When I need to get an epub file 'validated' that can be a rigorous process going over the code involved. Philosophers like to be very careful with the use of language and what it means. many have pointed out that some philosophical problems are actually language meaning problems, rather than things-in-themselves. Comparing the 'validity' of the Biblos (little books) with the Quran would require defining validity and agreement on a truth theory I suppose, first, before comparing historical data. If you look at my free e-book that is a commentary on Berkhof's Introduction to the New Testament, you would see some of the meticulous work Berkhof did and examining the gospel books. One can do that for the Quran too, and learn what references in it compare with those of the Bible.
https://www.lulu.com/en/ie/shop/garrison-clifford-gibson/a-commentary-on-berkhofs-intro-to-the-new-testament/ebook/product-21420051.html?page=1&pageSize=4
In the past I read quite a lot of history including that of the ancient world. There is quite a lot of material, and virtual none of it is 'fables'. People can have mass hysteria or insanity; actually the validity of truth isn't necessarily determined by majority vote, although these days that may be a popular view (that it is). Mass ignorance is common in political propaganda. Popular sentiment shouldn't determine the verdict at trials- facts should play a primary role. In philosophical concerns one need interpret facts or data and understand where and how that data fits into other relevant matter. It is important not to leap to conclusions in logic as well as history. If atheism is a popular belief today, it does not follow that a majority vote validates it.
Of the 256 possible forms of syllogism just 24 are valid. People talk past point, overlook relevant data and often assume that some material is comprehensive, exhaustive and universal when it is not. As is known- "If an invalid argument has all true premises, then the conclusion must be false." Alternatively, if an valid argument has false premises its conclusion is false. The distribution of terms assumed to be universal that are not is a problem with arguments relying upon contemporary physics concerning Christianity.
Consider the history of Abraham and his son Isaac, whom God ordered Abraham to sacrifice. It is challenging to formulate in a strictly logical paradigm, There is much historical, archaeological, scriptural and analytical evidence needed for even comprehending the circumstance. So much that generally just the faithful take the time. Human knowledge and lifetime is limited. People specialize and want to put blinders on to filter out what they consider is unimportant data. They make summary dismissals of material they regard as unimportant, and quickly decide truth or falsity for convenience concerning faith in the Lord.
At the last second God allowed Abraham to substitute a sheep that became caught in the brush as the sacrifice. That incident was a paradigm for the appearance and sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ 2000 years later. There are many things that are known and worth looking in to. Of course as you say; one must determine what one believes for-himself. In a social dialectical reason context, that paradigm is interesting for the case of criminal trials.
No comments:
Post a Comment