Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

[Animavore]

the Gospels come down directly from those (in some cases) who actually experienced the events written of. They claim to have been there and witnessed the events.

No, they don't. Luke explicitly writes that he is relying on the reports of others for his rendition of the life of Jesus. [Luke 1:1–4]. Luke's gospel, along with those of Matthew and Mark, also differs significantly from that of John's, who some claim to be "the beloved apostle" Jesu. Biblical historians, however, have so far been unable to establish a generally accepted covenance indicating that John, the apostle, is in fact the John who wrote that gospel.

Reaching back to the veracity of the old testament, I am sceptical that a reliable witness account can be found for, say, god creating everything there is in six days, making Adam out of mud, fashioning Eve from a rib of Adam, and driving both of them out of paradise because they have eaten from the "tree of knowledge". Evolutionary theory and astrophysics seem to rest on better evidentiary foundations than the bible to base our view of life and the universe.

And you're entitled to be skeptical. But the point remains that there IS evidence pointing towards the facts claimed by the New Testament and the Old Testament, however slight. On the other hand, the absence of evidence (as in the absence of scientific or "Biblical historian" evidence) is not evidence of absence, in fact it's not evidence of anything.

So, where does the preponderance of the evidence as to the existence of God lie at the moment? With science, or with religion?

Name one 'fact' about God in the New Testament.

[Coito ergo sum]

the Gospels come down directly from those (in some cases) who actually experienced the events written of. They claim to have been there and witnessed the events.

No, they don't. Luke explicitly writes that he is relying on the reports of others for his rendition of the life of Jesus. [Luke 1:1–4]. Luke's gospel, along with those of Matthew and Mark, also differs significantly from that of John's, who some claim to be "the beloved apostle" Jesu. Biblical historians, however, have so far been unable to establish a generally accepted covenance indicating that John, the apostle, is in fact the John who wrote that gospel.

Reaching back to the veracity of the old testament, I am sceptical that a reliable witness account can be found for, say, god creating everything there is in six days, making Adam out of mud, fashioning Eve from a rib of Adam, and driving both of them out of paradise because they have eaten from the "tree of knowledge". Evolutionary theory and astrophysics seem to rest on better evidentiary foundations than the bible to base our view of life and the universe.

And you're entitled to be skeptical. But the point remains that there IS evidence pointing towards the facts claimed by the New Testament and the Old Testament, however slight.

That depends on the facts. The New Testament is long. If you're talking about the fact that there was a Rome, and Romans, and a Caesar and that there was a church of the Ephesians and Galatians and such things, sure. What else were you referring to?

On the other hand, the absence of evidence (as in the absence of scientific or "Biblical historian" evidence) is not evidence of absence, in fact it's not evidence of anything.

Exactly! Not...evidence...of ANYTHING. The fact that there is no evidence, is not evidence of ANYTHING. Neither is it evidence of SOMETHING. Savvy?

So, where does the preponderance of the evidence as to the existence of God lie at the moment? With science, or with religion?

There is no evidence as to the exist of God, or any other gods, the basement stacks of the Vatican library which the Pope for some unstated reason declines to scan and post on the Vatican website to publicly display the as yet undisclosed proof of the existence of a god, notwithstanding.

[Seth]

the Gospels come down directly from those (in some cases) who actually experienced the events written of. They claim to have been there and witnessed the events.

No, they don't. Luke explicitly writes that he is relying on the reports of others for his rendition of the life of Jesus. [Luke 1:1–4]. Luke's gospel, along with those of Matthew and Mark, also differs significantly from that of John's, who some claim to be "the beloved apostle" Jesu. Biblical historians, however, have so far been unable to establish a generally accepted covenance indicating that John, the apostle, is in fact the John who wrote that gospel.

Reaching back to the veracity of the old testament, I am sceptical that a reliable witness account can be found for, say, god creating everything there is in six days, making Adam out of mud, fashioning Eve from a rib of Adam, and driving both of them out of paradise because they have eaten from the "tree of knowledge". Evolutionary theory and astrophysics seem to rest on better evidentiary foundations than the bible to base our view of life and the universe.

