Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[Cleon]

Do you have a source for this?



So it would seem your source is your oral learning experience and education rather than something written down.

*facepalm*

The convolutions you go through to miss a point are absolutely mind-boggling.

 

[joobz]

*facepalm*

The convolutions you go through to miss a point are absolutely mind-boggling.

You can lead a poster to logic,
but you can't make him think.

 

[kmortis]

*facepalm*

The convolutions you go through to miss a point are absolutely mind-boggling.

If yer gonna do it, do it right...

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC

No, but it increases the probability of it being true depending on how much one values the opinion of the president of India. If Barack Obama went on TV and said he saw an alien at Camp David, that would increase the probability in my mind that aliens exist. If a transient on a street corner told me he saw an alien last night it probably wouldn't increase the probability that aliens exist for me.

I bolded the salient part for you. Do you agree or disagree that this is a logical fallacy?

It would be a fallacy if I said the opinion of the president proves a fact. But I didn't say that.

In my mind the probability of intelligent life existing on other planets might be 1 in a hundred. If Barack Obama, (someone whose opinion I trust) gets on national TV and says he saw an alien at Camp David. I might bump up that probability to 5 in a hundred. There is nothing fallacious about that because were talking about my subjective beliefs.

The same thing occurs all the time in civil trials. If you have a credible witness say they saw something happened it increases the probability of it being true (in the minds of the jurors) over a non-credible witness.

 

[Cleon]

No, but it increases the probability of it being true depending on how much one values the opinion of the president of India.

Complete garbage. Something that's true is going to be true regardless of your feelings about the president of India, Brazil, the United States, or North Korea.

It would be a fallacy if I said the opinion of the president proves a fact. But I didn't say that.

Nope, it's still an appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[DOC]

One more example of DOC's failure to comprehend or likely pretend to.

Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
No implication necessary, DOC. Everyone who reads this thread is aware that you either fail to comprehend everything you read here or you just pretend to. There's no objective difference, in either case.

Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Do you have a source for this?
So it would seem your source is your oral learning experience and education rather than something written down.

So your example of failure to comprehend is the trickery of putting a response I made to Cleon's post as a response to a false opinion made by Akhenaten.

 

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

<garbage>

It would be a fallacy if I said the opinion of the president proves a fact. But I didn't say that.

In my mind the probability of intelligent life existing on other planets might be 1 in a hundred. If Barack Obama, (someone whose opinion I trust) gets on national TV and says he saw an alien at Camp David. I might bump up that probability to 5 in a hundred. There is nothing fallacious about that because were talking about my subjective beliefs.

The same thing occurs all the time in civil trials. If you have a credible witness say they saw something happened it increases the probability of it being true (in the minds of the jurors) over a non-credible witness.

See that big, bolded bit, DOC? It explains why virtually everything you've posted in this thread is utter drivel.

 

[joobz]

It would be a fallacy if I said the opinion of the president proves a fact. But I didn't say that.

That's not how the fallacy works.

In my mind the probability of intelligent life existing on other planets might be 1 in a hundred. If Barack Obama, (someone whose opinion I trust) gets on national TV and says he saw an alien at Camp David. I might bump up that probability to 5 in a hundred. There is nothing fallacious about that because were talking about my subjective beliefs.

But that is where the fallacy lies.

The opinion of the expert does not change reality. The probability of something being true is Dependant entirely on the evidence not the opinion of the evidence.

The only time opinion could matter is when it is the expert opinion of one who is intimately familiar with the subject and has the background knowledge to effectively weight the evidence.

The same thing occurs all the time in civil trials. If you have a credible witness say they saw something happened it increases the probability of it being true (in the minds of the jurors) over a non-credible witness.

But now you are conflating situations.
You are speaking of an eye witness vs. one's opinion on something not witnessed. A credible eye witness simply means you do not think they are lying about what they saw.

 

[Akhenaten]

One more example of DOC's failure to comprehend or likely pretend to.

Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
No implication necessary, DOC. Everyone who reads this thread is aware that you either fail to comprehend everything you read here or you just pretend to. There's no objective difference, in either case.

Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Do you have a source for this?
So it would seem your source is your oral learning experience and education rather than something written down.

So your example of failure to comprehend is the trickery of putting a response I made to Cleon's post as a response to a false opinion made by Akhenaten.

Lern 2 kwote!

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Since DOC is as impressed with "oral tradition" as he is the "written word", I just thought it might be worth pointing out that neither qualify as evidence purely on their own merits.

Eyewitness accounts, whether spoken or written, can be indications that an event may have occurred, but without supporting physical evidence there is very little certainty that such accounts are "true". Though they are at least evidence enough to spur further investigation to verify the claims.

