hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (06/09/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ > { From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) } > > What Is Objective Evidence > > There is a fine line separating "objective" and "subjective" reasoning. > Webster defines "objective" as "that which is verifiable by observation" > and "perceptible to persons other than an affected individual", and > finally, "expressing the nature of reality as it is apart from personal > reflections or feelings". > > Well, that solves the problem, doesn't it? In order for Christianity to > prove as true, its claims should be provable by evidence that is > perceptible to persons unaffected by it. But, this is not as easy as it > appears. Who is not affected by Christianity? Only those who have never > heard of it. But not having heard of it, it would not be perceptible to > them. But you say, Christianity does not affect sceptics. But, to reject > a belief is to be affected by it. To reject Christianity, one must first > understand its claims, then reject them in favor of an alternate view. Nope. I can simply reject it without going to an alternative viewpoint. > You have just been affected by Christianity. It's existence was > instrumental in the formation of your belief system. Wrong. My "belief system" (your words) was formed a long time ago. It consists only of methods, not doctrines. I might change my beliefs, but the methods will be the same. > Lets suppose that you are unaffected by Christianity and can remain > neutral or "objective". What possible "objective" evidences are there > that could lead you to believe in it? Its teachings include: God created > the universe and life, Man a free and moral agent rebelled against his > creator which subsequently resulted in separation from God and moral > depravity, God then justified and redeemed His creation through the > Incarnation, Salvation is now offered as a gift, through faith. > > Are any of these acts on the part of God verifiable through observation? The first question is: "Does God exist?" You have not provided any reasons to assume this. (STRIKE ONE) > The answer would seem to be NO! Since none of us were there to witness > any of it. No. That is not the reason for the lack of evidence. If so, no one can be incriminate for any crime short of eye-witness accounts. This is obviously incorrect. > However, what if we had been there to see it? Is this purely > objective evidence? Might we not have been mistaken? Isn't the hand > quicker than the eye? Could it have been an illusion or a dream? Have we > not been affected by what we saw? If we take it to far, "objective > evidence" seems to be non-existant. You are right. You cannot have objective evidence for supernatural events. > So what can we consider "objective" as opposed to "subjective"? There > has to some criteria for a reasonable person to follow in discerning > what can be considered objective evidence! Thanks for the info, jack. > How do we know Abe Lincoln existed? How do we know Hitler existed? If we > weren't there to see them, (even if you were, you still can't be sure > what you saw was what you saw) why believe they ever existed? You are making the GROSS ERROR of mixing individual observation with multiple independent observations. They are NOT the same! You cannot really tell if I really exist or not. Even if you were standing right here in front of me. However, you can lead to such a conclusion based upon your observations. (STRIKE TWO) Incidentally, you have, in essence, just stated that there is nothing that you can be absolute sure about. (important) > As a rational and reasonable person (obviously these terms are > relative), one must enter into the situation with presuppositions. The > first presupposition is that you exist. (Objectively unprovable) Hardly. If you do not exist. Where are your thoughts coming from? YOU are some entity capable of thought/observation. That is trivial. It is not objectively unprovable. (STRIKE THREE) > The > next presupposition is that others exist. At this point we might say > that a reasonable person could base (relative) truth on two things. What > he has observed, and what others have observed and agreed upon. This is > one way that truth can be ascertained in a court of Law. No clue. > In other words, if several persons that had reputations for being > trust- worthy, all agreed upon the same set of events of which they were > all eyewitnesses, it would not be unreasonable to except their testimony > as true. Unless you or someone else can prove to the contrary. > How do I know that Lincoln and Hitler existed? How do I know that > Lincoln was an admired President and Hitler was a murdering scoundrel? "murdering scoundrel" is subjective. Obviously you have not gotten the two straighten out yet. > By the testimony of individuals who observed and recorded their > observations. Still, these observations are based on subjective > perceptions. No. They are objective (except for the "murdering scoundrel" part). > I am faced with a choice! I can either toss out all evidences as being > "subjective" in nature, or I can follow the reasonable path described > above and accept historical testimony as "objective evidence". You don't have a choice because you still don't know which is which. > If we can accept historical testimony as reasonable and objective > evidence, then we can observe some of the Christian teachings listed > earlier. The Bible has comparatively little (if any) independently confirmed sources. It also reports supernatural events/entities that cannot be objectively observed in any means. Therefore it is not trustworthy. > For example, we can observe the change in Peter, with and > without the power promised that would come through the Holy Spirit. We > can observe the changed lives down through history from Paul to Luther > to Colson. We can reasonably believe that Christ was raised from the > dead since several honest, reputable, eyewitnesses have recorded their > observations of the incident. (Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, > etc.) We also can tell that it is in THEIR INTERESTS to have observed that Jesus rose from the dead. Reputable? Hardly. > Incidently, there have been no eyewitnesses to attest to the assumption > that Christ was not raised from the dead. No corpse produced either. There were no eyewitnesses to attest to the notion that I am not raised from the dead, either. No one produced any corpes of me. I don't see the purpose of this article, except perhaps to say that there is no difference between subjective and objective. Since all of your "evidence" is subjective (or nonexistant), I can see your interest in proving that objective and subjective are one and the same. Dan, you still do not know subjective from objective. You still use non-supportive evidence. When are we going to see differently? ___________________________________________________________________________ Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }