How do you evaluate a truth-claim?

[phonenumberonanapkin]

I guess I would "believe" the person, just to see where he is going with the story.
Maybe there is something else this person is trying to tell me. While I know in my mind that what he says is not possible, if I play along, he may tell me what he's actually trying to say.

Why do you hold the position that a singing cat is not possible? Wouldn't you have to have omniscient knowledge of all cats in existence in order to confidently claim that none of them are capable of meowing the star-spangled banner?

It's just my opinion that cats can't meow a tune. Although, I do remember a cat in a meow mix commercial meowing a tune. So, maybe cats are more intelligent then I believe.

Why do you hold the position that cat's can't meow a tune?

[RickD]

I guess I would "believe" the person, just to see where he is going with the story.
Maybe there is something else this person is trying to tell me. While I know in my mind that what he says is not possible, if I play along, he may tell me what he's actually trying to say.

What was it about this truth-claim that made you speculate that perhaps this person is trying to tell you something else? If they had only said they walked to the store yesterday to purchase a loaf of bread, would you have speculated that perhaps there was something else they were trying to say?

Sometimes people make an outrageous claim to see how the person he's speaking with will react. From the listener's expression or openness, he can see if the person is a good listener. This may help the speaker tell if he can speak openly about his real issue.

Fine, but that doesn't answer my question. The question to you was: What was it about this truth-claim that made you speculate that perhaps this person is trying to tell you something else? If they had only said they walked to the store


yesterday to purchase a loaf of bread, would you have speculated that perhaps there was something else they were trying
to say?

I answered your first question. My first thoughts would be no to your second question.

[RickD]

I guess I would "believe" the person, just to see where he is going with the story.
Maybe there is something else this person is trying to tell me. While I know in my mind that what he says is not possible, if I play along, he may tell me what he's actually trying to say.

Why do you hold the position that a singing cat is not possible? Wouldn't you have to have omniscient knowledge of all cats in existence in order to confidently claim that none of them are capable of meowing the star-spangled banner?

It's just my opinion that cats can't meow a tune. Although, I do remember a cat in a meow mix commercial meowing a tune. So, maybe cats are more intelligent then I believe.

Why do you hold the position that cat's can't meow a tune?

Because normally, cats can't. What is your point? If you have a real question, ask it.

[Maytan]

In other words, the reason you wouldn't believe the signing cat story is the same reason I deny the resurrection of Jesus, we both know the world doesn't work like that in our presence, so we are confident that it also doesn't work like that in our absence. This is merely a single argument, it is not the only reason I deny this Christian claim.

A terrible, terrible analogy. I wouldn't believe the claim of a cat singing, no. Nor would I believe the claim of a man rising from the dead, like yourself. The difference in this scenario is divine intervention, that God rose him from the dead. Not that it occurred by natural processes. Thus, what I know to occur has no bearing on the argument, as this obviously claims to be a supernatural case.

As Canuckster said earlier, if 11 people chose death over denying their claim of a singing cat I would be inclined to, at the very least, seek an explanation.

[RickD]

In other words, the reason you wouldn't believe the signing cat story is the same reason I deny the resurrection of Jesus, we both know the world doesn't work like that in our presence, so we are confident that it also doesn't work like that in our absence. This is merely a single argument, it is not the only reason I deny this Christian claim.

So, we go from a singing cat to a signing cat. Let me get this straight. The cat not only sings, but he also signs the star spangled banner?

[Silvertusk]

Suppose 12 people made the same claim and over the course of time held to that position and of them, 11 when faced with the challenge of recanting their testimony chose instead to accept death rather than deny it. Would that impact your view of it?

Please take a moment to examine the Board's purpose and discussion guidelines. You were asked a reasonable question earlier as to your position and motives for starting a discussion and avoided the question. We're happy to have discussions with skeptics or persons of other postions. Our positions and motives are clear. It's not unreasonable to ask for the same courtesy from you.

Thanks!

bart

Fine. If anybody says they wouldn't believe the witness to the singing cat, I will ask why they believe the parts of the bible that mention a talking donkey and talking snake.

If anybody says yes, they would believe such a story, then I will ask them what criteria they think a truth-claim must fulfill to rationally justify remaining suspicious of it. If talking cats are no problem, is the sky the limit? Must we believe everything we hear whether it corresponds with our knowledge of the how the world works?

Unfortunately, because I didn't first reveal my motives, I caught several posters with their guards down: Several said they'd be suspicious of the singing cat story, without further commentary on why. Because I didn't reveal my motives earlier, they chose to answer the question without first putting their apologetic defense mechanisms on red alert. They actually came out and admitted that when a story describes certain realities in ways that we know from personal experience have never worked as described, THAT is rational justification to refuse to accept the story.

And you know where the argument goeth from there: If its ok to deny the truth of a signing cat story on the grounds that it contradict's one's personal experience of how cats work (in spite of the fact that God 'could have' made the cat sing), then skeptics are rational to deny the resurrection of Jesus on the grounds that it contradicts their personal experience of how long dead people stay dead after 2 days dead in the grave (in spite of the fact that God 'could have' made Jesus rise from the dead).

In other words, the reason you wouldn't believe the signing cat story is the same reason I deny the resurrection of Jesus, we both know the world doesn't work like that in our presence, so we are confident that it also doesn't work like that in our absence. This is merely a single argument, it is not the only reason I deny this Christian claim.

Well that is just plain silly - you are assuming we all believe Jesus's resurrection on blind faith - That is utterly wrong. With Jesus ressurection we have a wealth of evidence - eyewitnesses, and corraborative. We have the eyewitness testimony of the disciples themselves. We have the accounts in the Gospels and Acts - we have up to 500 people mentioned by Paul in his letters, we have the empty tomb,we have the martryrdom of the disciples - we have corraboration from hostile witnesses of the rise of Christianity. What do we have for the singing cat?

If you are not going to let a supernatural foot in the door then of course you are going to follow the lines of your reasoning. But that is rather close minded of you. If I had all the amount of evidence as shown above for a singing cat as well then of course I would start to rethink about it - but we don't.

Silvertusk.

[Canuckster1127]

Suppose 12 people made the same claim and over the course of time held to that position and of them, 11 when faced with the challenge of recanting their testimony chose instead to accept death rather than deny it. Would that impact your view of it?

Please take a moment to examine the Board's purpose and discussion guidelines. You were asked a reasonable question earlier as to your position and motives for starting a discussion and avoided the question. We're happy to have discussions with skeptics or persons of other postions. Our positions and motives are clear. It's not unreasonable to ask for the same courtesy from you.

Thanks!

bart

Fine. If anybody says they wouldn't believe the witness to the singing cat, I will ask why they believe the parts of the bible that mention a talking donkey and talking snake.

If anybody says yes, they would believe such a story, then I will ask them what criteria they think a truth-claim must fulfill to rationally justify remaining suspicious of it. If talking cats are no problem, is the sky the limit? Must we believe everything we hear whether it corresponds with our knowledge of the how the world works?

Unfortunately, because I didn't first reveal my motives, I caught several posters with their guards down: Several said they'd be suspicious of the singing cat story, without further commentary on why. Because I didn't reveal my motives earlier, they chose to answer the question without first putting their apologetic defense mechanisms on red alert. They actually came out and admitted that when a story describes certain realities in ways that we know from personal experience have never worked as described, THAT is rational justification to refuse to accept the story.

And you know where the argument goeth from there: If its ok to deny the truth of a signing cat story on the grounds that it contradict's one's personal experience of how cats work (in spite of the fact that God 'could have' made the cat sing), then skeptics are rational to deny the resurrection of Jesus on the grounds that it contradicts their personal experience of how long dead people stay dead after 2 days dead in the grave (in spite of the fact that God 'could have' made Jesus rise from the dead).

In other words, the reason you wouldn't believe the signing cat story is the same reason I deny the resurrection of Jesus, we both know the world doesn't work like that in our presence, so we are confident that it also doesn't work like that in our absence. This is merely a single argument, it is not the only reason I deny this Christian claim.

Your analogy is fallacious and circular. Because your worldview is materialistic and rejects the possibility of anything outside of that you cannot and will not entertain the possibility of anything that contradicts what you've already established as the paramaters of reality. I'm skeptical of singing cats, fairies in garden wells and any other analogies you wish to concoct. Universally rejecting everything that you wish to place in this category, becomes a fallacy of its own when you then fail to recognize any manner of degree based upon the corallary evidence and the corallary evidence in this instance is extraordinarily different in degree based in small part upon the question I asked you which you then, (possibly with your guard down?) ignored and didn't respond to.

