Freaking out about what we really can "know" here...

[Shadow Wolf]

There is always cliques in everything. Much of the study of history is about perspective and is therefore subjective. History is not a "hard science". So there will always be a group of people who have one opinion and another group with a differing opinion. No one's opinions is any more authoritative than the other. So when you make an appeal to scholars one has to keep in mind that those scholars they are appealing to are just a subset of all scholars. With that in mind one has to see the scholars view for what it really is: an opinion.

That is why there is peer review. If a scholar submits an article, it will be read by other scholars. If it will be analyzed by others of the same field, as well as some of another field. Comments will be provided. While, obviously, it isn't full proof, there still isn't much leeway for blowing out nonsense and publishing an article in a credible source without it being called out on its errors.
As for my examples, if I wasn't a metal head, I wouldn't have noticed the flaws in the articles I have read about it. And I have read articles that contradict each other. I have read one article that states metalheads are among the least educated when compared to the fans of other music genres, and I have read one that states there is a disproportionate amount of metal heads among the highly intelligent when compared the general population. However, which one is correct can be deduced to academic work that includes encyclopedias and numerous books to aid in the understanding of metal, because very frequently classic literature is used as a source for lyrical inspiration, and the composition of the music is heavily based in classical and blues.
And that is why peer-review is great. You may write stuff that is totally bunk, but others will catch it.

 

[Thanda]

That is why there is peer review. If a scholar submits an article, it will be read by other scholars. If it will be analyzed by others of the same field, as well as some of another field. Comments will be provided. While, obviously, it isn't full proof, there still isn't much leeway for blowing out nonsense and publishing an article in a credible source without it being called out on its errors.
As for my examples, if I wasn't a metal head, I wouldn't have noticed the flaws in the articles I have read about it. And I have read articles that contradict each other. I have read one article that states metalheads are among the least educated when compared to the fans of other music genres, and I have read one that states there is a disproportionate amount of metal heads among the highly intelligent when compared the general population. However, which one is correct can be deduced to academic work that includes encyclopedias and numerous books to aid in the understanding of metal, because very frequently classic literature is used as a source for lyrical inspiration, and the composition of the music is heavily based in classical and blues.
And that is why peer-review is great. You may write stuff that is totally bunk, but others will catch it.

You're missing my point though. Anthropology, while it obviously has some structure, is not a hard science. Not every claim made in this field of science can be tested mathematically.

When you were in school you'd get questions like "Was John angry? Justify your answer". You'll remember the teacher explaining that for these types of questions there isn't necessarily a wrong or right answer: it just depends whether you can find evidence to back up you claim. And sometimes the evidence you find neither backs up your claim nor destroys it but you can use it to back up your claim if you are clever enough with words.

So, for example, let's take the claim: Pilate would not have hesitated to execute Jesus since he had executed other people before and he didn't care about Jewish squabbles. A person could argue this, and many scholars have, and there is no way of falsifying it. On the other hand another scholar could claim that Pilate may have hesitated because he was struck by the Jesus aura - like people have been stuck by the aura of other exceptional personalities like Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, Mother Theresa and the like. This is also a perfectly valid claim which cannot be falsified. Therefore which of the two claims you believe to be the more likely will usually come down to your own internal biases. And this is why I say a person like Outhouse can easily find a number of scholars who agree with his world view. But I can also find a number of scholars who agree with mine: because anthropology is not a hard science and there aren't any clearly wrong or right answers.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You're missing my point though. Anthropology, while it obviously has some structure, is not a hard science. Not every claim made in this field of science can be tested mathematically.

Actually it can (and that's one of the most serious problems in the "soft" sciences). The hard/soft science distinction is not without merit, but is very misleading. Testing claims mathematically is one of the most problematic issues across the sciences, as it usually involves NHST.

When you were in school you'd get questions like "Was John angry? Justify your answer". You'll remember the teacher explaining that for these types of questions there isn't necessarily a wrong or right answer: it just depends whether you can find evidence to back up you claim. And sometimes the evidence you find neither backs up your claim nor destroys it but you can use it to back up your claim if you are clever enough with words.

I prefer to think of the fallacious ways in which the methods (or, really, a mythical "The Scientific Method") was and is taught, because this is far more relevant. Nothing is proved in the sciences and there exists no scientific method. As for testing things mathematically, most of modern physics involves deriving the existence, properties, and nature of entities from mathematics because they can't be tested (hence the multitude of interpretations of quantum mechanics, issues with the ontologies of quantum field theories, and the nomenclature in particle physics which lacks any actual particles).

So, for example, let's take the claim: Pilate would not have hesitated to execute Jesus since he had executed other people before and he didn't care about Jewish squabbles. A person could argue this, and many scholars have, and there is no way of falsifying it.

Popperian falsification was never widely accepted outside of Fisherian sciences (psychology, sociology, etc.) precisely because the use of mathematical testing in such "soft" sciences could yield results that would be laughable in sciences like chemistry, nanoscience, and quantum physics.

But I can also find a number of scholars who agree with mine: because anthropology is not a hard science and there aren't any clearly wrong or right answers.

There exists wider disagreements over many an issue in "hard" sciences that don't exist in "soft" sciences. Not a great litmus test.

 

[ether-ore]

I was about to say that you shouldn't indulge outhouse too much. The topic of this thread was miracles and the nature of knowledge. While discussing this topic outhouse responded to one of my posts, in which I made reference to a quote from one of the gospels, with a long sermon about the supposed non existence of Jesus or the non existence of anything he said. I made it clear to him there and then that he was trying to veer out of topic as the quote I used was really a side note and whether or not Jesus himself said was irrelevant to the point.

In other words what I'm trying to say is that Outhouse wanted to have a discussion about how fictional he believes the Bible is even in a thread that was not about that. To support his claim he sites so called scholars. And he cites these scholars as if they are in agreement. And he sites them as if they know what they are talking about. I have heard many of these scholars and many of them have nothing to go on but their opinions. For example these scholars don't believe Pilate was uncertain about executing Jesus on the basis of the fact that he was a non believer in Judaism. They hardly know Pilate and they know nothing about the feelings and emotions that were in his heart at any time of his life never mind when he was speaking to Jesus. Yet they make bold claims which the Outhouses of the world flock to and gobble up as gospel truth (excuse the pun).

Furthermore there are many scholars with differing opinion. So when Outhouse tells you what "scholars" say know that he is speaking of a particular subset of scholars. Specifically that subset that says the kind of things he likes to hear. If you were to put forward Truman G Madsen as a scholar with a differing opinion he would quickly discount him as not "credible" (his favourite subjective word) enough. So all he is really telling us when he tells us what "scholars" say is "The scholars I like listening to believe most of the Bible is fiction, myth and hallucinations".

Yes, I understand and agree. Thanks friend

 

[jonathan180iq]

(1) Even if out of all the humans that ever lived there was not one person who rose from the dead, to say rising from the dead is impossible because of this is a huge leap of statistical faith.

So, you're saying that even if there has never been any evidence in the History of the world that people can rise from the dead, we should believe that people actually can rise from the dead, simply because we don't know with 1,000% certainty that they can't?

It's not a huge statistical leap of faith. It's a very minuscule leap of faith. Want to see why?

Let's just use the current world population of 8 Billion.
If no one on the planet currently has ever risen from the dead, then there is an 8 Billion/8 Billion chance that people do not rise from the dead...

If 1 person could potentially rise from the dead, then there is a 1 in 8 Billion chance that people can rise from the dead...

This is not difficult to understand.
You're trying to apologize for very insignificant gaps of knowledge. probably because you're constantly surrounded by people of faith and you sympathize with them in some form or another.

(2) In order to know if something was a miracle – a violation of natural law – you would have to know every single little thing about the universe and the could possibly happen, and determine that this absolutely could not.

Again, this is not true.
We don't know everything, certainly. But we do know some things for certain, and those things have yet to be disproven.

If you, or someone who advocates for miracles, can show evidence of there being a violation of these natural knowns then (and only then) can you make the positive argument that miracles do happen and violations of natural laws can possibly be attributed to a deity or whatever. But until that happens (and let's not forget that it has never happened) it is still entirely logical to conclude that miracles do not occur and certainly aren't derived from the divine will of some supreme being.

 

[Thanda]

If you, or someone who advocates for miracles, can show evidence of there being a violation of these natural knowns then (and only then) can you make the positive argument that miracles do happen and violations of natural laws can possible be attributed to a deity or whatever. But until that happens (and let's not forget that it has never happened) it is still entirely logical to conclude that miracles do not occur and certainly aren't derived from the divine will of some supreme being.

Which Miracle in the Bible do you consider a violation of natural law.

 

[ether-ore]

Then why should I believe you over the hundreds and thousands of other religions?

All that I would be able to do is to tell you what I believe and why I believe it... my "reasons". But we have a saying in my church that no amount of proselytizing will convert anyone. All we can do is provide information, it is the Holy Ghost that converts.

But briefly: The preponderance of the "evidence" in scripture and my own reasoning that we are not alone in the universe are the starting point for what I believe. What the scriptures (The Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price) say about what our relationship with God is and our own eternal nature; where we came from, why we are here in mortality, and what can happen to us after we leave this life... All this combines to present a reasonable identification of what our nature is and the purpose for our existence. We are (we exist) that we might have joy and it is God's purpose to bring about our eternal happiness by helping us progress to a higher level. But He will not force us there. We naturally have our agency. We can choose to follow God's law or not.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Which Miracle in the Bible do you consider a violation of natural law.

• Angels
• Giants
• Talking Animals
• Burning Bushes which speak audibly
• Zombies
• Planets which stop rotating and then start again in a single "day"
• Global 40-day Deluges
• People being turned into blocks of salt
• Flaming lips and tongues flying through the air
• Seas parting so old people can walk across them
• Walking sticks turning into snakes
• Angels of Death taking children from their homes
• Fireballs raining down from "heaven"
• Teleportation
• Shapeshifting
• Magic spit
• People living inside fish
• etc, etc.

 

[Thanda]

• Angels
• Giants
• Talking Animals
• Burning Bushes which speak audibly
• Zombies
• Planets which stop rotating and then start again in a single "day"
• Global 40-day Deluges
• People being turned into blocks of salt
• Flaming lips and tongues flying through the air
• Seas parting so old people can walk across them
• Walking sticks turning into snakes
• Angels of Death taking children from their homes
• Fireballs raining down from "heaven"
• Teleportation
• Shapeshifting
• Magic spit
• People living inside fish
• etc, etc.

Okay great.

Now Please explain which natural law is violated by the following:

• Angels
• Giants
• Talking animals
• Voices coming from burning bushes

 

[ether-ore]

Actually it can (and that's one of the most serious problems in the "soft" sciences). The hard/soft science distinction is not without merit, but is very misleading. Testing claims mathematically is one of the most problematic issues across the sciences, as it usually involves NHST.


I prefer to think of the fallacious ways in which the methods (or, really, a mythical "The Scientific Method") was and is taught, because this is far more relevant. Nothing is proved in the sciences and there exists no scientific method. As for testing things mathematically, most of modern physics involves deriving the existence, properties, and nature of entities from mathematics because they can't be tested (hence the multitude of interpretations of quantum mechanics, issues with the ontologies of quantum field theories, and the nomenclature in particle physics which lacks any actual particles).


Popperian falsification was never widely accepted outside of Fisherian sciences (psychology, sociology, etc.) precisely because the use of mathematical testing in such "soft" sciences could yield results that would be laughable in sciences like chemistry, nanoscience, and quantum physics.

There exists wider disagreements over many an issue in "hard" sciences that don't exist in "soft" sciences. Not a great litmus test.

I'm assuming that by saying testing anthropology "mathematically"... what is meant is using the rules of logic which follows formulaic like rules.

 

[ether-ore]

Okay great.

Now Please explain which natural law is violated by the following:

• Angels
• Giants
• Talking animals
• Voices coming from burning bushes

This should be interesting.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Okay great.

Now Please explain which natural law is violated by the following:

• Angels
• Giants
• Talking animals
• Voices coming from burning bushes

Come now, why not just ask for the whole list, unless of course even in your faith you recognize the absurdity of these stories?

• Angels - Please cite evidence for a supernatural race of winged-humanoids who live in heaven and reside near and can communicate with the also-unevidenced God.
  
  Angels are mentioned more than 250 times in the Bible, moreso in the New Testament. Daniel describes them has having arms and legs of polished metal or precious stones or some such nonsense. I think he also mentions a face of lightning...
  Can you evidence any animal on the planet with limbs made of metal or stone, or with a face made of electricity? So these creatures are obviously breaking some natural laws, including most everything known in biology and chemistry, at the very least. They also live in a dimension or realm that is completely without evidence, let's not forget that.
  
  Seraphims have wings, right? It would be utterly impossible for a human-sized creature to fly with wings coming out of their backs (or any other part of their body), namely because of the amount of force needed to create lift and the biology of our anatomy. Just ask Newton and Bernoulli.

• Giants - I'm obviously not talking about larger-than-average humans. There are specific "giants" referenced in the Old Testament - Is there any evidence for their existence anywhere outside of the old testament? Anything at all that has ever been discovered by the countless archaeologists and paleontologists who specialize in these types of discoveries?
  
