Thank you for getting this thread back on track. This thread is getting derailed by these legal arguments about evidence that is not of the type gemli meant when he used his shorthand of "stories require evidence" to indicate he was talking about supernatural stories which are stand alone stories with no physical evidence.
As the op, I'd like to request discussions get back to that, and that If others want to continue discussing the legalities of evidence such as ballistics to please start their own thread as that is not what this thread is about.
Marcus, But of course stories are evidence of God. By themselves weak but most believers look at the nature of the universe as reflecting God so there is a great deal of physical evidence. That does not escape the interpretive puzzles or uncertainties of course.
Paul and Stephen saw Jesus raised from the dead and in some way reflecting divine glory. Their story is about a real event, those individuals experience. Now that does not mean that there is only one way to interpret the story or event. It is possible to say their seeing was in the realm of imagination, hope, or enthusiasm. Just because evidence exists does not mean we have the truth safely in hand. I think Res Ipsa's observations about trials are relevant because they are about evaluating evidence. In trials evaluating evidence is taken seriously, and for me trials can also illustrate how knowing the truth can remain painfully out of reach.
I remember several scholars pointing out that the modern conception of history is a very recent phenomenon. The idea that someone recounts a story exactly as it happened, to preserve a real historical record, is a modern thing. Many ancient people would have recounted stories with embellishment, or made up stories, regardless of if they were true or not.
As recently as the Joseph Smith story you can see Joseph’s account of the first vision morphing over time, and you see the witnesses stating that they saw things with “spiritual eyes.” They weren’t really trying to make a historical record like we might today.
I repeat a question I asked earlier. Are stories about God, evidence of God’s existence?
Thank you for getting this thread back on track. This thread is getting derailed by these legal arguments about evidence that is not of the type gemli meant when he used his shorthand of "stories require evidence" to indicate he was talking about supernatural stories which are stand alone stories with no physical evidence.
As the op, I'd like to request discussions get back to that, and that If others want to continue discussing the legalities of evidence such as ballistics to please start their own thread as that is not what this thread is about.
By all means, when your posts include claims about whether stories are evidence, let's avoid talking about one of the most significant attempts in history to seriously think about what is and what is not evidence. Let's limit ourselves to uncritically praising Gemli's assertions about evidence.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Marcus, But of course stories are evidence of God. By themselves weak but most believers look at the nature of the universe as reflecting God so there is a great deal of physical evidence. That does not escape the interpretive puzzles or uncertainties of course.
Paul and Stephen saw Jesus raised from the dead and in some way reflecting divine glory. Their story is about a real event, those individuals experience. Now that does not mean that there is only one way to interpret the story or event. It is possible to say their seeing was in the realm of imagination, hope, or enthusiasm. Just because evidence exists does not mean we have the truth safely in hand. I think Res Ipsa's observations about trials are relevant because they are about evaluating evidence. In trials evaluating evidence is taken seriously, and for me trials can also illustrate how knowing the truth can remain painfully out of reach.
I remember several scholars pointing out that the modern conception of history is a very recent phenomenon. The idea that someone recounts a story exactly as it happened, to preserve a real historical record, is a modern thing. Many ancient people would have recounted stories with embellishment, or made up stories, regardless of if they were true or not.
As recently as the Joseph Smith story you can see Joseph’s account of the first vision morphing over time, and you see the witnesses stating that they saw things with “spiritual eyes.” They weren’t really trying to make a historical record like we might today.
I agree that considering context is critical, including the intent of the speaker or writer. Which makes evaluation of historical evidence a specialty. I'm not sure it is that easy to divine the intent of the witnesses. This was right at the dawn of spiritualism, when certain supernatural events were perceived as real. I don't think we can take the example of "spiritual eyes" and conclude that the witnesses were not trying to be accurate in a historical sense. They could just as well have viewed "spiritual eyes" as being 100% real, along with things the spiritual eyes reveal.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
I remember several scholars pointing out that the modern conception of history is a very recent phenomenon. The idea that someone recounts a story exactly as it happened, to preserve a real historical record, is a modern thing. Many ancient people would have recounted stories with embellishment, or made up stories, regardless of if they were true or not.
As recently as the Joseph Smith story you can see Joseph’s account of the first vision morphing over time, and you see the witnesses stating that they saw things with “spiritual eyes.” They weren’t really trying to make a historical record like we might today.
