Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's a simple system. Money is missing. Who suddenly has money. No charges yet, no arrests, just starting an investigation. If you came by the money legitimately you can show the source.

He doesn't have to prove anything, though. He can remain silent.

They can get a warrant, if they have probable cause, to obtain the bank records. They can't just go around making people justify their bank balances and pin crimes on people who can't prove themselves innocent.

[Seth]

I've explained that the Vatican, or anyone asserting the god-claim, has not produced evidence. They haven't. You've called the Bible "evidence" of the god-claim, and I've explained why it isn't and why I don't consider it evidence at all.

You're not the arbiter of "evidence" or how it is defined. The dictionary is.

Very true:

dictionary.com

Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something.

The Bible doesn't tend to prove anything.

In your non-authoritative opinion.

A copy of a copy of a 1900 year old document, written by someone other than the purported narrator, claiming to make a statement of fact, is not evidence of that fact, because it does not tend to prove that fact. Just as Homer's Iliad does not tend to prove anything said or done by Achilles. It only proves that someone in the past ASSERTED that Achilles said or did something. It can be offered to prove that the assertion was made, not that the assertion is true.

No, it can be offered as evidence that the claim made is true, if it's offered as such a claim. I'm not aware that Homer claimed that the Iliad was a statement of observed events or facts. I believe he offered it as fiction.

The Bible, on the other hand, is offered as a statement of observed events and facts. It includes specific claims about events that occurred as recorded by those who observed the events (in some cases) or by transcription by others. The fact that it's been copied may be an argument for the introduction of transcription errors, but that does not impeach, in and of itself, the validity of the original claims of events, phenomena or facts.

When a writing is offered as evidence that an observation occurred, it stands as evidence pointing towards the truth or falsity of the claim unless and until rebutted by critically robust countervailing evidence.

The age of the document may affect the ability of later investigators to independently verify the claims, but that does not in and of itself make the claims untrue or invalid.

It's merely a statement of the claim.

And yet you admit that it contains historical facts, but you only admit this because those facts have been independently verified. But verification is not the metric for evidence. Evidence is, as I quoted from the dictionary, "that which tends to prove or disprove something." Verification goes to the truth-value of the evidence, not towards it's nature as evidence.

In science, documents are not evidence. The observations, tests, etc. described in the documents are evidence.

"I saw a difference in the beaks of birds in the Galapagos Islands," Charles Darwin.

This is a record of an observation by Charles Darwin. It is evidence of differences in the beaks of birds in the Galapagos Islands.

"I saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead" is the record of an observation by an Apostle and it is evidence of the raising of Lazarus from the dead by Jesus.

Thanks for confirming my conclusion again.

In a courtroom, the document is inadmissible hearsay within hearsay.

Depends on the courtroom, and we're not in a courtroom.

And, it doesn't tend to prove anything.

Sure it does, just as you say it does.

It is nothing more than Homer's Iliad and Oddysey, and like Homer's works, it is not evidence of god claims. It is the assertion of god claims. A written assertion doesn't become evidence with time.

No, an assertion doesn't "become evidence" it IS evidence,

No, an assertion is not evidence in science.

Goalpost shifting. Now you're trying to limit the definition of "evidence" to some putative scientific definition. But you just said above that it is the "observations, tests, etc. described in the documents [that] are evidence." This means that the documents are evidence because they contain descriptions of the observations made by the observer.

In a courtroom, an assertion may be evidence, but it isn't admissible if the declarant is not there.

Wrong. There are many instances in which documents making a claim are admissible without the author being available, including, as I pointed out, death-bed declarations. A letter from the suspect threatening the victim is evidence that can be admitted without the "declarant" being required to testify to its veracity. It's up to the defense to rebut that evidence with countervailing evidence proving that the letter was not created by the defendant.

Now, if Mark were here, we could cross examine him and expose his bogus claim. But, since we can't, a third party can't introduce Mark's assertion as evidence of anything, except the limited purpose of demonstrating that the statement was made or exists. It is not evidence of the truth of the claim.