  Also, what happens to humans once they reach 8 feet tall and higher? Are they super-athletic and able to terrorize entire regions with their warrior abilities, or can they barely walk on their own and suffer from damaged skeletal connections which lead to being one of their causes of their early deaths?

• Talking animals - Again, please cite evidence for there being a species of donkey or snake which speak a human language. The Bible doesn't say that the snake moved in a way that was understood to mean something to Eve - the Bible contains dialogue between humans and animals in an impossible manner. There are all kinds of natural laws being broken, including a complete disregard for neuroscience, biology, anatomy, chemistry, history, linguistics, etc... just to name a few.

• Burning bushes that speak audibly - Like snakes and donkeys, bushes don't have a human larynx so...
  Bushes also don't have lungs or lips.
  

 

[Thanda]

Can you evidence any animal on the planet with limbs made of metal or stone, or with a face made of electricity?

Great, and since we are specifically talking about creatures not from this planet (that is what the word "angel" normally refers to) your asking for evidence from animals on this planet makes no sense.

I haven't read every piece of the Bible but I'm quite sure no one is mentioned as having a face made of lightening. Instead I have verses talking about the brightness of certain people's faces being like the lightening.

Giants - I'm obviously not talking about larger-than-average humans. There are specific "giants" referenced in the Old Testament - Is there any evidence for their existence anywhere outside of the old testament? Anything at all that has ever been discovered by the countless archaeologists and paleontologists who specialize in these types of discoveries?

Also, what happens to humans once they reach 8 feet tall and higher? Are they super-athletic and able to terrorize entire regions with their warrior abilities, or can they barely walk on their own and suffer from damaged skeletal connections which lead to being one of their causes of their early deaths?

You obviously haven't met the people of Sudan. Certain tribes there are so tall their women alone appear to be at least 6 feet tall.

Secondly, how many bones of people who lived 4000 years ago have archaeologists found? Remember giants were considered abnormal in the days they supposedly lived. Clearly there weren't that many of them even then.

Talking animals - Again, please cite evidence for there being a species of donkey or snake which speak a human language. The Bible doesn't say that the snake moved in a way that was understood to mean something to Eve - the Bible contains dialogue between humans and animals in an impossible manner. There are all kinds of natural laws being broken, including a complete disregard for neuroscience, biology, anatomy, chemistry, history, linguistics, etc... just to name a few.

Actually no natural laws are being broken by animals speaking. Several animals have shown they are completely capable of making sounds that resemble human words. Animals also clearly have thoughts and feelings they like to express. The only problem seems to be getting animals use our language to speak. However scientist have been working on this for a while now. Are you willing to bet against scientists being able crack the code that would allow animals to speak? And if you are not able to bet against them then why do you assume that the angels (discussed) above would be unable to do the same?

You see human not being able to do something doesn't mean it is against natural law. 100 years ago humans couldn't clone animal and cloning was the stuff of fiction or myth. But now it is reality. Have we broken natural laws in order to clone? Of course not: we have simply understood natural laws better and with that understanding came the ability to manipulate it.

Burning bushes that speak audibly - Like snakes and donkeys, bushes don't have a human larynx so...
Bushes also don't have lungs or lips.

Except no one ever said the burning bush spoke. Here is what the scripture very clearly says

And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.​

Notice how no mention is made of the bush talking.It is clearly mentioned that God or His angel was in the midst of a fire which came from a bush. It is clearly mentioned that God spoke to Moses and not the bush, the fire nor the burning bush.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Great, and since we are specifically talking about creatures not from this planet (that is what the word "angel" normally refers to) your asking for evidence from animals on this planet makes no sense.

I haven't read every piece of the Bible but I'm quite sure no one is mentioned as having a face made of lightening. Instead I have verses talking about the brightness of certain people's faces being like the lightening.

Ok - then please cite evidence of a creature not from this planet... You're still in the same hole regardless of the song and dance.

Daniel 10:2-6
2 At that time I, Daniel, mourned for three weeks. 3 I ate no choice food; no meat or wine touched my lips; and I used no lotions at all until the three weeks were over. 4 On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river, the Tigris, 5 I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of the finest gold around his waist.
6 His body was like chrysolite, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude.

This should serve as sufficient evidence for that thing that you haven't yet read but are doubtful of... Please note that he also basically tells you he fasted himself into a delusional state, which has been common practice for religious people since time immemorial, and then somehow those delusions are later understood to be a literal representation of how the Universe works... It's beyond me how people can miss that very important bit of information, but I digress.