Personally, I am disturbed that the legal system continues to sometimes allow prosecutors to convict people based on little more than eyewitness accounts. No doubt this contributes to DOC's fallacious notion that eyewitness accounts (spoken or written) have the same intrinsic value as Empirical Evidence.

Also "Expert Testimony" is only as good as the Physical Evidence that supports the "Experts" views.

Of course I haven't even addressed the fact that what evidence does exist indicates that the authors of the Gospels are most likely not who they claimed they were, thus putting the lie to the term "eyewitness accounts" as it applies to the NT.

GB

 

[Akhenaten]

The same thing occurs all the time in civil trials. If you have a credible witness say they saw something happened it increases the probability of it being true (in the minds of the jurors) over a non-credible witness.

So where are your credible witnesses that are going to say that the New Testament writers were telling the truth, DOC?

And remember, in this case, we are the jurors.

How do you think we'll decide. DOC?

 

[six7s]

A credible eye witness simply means you do not think they are lying about what they saw.

I'd add that a credible witness is not only honest but also able to accurately interpret what they observed

DOC's example of Barack Obama hypothetically announcing signs of alien life at CampDavid is, typically, fallacious (argument from mis-placed authority) AND irrelevant

Stop faffing about DOC

Either put up or shut up

Do you or do you not have credible evidence to support the woo in the OP?

Do NOT cite ANY of your previous posts; they have all been debunked​

 

[joobz]

Also "Expert Testimony" is only as good as the Physical Evidence that supports the "Experts" views.

Very good point.

extending this one bit further, expert opinion can be called into question if they are found to have a stake in the outcome (e.g., financial backing, entwined with the defendants, ..) If there is a fear of conflict of interest, this goes strongly against their testimony.

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC

No, but it increases the probability of it being true depending on how much one values the opinion of the president of India...

Complete garbage. Something that's true is going to be true regardless of your feelings about the president of India, Brazil, the United States, or North Korea.

I noticed you left out the sentences in my post immediately following the above sentence which were:

If Barack Obama went on TV and said he saw an alien at Camp David, that would increase the probability in my mind that aliens exist. If a transient on a street corner told me he saw an alien last night it probably wouldn't increase the probability that aliens exist for me.

(bolding and size added)

__

Anyone who read the whole paragraph which you cut short would have or should have known that I meant (regarding the president of India) it increased the probability in your own opinion and not whether or not it was an actual fact or not.

 

[joobz]

I noticed you left out the sentences in my post immediately following the above sentence which were:

If Barack Obama went on TV and said he saw an alien at Camp David, that would increase the probability in my mind that aliens exist. If a transient on a street corner told me he saw an alien last night it probably wouldn't increase the probability that aliens exist for me.

(bolding and size added)

__

Anyone who read the whole paragraph which you cut short would have or should have known that I meant it increased the probability in your own mind.

Then what you are saying is that logical fallacies are valid arguments in helping you make decisions.

 

[DOC]

Since DOC is as impressed with "oral tradition" as he is the "written word", I just thought it might be worth pointing out that neither qualify as evidence purely on their own merits...

They most certainly qualify as possible "historical" evidence and we are in a history forum.

 

[Cleon]

I noticed you left out the sentences in my post immediately following the above sentence which were

...completely irrelevant.

 

[joobz]

They most certainly qualify as "historical' evidence and we are in a history forum.

only as the fact that those stories existed in history. But they speak nothing toward the reality/validity of the story.

 

[Akhenaten]

Of course I haven't even addressed the fact that what evidence does exist indicates that the authors of the Gospels are most likely not who they claimed they were, thus putting the lie to the term "eyewitness accounts" as it applies to the NT.

GB

It's been pointed out to DOC scores, if not hundreds of times, that this is the case. He seems to think if he simply ignores these basic truths then they'll go away, but of course, as with pretty much everything else, he's wrong.

Good luck getting a straight answer to the points you've raised.

 

[Akhenaten]

Anyone who read the whole paragraph which you cut short would have or should have known that I meant (regarding the president of India) it increased the probability in your own opinion and not whether or not it was an actual fact or not.

First up, DOC, you may safely assume that we all read the post in question. The only person taking part in this discussion with selective blindness is yourself.

Secondly, you are defending, quite adamantly, the use of argumentum ad verecundiam as a valid means of presenting your argument.

You are being completely dishonest about this, as the nature of the fallacy you are employing has been explained to you every time you've done it, and your persistence with this gambit is part of what has completely destroyed your credibility and marked you as incapable of honest debate.


See this, DOC:

You're painting yourself with the same brush. Continue at your peril.