Absent countervailing evidence showing that the statement is false, it's up to the triers of fact to determine whether or not the document is credible and how much weight to put on the claims made in relationship to the question at bar. They can choose to find it credible and so rule, or they can give it no weight. But it's still evidence and it's still admissible in some proceedings. The technicalities of admissibility in court are not determinative of the matter either, because those rules are for use in a court of law and don't apply outside that venue. Nor do judicial determinations of inadmissibility impeach or otherwise disprove the truth or falsity of the claim in the evidence presented. Evidence may be ruled inadmissible for reasons of fairness and justice even if it conclusively proves or disproves the presenter's case, so that's a fallacious argument.

if it's an assertion of an observation of an actual event. You disbelieve that certain claims of actual events are factual, but you cannot provide any countervailing evidence to prove that Jesus did not exist or that he did not perform the acts which the observers recording the acts claim. You know full well that written accounts of observations of events are without any question held to be evidence of those events. Whether they are true accounts is another matter, but they are absolutely evidence that the events written of occurred.

In science? No, not evidence of the truth value of scientific claims.

Yes, they are, until disproven through experimentation.

In law? No, not admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Sure they are. It happens all the time, as explained above.

You lose.

You're not the arbiter of wins and losses.

I have no obligation to present evidence to "counter" a specific claim not made. It is not incumbent upon me or anyone else to glean what part of the Bible you are asserting is backed by evidence and what is not.

You do if you assert that "there is no evidence."

No. If you say "there is life on the Moon" and I say "no, there is no evidence of life on the Moon," then I am not required to produce evidence of the lack of evidence. That's nonsensical. You need to prove that there is evidence of life on the Moon. If you don't, then there isn't any evidence. If evidence is discovered later, then there will be evidence. But, right now, there isn't any.

That would only be true if you had knowledge that I had never gone to the moon. If I had gone to the moon and made the statement, it would be evidence of life on the moon because it would be the recording of my observation of life on the moon. You might continue to disbelieve my statement because you don't like the degree to which my statement can be verified, but that doesn't change the nature of my statement as evidence of facts.[/quote]

But, we know you haven't gone to the moon, so we know you have no evidence.

Do you? Maybe my real name is Aldrin or Armstrong. Your ignorance does not disprove the claim.

Moreover, if you went to the Moon and came back with your report, it would be evidence. But, if you wrote down a diary claiming you went to the moon, and it was discovered long after your death, copied, altered, recopied, the originals lost. The copies of lost copies of a dead man's statement would not, in fact, be evidence of anything.

Sure it would be evidence. It might not be evidence that you find compelling, but absent your ability to prove that I didn't go to the moon or could not have made the observation, it stands unopposed and unrebutted as truth.

In the same way, the documentary evidence that exists in the Bible of events which were observed by the original authors is indeed evidence of the events that occurred. That you cannot verify them to your satisfaction does not change their status or nature. And absent any countervailing evidence from you that shows that the observations of events so recorded are false or incorrect, or merely incomplete, the weight of evidence lies with the observational claims.

I've already addressed this. You're wrong.

You tried to, but you failed, so you're wrong.

So, where's your countervailing evidence that the claimed observations of events found in the Bible are either false or incorrect? Your skepticism does not qualify as countervailing evidence I'm afraid, so you'll have to do better than that.

Under your logic, my own writings here on Rationalia are sufficient countervailing evidence.

Hardly.

A subsequent writer's writing, setting forth what he says Mark, or Matthew, or Luke's statements were have no greater value than mine, do they? On what basis would you rank their writings above mine?

They claim to have been there and seen that. I know you weren't there and didn't see that, nor did you interview those who were. They are therefore more credible than you are because they are original sources.

And it doesn't matter if the documentary recording of the observation of events took place 10 minutes or 2000 years ago, it's all still evidence.

No, it does matter. A dying declaration of the "Jim Killed Me" kind MUST be made right when the person is dying. It's also a silly exception to the hearsay rule, because it's based on the notion that people are afraid to die with a "lie on their lips" and go to hell for an unforgiven sin.[/quote]

But the record of the observation of the dying declaration can be made at any time after the event itself and still be admissible evidence.

