Burden of proof for god's existence in a legal setting?
29 Nov 2011, 5:35 am
LKL wrote:
Do we even have verifiable, same-time 3rd hand evidence for Jesus' existence? IIrc the earliest known documents that mention him are from decades after his death. If my parents told me, 'when I was a kid, I had a friend who had a friend who could walk on water,' I would take it with a pretty significant dose of proverbial salt.
The problem with the standard that you are setting is that you have ramped it up so high that a good deal of history would slip through.
To make a case from inside of the Biblical sources is not to discount the evidence from outside of the Bible, there is actually a great deal. The vast majority of scholars would agree to this statement from Luke Johnson
Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death.
If you want to discount the evidence for Jesus that exists within the Bible then you are basically just engaging special pleading when your claims are placed next to the standard used in ancient history. What you don't seem to understand is that when discussing the ancient world; 'decades after his death' is pretty bloody soon. Literary evidence for the life of Alexander the Great comes from written records centuries after his death.
Just one interesting example for you. Luke the author of the Gospel of Luke (he was likely a follower and scribe of Paul) and the Acts of the Aposltes (Acts contains one of the earliest passion sources btw, dating to within only a few years of Jesus's death) writes in the style of someone who is trained in the writing style of a Greek Historian. We know that both Luke and Paul interviewed eyewitnesses to the events of Jesus's life, in Jerusalem. Luke's work overlaps also with the secular history to the point where the historical accuracy of Acts all points to its legitimacy. There are huge overlaps that point to it's contemporary status from the Alexandrian Corn fleet to the peculiar titles of the local officials. Prof. Sherwin-White of Oxford states "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd." Sir William Michell Ramsay the famous Scottish Archaeologist states ""Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." You may chose to distrust Luke on the grounds you cited, both here and elsewhere, but the historical evidence would be against you.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
29 Nov 2011, 7:08 am
Vexcalibur wrote:
Why is the discussion about the existence of Jesus, when the title is about the existence of god?
because it was brought up on the first page as a 'slam dunk' by a Christian using a questionable claim.
@ 91: I don't question whether Alexander the Great existed, but I do question whether he had a fabulous horse with a horn, named Bucephalus, whom he tamed by turning him so that he couldn't see his own shadow. History and myth got intertwined pretty quickly back in those days.
FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if someone found some solid evidence of an itinerant rabbi/carpenter named Yeshua who said nice things and did some faith-healing. I would be surprised to find solid evidence of any real miracles like the loaves-and-fishes thing or the dead rising from their graves all over the region. My point has been that said evidence does not currently exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Date
quote:
Quote:
AD 75 to 100
Most contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source used by Luke (see Markan Priority).[65] If it is true that Mark was written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70,[66] they theorize that Luke would not have been written before 70. Some who take this view believe that Luke's prediction of the destruction of the temple could not be a result of Jesus predicting the future but with the benefit of hindsight regarding specific details. They believe that the discussion in Luke 21:5-30 is specific enough (more specific than Mark's or Matthew's) that a date after 70 seems necessary, if disputed.[67][68] These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100. Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. Differences of chronology, "style", and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts was not familiar with Paul's distinctive theology but instead was writing a decade or more after his death, by which point significant harmonization between different traditions within Early Christianity had occurred.[69] Furthermore, Luke-Acts has views on Jesus' divine nature, the end times, and salvation that are similar to the those found in Pastoral epistles, which are often seen as pseudonymous and of a later date than the undisputed Pauline Epistles.[70]
Some scholars from the Jesus Seminar argue that the birth narratives of Luke and Matthew are a late development in gospel writing about Jesus.[33] In this view, Luke might have originally started at 3:1,[33] with John the Baptist.
The terminus ad quem, or latest possible date, for Luke is bound by the earliest papyri manuscripts that contains portions of Luke (late 2nd/early 3rd century)[71] and the mid to late 2nd century writings that quote or reference Luke. The work is reflected in the Didache, the Gnostic writings of Basilides and Valentinus, the apologetics of the Church Father Justin Martyr, and was used by Marcion.[72] Christian scholar Donald Guthrie claims that the Gospel was likely widely known before the end of the 1st century, and was fully recognized by the early part of the second,[73] while Helmut Koester states that aside from Marcion, "there is no certain evidence for its usage," prior to ca. 150.[74] In the middle of the 2nd century, an edited version of the Gospel of Luke was the only gospel accepted by Marcion, a heretic who rejected Christianity's connection to Jewish scripture.[75]
[edit] Before AD 70
A minority argument for a date between AD 37 and AD 61 for the Gospel[76] typically suggests that Luke's address to "Most Excellent Theophilus," may be a reference to the Roman-imposed High Priest of Israel between AD 37 and AD 41, Theophilus ben Ananus.