You obviously haven't met the people of Sudan. Certain tribes there are so tall their women alone appear to be at least 6 feet tall.

Secondly, how many bones of people who lived 4000 years ago have archaeologists found? Remember giants were considered abnormal in the days they supposedly lived. Clearly there weren't that many of them even then.

6ft tall women are supposed to impress me? I work with 6 feet tall women everyday. I've dated women taller than that... Are the fantastic tales of giants in the Bible referring to woman who are an unimpressive 6 feet tall? Is that what the word "giant" is supposed to mean?

There are, literally, millions of specimens that have been found from that time period and earlier. So, again, within those millions of specimens is there any evidence for the "giants" of the Bible?

Actually no natural laws are being broken by animals speaking. Several animals have shown they are completely capable of making sounds that resemble human words. Animals also clearly have thoughts and feelings they like to express. The only problem seems to be getting animals use our language to speak. However scientist have been working on this for a while now. Are you willing to bet against scientists being able crack the code that would allow animals to speak? And if you are not able to bet against them then why do you assume that the angels (discussed) above would be unable to do the same?

You see human not being able to do something doesn't mean it is against natural law. 100 years ago humans couldn't clone animal and cloning was the stuff of fiction or myth. But now it is reality. Have we broken natural laws in order to clone? Of course not: we have simply understood natural laws better and with that understanding came the ability to manipulate it.

Cite me a study showing animal cognition and use of language being on par with homo sapiens, and you'll totally have a point. (I will let you know, however, that there is no such finding and as such you're going to be barking up a limbless tree, but knock yourself out.)

Are you going to seriously argue that not only can a snake speak human language but that it can plan malicious intent and has the ability to trick a human woman into eating a forbidden fruit by using her own language and thoughts against her? That's the argument that you have to make in order for there to be any validity to the story of the snake in the garden of Eden.

Except no one ever said the burning bush spoke. Here is what the scripture very clearly says

And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.
Notice how no mention is made of the bush talking.It is clearly mentioned that God or His angel was in the midst of a fire which came from a bush. It is clearly mentioned that God spoke to Moses and not the bush, the fire nor the burning bush.

Please cite evidence of an other-worldly realm where any of this can actually happen and you'll have a point.

 

[ether-ore]

Okay great.

Now Please explain which natural law is violated by the following:

• Angels
• Giants
• Talking animals
• Voices coming from burning bushes

My own answers to these are a bit more simplistic. Angels are simply messengers sent from God to reveal something to man. Their appearance is only secondary to their mission and to give it primary significance seeks to ignore the message. Angels do not have wings and that they have the appearance of lightning only means that their countenances are white and exceedingly bright "like" lightning.

Being a giant is a relative thing if one considers that the average height of most at the time was only a little over 5 feet (if that).

The talking snake was and is a metaphor for Satan though Satan was somehow able to communicate to Eve through the serpent. Balaam's *** communicated in some unknown way but again that is not the point of the story and to disregard that point because of concerns over something that is not understood is only done to obscure that point. Balaam was God's prophet to the people of the land of Canaan. Balaam was going against God's commands and the Lord stopped him in an attempt to get Balaam to reconsider his purpose.

I agree with Thanda's assessment here. The bush itself is not talking. The glory of God rested on the bush and spoke to Moses from it. But again, making an issue of these things is only an attempt to obscure the point of the story. But then this has always been the method used to sidetrack the real issue.

 

[outhouse]

You obviously haven't met the people of Sudan. Certain tribes there are so tall their women alone appear to be at least 6 feet tall.

But that's not what was being described


What you may have absolutely no clue about, is that bones were being found from dinosaurs and their explanations were giant men described in mythology because they had no clue where ar what these bones were.

I'm sorry but your lack of anthropology leaves you unarmed.

 

[outhouse]

The talking snake was and is a metaphor for Satan

False.

Israelites did not have that concept even created what the books were collected and edited multiple times.

 

[outhouse]

Being a giant is a relative thing if one considers that the average height of most at the time was only a little over 5 feet (if that).

Not it is not. it is a mythological thing. Many countries have people that average 5' and 7' is not a giant.

 

[outhouse]

I agree with Thanda's assessment here.

Of course you do.

You reject all credible knowledge, and admit you reject it.

 

[outhouse]

God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses.

Moses has no historicity as ever existing.

The mythology of the exodus is called the charter myth of Israel wiki.

It factually never happened as written as it is an impossibility.


Israelites DID evolve from displaced Canaanites and other Semitic peoples after the bronze age collapse. its not up for debate because you refuse it.