[Coito ergo sum]

I've explained that the Vatican, or anyone asserting the god-claim, has not produced evidence. They haven't. You've called the Bible "evidence" of the god-claim, and I've explained why it isn't and why I don't consider it evidence at all.

You're not the arbiter of "evidence" or how it is defined. The dictionary is.

Very true:

dictionary.com

Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something.

The Bible doesn't tend to prove anything.

In your non-authoritative opinion.

My opinion is no less authoritative than anyone else's.

A copy of a copy of a 1900 year old document, written by someone other than the purported narrator, claiming to make a statement of fact, is not evidence of that fact, because it does not tend to prove that fact. Just as Homer's Iliad does not tend to prove anything said or done by Achilles. It only proves that someone in the past ASSERTED that Achilles said or did something. It can be offered to prove that the assertion was made, not that the assertion is true.

No, it can be offered as evidence that the claim made is true, if it's offered as such a claim. I'm not aware that Homer claimed that the Iliad was a statement of observed events or facts. I believe he offered it as fiction.

Nope. The Iliad recounts the Trojan War. It doesn't say it's a work of fiction. And, the Bible doesn't say it's not a work of fiction either. You sure you want to go there?

Anyway -

(Hektor:)
'Zeus, and you other immortals, grant that this boy, who is my son,
may be as I am, pre-eminent among the Trojans,
great in strength, as am I, and rule strongly over Ilion;
and some day let them say of him: "He is better by far than his father",
as he comes in from the fighting; and let him kill his enemy
and bring home the blooded spoils, and delight the heart of his mother.' (6.476-481)

According to Seth, Zeus and the other immortals have been proven to exist, by a preponderance of the evidence.

[Coito ergo sum]

Under your logic, my own writings here on Rationalia are sufficient countervailing evidence.

Hardly.

It's certainly evidence, right?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's a simple system. Money is missing. Who suddenly has money. No charges yet, no arrests, just starting an investigation. If you came by the money legitimately you can show the source.

He doesn't have to prove anything, though. He can remain silent.

They can get a warrant, if they have probable cause, to obtain the bank records. They can't just go around making people justify their bank balances and pin crimes on people who can't prove themselves innocent.

True, he doesn't have to prove anything, but having a huge influx of cash is definitely a red flag. Being unable to explain where it comes from would move him to the next level of suspicion. And the IRS would want a word as well.

[Seth]

I've explained that the Vatican, or anyone asserting the god-claim, has not produced evidence. They haven't. You've called the Bible "evidence" of the god-claim, and I've explained why it isn't and why I don't consider it evidence at all.

You're not the arbiter of "evidence" or how it is defined. The dictionary is.

Very true:

dictionary.com

Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something.

The Bible doesn't tend to prove anything.

In your non-authoritative opinion.

My opinion is no less authoritative than anyone else's.

And no more so either.

A copy of a copy of a 1900 year old document, written by someone other than the purported narrator, claiming to make a statement of fact, is not evidence of that fact, because it does not tend to prove that fact. Just as Homer's Iliad does not tend to prove anything said or done by Achilles. It only proves that someone in the past ASSERTED that Achilles said or did something. It can be offered to prove that the assertion was made, not that the assertion is true.

No, it can be offered as evidence that the claim made is true, if it's offered as such a claim. I'm not aware that Homer claimed that the Iliad was a statement of observed events or facts. I believe he offered it as fiction.

Nope. The Iliad recounts the Trojan War. It doesn't say it's a work of fiction. And, the Bible doesn't say it's not a work of fiction either. You sure you want to go there?

Well, as long as you don't have any other evidence rebutting his recounting of the Trojan War, why should we not accept the evidence that is available as true until proven untrue?

Anyway -

(Hektor:)
'Zeus, and you other immortals, grant that this boy, who is my son,
may be as I am, pre-eminent among the Trojans,
great in strength, as am I, and rule strongly over Ilion;
and some day let them say of him: "He is better by far than his father",
as he comes in from the fighting; and let him kill his enemy
and bring home the blooded spoils, and delight the heart of his mother.' (6.476-481)

According to Seth, Zeus and the other immortals have been proven to exist, by a preponderance of the evidence.

Do you have any evidence that Zeus and the other immortals did not or do not exist, or are we to accept your argument from incredulity as an ipse dixit proof?