Most contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source used by Luke (see Markan Priority).[65] If it is true that Mark was written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70,[66] they theorize that Luke would not have been written before 70. Some who take this view believe that Luke's prediction of the destruction of the temple could not be a result of Jesus predicting the future but with the benefit of hindsight regarding specific details. They believe that the discussion in Luke 21:5-30 is specific enough (more specific than Mark's or Matthew's) that a date after 70 seems necessary, if disputed.[67][68] These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100. Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. Differences of chronology, "style", and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts was not familiar with Paul's distinctive theology but instead was writing a decade or more after his death, by which point significant harmonization between different traditions within Early Christianity had occurred.[69] Furthermore, Luke-Acts has views on Jesus' divine nature, the end times, and salvation that are similar to the those found in Pastoral epistles, which are often seen as pseudonymous and of a later date than the undisputed Pauline Epistles.[70]
Some scholars from the Jesus Seminar argue that the birth narratives of Luke and Matthew are a late development in gospel writing about Jesus.[33] In this view, Luke might have originally started at 3:1,[33] with John the Baptist.
The terminus ad quem, or latest possible date, for Luke is bound by the earliest papyri manuscripts that contains portions of Luke (late 2nd/early 3rd century)[71] and the mid to late 2nd century writings that quote or reference Luke. The work is reflected in the Didache, the Gnostic writings of Basilides and Valentinus, the apologetics of the Church Father Justin Martyr, and was used by Marcion.[72] Christian scholar Donald Guthrie claims that the Gospel was likely widely known before the end of the 1st century, and was fully recognized by the early part of the second,[73] while Helmut Koester states that aside from Marcion, "there is no certain evidence for its usage," prior to ca. 150.[74] In the middle of the 2nd century, an edited version of the Gospel of Luke was the only gospel accepted by Marcion, a heretic who rejected Christianity's connection to Jewish scripture.[75]
[edit] Before AD 70
A minority argument for a date between AD 37 and AD 61 for the Gospel[76] typically suggests that Luke's address to "Most Excellent Theophilus," may be a reference to the Roman-imposed High Priest of Israel between AD 37 and AD 41, Theophilus ben Ananus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles
quote:
Quote:
The book of Acts has been most commonly dated to the second half of the 1st century. Norman Geisler dates it as early as between 60-62.[17] Donald Guthrie, who dates the book between 62-64,[18] notes that the absence of any mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 would be unlikely if the book were written afterward. He also suggested that since the book does not mention the death of Paul, a central character in the final chapters, it was likely penned before his death.[19] Guthrie also saw traces of Acts in Polycarp's letter to the Philippians (written between 110-140) and one letter by Ignatius († about 117)[20] and thought that Acts probably was current in Antioch and Smyrna not later than c. 115, and perhaps in Rome as early as c. 96.[21]
A small indicator about the earliest possible date may be in Acts 6:9 which mentions the Province of Cilicia. The Roman province by that name had been on hiatus from 27 BC and re-established by Emperor Vespasian only in 72 AD.[22] However, since Paul was from Cilicia and refers to himself using this name (see Acts 21:39, 22:3), it seems very natural that the name Cilicia would have continued to be in colloquial use among its residents despite its hiatus in official Roman nomenclature.