I agree that considering context is critical, including the intent of the speaker or writer. Which makes evaluation of historical evidence a specialty. I'm not sure it is that easy to divine the intent of the witnesses. This was right at the dawn of spiritualism, when certain supernatural events were perceived as real. I don't think we can take the example of "spiritual eyes" and conclude that the witnesses were not trying to be accurate in a historical sense. They could just as well have viewed "spiritual eyes" as being 100% real, along with things the spiritual eyes reveal.
That’s a good point. I think an argument can be made, but I wouldn’t say it’s conclusive.
Thank you for getting this thread back on track. This thread is getting derailed by these legal arguments about evidence that is not of the type gemli meant when he used his shorthand of "stories require evidence" to indicate he was talking about supernatural stories which are stand alone stories with no physical evidence.
As the op, I'd like to request discussions get back to that, and that If others want to continue discussing the legalities of evidence such as ballistics to please start their own thread as that is not what this thread is about.
By all means, when your posts include claims about whether stories are evidence, let's avoid talking about one of the most significant attempts in history to seriously think about what is and what is not evidence. Let's limit ourselves to uncritically praising Gemli's assertions about evidence.
That is in no way what I requested, nor does it in any way reflect past comments or the conversations about evidence that have been happening, and additionally your comment is inexcusably rude.
But, you are the moderator, so, you will make sure you get your way.
I agree that considering context is critical, including the intent of the speaker or writer. Which makes evaluation of historical evidence a specialty. I'm not sure it is that easy to divine the intent of the witnesses. This was right at the dawn of spiritualism, when certain supernatural events were perceived as real. I don't think we can take the example of "spiritual eyes" and conclude that the witnesses were not trying to be accurate in a historical sense. They could just as well have viewed "spiritual eyes" as being 100% real, along with things the spiritual eyes reveal.
That’s a good point. I think an argument can be made, but I wouldn’t say it’s conclusive.
Yeah, I think there are lots of arguments. in my opinion, conclusions about historical figures' intent are pretty iffy absent some kind of declaration of intent or confession.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Thank you for getting this thread back on track. This thread is getting derailed by these legal arguments about evidence that is not of the type gemli meant when he used his shorthand of "stories require evidence" to indicate he was talking about supernatural stories which are stand alone stories with no physical evidence.
As the op, I'd like to request discussions get back to that, and that If others want to continue discussing the legalities of evidence such as ballistics to please start their own thread as that is not what this thread is about.
By all means, when your posts include claims about whether stories are evidence, let's avoid talking about one of the most significant attempts in history to seriously think about what is and what is not evidence. Let's limit ourselves to uncritically praising Gemli's assertions about evidence.
That is in no way what I requested, nor does it in any way reflect past comments or the conversations about evidence that have been happening, and additionally your comment is inexcusably rude.
But, you are the moderator, so, you will make sure you get your way.
By all means, when your posts include claims about whether stories are evidence, let's avoid talking about one of the most significant attempts in history to seriously think about what is and what is not evidence. Let's limit ourselves to uncritically praising Gemli's assertions about evidence.
That is in no way what I requested, nor does it in any way reflect past comments or the conversations about evidence that have been happening, and additionally your comment is inexcusably rude.
But, you are the moderator, so, you will make sure you get your way.
Note to self. Use sarcasm tags with Marcus.
You posted copypasta of a bunch of of Gemli's posts that included claims about stories as evidence. You even quoted that one. To now claim that a serious discussion about the consideration of stories as evidence is a "derail" is, as you say, inexcusably rude.
Get what way? I'm just posting. You're back seat moderating.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Thank you for getting this thread back on track. This thread is getting derailed by these legal arguments about evidence that is not of the type gemli meant when he used his shorthand of "stories require evidence" to indicate he was talking about supernatural stories which are stand alone stories with no physical evidence.
As the op, I'd like to request discussions get back to that, and that If others want to continue discussing the legalities of evidence such as ballistics to please start their own thread as that is not what this thread is about.
By all means, when your posts include claims about whether stories are evidence, let's avoid talking about one of the most significant attempts in history to seriously think about what is and what is not evidence. Let's limit ourselves to uncritically praising Gemli's assertions about evidence.
That is in no way what I requested, nor does it in any way reflect past comments or the conversations about evidence that have been happening, and additionally your comment is inexcusably rude.
But, you are the moderator, so, you will make sure you get your way.