And you're entitled to be skeptical. But the point remains that there IS evidence pointing towards the facts claimed by the New Testament and the Old Testament, however slight.

That depends on the facts. The New Testament is long. If you're talking about the fact that there was a Rome, and Romans, and a Caesar and that there was a church of the Ephesians and Galatians and such things, sure. What else were you referring to?

I'm not making any specific claims here, I'm pointing out that evidence exists and that if you challenge the evidence, it's up to you to provide the counter-evidence demonstrating that the evidence in the record is false. That's all.

On the other hand, the absence of evidence (as in the absence of scientific or "Biblical historian" evidence) is not evidence of absence, in fact it's not evidence of anything.

Exactly! Not...evidence...of ANYTHING. The fact that there is no evidence, is not evidence of ANYTHING. Neither is it evidence of SOMETHING. Savvy?

Correct, but I'm talking about the lack of evidence presented by scientists or historians. Both testimonial (direct oral) and documentary evidence (written accounts of events) are, in fact, evidence. What the probative value is of the evidence as regards the claim under consideration is an entirely different matter.

But ANY evidence (as in the documentary evidence of the Bible, which is in part alleged to be based on first-person accounts and observations of events) beats NO evidence at all (the lack of scientific or historical evidence that certain claims of the bible are false), and so the preponderance of the evidence actually in the record leans towards the existence of God rather than away from it. It may be, in your opinion (or mine) scant evidence, but evidence it is nonetheless, and you cannot rationally or logically discard it entirely merely because you cannot provide confirmation using science or historical investigation.

You may, of course, choose not to assign much probative value to the documentary evidence, and that is your right, but you cannot rationally use your skepticism as justification for a claim that the events written of in the Bible (or anywhere else) did not occur. That's an ipse dixit fallacy all it's own: "I, CES, refuse to believe that certain claims of the Bible are true, and I expect you to accept this claim, even though I have provided zero evidence that the observations recorded in the Bible did not occur as described."

So, where does the preponderance of the evidence as to the existence of God lie at the moment? With science, or with religion?

There is no evidence as to the exist of God, or any other gods,

Sure there is, you just choose to discount and deny the evidence, which is entirely different from the evidence not existing or not being true.

the basement stacks of the Vatican library which the Pope for some unstated reason declines to scan and post on the Vatican website to publicly display the as yet undisclosed proof of the existence of a god, notwithstanding.

And how do you KNOW this? What is your critically-robust evidence that there is zero "proof of the existence of a god" in the Vatican basement stacks? Have you examined all the documents and other evidence the Vatican holds? Do you know, as a result of a comprehensive examination of every document and artifact in the possession of the Vatican that no object or account proving the existence of God exists?

Somehow, I don't think so.

Your skepticism and denial are neither evidence nor proof of anything at all, other than your own personal opinion on the matter.

Therefore, you are quintessentially deep in a state of dogmatic religious belief about the utter absence of existence of the evidence that God exists that's precisely the same in character as the dogmatic religious belief that God DOES exist.

Welcome to the ranks of religious believers!

[Seth]

That seems to me to makes sense in terms of what death will be like. No perception.

Same here. I've lost up to a month at a time due to injuries and that time just wasn't there. One moment I'm looking an inbound smoke trail and thinking "FUCK!" and the next I'm in a nice clean hospital room thousands of miles away. (They kept me under so I wouldn't need pain meds. Good thing, too.)

Your personal experience is not universal, and therefore it is but one data point, upon which no rational conclusions can be drawn.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Never cared what you think, Seeth.

[Robert_S]

This thread is tempting, but I really see nothing that successfully challenges my beliefs or or gives me new information, I could participate just to test my skills and endurance in the art or argumentation, but instead I think I'll listen to Bobby Bare sing that song Shel Silverstein wrote:

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 2#p1057682

[Pappa]

I read a story recently about an atheist that had a NDE. Do you know what she said? She realised that this is the only life we have, that death is an end, that she should make more use of our lives. In other words, her NDE just happened to confirm what she already believed.
NDEs are another example of piss-poor 'evidence'.