You haven't caught anyone with their guards down. You've simply come to our board looking for an argument . And you've failed to address my question back to you. I suspect if we apply the same standards to events in the past within history as to what has happened, who has lived and the influence they've had, including contemporaries which I hope you saw as obvious, meaning the apostles who chose martyrdom, and several could have prevented that event by recanting over denying their story and their faith. It's a fairly easy thing to deny one or two, but 11 without exception is exponentially unlikely. And of course, that's only one platform of examination.

Have you taken a look at our board guidelines and purpose? Again, a respectful discussion is welcome. By your own admission however, you've come concealing your motives and made it clear to me anyway, that you're likely here for reasons that fall outside of them. I'd welcome finding otherwise, but the onus is upon you to help me see otherwise. If your purpose is simply to demonstrate to the "ignorant christians" how foolish their position is and how intellectually superior you are, you're welcome to maintain that position and illusion as you wish and move on. If you're willing to get off your soapbox and self-appointed role to lecture and correct then this pedantic exercise can end and we can move onto a conversation and dialogue and that has much better possibilities for all involved.

Let me know what you'd like to do.

thanks

bart

[jlay]

Unfortunately, because I didn't first reveal my motives, I caught several posters with their guards down: Several said they'd be suspicious of the singing cat story, without further commentary on why. Because I didn't reveal my motives earlier, they chose to answer the question without first putting their apologetic defense mechanisms on red alert. They actually came out and admitted that when a story describes certain realities in ways that we know from personal experience have never worked as described, THAT is rational justification to refuse to accept the story.

Actually you are assuming that all believers don't struggle with these diffuculties, and they just drink the coolaid, and believe anything. When in reality, believers do have doubts, and do have difficuties with such things in the scriptures. That doesn't mean, that after study and evaluation, that we don't have good reasons for believing these things did happen. Nor does it mean because we believe those things that we would have no basis for being suspicious of a singing cat. I hate to even dignify this fallacious line of questioning, but here it goes.

As with all these issues what we ultimately see is an agenda. A motive. Only later in the thread do we see Phone# reveal his real issue.

the signing cat story is the same reason I deny the resurrection of Jesus

They are arguments originated out of fallacious reasoning, and in the end they create rabbit trails to avoid the deeper questions. side note: Honestly, I have no problem with putting Balaam and the donkey on the shelf for discussions sake. If someone has an issue with this part of the scripture, I don't see the point in fighting it. For example, no one will be denied salvation because they have an issue in believing a talking donkey. In fact, I can't for the life of me see what essential doctrine is really at risk here.
But ultimately that is not your issue. As you eventually state, your real issue (the deeper one) is this Christ person. And I understand this objection. In fact, on its own, it is a perfectly legimate one. That is why there is no reason to mask your utlimate objection in silly cat arguments. Bart has made it pretty clear why the cat argument is not a valid analogy to deny Christ. And therefore, you saying "the signing cat story is the same reason I deny the resurrection of Jesus," is nothing but ridiculous. That doesn't mean there aren't valid reasons for questioning the resurrection of Christ. But the cat analogy doesn't cut it. It fails. Now, if you have prophecies written hundreds of years before the cats existence saying where it would be born, when it would be born, and very descriptive events that it would sing, it might be worth examining. And then if you had recorded eyewitness testimony from multiple sources about the singing cat, it would further justify an examination. And if you had a compliation of 66 books, written by 40 authors which through time all focus in on the being of this cat, it would further warrant study. And that the places, people and times in these books were archeologically and historically sound, well then, we could start talking about a truth claim. But as Bart pointed out, without this, it is just a fallaciuos analogy.

[B. W.]

Suppose you meet a stranger in a coffee shop, and they tell you that their cat, a real living biological feline animal, meows the Star-Spangled Banner, in perfect pitch, all by herself with no external assistance or guidance of any form, and only when nobody else is around except the person telling you this story. This person then solemnly affirms they are telling the literal truth about their pet cat.

What would be your immediate reaction to this allegedly serious and allegedly literal truth-claim and why was it your immediate reaction?

How do you evaluate your truth-claim?

How do we know that you are not a cat who types and sings?