[Seth]

It's a simple system. Money is missing. Who suddenly has money. No charges yet, no arrests, just starting an investigation. If you came by the money legitimately you can show the source.

He doesn't have to prove anything, though. He can remain silent.

They can get a warrant, if they have probable cause, to obtain the bank records. They can't just go around making people justify their bank balances and pin crimes on people who can't prove themselves innocent.

True, he doesn't have to prove anything, but having a huge influx of cash is definitely a red flag. Being unable to explain where it comes from would move him to the next level of suspicion. And the IRS would want a word as well.

Once again, you're presenting strawmen and red herrings.

[Seth]

Again, you fail. If we look around and see three people with sudden increases in their bank accounts without being to explain same, they're all suspects.

Again you are trying to weasel-in additional evidence (premises) to your argument because your original argument has failed.

P1 Money is missing from the vault
P2 Robert has money in his account
C1 Robert stole the money from the vault

This syllogism is false logic because it does not follow that just because Robert has money in his account he is therefore responsible for the missing money. He may have had that money in his account long before the money went missing, or he may have had other legitimate sources for that money which he placed in his account after the theft.

In order to sustain your argument, you have to add a premise to the argument, which you're trying to do without admitting you're changing the argument:

P1 Money is missing from the vault
P1 Robert has money in his account
P3 Robert did not have money in his account before the theft
C1 Robert is a suspect in the theft.

You're goalpost shifting.

The correct logical syllogism is:

P1 Money is missing from the vault
P2 Robert has money in his account
C1 Money is missing from the vault

Absent additional evidence, nothing can be concluded about Robert (or anyone else) based only on the fact that money is missing from the vault.

I have here in my possession a document written by an unknown author which purports to be narrated by someone named Mark which claims that he saw Robert steal the money from the vault.

That would be evidence.

Mark is dead.

So what? The document remains as evidence.

The document is admittedly a copy of an earlier document which is now lost and not available.

It remains evidence.

We don't know who the author is, we don't know who Mark was.

And still it's evidence.

Yet, according to Seth, this is evidence of Robert's guilt.

Yup. It isn't evidence enough to convict him, but it is evidence.

We can choose to dismiss the evidence if we like, but it is still evidence.

Yup.

Moreover, if we can't come forward with countervailing evidence of Robert's innocence, then Seth thinks I have enough evidence to establish Robert's responsibility by a preponderance of the evidence. He is thus civilly liable for return of the money.

Not quite. First, it's a strawman argument to set this up as a court case involving theft, be it civil or criminal, because the burdens of proof are substantially higher in court and the admissibility of evidence is also a factor, but that's a factor in providing a fair trial, not a matter of the truth or falsity of the evidence.

The document may be a true copy of a statement made by Mark who saw Robert take the money. The fact that the document is a copy of a copy of a copy does not itself prove that the information contained on the document is not true.

Therefore, outside the courtroom, people are perfectly at liberty to look at the document as evidence and judge for themselves the truth of the claims made in it. And their judgments are no less rational or correct for not being supported by other evidence. But if someone wishes to impeach that document by providing evidence that it is not a true copy of the original or that Mark did not in fact produce the original, or that Mark was lying when he did produce the original, they are free to do so and thereby prove the document at the bar false. Until then, anyone who chooses to do so is entitled to rely upon the evidence before them and make their own judgment about the truth or falsity of the information contained therein.

Case closed, right Seth?

Not quite.

[Coito ergo sum]

You're not the arbiter of "evidence" or how it is defined. The dictionary is.

Very true:

dictionary.com

Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something.

The Bible doesn't tend to prove anything.

In your non-authoritative opinion.

My opinion is no less authoritative than anyone else's.

And no more so either.

Never said it was. Neither is yours.

A copy of a copy of a 1900 year old document, written by someone other than the purported narrator, claiming to make a statement of fact, is not evidence of that fact, because it does not tend to prove that fact. Just as Homer's Iliad does not tend to prove anything said or done by Achilles. It only proves that someone in the past ASSERTED that Achilles said or did something. It can be offered to prove that the assertion was made, not that the assertion is true.