Parallels between Acts and Josephus' The Wars of the Jews (written in 75-80) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94) have long been argued.[23] Several scholars have argued that Acts used material from both of Josephus' works, rather than the other way around, which would indicate that Acts was written around the year 100 or later.[24][25] Three points of contact with Josephus in particular are cited: (1) The circumstances attending the death of Agrippa I in 44. Here Acts 12:21-23 is largely parallel to Antiquities 19.8.2; (2) the cause of the Egyptian pseudo-prophet in Acts 21:37f and in Josephus (War 2.13.5; Antiquities 20.8.6); (3) the curious resemblance as to the order in which Theudas and Judas of Galilee are referred to in both (Acts 5:36f; Antiquities 20.5.1).[citation needed]
According to John T. Townsend, "it is not before the last decades of the second century that one finds undisputed traces of the work."[26] Townsend, turning to the sources behind the pseudo-Clementine writings, argues that the middle of the 2nd century is the terminus ad quem for the final composition. According to Richard I. Pervo, "Townsend's methodologically adventurous but ultimately cautious essay is another valuable lesson in the danger of establishing the date of Acts–or any work–by arguing for the earliest possible time of origin."[27]
A small indicator about the earliest possible date may be in Acts 6:9 which mentions the Province of Cilicia. The Roman province by that name had been on hiatus from 27 BC and re-established by Emperor Vespasian only in 72 AD.[22] However, since Paul was from Cilicia and refers to himself using this name (see Acts 21:39, 22:3), it seems very natural that the name Cilicia would have continued to be in colloquial use among its residents despite its hiatus in official Roman nomenclature.
Parallels between Acts and Josephus' The Wars of the Jews (written in 75-80) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94) have long been argued.[23] Several scholars have argued that Acts used material from both of Josephus' works, rather than the other way around, which would indicate that Acts was written around the year 100 or later.[24][25] Three points of contact with Josephus in particular are cited: (1) The circumstances attending the death of Agrippa I in 44. Here Acts 12:21-23 is largely parallel to Antiquities 19.8.2; (2) the cause of the Egyptian pseudo-prophet in Acts 21:37f and in Josephus (War 2.13.5; Antiquities 20.8.6); (3) the curious resemblance as to the order in which Theudas and Judas of Galilee are referred to in both (Acts 5:36f; Antiquities 20.5.1).[citation needed]
According to John T. Townsend, "it is not before the last decades of the second century that one finds undisputed traces of the work."[26] Townsend, turning to the sources behind the pseudo-Clementine writings, argues that the middle of the 2nd century is the terminus ad quem for the final composition. According to Richard I. Pervo, "Townsend's methodologically adventurous but ultimately cautious essay is another valuable lesson in the danger of establishing the date of Acts–or any work–by arguing for the earliest possible time of origin."[27]
see also:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html
for a more thorough discussion.
29 Nov 2011, 7:55 am
LKL wrote:
Do we even have verifiable, same-time 3rd hand evidence for Jesus' existence? IIrc the earliest known documents that mention him are from decades after his death. If my parents told me, 'when I was a kid, I had a friend who had a friend who could walk on water,' I would take it with a pretty significant dose of proverbial salt.
I'd probably end up accepting they had a friend though, and that the walking on water was some delusion, magic trick, or story that went around.
Yeah, definitely take Jesus claims with a lot of salt. Pepper too.
29 Nov 2011, 5:24 pm
So here's the basics, as I see them:
1) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the onus always lies on the party pursuing the matter, (whether it be plaintiff, petitioner or applicant). The benefit of the doubt always accrues to the answering party (whether respondent or defendant). When subsidiary claims (such as counterclaims, cross claims or third party claims) the onus, in respect of these claims, lies with the party propounding them, even if they are the respondent in the principal action.
2) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the standard of proof is, "on the balance of probabilities." (As distinct from the criminal law standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" or the administrative law standard of "reasonable grounds to believe.")
3) The admissibility of evidence is subject to the laws of evidence. In particular, the rules of hearsay and the rules regarding presenting written evidence by deponents who are not avaiable for cross examination.
Given a scarcity of witnesses in a position to provide direct, viva voce evidence, I suspect that any attempt to apply the principles of evidence law are doomed to fail.
_________________
--James
29 Nov 2011, 6:09 pm
LKL wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Why is the discussion about the existence of Jesus, when the title is about the existence of god?
because it was brought up on the first page as a 'slam dunk' by a Christian using a questionable claim.
Meh. Let's debate the definition of the word, "if"...
