Street Epistemology - Practice

[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.

1)  Agreed on this. The evidence for existence of the gospels is not in doubt. 
2)  Agreed on this. 
3)  Can you provide more details on the witnesses? I don't think anyone though knows who wrote the Gospels and the names given to the writers were assigned arbitrarily.

4)  So are you saying that because the gospels have benefited people then it must be true? 
5)  I don't understand this. Please explain.