evidence supporting it, then no. If the question is can we glean some truth from otherwise factually unconcerned stories, then sure, why not?
If you're right, Starrman, and here xians will need to chime in, then why the need to insist on factual inerrancy in the bible?
Can't the bible yield truth without it?
1 edit
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdIt's the particulars of which truths you have access to which is important. Nobody would say that the concepts that arise from some of the parables, or indeed the overall message in the NT is not one that people can gain from, but if you wish to hold a claim to the actual existence and knowledge of god, then you're stretching things.
The question is actually c.
If you're right, Starrman, and here xians will need to chime in, then why the need to insist on factual inerrancy in the bible?
Can't the bible yield truth without it?
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt isn't a belief for you it is a fact, wow. I guess the whole fact and
Though not in the way you are implying. I do not go around trying to justify my belief that God does not exist because it is not a foundational belief for me. It is simply a fact. Just like you would not call it a foundational belief that Buddha is not some very important entity in your life. You wouldn't go round trying to justify that.
Also, I doubt if ...[text shortened]... read my post and the counter examples given. Unless maybe he also believes in fairy tales.
belief thing is a matter of perspective than? I don't argue Buddha
with anyone, what would be the point? I do think our foundational
points are all up for grabs, if for example your belief that God is not
real and your claim it is a fact sort of implies don't you think that
you have some thing you could show us all to prove your point, it
being a fact and not a belief as far as your concern. People go after
others foundational views all the time here, state one and more
than likely there could be a disagreement.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdYes, it can yield some truth without being factual; however, it changes
The question is actually c.
If you're right, Starrman, and here xians will need to chime in, then why the need to insist on factual inerrancy in the bible?
Can't the bible yield truth without it?
the truth if for example God isn't real and didn't create everything
than some of the cool stories within scripture take on whole new
meanings and actions that occurred that were justified by God simply
take on a whole new meaning. The foundation of the scripture where
it starts out with "In the beginning God..." if it isn't true, the book
takes on a whole new meaning, while if true it carries with it another
completely different take on reality. Which is why many times people
speak past one another here, because of the different foundational
assumptions they start with while viewing both scripture and universe.
Kelly
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdI believe the answer is no to the first two questions.
Is it possible for something to be true without being factually accurate?
That is, could a biblical story be true, even if it historically happened differently, or even not at all?
What would truth mean in such circumstances?
It wouldn't be the truth if it wasn't factually accurate.
In my opinion.
Originally posted by jaywillDavid Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear in one of his many acts. Many people witnessed the event. They would readily testify to what they thought they saw with their very own eyes. What do you think really happened? Did the statue really disappear?
One thing amid the different testimonies is sure to me. Jesus did rise from the dead. A miracle occured....But the essence of the witness seems to be trustworthy. This kind of multiple testimonies, difficult to reconcile, I take as a sign of the authenticity of the core event.
Originally posted by ckoh1965It was a miracle! He must be the Messiah!
David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear in one of his many acts. Many people witnessed the event. They would readily testify to what they thought they saw with their very own eyes. What do [b]you think really happened? Did the statue really disappear?[/b]
Originally posted by KellyJayYou misunderstood what I was trying to say. Its my fault for not being clear enough. What I meant was that my lack of belief in God is the same as my lack of belief in pink unicorns. Is not something I feel the need to verify. I don't call my lack of belief in pink unicorns a foundational belief. Its just an unimportant fact of life. If I thought that my afterlife depended on the accuracy of my lack of belief in pink unicorns then maybe I would check in my fridge at every opportunity just to make sure there weren't any there, then you could call it a foundational belief.
It isn't a belief for you it is a fact, wow. I guess the whole fact and
belief thing is a matter of perspective than? I don't argue Buddha
with anyone, what would be the point? I do think our foundational
points are all up for grabs, if for example your belief that God is not
real and your claim it is a fact sort of implies don't you think that
you hav ...[text shortened]... iews all the time here, state one and more
than likely there could be a disagreement.
Kelly
Anyway jaywill has more or less admitted that I was right and listed other reasons why he believes in the reserection whilst failing to support his initial claim.
3 edits
It is curious to me that you seem to exert 100 times more energy into justifying your unbelief in God then you do for unbelief in pink unicorns.
Clearly, denying one takes much more importance to you over denying the other.
So why pretend that they are just about the same or on equal levels of concern to you?
Originally posted by jaywillThe difference is that we take the time to analyse and structure our beliefs so that they are supported and not contradictory or hypocritical, we don't blindfold ourselves, dip our hands in the pot and expect to pull out the right prize.
It is curious to me that you seem to exert 100 times more energy into justifying your unbelief in God then you do for unbelief in pink unicorns.
Clearly, denying one takes much more importance to you over denying the other.
So why pretend that they are just about the same or on equal levels of concern to you?
Originally posted by twhitehead"I do not go around trying to justify my belief that God does not exist because it is not a foundational belief for me. It is simply a fact."
You misunderstood what I was trying to say. Its my fault for not being clear enough. What I meant was that my lack of belief in God is the same as my lack of belief in pink unicorns. Is not something I feel the need to verify. I don't call my lack of belief in pink unicorns a foundational belief. Its just an unimportant fact of life. If I thought that my ...[text shortened]... other reasons why he believes in the reserection whilst failing to support his initial claim.
You claim, it isn't a belief it is a fact! I'd say that you have a great
deal faith, your universe is void of a creator. That is a possitive
position on this universe, and all evidence is sifted through that
belief, to the point that somethings are accepted, and others rejected
simply because of the beliefs you have about the universe, pink
unicorns not required.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo where is the difference between my faith that the universe is void of a creator and my faith that the universe is void of pink unicorns? Surely creators are just as unrequired as pink unicorns?
You claim, it isn't a belief it is a fact! I'd say that you have a great
deal faith, your universe is void of a creator. That is a possitive
position on this universe, and all evidence is sifted through that
belief, to the point that somethings are accepted, and others rejected
simply because of the beliefs you have about the universe, pink
unicorns not required.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayIf he has "a great deal of faith" there is no creator, that equally means that YOU have a great deal of faith in the non-existence of many things. Is that right? Do you positively believe in the lack of leprechauns, or do you actually just not think about it most of the time?
"I do not go around trying to justify my belief that God does not exist because it is not a foundational belief for me. It is simply a fact."
You claim, it isn't a belief it is a fact! I'd say that you have a great
deal faith, your universe is void of a creator. That is a possitive
position on this universe, and all evidence is sifted through that
bel ...[text shortened]... mply because of the beliefs you have about the universe, pink
unicorns not required.
Kelly
In any case, THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR GOD WHATSOEVER, the default position should be one of scepticism.
[edit, ps. how you going with that paper? should have had time to read it by now. I look forward to your point by point rebuttal soon.]
Originally posted by jaywillIt is not so much me trying to justify my unbelief but me discussing your beliefs. If I met more people who believed in pink unicorns and wanted it to be taught in the science classroom then I would probably do the same with them. If you lived with Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims and they tried to convince you that their religion was correct and to teach your children the same, would you not try to reason with them?
It is curious to me that you seem to exert 100 times more energy into justifying your unbelief in God then you do for unbelief in pink unicorns.