29 Nov 2011, 11:25 pm
visagrunt wrote:
So here's the basics, as I see them:
1) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the onus always lies on the party pursuing the matter, (whether it be plaintiff, petitioner or applicant). The benefit of the doubt always accrues to the answering party (whether respondent or defendant). When subsidiary claims (such as counterclaims, cross claims or third party claims) the onus, in respect of these claims, lies with the party propounding them, even if they are the respondent in the principal action.
2) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the standard of proof is, "on the balance of probabilities." (As distinct from the criminal law standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" or the administrative law standard of "reasonable grounds to believe.")
3) The admissibility of evidence is subject to the laws of evidence. In particular, the rules of hearsay and the rules regarding presenting written evidence by deponents who are not avaiable for cross examination.
Given a scarcity of witnesses in a position to provide direct, viva voce evidence, I suspect that any attempt to apply the principles of evidence law are doomed to fail.
1) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the onus always lies on the party pursuing the matter, (whether it be plaintiff, petitioner or applicant). The benefit of the doubt always accrues to the answering party (whether respondent or defendant). When subsidiary claims (such as counterclaims, cross claims or third party claims) the onus, in respect of these claims, lies with the party propounding them, even if they are the respondent in the principal action.
2) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the standard of proof is, "on the balance of probabilities." (As distinct from the criminal law standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" or the administrative law standard of "reasonable grounds to believe.")
3) The admissibility of evidence is subject to the laws of evidence. In particular, the rules of hearsay and the rules regarding presenting written evidence by deponents who are not avaiable for cross examination.
Given a scarcity of witnesses in a position to provide direct, viva voce evidence, I suspect that any attempt to apply the principles of evidence law are doomed to fail.
Documented history could provide evidence if such documents were readily available. To most of the population they are not as it's been mentioned the sources are old and in the process of being preserved.
30 Nov 2011, 1:06 am
cw10 wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
So here's the basics, as I see them:
1) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the onus always lies on the party pursuing the matter, (whether it be plaintiff, petitioner or applicant). The benefit of the doubt always accrues to the answering party (whether respondent or defendant). When subsidiary claims (such as counterclaims, cross claims or third party claims) the onus, in respect of these claims, lies with the party propounding them, even if they are the respondent in the principal action.
2) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the standard of proof is, "on the balance of probabilities." (As distinct from the criminal law standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" or the administrative law standard of "reasonable grounds to believe.")
3) The admissibility of evidence is subject to the laws of evidence. In particular, the rules of hearsay and the rules regarding presenting written evidence by deponents who are not avaiable for cross examination.
Given a scarcity of witnesses in a position to provide direct, viva voce evidence, I suspect that any attempt to apply the principles of evidence law are doomed to fail.
1) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the onus always lies on the party pursuing the matter, (whether it be plaintiff, petitioner or applicant). The benefit of the doubt always accrues to the answering party (whether respondent or defendant). When subsidiary claims (such as counterclaims, cross claims or third party claims) the onus, in respect of these claims, lies with the party propounding them, even if they are the respondent in the principal action.
2) Unless otherwise provided by statute, the standard of proof is, "on the balance of probabilities." (As distinct from the criminal law standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" or the administrative law standard of "reasonable grounds to believe.")
3) The admissibility of evidence is subject to the laws of evidence. In particular, the rules of hearsay and the rules regarding presenting written evidence by deponents who are not avaiable for cross examination.
Given a scarcity of witnesses in a position to provide direct, viva voce evidence, I suspect that any attempt to apply the principles of evidence law are doomed to fail.
Documented history could provide evidence if such documents were readily available. To most of the population they are not as it's been mentioned the sources are old and in the process of being preserved.
Hi cw10,
A deja vu reminded me to mention how fragile "factual" history often turns out.
One "lost" document, "The Autobiography of Augustus", and the book "Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan" by Edmund Morris (1999), are two examples.
One of the works might have had "fictional" individuals in the work, the other work had at least one fictional individual in the work, that is, the 1999 work.
Wikipedia cites the 1999 work too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch:_A_M ... ald_Reagan
If, and when, only fragments of the 1999 work remain, how are the fictional parts to be identified as fictional?
Tadzio
30 Nov 2011, 4:45 am
LKL wrote:
History and myth got intertwined pretty quickly back in those days.
FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if someone found some solid evidence of an itinerant rabbi/carpenter named Yeshua who said nice things and did some faith-healing. I would be surprised to find solid evidence of any real miracles like the loaves-and-fishes thing or the dead rising from their graves all over the region. My point has been that said evidence does not currently exist.
FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if someone found some solid evidence of an itinerant rabbi/carpenter named Yeshua who said nice things and did some faith-healing. I would be surprised to find solid evidence of any real miracles like the loaves-and-fishes thing or the dead rising from their graves all over the region. My point has been that said evidence does not currently exist.
If you want to go through the argument for the resurrection start a new thread, I will be happy to put forward some stuff.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
30 Nov 2011, 5:42 am
91 wrote:
LKL wrote:
History and myth got intertwined pretty quickly back in those days.
FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if someone found some solid evidence of an itinerant rabbi/carpenter named Yeshua who said nice things and did some faith-healing. I would be surprised to find solid evidence of any real miracles like the loaves-and-fishes thing or the dead rising from their graves all over the region. My point has been that said evidence does not currently exist.
FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if someone found some solid evidence of an itinerant rabbi/carpenter named Yeshua who said nice things and did some faith-healing. I would be surprised to find solid evidence of any real miracles like the loaves-and-fishes thing or the dead rising from their graves all over the region. My point has been that said evidence does not currently exist.
If you want to go through the argument for the resurrection start a new thread, I will be happy to put forward some stuff.
Hi LKL,
91 posted another link to William Lane Craig saying ""With the collapse of verificationism": _____So Anyone Can Fill In Any Nonsense From Craig They Want, Since Verification Is Not Required, and in fact prohibited by "True-Believers" off in La-La Land.
"Properly understanding our culture is important because the gospel is never heard in isolation. It is always heard against the background of the current cultural milieu. A person raised in a cultural milieu in which Christianity is still seen as an intellectually viable option will display an openness to the gospel. But you may as well tell the secularist to believe in fairies or leprechauns as in Jesus Christ! Christians who depreciate natural theology because 'no one comes to faith through intellectual arguments' are therefore tragically shortsighted."
http://www.carnivalsage.com/articles/0- ... craig.html
"Collapse of Verificationism" exploitations: http://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&sour ... icationism
Tadzio
P.S.: In William Lane Craig's "Response", about the middle down the web-page, linked by 91's link, poorly shielded in B.S. technicalities: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=9089
30 Nov 2011, 8:26 am
Verificationism is dead and has been for decades now. As a school of philosophical inquiry, it is self refuting, since the verification principle cannot itself be verified. Verificationism is a specific subset of epistemology, Craig does not ignore it, he like just about every modern philosopher, considered it dead, for the reason I just mentioned. You should stop just slinging mud.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
30 Nov 2011, 9:17 am
Tadzio wrote:
Hi cw10,
A deja vu reminded me to mention how fragile "factual" history often turns out.
One "lost" document, "The Autobiography of Augustus", and the book "Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan" by Edmund Morris (1999), are two examples.
One of the works might have had "fictional" individuals in the work, the other work had at least one fictional individual in the work, that is, the 1999 work.
Wikipedia cites the 1999 work too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch:_A_M ... ald_Reagan
If, and when, only fragments of the 1999 work remain, how are the fictional parts to be identified as fictional?
Tadzio
A deja vu reminded me to mention how fragile "factual" history often turns out.
One "lost" document, "The Autobiography of Augustus", and the book "Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan" by Edmund Morris (1999), are two examples.
One of the works might have had "fictional" individuals in the work, the other work had at least one fictional individual in the work, that is, the 1999 work.
Wikipedia cites the 1999 work too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch:_A_M ... ald_Reagan
If, and when, only fragments of the 1999 work remain, how are the fictional parts to be identified as fictional?
Tadzio
Therein lies the paradox. In this case I think logical arguments would have to be hotly debated until everyone could agree on the framework behind the plausibility evidence. Logical frameworks are often inferred through indirect evidence when many minds working on the problem come at it from different ways of thinking. At least in philosophy. Essentially I'd look for a good thesis on the evidence. A worldwide wiki of plausible evidence pulled from whatever sources are available. Whatever is found would be put through the ringer and could foreseeably be given a score based on the strength of the opinion or plausibility of the claim.