Again, if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound when there are no human beings around to hear it fall so does the tree still make noise when it falls?
-
-
-

[neo-x]

phonenumberonanapkin wrote:
Suppose you meet a stranger in a coffee shop, and they tell you that their cat, a real living biological feline animal, meows the Star-Spangled Banner, in perfect pitch, all by herself with no external assistance or guidance of any form, and only when nobody else is around except the person telling you this story. This person then solemnly affirms they are telling the literal truth about their pet cat.

What would be your immediate reaction to this allegedly serious and allegedly literal truth-claim and why was it your immediate reaction?

First your comparison is wrong as pointed out above by others.

what would be your response if I told you that a man swallowed a demolition hammer weighing over 80 pounds?

But that is exactly what happened, Thomas Blackthorne swallowed a demolition hammer weighing over 80 pounds, giving him the Guinness World Record.

Now since I have mentioned it and you can google it up and read about it. It will be easier for you to believe. But take that Guinness record out and most people will find it impossible to believe.

My point is you only believe what you choose to believe. But what you believe is irrelevant to the facts and the fact is that if the resurrection of Jesus was fictional, as you imply. there wouldn't be any witnesses. any supportive stories.

There is a saying, a rumor that doesn't die, is not a rumor at all.
honestly, have you ever read about a resurrection of, Budha, chenghez khan, Gandhi, Muhammad, Einstein, Hitler. why not? these people had tons and tons of followers, if they had chose to makeup stories,why didn't they? cuz there would not have been any hard evidence. no support. not to mention the fact that people will call them out right liars. A resurrection story always bring heavy skepticism and criticism. Still the resurrection of Jesus survived centuries. How so? Why not someone else's. If this was fake why did in between centuries people were ready to vouch for it and die for it.

Christians don't believe anything and everything that comes out, there are reasons and logic behind the believe. How you evaluate the truth is based entirely on your knowledge and your admission to accept that things exist beyond your comprehension and that in time a lot can become truth if its not today. a lot of it has to do with your assumptions.

They are building voice synthesizers for robots and chimps. i would not be surprised if 150 years (IMO sooner than that) from now a cat may actually sing "the star spangled banner".

[mandelduke]

Suppose 12 people made the same claim and over the course of time held to that position and of them, 11 when faced with the challenge of recanting their testimony chose instead to accept death rather than deny it. Would that impact your view of it?

Please take a moment to examine the Board's purpose and discussion guidelines. You were asked a reasonable question earlier as to your position and motives for starting a discussion and avoided the question. We're happy to have discussions with skeptics or persons of other postions. Our positions and motives are clear. It's not unreasonable to ask for the same courtesy from you.

Thanks!

bart

Fine. If anybody says they wouldn't believe the witness to the singing cat, I will ask why they believe the parts of the bible that mention a talking donkey and talking snake.

If anybody says yes, they would believe such a story, then I will ask them what criteria they think a truth-claim must fulfill to rationally justify remaining suspicious of it. If talking cats are no problem, is the sky the limit? Must we believe everything we hear whether it corresponds with our knowledge of the how the world works?

Unfortunately, because I didn't first reveal my motives, I caught several posters with their guards down: Several said they'd be suspicious of the singing cat story, without further commentary on why. Because I didn't reveal my motives earlier, they chose to answer the question without first putting their apologetic defense mechanisms on red alert. They actually came out and admitted that when a story describes certain realities in ways that we know from personal experience have never worked as described, THAT is rational justification to refuse to accept the story.

And you know where the argument goeth from there: If its ok to deny the truth of a signing cat story on the grounds that it contradict's one's personal experience of how cats work (in spite of the fact that God 'could have' made the cat sing), then skeptics are rational to deny the resurrection of Jesus on the grounds that it contradicts their personal experience of how long dead people stay dead after 2 days dead in the grave (in spite of the fact that God 'could have' made Jesus rise from the dead).

In other words, the reason you wouldn't believe the signing cat story is the same reason I deny the resurrection of Jesus, we both know the world doesn't work like that in our presence, so we are confident that it also doesn't work like that in our absence. This is merely a single argument, it is not the only reason I deny this Christian claim.

