Proof & Reproof

Proof & Reproof
Evidence & the Bible

Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations. 4I also will choose their delusions, (Isa 66:)
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2Thes 2:)

The ways by which to prove a thing are far too numerous and complicated for such an introductory study as this one. My point here is not to prove one method of investigation more effective than another, but to show that there are many methods used for this purpose, and that they are all fallible, and usually produce a wrong finding. Of course, the evidence of their failure usually comes too late for us, the ones told to trust in such findings, to benefit from such discovery.

[As a note and a disclaimer, none of what is included in this introductory study should be considered as accurate or informed in any context, but merely my own synoptic interpretation of what I see described by those who use such methods of investigation.]

Our first example of the different theories and philosophies that can be used to prove a point is called Beyesian (or Evidential) Probability. This analytical process is broken into two quarters: in one of these quarters stands the Objective school of thought based on Aristotelian (Aristotle) logic. Then, under the same heading but using different methodology we have the Subjective school based on personal belief or experience rather than universal knowledge. In the Probability arena of proof as a whole we have three basic forms: Logical (reasoning) Probability, Epistemic (knowledge) Probability and Inductive (laws of nature) Probability to name but a few.

Burden of Proof:

It is said that the burden of proof falls on the one that holds the least likely (or the least popular) opinion. In the area of Creationism (my word for it, don't bother to look it up) and Evolution such a question can be of no consequence, or it can be of ultimate consequence, depending upon the actual fact of the matter. The relativity of the question is also dictated by who is asking the question, the purpose in the question, and the period of time the question is asked. For instance: when the question is asked will determine who the burden of proof falls upon. If the question is asked today, the burden of proof will fall upon the least popular view, that is, the Creationist. Should the question have been asked 30 years ago or 2,000 years ago, the burden of proof might well have fallen upon anyone not holding the Creationist's view, whatever other view that might have been.

As to where the question is asked: if it is asked in a church, then the burden of proof falls upon the Evolutionist. However, if the question is asked in any of our public schools today, the burden of proof falls upon the Creationist. Again, just a few years ago, in my lifetime, in either the church or the schools the Evolutionist would have had the burden of proof placed squarely upon his or her shoulders.

As for consequences. If the Evolutionist is proven to be correct when all is said and done, then the Creationist will have lost out on a proper grade for the subject at hand. But should the Creationist be correct, and that Creationist have proven himself or herself worthy in other aspects as well, then the consequences may likely be an eternal (or an infernal) one.

Of the many forms of reasonings and justifications, certain of them face us in everyday life. Others may be interesting to those who wish to debate, but not to the person on the street going about their daily routine.

I will begin with the very basest form of logic we encounter in normal life activities. I will refer to these as "Sciences" rather than theories or philosophies, even though science has no more to do with reasoning than it does with "science" so-called (1 Timothy 6:20).

The first I bring to your attention is the Science of Impossibility. For this I will give two examples that we all can relate to. Example one is the Used Car Salesman. The likelihood of being told the reality of what is presented is next to impossible. And if impossibility were possible, this would well fit into that category as well. Another example to fit this area equally well is rhetoric spoken by a Politician, especially in November of every other year. In both of these cases we learn after it is too late the impossibility factor of what we had been told.

In the area of Literature and the Media we would call this Impossibility Factor "Science Fiction." However, in Science Fiction we fully expect to be told that which is impossible.

The second form of reasoning is that of the Science of Possibility. The differentiation between Possibility and Impossibility is often very fine, if perceptible at all. And what is perceived, may well be a misgiving and be altered from time-to-time. Possibility is most often heard in two general places: the first is Santa Anita at the race track: and the second is on the 6:00 news when the weatherman stands before his map and tells us what his billion dollar equipment has told him.

In either case, the possibility of hearing the correct outcome is very thin indeed.

What I have just described might fit into a blanket category of "Wishful Thinking." This next category is not much higher in its scope, but the likelihood of a final positive outcome is a bit higher.

Earlier I spoke of the "Burden of Proof." The burden of proof falls on the one least likely to be correct at a given time and place. This is not always so. For instance; it is most likely to be that when you (or I) are the ones placed on the firing line, the burden of proof will fall on us, the accused, regardless of probability. I will give here two examples.

Hubby has come home late from work twice in one week. The wife is suspicious. Upon whom lies the Burden of Proof?

The law has accused you of something that there is no way possible you could have committed what you are accused of. Upon whom falls the Burden of Proof?

In either case, no amount of proof of innocence will be sufficient for acquittal. And should, somehow, conviction not follow such accusation, suspicion and record of such accusation will follow the accused forever.

Evidence of this is the many, many people who are proven by new forms of investigation that their years of incarceration (or even execution) was based on erroneous information, even though at the time of their trial the evidence against them was overwhelming.

The next to the highest form of reasoning is that of Substantial Evidence.

Here we have a paradox. We are expected to accept the word of someone who claims to have "Substantial Evidence" on a given topic, such as a lawyer in court, or a teacher on Evolution in a classroom. And we do just that, because these are the experts who have investigated the subject extensively. Yet, if someone tried to sell you some lumber for your house, and told you that the wood was "substandard, you would not take it. Am I correct?

"Sub," as a prefix means: "Under," or not sufficient. "Stance" means a way a person stands, or the attitude they take. As I see it someone who holds "Substantial" evidence is one who should not be listened to.

And how often have we found this to be the case? I give as examples the Politician, the Used Car Salesman, the Weatherman, the Wife, and the Lawyer who has such a strong, but erroneous case against his client. All proven to be "Sub- Stantial."

This last category is the one claimed by almost all the above before they are proven in error. For myself, when this forthcoming statement is made, I look for the nearest exit. Here we have the findings of Scientists throughout the ages, from the unbelievers of Noah's time who knew full-well that rain was impossible; and the scientists who warned Columbus of Sea Monsters and falling off the end of the earth; to those who know for a certainty that Man will eventually repair this earth because things are continually getting better and better.

Of course I speak of those with: "Conclusive Evidence."

Conclusive evidence to me is like the Politician who says: "I'm as honest as the day is long;" or the husband with lipstick on his collar who says: "You can trust me, Hon. Would I lie?" Or maybe Junior with chocolate smears on his face pointing at the dog when mother presents the empty cookie jar.

There are certain classes of people who must prove their point. In order to continue life as they have become accustom to it, they must present a sufficient excuse, or at least an alibi for their position when it is challenged. Others, the accusers, who deal with those who need an alibi need only make an accusation, proof or no. Again I present the lawyer and the accused; and the husband and the wife.

Schools (teachers) are another class of people who need no justification for their stance. If you do not agree with what they say, you lose. Proof positive to the contrary of the school's belief will only get you a failing grade.

Government is another such group that demands unquestioning obedience. And as the official stance and dictates of the government changes, so the citizenry under that government must change their beliefs and behavior accordingly, or suffer the consequences. Some extreme examples of this concept are Rome before Constantine and after Constantine; and Germany before and during WWII.

Religion is a powerful force to be reckoned with as well, and one that changes its stance from moment to moment. Those who belong to any of the numerous denominations must either change their church (which could result in death at certain periods of history), change their views, or abide with what they are told to abide with and keep their mouth closed. The Anglican as well as other churches are going through just such a transition today, moving from one doctrinal extreme to another.

Beliefs are formed in several different ways. The first of these ways is officially called: "Inductive Reasoning." Inductive reasoning (or logic) is when a person uses their own personal experience to form a conclusion. For instance, if I see a squirrel, and that squirrel has a bushy tail, I conclude that all squirrels have a bushy tail. I could also conclude, taking this a step farther, that all animals with a bushy tail are squirrels.

In the field of religion, I read that Adam sinned by eating an apple. And by this I could come to the conclusion that eating an apple is a sin.

In Inductive reasoning a premise is taken and built upon it, that is, added. Knowledge (or our experience of it) added to knowledge.

The second form of reasoning is Deductive Logic. This is just the opposite in that the larger premise is assumed, and conclusions are drawn from that larger base. For instance, Aristotle used this as a classic example of Deductive Reasoning:

All men are mortal.Socrates is a man.Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Of course with either deductive or inductive reasoning, the basic premise must be true, or the subsequent conclusions drawn from that failed premise will be false.

For instance, using Aristotle's base premise above and subtracting from it one could easily come to a mistaken conclusion:

All men are mortalSocrates is mortal.Therefore Socrates is a man.

Did you catch the error in this reasoning?

Again, with Inductive reasoning, starting with the smaller base and building on it, this conclusion can be formed:

Socrates is a man.Socrates is mortal.Therefore all mortals are Socrates.

All these premises are based on, or have built on them a wrong conclusion, although without thought, they seem to make sense. But even Socrates' base premise is not true according to half the world. The Christian world, and even a huge part of the world who are not Christian, such as the Muslims who believe that Jesus did not die but is alive in Heaven waiting to return to earth, believe in at least one immortal being. And those such as the Jews who believe in the Torah (but not in Christ) believe in Elijah and Enoch who did not see death. So being man, accordingly, does not infer mortality as conclusive.

Keep this in mind: It is the exception that must be considered to find truth. All too often proof of one's view with a blind eye turned to contrary evidence is what those with an agenda presents to this unsuspecting and gullible world, who in turn accepts what they are given in its totality.

And this leads to the final method of investigation (according to this study) called: "Confirmation Bias." This, in my estimation, is by far the most widely used method of proving any subject (using all the other methods), whether it be law, education, matrimony, government or doctrine.

To help explain Confirmation Bias I have reprinted here an excerpt from Wikipedia that will describe the phenomena far better than what lies in my capability to do so. Along with clear explanation, this excerpt provides support for my findings that may otherwise appear biased and divisive in themselves.

Confirmation bias:

"In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.

Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it.[1]

The effect is also known as belief bias, belief preservation, belief overkill, hypothesis locking, polarization effect, positive bias, the Tolstoy syndrome, selective thinking, myside bias, Plate pick-up and Morton's demon.

Alternately, Murphy's Law of Research dictates that "Enough research will tend to support your theory."

The thought behind this concept is that a notion is taken, a conclusion formed, and all evidence to support that conclusion is accepted and sought after. At the same time, all evidence against said evidence is rejected and nullified in toto (completely). In a word, "Truth" is not what is important, but rather being seen as "right" and "truth" is what is sought after.

Any of the above described methods can be used in pursuit of this support. Meanwhile maximum effort is utilized to discredit and vilify contradictory evidence, as well as those who seek such evidence.

When tides change there is a certain upheaval that takes place. Resistance is met by a force that is already present and established. This phenomena, in its natural state, can be observed at the beach. Although the water level drops as the tide withdraws, and the water changes direction accordingly, the waters that flow to this least source of resistance must surmount the waters that are continuing to come ashore driven by the preceding tide.

Germany was long in turning the tide of public opinion against the rest of the world. Much diligent effort was taken to subvert the minds of the innocent and the unknowing before public opinion could be completely and sufficiently altered. The more sudden a change is made, the more resistance is met by that (and who) have a mind set toward the old ways. America's changing from a Christian nation under God to a Humanistic society under self was not an observable event, but a gradual picking away at the underbelly of the unobservant masses.

All of society has changed its ways and its outlook. Even those who have seen the many changes from start to finish are unaware of the significance of that change, and have in fact given sway to the new direction. Resistance has been successfully averted while potential resisters are inducted into the New World view. Such is the effectiveness of using the technique of Confirmation Bias.

What I have presented is the way to prove what you wish to believe, and that you wish others to believe. It is not the way to find ultimate "Truth." If I wanted to have a large group of followers, I would find the most popular view prevalent in the society in which I wished to participate, and I would repeat, rephrase and expound upon every popular statement made by that society. Popularity lies in being best at being the same as everybody else.

Taking a different road from the masses means going it alone. Many people have starved making their own way. One example of this is the great writers of their day, and the great artists as well. During their developmental time they were lucky to feed themselves each day. When society decided that their art or writing was good, rather than trash, suddenly these artists became popular, although often dead by the time of such discovery. Did their art pieces change? Did their writing change? Of course not. Society changed its views.

The works of these artists were neither good nor bad. The writings of these great writers were no better than anyone else's, and they would likely tell you so themselves. Popular view made the difference. Not truth.

Evidence is only evidence when it supports our own view. If evidence shows that the million dollar painting you have hanging on your wall is not really painted by the artist it is purported to be painted by, although just as good if not better than the original, you will make every effort possible to show that the painting is genuine, even though you know it to be a lie.

This is true in other areas of our life as well; the mother who will argue with the teacher trying to get naughty Junior a good grade rather than deal with Junior. The husband who will try to convince his wife that he is faithful instead of getting rid of his mistress. The car salesman who will try to make an extra buck rather than live on what he can make honestly and with a clear conscience. The Politician who will.... That's a hard one. I really can't see how a politician of any sort can remain a politician and live by his conscience.

In the same vein, preachers and religious leaders and school teachers must teach what they are told to teach, rather than dare look beyond what they are told they must believe and teach, unless they wish to risk the high probability of losing their position.

Truth is a nonentity in society. Evidence toward truth is not sought, nor is it desired. Those who are best noted for Truth have been persecuted and Martyred. We have the philosophers of old. We have the martyrs of the church, from all sides and from all ages who have stood up for Truth as they saw it in opposition to the popular view. We have Jesus and the Apostles who were the embodiment of Truth and the search thereof who were convicted and killed using "Hard Evidence" of their day, killed by those very ones who purportedly were in pursuit of "Truth".

Truth is not popular. But Truth is the essence of life.

Here, on this website, I am going to strive for Truth. To do this I will have to utilize methods rarely tried, and certainly not perfected by me, because it is a new road I travel. I can't build on what has gone before, because what has gone before has either been muddied, grown over with weeds of distortion, or is a road not found. Nor can I take from that which has already been established because what is now presented as Truth, is but a conglomeration of misconceptions, deceptions and flat-out lies. And what is of value can not be recognized because what little Truth there is to it has been tacked on to fabrication and can't be properly identified.

