Evidence Evaluation

[David Sklansky]

You are absolutely right. It is only thousands. But so what?
If a high proportion of them disbelieve, why on earth would you think the percentage would change if the millions who satisfied criteria 1,2, and 4 studied the subject?

[David Sklansky]

"Yes, you are talking about spiritual events. There is no way your experts could judge the truths of these events for the evidence is they do not have the tools to do so.They can only be skeptical. The test is not how many of your "rational" judges decide yea or nea and therefore by vote declare the truth. The truth stands by itself irrespective of who judges.

The real question is, can any shread of understanding about the past be understood in the manner of modern day scientists,historians,geologists, sociologists,etc.. . The answer is NO. Find one that doesn't project modern thinking into the past which is really indicative of whats happening NOW(their own personality) and completely loses sight of the PAST."

The probability that a past event occurred is a judgement call that is no different than one involving a future event. Experts are better at arriving at the right price than non experts. Regardless if is whether OJ is Guilty, whether Aristotle could ever do 70 pushups, whether the earth is 6000 years old, whether the sun once stood still, etc etc.

[IronUnkind]

For the same reason that your ignorance of philosophy allows you to make a number of naive pronouncements. You are smart enough to understand Kant; you just haven't read him.

[David Sklansky]

"For the same reason that your ignorance of philosophy allows you to make a number of naive pronouncements. You are smart enough to understand Kant; you just haven't read him."

Your first bad post. If there are a million people who satisfy criteria 1,2, and 4 and a thousand who satisfy all four. And if 900 of those thousand disbelieve, then it is almost certain that 900,000 of the million would also disbelieve if they studied religion and therefore met critera 3.

[IronUnkind]

Oops. Of course you are correct. In my haste, I missed the key element of the statement: that the ratio of unbelievers remained constant even among those who satisfied all four criteria. I missed the context of your comment.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
The probability that a past event occurred is a judgement call that is no different than one involving a future event. Experts are better at arriving at the right price than non experts. Regardless if is whether OJ is Guilty, whether Aristotle could ever do 70 pushups, whether the earth is 6000 years old, whether the sun once stood still, etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]



Experts are experts are experts-can't go on with your definition. Sooner or later the mind has to deal with reality. Dead abstractions(experts) mean nothing.

That some can ascertain the inherent truths in these Biblical events is true , and they could be called "expert" but would you recognize them?

Judgement as a 60-40 shot is speculation. Judgment in these matters is a question of self development and obtaining the ability to perceive the event in its written thought full history(much like your memory).

carlo