That’s funny because in my world people are raised from the dead all the time!






http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2007/s07070094.htm


http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/bonnke2.html

I think this is the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CIHPor_haA


http://www.freedom-ministries.us/index. ... &Itemid=31



http://www.squidoo.com/raised


Smith Wigglesworth

http://healingandrevival.com/BioSWigglesworth.htm

[beka12]

Well, I would not speculate that there was something else they were trying to say if they only went to the store to buy a loaf of bread. If they were trying to tell me something else than they should come right out and say it. Just like the donkey talked, what if the man riding him would have told someone that his donkey sorta made a sound like a human talking? That doesn't make God sound as awesome as He is! A person who believes in something because they know it to be true needs to say it like it is. Now if the person had indeed told me that his cat moewed the star-spangled banner, than I would be interested and want to know more, maybe even ask a few questions. (not necessarily sceptical questions, but more like "just wondering" questions because I would be interested) There is no harm in checking things out for yourself and doing the research because obviously there is more than what meets the eye... we are talking about God! He knows no limits and the impossible is void.

The scenario of the cat meowing the star spangled banner is good, but what specific purpose would it hold, besides just a simple truth-claim arguement? Why did the cat do such a thing? What made it occur? Why would it occur as it did? The donkey had a specific purpose for talking, as did other extraordinary occurances in the Bible. That would explain why God did what He did. Haha he made the guy riding the donkey appear lower than the animal because he would not obey Him, yet the donkey did. God had a plan for the donkey... what was God's plan for the cat?

And I am curious, why else do you deny this Christian claim? If you don't want to talk about it, you don't have to, but if you feel that you want to please tell me...

[drakengold]

Many times when I hear Christians claim bible is true, I believe their claim, because their claim is that the bible is Word of God, and that God can't lie. But later on, I feel duped, because a good lie is also something people believe as true. I began to worry what if bible isn't Word of God, or that God tells lies, then bible can't be trusted as dispensing truth. I am losing my faith in Christianity, because it seems it's all in my head. Only reason I use to believe in the bible because I think Christians had to or suppose to. I felt I was tricked into believing, lured by all the propaganda, of having eternal life, avoiding hell and stuff like that. Currently, I still long for the Christian message and belief in God, but consider myself a skeptic, because it seems trusting the bible as 100% true doesn't seem realistic. Just because it was written long ago, we claim it can't be proven as false. If someone today claim to be a prophet hearing from God, or if God speaks to them through a cat or whatever, we wouldn't trust him. Why should we trust the bible? I sometimes feel I'm going to hell because I don't believe fully in Christianity, or that I haven't completely repented of my sins. But how can I believe in something that seems unbelievable? And why should it be immoral or wrong to reject the bible and Christianity, with our punishment as trip to hell. The scary thing is, if Jesus materialized and audibly speak and make the claim that He is the Truth, I don't know if I'll trust His truth-claim, because it seems natural to pass the experience as hallucination. Plus, I can't be sure it was Jesus, I don't know what He looks like. It could be a demon, pretending to be Jesus. Like bible writers pretending to be genuine prophets.

[neo-x]

Many times when I hear Christians claim bible is true, I believe their claim, because their claim is that the bible is Word of God, and that God can't lie. But later on, I feel duped, because a good lie is also something people believe as true. I began to worry what if bible isn't Word of God, or that God tells lies, then bible can't be trusted as dispensing truth. I am losing my faith in Christianity, because it seems it's all in my head. Only reason I use to believe in the bible because I think Christians had to or suppose to. I felt I was tricked into believing, lured by all the propaganda, of having eternal life, avoiding hell and stuff like that. Currently, I still long for the Christian message and belief in God, but consider myself a skeptic, because it seems trusting the bible as 100% true doesn't seem realistic. Just because it was written long ago, we claim it can't be proven as false. If someone today claim to be a prophet hearing from God, or if God speaks to them through a cat or whatever, we wouldn't trust him. Why should we trust the bible? I sometimes feel I'm going to hell because I don't believe fully in Christianity, or that I haven't completely repented of my sins. But how can I believe in something that seems unbelievable? And why should it be immoral or wrong to reject the bible and Christianity, with our punishment as trip to hell. The scary thing is, if Jesus materialized and audibly speak and make the claim that He is the Truth, I don't know if I'll trust His truth-claim, because it seems natural to pass the experience as hallucination. Plus, I can't be sure it was Jesus, I don't know what He looks like. It could be a demon, pretending to be Jesus. Like bible writers pretending to be genuine prophets.

Your doubt is the only problem, and it has wrecked the faith of many. Lol, I was an atheist and turned Christian, you are/were a Christian and now going the opposite way, well good luck, hope you find your truth, I couldn't.