New searches must be made. These searches will explore every use of every word that applies to the search at hand. Everything known to me will be presented. And the method I will be using is one that was taught to me, inadvertently, by a junior High math teacher. Little did I know how much he was teaching me at the time.

This teacher presented a riddle of sorts that had to be solved by deductive reasoning. It is not the net results that is sought for in the problem, but the elimination of the elements that support the wrong or non essential conclusions.

The riddle goes like this:

Three prisoners of reasonably high intelligence were incarcerated for life. One prisoner had two good eyes, one had one good eye, and the third prisoner was totally blind. The warden of the prison approached the three and said: "I have a total of five hats, three red hats, and two white hats. I will place a hat on the head of each of you, which you cannot see, and the two I have kept back none of you can see. I will ask each of you what color hat you have on your head. If you answer correctly, you will be set free. But if you answer, and you are wrong, you will be executed."

The warden then asked the first prisoner with two good eyes the color of his hat. The prisoner had to say: "I don't know." The warden then asked the second prisoner with one good eye the color of his hat, to which the prisoner had to reply: "I don't know."

The warden then turned to the third prisoner who was totally blind and asked the color of his hat. The blind prisoner said: "Because of what my fellow prisoners have said, I know my hat is....."

What color was the blind prisoner's hat, and how did he know?

There was no guessing involved. There is a definite procedure that must be followed to solve this riddle.

To understand this riddle, it must be understood that it is not necessary to know all that was not asked. In other words, what color hats the other prisoners had on, or what color hats were not seen, is not part of the problem. Trying to add these aspects, and figure them out, defeats the purpose of what is being presented to the blind prisoner. It was not the prisoner's goal to be right. It was not his goal to figure out all the colors of the hats. And it was not the goal of the prisoner to show off his intelligence to the warden. All the prisoner wanted to do was pick the right color hat on his own head, and be very sure of his answer to avoid execution, and to be released from prison. Getting the other possible goals mixed in with the riddle is where most people and students of... whatever, in my case the Bible, get on the wrong path and "execute" the wrong processes.

In my research through the findings of preachers, theologians, and others of great fame and education: I find they center around certain preconceived and established conclusions that fit with their (and their associates') conclusions. I find that they have a few verses to present that apparently support their view, but often just barely so, and then only tenuously, and they completely ignore or vilify verses (often adjoining and surrounding) that contradict the verses they quote.

I start by having everything known or available to me at my disposal. I try to have every verse, every interpretation, and every possible supportive or unsupportive piece of Scripture right there in front of me. Then I try, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to eliminate all verses that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. My study on "Saved" is a good example of this process in application.

Then all the verses that support one view I place in one column, and all those that support another view I place in another column. When one of those lists is empty because it has been clearly shown to not apply, (and often times ends up proving what it appears to contradict) then I know I have the Truth.

This introduction on the study of the Bible is intended as a foreword to just such an undertaking. The study is on the Apostles. There exists much confusion as to who is, how many, and if there still are Apostles. I have my evidence and many notes on this topic clearly worked out -- except for one obscure verse that could easily be set aside.

I refuse to do so.

If that one verse, out of the many, can not be fully resolved, the study will never be presented on the web, at least not on this site, or by me.

God wrote His Book in riddles. He did so intentionally, and He said so plainly. The Bible can not be explained through Doctrine or with human reasoning. It must be explained by the One who wrote it. And if we do not listen to Him, and follow His timing, it won't be understood. This is not the view taken by many of the churches. They believe the Bible is pure and simple and written for all to understand. Others teach that the Bible can only be understood by the initiated, and their own writings must be read in supersession to the Bible.

"Apostles" may never be presented. Like I said, the study is just one half of a sentence from being complete. But that is one half a sentence short of Truth. If God chooses not to reveal the Truth to that one half a verse, then it is intended for me not to be the one to inform you of the truth of that subject. All I will say is that the Truth is far different than what anyone I have seen has said it is. And those who happen to be right (actually only partially so) have ignored the conflicting verses in order to hold to their view, which in my mind is the same as being wrong.

Having the right answer without having the right method is the same as being wrong and having the wrong answer; and it is not even as good as having the wrong answer, but having used the right methods to achieve that answer.

In the case of the riddle, it would be like "guessing" the correct color of hat. And I don't believe God accepts guesses, even if they are correct guesses. He wants us to have the right answer, even if only partially expressed, as it has come through Him, and His methods to bring us to that answer.

References

7But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. 8For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean. 9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: 11For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. 13But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. 14Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. 15Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: 16Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. 17Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. 18And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it. 19From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report. 20For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it. 21For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act. 22Now therefore be ye not mockers, lest your bands be made strong: for I have heard from the Lord GOD of hosts a consumption, even determined upon the whole earth. (Isa 28:)

Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations. 4I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. (Isa 66:)

7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2Thes 2:)

Tumbleweed