I am sure Sherlock Homes novels also represent London quite faithfully.
Your quite right. One of the things that makes it so fun for Sherlockians I'm sure. There were - probably are still - some who claim Sherlock Holmes to have been a real person. So how do we tell the real from mere fiction in the past?
One way might be to apply a rational investigation into the matter.
Manuscript analysis, archeological examinations, contemporary eyewitness testimonies, cultural investigations...etc.
So why do most people believe Sherlock Holmes was merely a fictional Character placed into a real background?
1) The Character's Author testified to this fact. Though he based his Character on a real doctor, Sherlock Holmes according to the Author was a fictionalized persona.
2) The statements of contemporary people of the times experienced the Character as fictional
3) The culture of the time was into fictionalized serialization of crime stories and the first appearances of the Name Sherlock Holmes in association with detective work was in one of these fictional serializations.
4) There is no verified records of any of the exploits of Sherlock Holmes having taken place in reality. In real places within the real backdrop of London. Police records, Newspaper accounts, eyewitness testimony etc.
Is it possible that some Character form of Sherlock Holmes actually existed and that all this other evidence to the contrary actually collectively conspired to hide that fact? Strange as it may be...it could be possible but it would be so improbable that that possibility would be as close to zero as any science would accept as equaling zero.
So, what about the biblical scriptures?
1) In those parts not taken to be allegorical or metaphorical (which takes a certain amount of biblical analysis) we find that the authors wrote their manuscripts not as fiction but as testimony to real history.
2) The statements we have and that are being actively collected from contemporary peoples of the time testify to their belief that the events were fact not fiction.
3) The cultures depicted did not have a written system of fictionalized story telling concerning religious events. They would have considered fictionalizing stories about God or events taking place in a religious text anathema.
4) As mentioned previously there are verified archeological finds testifying to real places and events having taken place that are mentioned in the bible. Some places having been found solely from the testimony of the bible.
So...we have a connection to reality. A culture which wouldn't have knowingly fictionalized religious events. Archeological finds which mention many of the persons mentioned in the bible...including Jesus and Pilot. And with the discovery of the dead sea scrolls and continuing discoveries of other manuscripts we have verification of some of the most accurately and oldest reliably transcribed scriptures in the world.
That is something, not nothing as you so quaintly put it.
I'm afraid no matter what evidence is presented, unless you were there or Jesus pops out of the woodwork and gives you a big ole hug and says here I am, your not going to accept any of it as a possibility. That's your approach to the journey. Not mine.
Well, I know many Jews, They told me Jesus was not the Messiah, according to their reading of Scriptures.
I have no quarrel with that. If you are a Jew, you ipso facto believe that Jesus was not the messiah.
My point was that the issue was a real issue at the time. Some Jews stayed Jewish. Some Jews became Christian.
So, if religious people, sharing the same prophecy, completely disagree whether there was a fulfilment or not, it is mind boggling to expect outsiders to buy that.
As the scriptures says, you must work out your own salvation. Truth is a journey. If your serious about finding the truth of a matter you study the matter. Even atheist scientists sometimes disagree on what the truth of a matter is. The attempt at finding the truth is a testament to who you are and that's the most important thing. Christ said ...I'd rather you be hot or cold than luke warm.
I don't expect outsiders to "buy" anything. I only wish outsiders to respect the journey.
And life threatening dangers does not entail that the belief concern truths.
No it certainly doesn't guarantee that. Scripture says...Many will think they are on the right path but it will only lead them to death. It also emphasizes testing the waters before jumping in and thereafter always being prepared to defend the reason for your faith. You may find this ironic but the bible emphasizes that your faith should be a rational one.
proposed a naturalistic alternative, that totally defuse the logical necessity of a fine tuner. I think that should suffice to put the argument to rest. As all arguments that intend to prove X, when there are equally valid alternatives which prove not-X.
The point was that your alternative is more irrational than what it argues against. So irrational that we may consider whether or not it IS an equally valid point proving not-x.
Even atheistic scientists consider at some point a things probability that is so close to zero to be zero. So the question becomes, why should something so irrational be suffice to put the argument to rest? Imagine a theist taking that form of logic. They have proposed an alternative to naturalistic explanations so that should suffice to put the argument to rest right?
And God is not a speculative metaphysical alternative?
God is the thing being proven. Not the evidence that proves that thing. The evidence of the multiverse becomes itself the very definition of what we are applying to God since it does not exist. It is only speculative. The evidence for design does exist. Its been proven to exist. What it itself proves is another matter.
the multiverse pops out in many scientific theories, although I concede it might never be validated experimentally.
I know of no other current theories who's solutions imply the multiverse other than the ones I mentioned. I could very easily be wrong if you'd care to point me in the right direction.
That is what his equations tell him. And it would be right, and Ockham wrong.
Not quite. The point of Ockham's razor is that all else being equal to postulate different theories purporting to solve the same problem the simpler solution is the favorable one. This has to do with entropy among other things, in that simplicity in nature overcomes complexity as the norm when approaching a solution. In other words it takes an decrease in entropy to increase complexity in a system whereas nature's tendency is towards an increase in entropy and decrease in complexity towards simplicity.
Example from yours....The known phenomena is our Galaxy being the only observed thing in the universe. Propositions are made, evidence gathered, equations are made. The preferable equations explaining the same phenomena are the simpler ones in that for instance 2+2=4 is preferable to (2+1+5)/8=4 in that until proven otherwise the simpler expends less energy in solving which is the preference in nature.
Ockham's rule of thumb can of course be locally wrong but it is the universal natural tendency. The point I think he was trying to make is that the proposition is even more irrational than the alternative is accused of being.
Ockham is applicable only for hypothesis, not physical things
Not exactly...its about what's preferable in studying physical things. The rule of thumb was never meant to be a proof of anything though. Just a help in deciding which direction is best to go in.
the multi-world interpretation of QM requires less assumptions on the theory, at the price of an inflation of worlds. Yet, it is still preferable according to Ockham.
Yes...preferable within the theory itself yet it still doesn't solve the fine tuning conundrum with less complexity or even verifiable evidence making it still less preferable than the alternative according to Ockham's razor.
I mean, it is really easy to find naturalistic (not necessarily scientific, wonder where you got that scientific part) alternatives to non-naturalistic ones. Just challenge me.
Science deals with the study of natural processes and apposed to supernatural processes. That's where I got that from. When you say its easy to find naturalistic explanations I didn't think you meant simply observed phenomena as an explanation - to what I don't know- I thought you meant an explanation to why observed phenomena is the way it is.
I thought I was challenging you here? Of course like I said...it seems to me your set in your thinking and will not except any opposing views anyway
. But this has been fun.