30 Nov 2011, 2:09 pm
Some thoughts on the matter by great legal minds:
Quote:
Lord Darling, a former Lord Chief Justice in England, asserts: “In its favor as a living truth there
exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no
intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.”
John Singleton Copley (Lord Lyndhurst, 1772–1863) is recognized as one of the greatest legal
minds in British history. He was Solicitor General of the British government, Attorney General of
Great Britain, three times the High Chancellor of England and elected High Steward of the
University of Cambridge. He challenges, “I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such
evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet.”
Hugo Grotius was a noted “jurist and scholar whose works are of fundamental importance in
international law,” according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. He wrote Latin elegies at the age of
eight and entered Leiden University at eleven. Considered “the father of international law,” he
wrote The Truth of the Christian Religion (1627) in which he legally defended the historical fact of
the Resurrection.
J. N. D. Anderson, in the words of Armand Nicholi of the Harvard Medical School (Christianity
Today, March 29, 1968), is a scholar of international repute, eminently qualified to deal with the
subject of evidence. He is one of the world’s leading authorities on Muslim law, Dean of the Faculty
of Law at the University of London, Chairman of the Department of Oriental Law at the School of
Oriental and African Studies, and Director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the
University of London. In Anderson’s text, Christianity: The Witness of History, he supplies the
standard evidences for the Resurrection and asks, “How, then, can the fact of the resurrection be
denied?” Anderson further emphasizes, “Lastly, it can be asserted with confidence that men and
women disbelieve the Easter story not because of the evidence but in spite of it.”
Sir Edward Clark, K. C., observes:
As a lawyer, I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first
Easter day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I
have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on
evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The gospel evidence
for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as a testimony of
truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate.
Irwin H. Linton was a Washington, D.C. lawyer who argued cases before the U.S. Supreme
Court. In A Lawyer Examines the Bible, he challenges his fellow lawyers “by every acid test known
to the law...to examine the case for the Bible just as they would any important matter submitted to
their professional attention by a client... .” He believes that the evidence for Christianity is
“overwhelming” and that at least “three independent and converging lines of proof,” each of which
“is conclusive in itself,” establish the truth of the Christian faith. Linton observed that “the logical,
historical... proofs of... Christianity are so indisputable that I have found them to arrest the surprised
attention of just about every man to whom I have presented them....” He further argues the
Resurrection “is not only so established that the greatest lawyers have declared it to be the best
proved fact of all history, but it is so supported that it is difficult to conceive of any method or line of
proof that it lacks which would make [it] more certain.” And that, even among lawyers, “he who
does not accept wholeheartedly the evangelical, conservative belief in Christ and the Scriptures has
never read, has forgotten, or never been able to weigh—and certainly is utterly unable to refute—
the irresistible force of the cumulative evidence upon which such faith rests....”
He concluded the claims of Christian faith are so well established by such a variety of
independent and converging proofs that “it has been said again and again by great lawyers that
they cannot but be regarded as proved under the strictest rules of evidence used in the highest
American and English courts.”
Simon Greenleaf was the author of the classic three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of
Evidence (1842), which, according to Dr. Wilbur Smith “is still considered the greatest single
authority on evidence in the entire literature on legal procedure.” Greenleaf himself is considered
one of the greatest authorities on common-law evidence in Western history.
Lord Caldecote, Lord Chief Justice of England, observed that an “overwhelming case for the
Resurrection could be made merely as a matter of strict evidence” and that “His Resurrection has
led me as often as I have tried to examine the evidence to believe it as a fact beyond dispute....”
(cf., Thomas Sherlock’s Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which places the
Resurrection in a legally argued forum and in the words of lawyer Irwin Linton, “will give anyone so
reading it the comfortable assurance that he knows the utmost that can be said against the proof of
the central fact of our faith and also how utterly every such attack can be met and answered.” At
the end of the legal battle one understands why, “The jury returned a verdict in favor of the
testimony establishing the fact of Christ’s resurrection.”)
exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no
intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.”
John Singleton Copley (Lord Lyndhurst, 1772–1863) is recognized as one of the greatest legal
minds in British history. He was Solicitor General of the British government, Attorney General of
Great Britain, three times the High Chancellor of England and elected High Steward of the
University of Cambridge. He challenges, “I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such
evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet.”
