My friend, you are missing the point of my legal arguments of Preponderance
of Evidence.
For instance, when a witness appears in court to testify about something he
saw, the opposing counsel has his chance to impeach the credibility of that
witness. After he has done so, and the witness has passed certain legal
standards of reliability, his testimony is considered reliable and true.
Obviously, you can not "examine" and "verify" what he has actually seen
cause he was the only one who has seen it. But we have a process, rules to
qualify a witness to see if he can be accepted as a realible witness.
For instance, the opposing counsel might attempt to question him about
something in his life to see if he would lie or not. If found to have lied,
his credibility is diminished and he is not considered a reliable witness
for the things he saw. But if he told the truth and the opposing counsel
can not impeach his honesty, the judge will accept his testimony as
reliable. In our justice system, we call that a "reliable" witness.
This my friend is the standard I want you to apply when evaluating the
Bible. See, if you can impeach the Bible's "honesty" on some other thing.
If you can, then the Bible's credibility is diminished. If you can't, then
the Bible should be considered reliable.
How can you say for sure that Ezekiel did not actually see a "wheel" in the
sky, after all, no one else was there. And how can you go about evaluating
his honesty? and his reliability as a witness, cause after all, that's what
he was - a witness to the wheels in the sky. You say Exekiel must have been
lying or hallucinating. What is your baiss for that? You baiss is simply
that there were no flying machines at that time; whcih is an extension of
your initial assumption that there is NO God.
You see, you assumed there is No God, then reason from that that there are
no flying machines, and then reason from that that Exekiel must have been
lying or hallucinating. If you use a chain of logic like this in court, the
judge will throw you out. You can not use an assumption to be the basis of
your argument.
If however, you look at other parts of Exekiel's life and found him to be a
liar, then you have impeached his honesty and has a legal basis to throw his
testimony out. There's a big difference in the 2 approachs my friend.
So, I am saying, evaluate the Bible and see if it has been lying about other
things. If it has, its other statements may be dismissed. If not, then by
our legal standard, we should accept it as reliable.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig" <cchayniepub...@gmail.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
On 01/01/2013 05:59 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
No, I am suggesting that you count the facts written in the Bible that
have found to be true. Then count the facts found to be false and
then count the facts that have not be found true or found false yet.
If the number of facts that have found to be true is 51% or greater,
then the Bible has satisfied the principle of preponderance of
evidence and should be treated as a verified document, and a reliable
witness.
Shall we do this?
To be fair, I will count the facts found to be true, you count the
facts that have been found to false and the facts found to be neither
true nor false.
Jojo
But no, that's not the way to ascertain truth. Each assertion has to be
evaluated on its own merits.
You can have a book that contains many truths, along with many un-proven
assertions. This is why books, per-se, cannot be used to ascertain
truth. They can only add to available evidence.
But notice, that when an assertion is made, that the truth of the
assertion has to be evaluated within the context of existing, known,
truths. So when we hear of stories that a wheel came down from the sky,
as in Ezekiel, we have to immediately dismiss it as hearsay, unless
there is other evidence that such a thing occurred. If it turns out that
numerous other sources confirmed the event, then we have to interpret
the event in the context of known truths. So the immediate explanation
would be that it's an illusion. If there was enough evidence that such a
thing was NOT an illusion, then the best interpretation is that the
event was conducted by an alien species with superior technology.
What you cannot do is manufacture an explanation which defies
metaphysics and epistemology. You cannot say that such an event was the
act of a God -- because the concept of God cannot be defined and does
not exist within the Universe, as I've mentioned before.
So when you allude to the idea that we have to interpret words, written
in a book, in such a way that the explanation defies metaphysics and
epistemology, then you are on very thin ice. If such a thing could be
absolutely ascertained to have occurred, (such as a wheel coming down
from the sky in an era when there was no flight), and it could be
absolutely ascertained that it was not an illusion, and was not the
product of alien manufacture... Then if all this could be ascertained,
then we would simply be stumped as to the explanation. It still could
not be the produce of a God because 'God' cannot be defined, as I've
mentioned in a previous post. Without an explanation which exists in
this Universe, you simply have no reference by which you could tie such
an event to another Universe.
Craig