No, it can be offered as evidence that the claim made is true, if it's offered as such a claim. I'm not aware that Homer claimed that the Iliad was a statement of observed events or facts. I believe he offered it as fiction.

Nope. The Iliad recounts the Trojan War. It doesn't say it's a work of fiction. And, the Bible doesn't say it's not a work of fiction either. You sure you want to go there?

Well, as long as you don't have any other evidence rebutting his recounting of the Trojan War, why should we not accept the evidence that is available as true until proven untrue?

Because we can't accept every writing as true until it's proven untrue. It's an assertion.

Anyway -

(Hektor:)
'Zeus, and you other immortals, grant that this boy, who is my son,
may be as I am, pre-eminent among the Trojans,
great in strength, as am I, and rule strongly over Ilion;
and some day let them say of him: "He is better by far than his father",
as he comes in from the fighting; and let him kill his enemy
and bring home the blooded spoils, and delight the heart of his mother.' (6.476-481)

According to Seth, Zeus and the other immortals have been proven to exist, by a preponderance of the evidence.

Do you have any evidence that Zeus and the other immortals did not or do not exist, or are we to accept your argument from incredulity as an ipse dixit proof?

I'm not asserting anything. I just don't believe in Zeus based on the lack of evidence.

By your logic, you think that the preponderance of the evidence is that Zeus exists. Right? Or, will you dodge the question?

[Coito ergo sum]

Moreover, if we can't come forward with countervailing evidence of Robert's innocence, then Seth thinks I have enough evidence to establish Robert's responsibility by a preponderance of the evidence. He is thus civilly liable for return of the money.

Not quite. First, it's a strawman argument to set this up as a court case involving theft, be it civil or criminal, because the burdens of proof are substantially higher in court and the admissibility of evidence is also a factor, but that's a factor in providing a fair trial, not a matter of the truth or falsity of the evidence.

The document may be a true copy of a statement made by Mark who saw Robert take the money. The fact that the document is a copy of a copy of a copy does not itself prove that the information contained on the document is not true.

Therefore, outside the courtroom, people are perfectly at liberty to look at the document as evidence and judge for themselves the truth of the claims made in it. And their judgments are no less rational or correct for not being supported by other evidence. But if someone wishes to impeach that document by providing evidence that it is not a true copy of the original or that Mark did not in fact produce the original, or that Mark was lying when he did produce the original, they are free to do so and thereby prove the document at the bar false. Until then, anyone who chooses to do so is entitled to rely upon the evidence before them and make their own judgment about the truth or falsity of the information contained therein.

Case closed, right Seth?

Not quite.

Umm...

You're the one who said that if we have a document like that, then the preponderance of the evidence is that the facts alleged are proved.

That is the burden of proof in a civil case, so you must be alleging that Robert, based on that document, would have to pay the money back. Yes?

That is the argument you are making when it comes to the Bible - your "preponderance of the evidence" thing?

[Seth]

Well, as long as you don't have any other evidence rebutting his recounting of the Trojan War, why should we not accept the evidence that is available as true until proven untrue?

Because we can't accept every writing as true until it's proven untrue.

Why not? Because it's extremely inconvenient for your anti-theistic dogma to do so, that's why not. However, your skepticism is not the metric by which truth is judged. People can judge the veracity and probative value of any writing they read without reference to your skepticism, you see. And the burden of proving their judgment wrong lies with those who make the positive claim that their judgment is wrong.

It's an assertion.

It's a statement of observational fact. Feel free to prove that the observation was not made.

Anyway -

(Hektor:)
'Zeus, and you other immortals, grant that this boy, who is my son,
may be as I am, pre-eminent among the Trojans,
great in strength, as am I, and rule strongly over Ilion;
and some day let them say of him: "He is better by far than his father",
as he comes in from the fighting; and let him kill his enemy
and bring home the blooded spoils, and delight the heart of his mother.' (6.476-481)

According to Seth, Zeus and the other immortals have been proven to exist, by a preponderance of the evidence.

Do you have any evidence that Zeus and the other immortals did not or do not exist, or are we to accept your argument from incredulity as an ipse dixit proof?

I'm not asserting anything. I just don't believe in Zeus based on the lack of evidence.

By your logic, you think that the preponderance of the evidence is that Zeus exists. Right? Or, will you dodge the question?

No, I'm saying that you cannot rationally make the claim that Zeus does NOT exist because you have no evidence pointing to that conclusion. Absent any such evidence, the preponderance of the evidence points towards the existence of Zeus. What you believe is, of course, something entirely different. You can say "I don't believe Zeus exists" and I will not disagree with you because belief is an intensely personal thing. But you cannot state as a matter of fact that Zeus does not, or did not exist because you have absolutely no evidence pointing to that conclusion. All you have is your incredulity. The ONLY evidence we have are the statements of the ancients that Zeus does, or did exist. That is where the preponderance of the evidence lies, whether you believe the evidence or not. Until you can disprove the evidence that exists, that's how things stand.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Utter poppycock. We don't have to disprove the existence of an imaginary being.

[Seth]

Moreover, if we can't come forward with countervailing evidence of Robert's innocence, then Seth thinks I have enough evidence to establish Robert's responsibility by a preponderance of the evidence. He is thus civilly liable for return of the money.

Not quite. First, it's a strawman argument to set this up as a court case involving theft, be it civil or criminal, because the burdens of proof are substantially higher in court and the admissibility of evidence is also a factor, but that's a factor in providing a fair trial, not a matter of the truth or falsity of the evidence.

The document may be a true copy of a statement made by Mark who saw Robert take the money. The fact that the document is a copy of a copy of a copy does not itself prove that the information contained on the document is not true.

Therefore, outside the courtroom, people are perfectly at liberty to look at the document as evidence and judge for themselves the truth of the claims made in it. And their judgments are no less rational or correct for not being supported by other evidence. But if someone wishes to impeach that document by providing evidence that it is not a true copy of the original or that Mark did not in fact produce the original, or that Mark was lying when he did produce the original, they are free to do so and thereby prove the document at the bar false. Until then, anyone who chooses to do so is entitled to rely upon the evidence before them and make their own judgment about the truth or falsity of the information contained therein.

Case closed, right Seth?

Not quite.

Umm...

You're the one who said that if we have a document like that, then the preponderance of the evidence is that the facts alleged are proved.

No, that's not what I said. You're concocting a strawman. All I said was that the preponderance of the evidence lies in that direction, and absent any countervailing evidence tending to disprove that evidence, it is not rational to come to a firm conclusion in opposition to the preponderance of the evidence.

That is the burden of proof in a civil case, so you must be alleging that Robert, based on that document, would have to pay the money back. Yes?

That is the argument you are making when it comes to the Bible - your "preponderance of the evidence" thing?

Nope. As I've repeatedly stated, this conundrum you face merely means that you cannot rationally or logically say that God does not exist because you have zero evidence that he doesn't exist.

However, I also point out that the ONLY evidence that is available other than your incredulity, which is not evidence, are first-person observational accounts of Jesus and various acts and phenomena taking place some 2000 years ago. This evidence cannot simply be discounted entirely because you are incredulous at the prospect of divine miracles being done way back then. Your incredulity does not weigh at all in the balancing of the available evidence on the subject I'm afraid.

Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence available to us right now tends towards the existence of God and that the acts and phenomena associated with Jesus are true. Does that mean I believe that evidence? Not necessarily, but then again my credulity, or incredulity, weighs nothing in the examination of the evidence itself.

Until you or someone else proves that the actions, events and phenomena claimed in the Bible did not or cannot have occurred, logic tells us that the weight of the actual evidence, such as it is, weighs in favor of those events and claims, however feather-light that weight may be.

[Seth]

Utter poppycock. We don't have to disprove the existence of an imaginary being.

Prove that God is an "imaginary being" first. This is at present an unsubstantiated assertion that can be dismissed without further consideration, according to your own rules.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Utter poppycock. We don't have to disprove the existence of an imaginary being.

Prove that God is an "imaginary being" first. This is at present an unsubstantiated assertion that can be dismissed without further consideration, according to your own rules.

Sorry, you missed a step, mayhap deliberately, by not proving any god or gods exist. It's ipso facto imaginary until you do.