Hugo Grotius was a noted “jurist and scholar whose works are of fundamental importance in
international law,” according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. He wrote Latin elegies at the age of
eight and entered Leiden University at eleven. Considered “the father of international law,” he
wrote The Truth of the Christian Religion (1627) in which he legally defended the historical fact of
the Resurrection.
J. N. D. Anderson, in the words of Armand Nicholi of the Harvard Medical School (Christianity
Today, March 29, 1968), is a scholar of international repute, eminently qualified to deal with the
subject of evidence. He is one of the world’s leading authorities on Muslim law, Dean of the Faculty
of Law at the University of London, Chairman of the Department of Oriental Law at the School of
Oriental and African Studies, and Director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the
University of London. In Anderson’s text, Christianity: The Witness of History, he supplies the
standard evidences for the Resurrection and asks, “How, then, can the fact of the resurrection be
denied?” Anderson further emphasizes, “Lastly, it can be asserted with confidence that men and
women disbelieve the Easter story not because of the evidence but in spite of it.”
Sir Edward Clark, K. C., observes:
As a lawyer, I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first
Easter day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I
have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on
evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The gospel evidence
for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as a testimony of
truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate.
Irwin H. Linton was a Washington, D.C. lawyer who argued cases before the U.S. Supreme
Court. In A Lawyer Examines the Bible, he challenges his fellow lawyers “by every acid test known
to the law...to examine the case for the Bible just as they would any important matter submitted to
their professional attention by a client... .” He believes that the evidence for Christianity is
“overwhelming” and that at least “three independent and converging lines of proof,” each of which
“is conclusive in itself,” establish the truth of the Christian faith. Linton observed that “the logical,
historical... proofs of... Christianity are so indisputable that I have found them to arrest the surprised
attention of just about every man to whom I have presented them....” He further argues the
Resurrection “is not only so established that the greatest lawyers have declared it to be the best
proved fact of all history, but it is so supported that it is difficult to conceive of any method or line of
proof that it lacks which would make [it] more certain.” And that, even among lawyers, “he who
does not accept wholeheartedly the evangelical, conservative belief in Christ and the Scriptures has
never read, has forgotten, or never been able to weigh—and certainly is utterly unable to refute—
the irresistible force of the cumulative evidence upon which such faith rests....”
He concluded the claims of Christian faith are so well established by such a variety of
independent and converging proofs that “it has been said again and again by great lawyers that
they cannot but be regarded as proved under the strictest rules of evidence used in the highest
American and English courts.”
Simon Greenleaf was the author of the classic three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of
Evidence (1842), which, according to Dr. Wilbur Smith “is still considered the greatest single
authority on evidence in the entire literature on legal procedure.” Greenleaf himself is considered
one of the greatest authorities on common-law evidence in Western history.
Lord Caldecote, Lord Chief Justice of England, observed that an “overwhelming case for the
Resurrection could be made merely as a matter of strict evidence” and that “His Resurrection has
led me as often as I have tried to examine the evidence to believe it as a fact beyond dispute....”
(cf., Thomas Sherlock’s Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which places the
Resurrection in a legally argued forum and in the words of lawyer Irwin Linton, “will give anyone so
reading it the comfortable assurance that he knows the utmost that can be said against the proof of
the central fact of our faith and also how utterly every such attack can be met and answered.” At
the end of the legal battle one understands why, “The jury returned a verdict in favor of the
testimony establishing the fact of Christ’s resurrection.”)
source: http://www.philosophy-religion.org/faith/pdfs/Resurrection.pdf
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.
30 Nov 2011, 6:48 pm
91 wrote:
Verificationism is dead and has been for decades now. As a school of philosophical inquiry, it is self refuting, since the verification principle cannot itself be verified. Verificationism is a specific subset of epistemology, Craig does not ignore it, he like just about every modern philosopher, considered it dead, for the reason I just mentioned. You should stop just slinging mud.
Hi 91,
You cite me often for not "being to the forum", with this forum being "Burden of Proof....In a legal setting", but you continue to defend your claimed "Verificationism is dead and has been for decades now".
Today's "legal settings" holds "verificationism as dead"?
That is certainly balderdash. Legal settings demand more "verfication" of evidence and satisfied legal standards dealing with reapeatedly verified realities more now than ever before. Of course, individuals and groups who don't wish many of their actions, impacting other people, to be subjected to any valid and objective legal standards with the slighest degree of any manner involving "verification" of legal facts. (Even to the extremes of "Santa Claus told his "agent" to "do it" with acts of violence, as a "get out of jail for free" defense, that can not be challenged and/or verified as baseless under any ridiculous fanatic's doctrine of "verification is dead" for jurisprudence in legal settings).
Next, the "word game" of the elements of "Verificationism" will be claimed someting else, or a "new & improved" version of the "Verifiability Principle", which invalidates "The Encylopedia of Philosophy" whenever a "Craig-ism" of his, or his cult followers of, twisted splinter group's usages of "Christian Apologetics". Such questionable practices are doing the more generalized groupings of "Christian Apologetics" potentially spreading damage. I previously cited a person's publications critical of the book you referred me to, to "correct" what you held as my "wrong" line of reasonning, expressing such concerns of this "spreading damage" to Christian apologetics.
Craig is not like "every modern philosopher". Craig is like a narrow group as of "The Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture", much as:
HerrGrim said:
HerrGrimm wrote:
91 wrote:
Craig is not s 'promoter' of intelligent design, he is agnostic towards it; but open to their claim that a design inference is a valid philosophical conclusion. You just named emotional topics in an attempt to throw as much mud as possible on his position.
He is a fellow at The Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture, the major ID advocacy group in America (which is missing from that list you gave, although I am not sure how much a CV covers).
Craig also is at Talbot School of Theology, with a doctrinal statement which states:
Quote:
The Bible, consisting of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, is the Word of God, a supernaturally given revelation from God Himself, concerning Himself, His being, nature, character, will and purposes; and concerning man, his nature, need and duty and destiny. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind.
and
Quote:
Therefore, creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and (c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.
I guess you should define what 'agnostic' really is. Does Craig not believe in Talbot's doctrinal statement?
You have cited sources to me of your large citations, with the very misnomer of "Reasonible Faith", and when I cite them back to you for clarification & further explanation (since membership is required as a low number of "clicks are used"), you call your very own material being used as "slinging mud". To me, the following is much worse than mud, and you still have failed to clarify and/or explaine your citing me to such as a website containing much as:
"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing."
From William Lane Craig's postings at: sourced:::reasonablefaith-dot-org:::sourced
You also called your statement of "Here is a good example of how atheists mischaracterize Dr. Craig", with my amateur attempts of using the website poster program here, posting a different video "adverse" to Doctorate Craig, as being "used" by me eliciting your response "You changed the video in that quote, very dishonest...", as if this video is not a mischaracterization in your view of Craig, and you didn't want "verification" put into practice:
Tadzio wrote:
Hi DC,
Here's the "Terrel Rotation" paper again. It's "difficult" to understand compared to popular myths like "Santa Clause". So, here also is (5) "The Man on the Street and Presentism", since "keeping it 'worm-in-the-brain' simple" is might ruin WLC's shell-game:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8836/4/ ... ignals.pdf
http://www.guspepper.net/electro/Segund ... /Funez.pdf
http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/courses/m3 ... rell1.html
Tadzio
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JQD6uVVqf0
[/youtube]
http://www.facebook.com/pages/William-L ... 7752136532
Here's the "Terrel Rotation" paper again. It's "difficult" to understand compared to popular myths like "Santa Clause". So, here also is (5) "The Man on the Street and Presentism", since "keeping it 'worm-in-the-brain' simple" is might ruin WLC's shell-game:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8836/4/ ... ignals.pdf
http://www.guspepper.net/electro/Segund ... /Funez.pdf
http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/courses/m3 ... rell1.html
Tadzio
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JQD6uVVqf0
[/youtube]
http://www.facebook.com/pages/William-L ... 7752136532
Please do not prescribe your own labels applied to yourself by yourself as recommended by you to me.
Tadzio
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Burden of Proof for God's existence |
14 Dec 2011, 4:33 pm |
| The Burden Of Proof Should Be For... |
22 May 2009, 11:14 am |
| Burden of proof of Laden's responsability for 911. |
10 May 2011, 5:26 pm |
| Burden of proof that Bill Clinton was ever president. |
06 May 2011, 1:24 am |
