(January 3, 2018 at 6:46 am)curiosne Wrote:(December 17, 2017 at 12:13 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Sorry for the delay, this isn't quite as good as I would like, but it is a quick bulleted point list for you.
1) Occurs within history – The Gospels where not written in a far, far, away land, in a time long ago. (Well at least not for their immediate audience.) There where written in a particular time and place. With the effects of it seen emanating from this time.
2) Was intended, and received as historical.
3) Attested as true by multiple witnesses. We of course have the Four Gospels written by those who were present, and those close to them. We also have indirect evidence from the early Churches and their writings who also testified to the same, and that they were founded and received this information from Jesus’s disciples
4) Many who changed their lives drastically, to both follow Jesus, and to tell the Gospel as seen in the above.
5) Further indications of truthfulness. Criteria of embarrassment, falsifiable claims (especially for those of the time), pressure to lie, and external corroboration.
In the end, I find that the conclusion that it is true, matches the facts better than other conspiracy theories or accusations of legend, which those that I have heard, have very little foundation.
Sorry for the long delay, been on a break and just coming back now. My reply to your post:
1) Agreed on this. The evidence for existence of the gospels is not in doubt but there is no epistemic value on the gospels existing.
2) Agreed on this but again there is no epistemic value in the gospels being intended as historical.
3) Which witnesses? This is where the evidence becomes more substantial.
4) There is no epistemic value in this. There are many religions and each one has changed many people's lives.
5) I don't understand this. Please explain.
No problem on the delay. I was rather busy myself with the holidays (I hope yours was good).
It seems like you are just saying a lot, that there is "no epistemic value" a lot. I obviously disagree, but this doesn't give me much to work with, unless you are more specific in your critique, or give an example what you might be looking for. Do you think that the testimony of others has epistemological value? Do you think that the study of history has epistemic worth? Do you think we have to have absolute certainty in order to have knowledge or epistemologically valid belief?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther