-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Freewill and Culture: The Prism for Perception.
- Thread starter John D. Brey
- Start date
PAUL MARKHAM
Well-Known Member
Except the bible was created by men.
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
. . . I'll do you like I did shunyadragon when he questioned my knowledge of Popper. I noted that using some quick math it appears I've hand-written about 320 pages of Popper quotations over the years. Nietzsche is about a third of that. Which means using the same math, I've hand-written Nietzsche quotations totaling just about a hundred pages.
But I still consider him and Popper human.
John
Last edited:
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
. . . Remember if you will that for me there's only one. It's from that one. <s>
John
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
At first, or second, or maybe even ten thousand glances, it might appear that way. But we who've glanced many more times than that see it in a different light.
John
PAUL MARKHAM
Well-Known Member
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf...LjUuNi40mAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab
Unless god came down and picked up a pen, this is the best we know. It started out as tales told around the campfires.
Scholars now believe that the stories that would become the Bible were disseminated by word of mouth across the centuries, in the form of oral tales and poetry – perhaps as a means of forging a collective identity among the tribes of Israel. Eventually, these stories were collated and written down.
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
. . . We know that the proliferation of opinions will render us whatever theory our itchy ears want to hear. The cult of expertise is a fascinating thing.
John
PAUL MARKHAM
Well-Known Member
If you prefer the cult of not knowing then that's fine. Just don't expect the freedom to post about it unopposed.
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
What I meant to imply was that there are experts supporting just about every viewpoint in the world. For instance many historians will tell us that Moses and the children of Israel never really crossed the desert to the Promised Land since they can't find spent cans of Chef Boyardee rusting away in the desert.
John
PAUL MARKHAM
Well-Known Member
It's not just the remains of food. They have yet to find one solid piece of evidence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/africa/03iht-moses.4.5130043.html
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
Evidence, smevidence:
The empiricist often approaches knowledge from the presupposition that belief isn’t based on evidence . . . that belief is irrational, and only evidence matters! But how could the empiricist test that hypothesis (that belief isn’t based on evidence)?
Since every competent philosopher of science admits that all empirical experimentation begins with belief in a hypothesis (belief that a hypothesis might be correct) . . . you literally have to -"have belief"- that it's possible that belief isn't based on evidence - before you could test the hypothesis that belief isn't based on evidence. Therefore you cannot know that there's no evidence for belief . . . you can only base that hypothesis on belief. What's far worse . . . is that since you must have at least a modicum of belief before you can perform an experiment (to extract "evidence") clearly belief is antecedent to all `evidence’ and should thus logically transcend evidence! Belief is literally needed to produce evidence, yet as logic dictates, that belief doesn't need evidence; it precedes evidence; it is the primary ingredient of evidence.
Since this is a logical truism (that belief is required to hypothesize that belief has no evidence) . . . wouldn’t it be more `logical’ to presume that belief is its own evidence (births its own evidence) . . . or even that all evidence is belief's evidence (belongs to belief) - since all evidence is born of belief in some hypotheses? In other words, since all evidence comes after belief in hypotheses - shouldn't one put more belief in belief than in evidence? There is no `evidence’ for a belief in the supposition that belief isn't based on evidence! But there is evidence that `evidence’ is based on `belief’?
The empiricist is proud to have married his worldview to Evidence . . . when in fact Evidence is Belief's half-witted child! But since the child will eventually end up looking just like the parent – eventually the Evidence which looked so good the empiricist married his worldview to it . . . will start to look just like the parent (Belief), which Belief the empiricist was never very fond of!
Tautological Oxymorons, p. 83.
Since every competent philosopher of science admits that all empirical experimentation begins with belief in a hypothesis (belief that a hypothesis might be correct) . . . you literally have to -"have belief"- that it's possible that belief isn't based on evidence - before you could test the hypothesis that belief isn't based on evidence. Therefore you cannot know that there's no evidence for belief . . . you can only base that hypothesis on belief. What's far worse . . . is that since you must have at least a modicum of belief before you can perform an experiment (to extract "evidence") clearly belief is antecedent to all `evidence’ and should thus logically transcend evidence! Belief is literally needed to produce evidence, yet as logic dictates, that belief doesn't need evidence; it precedes evidence; it is the primary ingredient of evidence.
Since this is a logical truism (that belief is required to hypothesize that belief has no evidence) . . . wouldn’t it be more `logical’ to presume that belief is its own evidence (births its own evidence) . . . or even that all evidence is belief's evidence (belongs to belief) - since all evidence is born of belief in some hypotheses? In other words, since all evidence comes after belief in hypotheses - shouldn't one put more belief in belief than in evidence? There is no `evidence’ for a belief in the supposition that belief isn't based on evidence! But there is evidence that `evidence’ is based on `belief’?
The empiricist is proud to have married his worldview to Evidence . . . when in fact Evidence is Belief's half-witted child! But since the child will eventually end up looking just like the parent – eventually the Evidence which looked so good the empiricist married his worldview to it . . . will start to look just like the parent (Belief), which Belief the empiricist was never very fond of!
Tautological Oxymorons, p. 83.
John
PAUL MARKHAM
Well-Known Member
The Exodus - Wikipedia
The Exodus (Hebrew: יציאת מצרים, Yeẓi’at Miẓrayim: lit. 'Departure from Egypt') is the founding myth of the Israelites.[1][a] It tells of their departure from Egypt, the revelations at biblical Mount Sinai, and their wanderings in the wilderness up to the borders of Canaan.[2] Its message is that the Israelites were delivered from slavery by Yahweh their god, and therefore belong to him by covenant.[1]
The consensus of modern scholars is that the Bible does not give an accurate account of the origins of the Israelites, who appear instead to have formed as an entity in the central highlands of Canaan in the late second millennium BCE from the indigenous Canaanite culture.[3][4][5] Most modern scholars believe that the story of the Exodus has some historical core,[6] but the Bible was never intended primarily as a historical document, and contains little that is accurate or reliable.[7]
https://www.thebiblejourney.org/bib...t-to-mt-sinai/the-israelites-flee-from-egypt/
Last edited: