Street Epistemology - Practice

[RoadRunner79]

Yes... as I had said before.  They are not going to give you specifics or tell you things other than what they point to.

1)  generic philosophical arguments such as cosmological, ontological, and moral arguments.
2)  Scientific arguments a such as strong anthromorphic principle, and intelligent design
3)  Anecdotal evidence, that of miracles, found all around the world.
4)  Testimony of personal experiences, as well a must my own experiences.
5)  You've heard and believed in the Gospels.

So you've mentioned that number five is the best reason that you have such a high confidence that your God exists. Can you tell me what about it gives you so much confidence?

I would say that all the evidence contributes to the high confidence.  However it is because of the historical accounts, that I am a Christian rather than just a deist.  I see a difference in the Judeo/Christian tradition, that I don't see in other religions.  It is a part of and dependent on history more than others.  Written by forty authors, in multiple geographies over many centuries.  It's events are often in public and frequently encourages it's immediate readers to remember back to their experiences.  It often encourages it's audience to test it. 

For the Gospel, we have 4 people who wrote accounts of Jesus ministry.  We have the letters from other apostles and disciples who wrote to the early Church, and tradition where a number of Churches where started by those who knew Jesus.  These all support the history of the Gospel.  I have read a number of the anti-Nicene Fathers of the church.  They both speak of and quote the apostles and the writings that proceed them.  Which continues further down the chain of history through each generation.  And especially in the early history, you will see a focus on that historical connection to Jesus and the apostles.  To hold on to what they where taught and in some cases seen. 

You can get into more detail, J. Warner Wallace (LA cold case homicide detective) was a self described aggressive atheist for 35 years of his life.   He talks quite a bit of his training and experience with witnesses, and why he now believes the Gospel accounts are true.  I'm currently reading a book on "undesigned coincidences" where there may be a subtle question  raised in one writing, and it is unintentionally answered in another.  Some of these would have meant little to the immediate audience or wouldn't have been questioned at all, so it seems unlikely to be by designed and would be remarkable to be by accident. 

Now different details may carry different weight.  Some evidence may only provide a slight strength.  However when I look at all the evidence, then my confidence level is fairly strong.

[curiosne]

1)  generic philosophical arguments such as cosmological, ontological, and moral arguments.
2)  Scientific arguments a such as strong anthromorphic principle, and intelligent design
3)  Anecdotal evidence, that of miracles, found all around the world.
4)  Testimony of personal experiences, as well a must my own experiences.
5)  You've heard and believed in the Gospels.

So you've mentioned that number five is the best reason that you have such a high confidence that your God exists. Can you tell me what about it gives you so much confidence?

I would say that all the evidence contributes to the high confidence.  However it is because of the historical accounts, that I am a Christian rather than just a deist.  I see a difference in the Judeo/Christian tradition, that I don't see in other religions.  It is a part of and dependent on history more than others.  Written by forty authors, in multiple geographies over many centuries.  It's events are often in public and frequently encourages it's immediate readers to remember back to their experiences.  It often encourages it's audience to test it. 

For the Gospel, we have 4 people who wrote accounts of Jesus ministry.  We have the letters from other apostles and disciples who wrote to the early Church, and tradition where a number of Churches where started by those who knew Jesus.  These all support the history of the Gospel.  I have read a number of the anti-Nicene Fathers of the church.  They both speak of and quote the apostles and the writings that proceed them.  Which continues further down the chain of history through each generation.  And especially in the early history, you will see a focus on that historical connection to Jesus and the apostles.  To hold on to what they where taught and in some cases seen. 

You can get into more detail, J. Warner Wallace (LA cold case homicide detective) was a self described aggressive atheist for 35 years of his life.   He talks quite a bit of his training and experience with witnesses, and why he now believes the Gospel accounts are true.  I'm currently reading a book on "undesigned coincidences" where there may be a subtle question  raised in one writing, and it is unintentionally answered in another.  Some of these would have meant little to the immediate audience or wouldn't have been questioned at all, so it seems unlikely to be by designed and would be remarkable to be by accident. 

Now different details may carry different weight.  Some evidence may only provide a slight strength.  However when I look at all the evidence, then my confidence level is fairly strong.

To be honest, this kind of feels like a detective case that we're trying to solve and it's a bit information dense for me but I'll have a go at it.
I've had a bit of a look at what you've written above and from what I understand, the way that you present your evidence is the following.

God exists because:

1. The Gospels were created through (or assisted by) God's Magic.
   
2. The Gospels says that Jesus (God) exists and details accounts of Jesus's (God's) magic.
   
3. The Gospels must be true as it is historically accurate.
   
4. The Gospels accuracy is further corroborated by ancient Jews (from J. Warner Wallace) and from other historic figures who say that Jesus existed and that they saw his magic.
   
5. The book "Undesigned coincidences" shows that there is a consistent flow between the Gospels (through connecting a subtle question in one writing to an answer in another writing) which can't be a coincidence as it connects well. This shows that the Gospels were designed holistically thus proving their authenticity.
   

Other evidence don't prove God exists but as you have proven god exists with the above evidence it follows that:

1. The generic philosophical arguments (such as cosmological, ontological, and moral arguments); And 
   
2. Scientific arguments (such as strong anthromorphic principle, and intelligent design);
   

must be because of God.


Is that a good summary? If not please amend it and we will assess the evidence and talk through it.

[RoadRunner79]

I would say that all the evidence contributes to the high confidence.  However it is because of the historical accounts, that I am a Christian rather than just a deist.  I see a difference in the Judeo/Christian tradition, that I don't see in other religions.  It is a part of and dependent on history more than others.  Written by forty authors, in multiple geographies over many centuries.  It's events are often in public and frequently encourages it's immediate readers to remember back to their experiences.  It often encourages it's audience to test it. 

For the Gospel, we have 4 people who wrote accounts of Jesus ministry.  We have the letters from other apostles and disciples who wrote to the early Church, and tradition where a number of Churches where started by those who knew Jesus.  These all support the history of the Gospel.  I have read a number of the anti-Nicene Fathers of the church.  They both speak of and quote the apostles and the writings that proceed them.  Which continues further down the chain of history through each generation.  And especially in the early history, you will see a focus on that historical connection to Jesus and the apostles.  To hold on to what they where taught and in some cases seen. 

You can get into more detail, J. Warner Wallace (LA cold case homicide detective) was a self described aggressive atheist for 35 years of his life.   He talks quite a bit of his training and experience with witnesses, and why he now believes the Gospel accounts are true.  I'm currently reading a book on "undesigned coincidences" where there may be a subtle question  raised in one writing, and it is unintentionally answered in another.  Some of these would have meant little to the immediate audience or wouldn't have been questioned at all, so it seems unlikely to be by designed and would be remarkable to be by accident. 

Now different details may carry different weight.  Some evidence may only provide a slight strength.  However when I look at all the evidence, then my confidence level is fairly strong.

To be honest, this kind of feels like a detective case that we're trying to solve and it's a bit information dense for me but I'll have a go at it.
I've had a bit of a look at what you've written above and from what I understand, the way that you present your evidence is the following.

God exists because:

1. The Gospels were created through (or assisted by) God's Magic.
   
2. The Gospels says that Jesus (God) exists and details accounts of Jesus's (God's) magic.
   
3. The Gospels must be true as it is historically accurate.
   
4. The Gospels accuracy is further corroborated by ancient Jews (from J. Warner Wallace) and from other historic figures who say that Jesus existed and that they saw his magic.
   
5. The book "Undesigned coincidences" shows that there is a consistent flow between the Gospels (through connecting a subtle question in one writing to an answer in another writing) which can't be a coincidence as it connects well. This shows that the Gospels were designed holistically thus proving their authenticity.
   

Other evidence don't prove God exists but as you have proven god exists with the above evidence it follows that:

1. The generic philosophical arguments (such as cosmological, ontological, and moral arguments); And 
   
2. Scientific arguments (such as strong anthromorphic principle, and intelligent design);
   

must be because of God.


Is that a good summary? If not please amend it and we will assess the evidence and talk through it.

Unfortunately, this is not a summary, that I would agree with much at all. It is curious, that you used the word "magic", a number of times, when I didn't appeal to anything of the sort. Why is that? To be honest, it feels more like your view of Christians, than a summary of what I had said. If you are confused by something, perhaps we can narrow it down some. Now my understanding of Street Epistemology, is that it is not to debate the facts, but to look at the epistemology or how we know. It is more general, and about the methods, rather than the specifics. Is there some epistemological concern, that you suspect in regards to my belief in God? I would think that in discussing the epistemology, that it is more like what we where talking about before (moving the goal posts for that which you do not want to believe). Or perhaps it would be better to make it more specific, there is a lot of interconnected evidence to consider on such a broad topic, as believing in God. (Would you prefer to just discuss the resurrection perhaps)?.

Some notes on your other comments: You description on the undersigned coincidences, doesn't seem to be too bad. As to the more general philosophical and scientific arguments, I don't think, that they are dependent on the historical evidence at all. They stand on their own, and If I where convinced that Christianity wasn't true, I would likely be a deist, because of these. I'm not saying that they are not as strong in their own, but only that they do not speak to some things.

[curiosne]

To be honest, this kind of feels like a detective case that we're trying to solve and it's a bit information dense for me but I'll have a go at it.
I've had a bit of a look at what you've written above and from what I understand, the way that you present your evidence is the following.

God exists because:

1. The Gospels were created through (or assisted by) God's Magic.
   
2. The Gospels says that Jesus (God) exists and details accounts of Jesus's (God's) magic.
   
3. The Gospels must be true as it is historically accurate.
   
4. The Gospels accuracy is further corroborated by ancient Jews (from J. Warner Wallace) and from other historic figures who say that Jesus existed and that they saw his magic.
   
5. The book "Undesigned coincidences" shows that there is a consistent flow between the Gospels (through connecting a subtle question in one writing to an answer in another writing) which can't be a coincidence as it connects well. This shows that the Gospels were designed holistically thus proving their authenticity.
   

Other evidence don't prove God exists but as you have proven god exists with the above evidence it follows that:

1. The generic philosophical arguments (such as cosmological, ontological, and moral arguments); And 
   
2. Scientific arguments (such as strong anthromorphic principle, and intelligent design);
   

must be because of God.


Is that a good summary? If not please amend it and we will assess the evidence and talk through it.

Unfortunately, this is not a summary, that I would agree with much at all.   It is curious, that you used the word "magic", a number of times, when I didn't appeal to anything of the sort. Why is that? To be honest, it feels more like your view of Christians, than a summary of what I had said. If you are confused by something, perhaps we can narrow it down some.     Now my understanding of Street Epistemology, is that it is not to debate the facts, but to look at the epistemology or how we know.  It is more general, and about the methods, rather than the specifics.  Is there some epistemological concern, that you suspect in regards to my belief in God?  I would think that in discussing the epistemology, that it is more like what we where talking about before (moving the goal posts for that which you do not want to believe).  Or perhaps it would be better to make it more specific, there is a lot of interconnected evidence to consider on such a broad topic, as believing in God. (Would you prefer to just discuss the resurrection perhaps)?.  

Some notes on your other comments:   You description on the undersigned coincidences, doesn't seem to be too bad.  As to the more general philosophical and scientific arguments, I don't think, that they are dependent on the historical evidence at all.  They stand on their own, and If I where convinced that Christianity wasn't true, I would likely be a deist, because of these.  I'm not saying that they are not as strong in their own, but only that they do not speak to some things.

I don't understand which part you don't agree with. Can you do me a favour and re-write the summary in the same format that I used to summarise your position, as it would make the discussion much easier.

You're right that you never said the word "magic", I'll retract that as I was trying to invoke a word that describes God's power. From what I understand of epistemology, it starts off being more general but then to understand how one would truly know something, it gets down to the detail after a while which I'd like to do. Note that we are talking about your belief so if we cannot get into the details on how you actually know if your belief is true by understanding the details surround the belief, we cannot further the conversation.

Also I don't think that I've begun debating so give me a heads up if I do and I'll stop. The whole point of epistemology isn't to debate but to analyse a belief and understand how one knows it's true.

But you've just agreed to my summary below on the general philisophical/scientific arguments below. What I was trying to say is that the philisophical/scientific arguments don't prove that the Judeo/Christian God exists, all it does is to justify that there's a certain (unknown) power out there influencing our universe.

[RoadRunner79]

Hi curiosne,

Just wanted to let you know, I didn’t forget about you. Been busy with Christmas planning and work. I should be able to get you a more consise (bulletted) list ina couple of days.

brian

[curiosne]

Hi curiosne,

Just wanted to let you know, I didn’t forget about you. Been busy with Christmas planning and work. I should be able to get you a more consise (bulletted) list ina couple of days.

brian

All good, I'm pretty busy getting present for everyone too....got two more to get before xmas

[vulcanlogician]

Sorry, I stopped following this thread a while back (but I'm almost caught back up now!).

Also street epistemology promotes more critical thinking into their beliefs and makes them more introspective.

Yes, not only does SE promote critical thinking, it encourages those who already employ critical thinking (professionally or whatever) to aim their logic at their own personal beliefs. You have done well so far. And keep in mind, you are talking to a Christian who is "hardened" by being a member of an Atheist forum, and he's given his own beliefs some serious reflection. On the "street" you will be given an opportunity to cause your interlocutor to reflect on things "they hadn't really thought about before" which is the real beauty of street epistemology. I think you have been rather Socratic thus far. You are trying to bring out the truth which lies within them --not replace their beliefs with your own. The midwife analogy is appropriate.

I'd like it if you posted the results of your endeavor after you do it in person. 

Anyway, I thought about the non-physical evidence conundrum. I can think of things that are evident yet need no physical objects as proofs: What about a priori truths? There is absolutely no physical evidence with them. Things like the pythagorean theorem don't require a physical triangle in order to demonstrate that they are true. So there need not be physicality for something to be evident. (Of course the a priori arguments for God are something of a disaster.)

Anyway, good luck w/ your practice.

[RoadRunner79]

---

Unfortunately, this is not a summary, that I would agree with much at all.   It is curious, that you used the word "magic", a number of times, when I didn't appeal to anything of the sort. Why is that? To be honest, it feels more like your view of Christians, than a summary of what I had said. If you are confused by something, perhaps we can narrow it down some.     Now my understanding of Street Epistemology, is that it is not to debate the facts, but to look at the epistemology or how we know.  It is more general, and about the methods, rather than the specifics.  Is there some epistemological concern, that you suspect in regards to my belief in God?  I would think that in discussing the epistemology, that it is more like what we where talking about before (moving the goal posts for that which you do not want to believe).  Or perhaps it would be better to make it more specific, there is a lot of interconnected evidence to consider on such a broad topic, as believing in God. (Would you prefer to just discuss the resurrection perhaps)?.  

Some notes on your other comments:   You description on the undersigned coincidences, doesn't seem to be too bad.  As to the more general philosophical and scientific arguments, I don't think, that they are dependent on the historical evidence at all.  They stand on their own, and If I where convinced that Christianity wasn't true, I would likely be a deist, because of these.  I'm not saying that they are not as strong in their own, but only that they do not speak to some things.

---

I don't understand which part you don't agree with. Can you do me a favour and re-write the summary in the same format that I used to summarise your position, as it would make the discussion much easier.

You're right that you never said the word "magic", I'll retract that as I was trying to invoke a word that describes God's power. From what I understand of epistemology, it starts off being more general but then to understand how one would truly know something, it gets down to the detail after a while which I'd like to do. Note that we are talking about your belief so if we cannot get into the details on how you actually know if your belief is true by understanding the details surround the belief, we cannot further the conversation.

Also I don't think that I've begun debating so give me a heads up if I do and I'll stop. The whole point of epistemology isn't to debate but to analyse a belief and understand how one knows it's true.

But you've just agreed to my summary below on the general philisophical/scientific arguments below. What I was trying to say is that the philisophical/scientific arguments don't prove that the Judeo/Christian God exists, all it does is to justify that there's a certain (unknown) power out there influencing our universe.

Sorry for the delay, this isn't quite as good as I would like, but it is a quick bulleted point list for you.

• 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.
• Was intended, and received as historical.
• 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
• Many who changed their lives drastically, to both follow Jesus, and to tell the Gospel as seen in the above.
• 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.

[curiosne]

---

---

I don't understand which part you don't agree with. Can you do me a favour and re-write the summary in the same format that I used to summarise your position, as it would make the discussion much easier.

You're right that you never said the word "magic", I'll retract that as I was trying to invoke a word that describes God's power. From what I understand of epistemology, it starts off being more general but then to understand how one would truly know something, it gets down to the detail after a while which I'd like to do. Note that we are talking about your belief so if we cannot get into the details on how you actually know if your belief is true by understanding the details surround the belief, we cannot further the conversation.

Also I don't think that I've begun debating so give me a heads up if I do and I'll stop. The whole point of epistemology isn't to debate but to analyse a belief and understand how one knows it's true.

But you've just agreed to my summary below on the general philisophical/scientific arguments below. What I was trying to say is that the philisophical/scientific arguments don't prove that the Judeo/Christian God exists, all it does is to justify that there's a certain (unknown) power out there influencing our universe.

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.

[RoadRunner79]

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?