Michael Shermer recounted a similar tale about an "alien abduction" that happened to him.

[Coito ergo sum]

the Gospels come down directly from those (in some cases) who actually experienced the events written of. They claim to have been there and witnessed the events.

No, they don't. Luke explicitly writes that he is relying on the reports of others for his rendition of the life of Jesus. [Luke 1:1–4]. Luke's gospel, along with those of Matthew and Mark, also differs significantly from that of John's, who some claim to be "the beloved apostle" Jesu. Biblical historians, however, have so far been unable to establish a generally accepted covenance indicating that John, the apostle, is in fact the John who wrote that gospel.

Reaching back to the veracity of the old testament, I am sceptical that a reliable witness account can be found for, say, god creating everything there is in six days, making Adam out of mud, fashioning Eve from a rib of Adam, and driving both of them out of paradise because they have eaten from the "tree of knowledge". Evolutionary theory and astrophysics seem to rest on better evidentiary foundations than the bible to base our view of life and the universe.

And you're entitled to be skeptical. But the point remains that there IS evidence pointing towards the facts claimed by the New Testament and the Old Testament, however slight.

That depends on the facts. The New Testament is long. If you're talking about the fact that there was a Rome, and Romans, and a Caesar and that there was a church of the Ephesians and Galatians and such things, sure. What else were you referring to?

I'm not making any specific claims here, I'm pointing out that evidence exists and that if you challenge the evidence, it's up to you to provide the counter-evidence demonstrating that the evidence in the record is false. That's all.

If you're not making any specific claims, then I'm not obligated to make any specific rebuttals or to provide any counter-evidence. 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. Some of it is, some of it isn't. The assertion that the Bibles claim that there was a Roman Empire and a Roman Emperor is backed up by archaelogical evidence. Other claims aren't. It's a long book. If you're claiming the entire Bible is backed up by evidence, then I will rebut that claim by pointing you to unicorns. There is no evidence backing up the Bible's claim that there are or were unicorns. That is sufficient to rebut the claim that the entirety of the Bible is backed up by evidence "in the record." There is no evidence in the record for unicorns.

On the other hand, the absence of evidence (as in the absence of scientific or "Biblical historian" evidence) is not evidence of absence, in fact it's not evidence of anything.

Exactly! Not...evidence...of ANYTHING. The fact that there is no evidence, is not evidence of ANYTHING. Neither is it evidence of SOMETHING. Savvy?

Correct, but I'm talking about the lack of evidence presented by scientists or historians. Both testimonial (direct oral) and documentary evidence (written accounts of events) are, in fact, evidence. What the probative value is of the evidence as regards the claim under consideration is an entirely different matter. [/quote]

They aren't scientific evidence for claims about geology, cosmology, physics, biology, etc. A written account by Richard Dawkins, by itself, is not evidence of anything regarding human originals. A written account by Stephen Hawking or Richard Feynman is not evidence, by itself, of the origins of the universe. Neither is the Bible. The Bible has some historicity, but that is different than evidence of universal or human origins, and the Bible's historicity, like the historicity of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey is never taken as evidence of anything on its own. It is only considered evidence if verified by other sources and means, particularly hard archaelogical evidence. And, just as Homer's Iliad and Odyssey is not evidence of the god claims therein, neither is the Bible.

But ANY evidence (as in the documentary evidence of the Bible, which is in part alleged to be based on first-person accounts and observations of events) beats NO evidence at all (the lack of scientific or historical evidence that certain claims of the bible are false), and so the preponderance of the evidence actually in the record leans towards the existence of God rather than away from it. It may be, in your opinion (or mine) scant evidence, but evidence it is nonetheless, and you cannot rationally or logically discard it entirely merely because you cannot provide confirmation using science or historical investigation.

So, by the same token, you take Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, and the Havamal, as well as the Prose and Poetic Eddas as "evidence" that the Greek and Norse gods exist?

By your use of the term "evidence" then if I write a journal of my thoughts and musings, and write down that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then you'd have to acknowledge that as "some evidence" of its truth value. That means the preponderance of the evidence as between science and my journal is that my journal has at least a scintilla of evidence, where science has none that shows the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

If that's the kind of ludicrous nonsense that you're trying to sell here, then you are in good company with the snake-oil priests.

You may, of course, choose not to assign much probative value to the documentary evidence, and that is your right, but you cannot rationally use your skepticism as justification for a claim that the events written of in the Bible (or anywhere else) did not occur. That's an ipse dixit fallacy all it's own: "I, CES, refuse to believe that certain claims of the Bible are true, and I expect you to accept this claim, even though I have provided zero evidence that the observations recorded in the Bible did not occur as described."

So, where does the preponderance of the evidence as to the existence of God lie at the moment? With science, or with religion?

There is no evidence as to the exist of God, or any other gods,

Sure there is, you just choose to discount and deny the evidence, which is entirely different from the evidence not existing or not being true.

Only to the extent that I also discount and deny the evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Mother Goose were or are real. I saw a movie about a guy named Shrek, and I don't count that as evidence of a fairy tale land with Ogres and talking donkeys.

You can, of course, redefine "evidence" to include any writing that makes any assertions about anything and call it "evidence" of that assertion. That is your right. But, you'd only be gravely abusing the English language, and creating a tautological sophistry of epic proportions.

the basement stacks of the Vatican library which the Pope for some unstated reason declines to scan and post on the Vatican website to publicly display the as yet undisclosed proof of the existence of a god, notwithstanding.

And how do you KNOW this?

I went to the Vatican website, and the evidence wasn't there. That's how I know it. Since it is very easy for books to be scanned and posted online, then the only reasons the Vatican hasn't posted the material there are, logically: (1) they don't know about the evidence in their own library, (2) they are incapable of posting it, (3) they lack the desire to post it. Why else?

What is your critically-robust evidence that there is zero "proof of the existence of a god" in the Vatican basement stacks?

Because the Vatican states that one of its central purposes is to bring the "Truth" to all the people of the world, so that they may know God, and his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, for it is through the One True Church that salvation lies. So, either they don't have the evidence to post, or they have the evidence that would prove to the world the truth of their alleged "Truth" and they decline to present it, leaving many people who would be convinced by the evidence to muddle along with their souls in mortal peril. Why would they hold onto the evidence and keep it secret, if it is there?

Have you examined all the documents and other evidence the Vatican holds?

No, and why would I have to? If they have the evidence, and they, as they say they do, wan to convert people to the One True Faith to save their souls, why would they hold onto the evidence and keep it secret, if it exists?

Do you know, as a result of a comprehensive examination of every document and artifact in the possession of the Vatican that no object or account proving the existence of God exists?

No, and it isn't my burden.

1. It would make no sense whatsoever for a Church which says it is committed to bringing the world to the One (tripartite) God to withhold such evidence. Therefore, it is a reasonable conclusion that such an organization, having had 1600 years or more to present the evidence, simply doesn't have it. Alternatively, they do have it, but for reasons known only to them, they will not disclose it.

2. If the Vatican is making the claim that God exists, it is their burden of proof to prove it. If they don't, then they are asking us to rely on their word, which is ipse dixit. If they are saying, and they haven't said it, but you have, that they have the evidence in their files, then it is incumbent upon them to produce the evidence of their claim, or what is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. It's as simple as that.

3. If they have the evidence and are sitting on it, then that would seem to be odds with their claim that they care about cluing people in on the "Truth." So, they are scoundrels in that case, too.

Somehow, I don't think so.

Answers above.

Your skepticism and denial are neither evidence nor proof of anything at all,

Nor are they asserted to be.

other than your own personal opinion on the matter.

Whose opinion would it be, besides my own?

Therefore, you are quintessentially deep in a state of dogmatic religious belief about the utter absence of existence of the evidence that God exists that's precisely the same in character as the dogmatic religious belief that God DOES exist.

Welcome to the ranks of religious believers!

Crock of shit.

I never said that there was an utter absence of the existence of evidence, other than in the sense that those making the assertion haven't presented any evidence. Do I know if there is evidence on Pluto? No, of course not. I can't claim to know anything about what is on Pluto. Maybe there is evidence of God there. But, nobody here making the assertion has presented any evidence. Therefore, I don't believe in God.

As for your claim that the written document is "evidence," I already addressed that. If you want to call it evidence, then I'll just need to clarify the type of evidence that it is. It's like the Havamal and Poetic and Prose Edda. Those books, to me, are not "evidence" of god claims. Neither is the Bible. You can call them evidence of that all you want, but they aren't. I'm not ignoring evidence. You're calling something evidence which isn't.

[Coito ergo sum]

That seems to me to makes sense in terms of what death will be like. No perception.

Same here. I've lost up to a month at a time due to injuries and that time just wasn't there. One moment I'm looking an inbound smoke trail and thinking "FUCK!" and the next I'm in a nice clean hospital room thousands of miles away. (They kept me under so I wouldn't need pain meds. Good thing, too.)

Your personal experience is not universal, and therefore it is but one data point, upon which no rational conclusions can be drawn.

Are you saying...you don't believe Gawdzilla's claim?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That seems to me to makes sense in terms of what death will be like. No perception.

Same here. I've lost up to a month at a time due to injuries and that time just wasn't there. One moment I'm looking an inbound smoke trail and thinking "FUCK!" and the next I'm in a nice clean hospital room thousands of miles away. (They kept me under so I wouldn't need pain meds. Good thing, too.)

Your personal experience is not universal, and therefore it is but one data point, upon which no rational conclusions can be drawn.

Are you saying...you don't believe Gawdzilla's claim?

My personal experience is just that, personal experience. I claimed nothing except that this is what happened to me. So he can't be saying he doesn't believe my claim, I didn't make one.

[Seth]

If you're not making any specific claims, then I'm not obligated to make any specific rebuttals or to provide any counter-evidence.

Of course you're not. We're not talking about any specific claims here, we're talking about the logic of your arguments, which is weak. Evidence exists. You deny that this evidence has any probative value or is true when you claim there "is no evidence." You are not using good reasoning skills when you make such an unsupported claim as "there is no evidence." You might say "I don't find the evidence in the Bible (or any other theistic claim) to be credible," but that's not what you said, you said "there is no evidence." And yet there IS evidence, as I've stated. Therefore you are making a false and unsupported claim.

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."

Some of it is, some of it isn't. The assertion that the Bibles claim that there was a Roman Empire and a Roman Emperor is backed up by archaelogical evidence. Other claims aren't. It's a long book.

So, now you admit that the Bible contains evidence. Thank you. Now we come to whether or not any specific claim in the bible is true or not. Previously you claimed that there "is no evidence" that God exists. Now you admit that evidence does exist in the Bible, but you discount that evidence for which YOU believe there is adequate independent verification. But the fact that there is insufficient independent verification to suit YOU in no way impeaches the evidence that exists in the Bible. If, for example, "science" or "historians" simply refuse to investigate what they call a "supernatural" claim, then there will never be such "verification," but that DOES NOT mean that the claim is false or invalid. Absence of evidence (of the falsity or truth of a god-claim) is not evidence of absence (of the god claimed), it's merely your own skepticism regarding the OTHER claims in the bible, the ones you don't BELIEVE are true, that's in play here, not any conclusions about the truth or falsity of the Bible's claims regarding God or actions witness by others that are claimed to be of God.

If you're claiming the entire Bible is backed up by evidence, then I will rebut that claim by pointing you to unicorns. There is no evidence backing up the Bible's claim that there are or were unicorns. That is sufficient to rebut the claim that the entirety of the Bible is backed up by evidence "in the record." There is no evidence in the record for unicorns.

I'm not claiming anything but the fact that there is evidence in the Bible. If you discount that evidence, or deny it, the burden of proof is on you to show that the evidence is false. You said before that "there is no evidence." Now you admit that there IS "evidence" but you only accept that evidence that has been independently verified by some authority you find credible. But once you admit that there is evidence in the Bible, you take on the burden of proving that the OTHER evidence is NOT true, because it is, whether you believe it or not, evidence. Your belief or disbelief in the evidence does not change the nature of the evidence. If you refused to believe that fingerprints are unique to each human, and that therefore fingerprint examination and comparison was not valid evidence in a criminal case, your disbelief would not affect the fact that fingerprint evidence exists, nor would it affect the probative value of that evidence. You can say "prove to me that this evidence is probative" and I can say "you're the one disputing it, so you prove it's not probative."

On the other hand, the absence of evidence (as in the absence of scientific or "Biblical historian" evidence) is not evidence of absence, in fact it's not evidence of anything.

Exactly! Not...evidence...of ANYTHING. The fact that there is no evidence, is not evidence of ANYTHING. Neither is it evidence of SOMETHING. Savvy?

Correct, but I'm talking about the lack of evidence presented by scientists or historians. Both testimonial (direct oral) and documentary evidence (written accounts of events) are, in fact, evidence. What the probative value is of the evidence as regards the claim under consideration is an entirely different matter. [/quote]

They aren't scientific evidence for claims about geology, cosmology, physics, biology, etc. A written account by Richard Dawkins, by itself, is not evidence of anything regarding human originals.

Sure it is. It's evidence. Evidence is "a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment."

A written account by Stephen Hawking or Richard Feynman is not evidence, by itself, of the origins of the universe. Neither is the Bible. The Bible has some historicity, but that is different than evidence of universal or human origins, and the Bible's historicity, like the historicity of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey is never taken as evidence of anything on its own. It is only considered evidence if verified by other sources and means, particularly hard archaelogical evidence. And, just as Homer's Iliad and Odyssey is not evidence of the god claims therein, neither is the Bible.

Now you're conflating the probative value of the evidence with the definition of evidence. YOU may not consider it probative evidence, and YOU may require that it be "verified by other sources and means" in order to satisfy your skepticism, but that doesn't change the nature of the evidence as evidence, nor does your skepticism in any way change either the truth or falsity of the claims or evidence.

If a fingerprint exists at the scene of a crime, it's evidence. If a document saying "John killed me" is found at the scene of a murder, that document is evidence, even if the document is 2000 years old. Your skeptical view of the evidence doesn't change the nature of the evidence nor does it change the truth-value of the evidence. Likewise, a document written 2000 years ago that says "I saw a man named Jesus raise a guy named Lazarus from the dead and I saw him multiply loaves and fishes to feed a multitude" is evidence of the events that occurred. The evidence may be true or false. It may have probative value or no probative value, but YOUR refusal to acknowledge it as evidence does not change the nature of the evidence, it just points to your skepticism.

And since YOU are the one claiming that there "is no evidence" even when it's obvious that there IS evidence, the burden falls on you to impeach or disprove the evidence that does exist, if you can.

But ANY evidence (as in the documentary evidence of the Bible, which is in part alleged to be based on first-person accounts and observations of events) beats NO evidence at all (the lack of scientific or historical evidence that certain claims of the bible are false), and so the preponderance of the evidence actually in the record leans towards the existence of God rather than away from it. It may be, in your opinion (or mine) scant evidence, but evidence it is nonetheless, and you cannot rationally or logically discard it entirely merely because you cannot provide confirmation using science or historical investigation.

So, by the same token, you take Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, and the Havamal, as well as the Prose and Poetic Eddas as "evidence" that the Greek and Norse gods exist?

Of course it's evidence. The question is evidence of what, exactly? The evidence I'm referring to is documentary evidence of personal observations of miraculous and divine events, not epic poetry or fiction.

By your use of the term "evidence" then if I write a journal of my thoughts and musings, and write down that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then you'd have to acknowledge that as "some evidence" of its truth value. That means the preponderance of the evidence as between science and my journal is that my journal has at least a scintilla of evidence, where science has none that shows the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

Yes, it's evidence. And if I say "there is no evidence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster" the burden of proof lies on me to impeach the evidence that exists. Just because I don't believe you doesn't mean that your claim is automatically false, now does it? So, the best I can say about the FSM is "I don't know if it exists, though I doubt it, and I don't really care one way or another." But it is a false claim to say that "no evidence exists" of the FSM because it does exist, however incredible it may be.

If that's the kind of ludicrous nonsense that you're trying to sell here, then you are in good company with the snake-oil priests.

You may, of course, choose not to assign much probative value to the documentary evidence, and that is your right, but you cannot rationally use your skepticism as justification for a claim that the events written of in the Bible (or anywhere else) did not occur. That's an ipse dixit fallacy all it's own: "I, CES, refuse to believe that certain claims of the Bible are true, and I expect you to accept this claim, even though I have provided zero evidence that the observations recorded in the Bible did not occur as described."

So, where does the preponderance of the evidence as to the existence of God lie at the moment? With science, or with religion?

There is no evidence as to the exist of God, or any other gods,

Sure there is, you just choose to discount and deny the evidence, which is entirely different from the evidence not existing or not being true.

Only to the extent that I also discount and deny the evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Mother Goose were or are real. I saw a movie about a guy named Shrek, and I don't count that as evidence of a fairy tale land with Ogres and talking donkeys.

One multiverse theory holds that there IS a universe in which Shrek exists. What's your critically robust evidence there is no such alternate universe?

You can, of course, redefine "evidence" to include any writing that makes any assertions about anything and call it "evidence" of that assertion. That is your right. But, you'd only be gravely abusing the English language, and creating a tautological sophistry of epic proportions.

Not at all. One of the other definitions of "evidence" is "ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood."

A first-person account of events that occurred is clearly evidence and data upon which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood." Or, again, "evidence" means "matter produced before a court of law in an attempt to prove or disprove a point in issue, such as the statements of witnesses, documents, material objects, etc."

You are mistaking "lack of probative value due to non-verification" with "evidence."

the basement stacks of the Vatican library which the Pope for some unstated reason declines to scan and post on the Vatican website to publicly display the as yet undisclosed proof of the existence of a god, notwithstanding.

And how do you KNOW this?

I went to the Vatican website, and the evidence wasn't there. That's how I know it. Since it is very easy for books to be scanned and posted online, then the only reasons the Vatican hasn't posted the material there are, logically: (1) they don't know about the evidence in their own library, (2) they are incapable of posting it, (3) they lack the desire to post it. Why else?

So, you're admitting that you don't know anything, you are just conjecturing based on your ignorance and the fact that the Vatican doesn't make it easy for you to find or examine. That doesn't remove the possibility that they have knowledge you don't.

What is your critically-robust evidence that there is zero "proof of the existence of a god" in the Vatican basement stacks?

Because the Vatican states that one of its central purposes is to bring the "Truth" to all the people of the world, so that they may know God, and his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, for it is through the One True Church that salvation lies. So, either they don't have the evidence to post, or they have the evidence that would prove to the world the truth of their alleged "Truth" and they decline to present it, leaving many people who would be convinced by the evidence to muddle along with their souls in mortal peril. Why would they hold onto the evidence and keep it secret, if it is there?

Who knows? Maybe God told them to. That's irrelevant though to your assertion that there is zero proof of the existence of a god" in the Vatican. They may choose to keep it secret for reasons of their own, and still you cannot make the claim that there is "no evidence." Your claim is unsubstantiated, and therefore may be rejected, according to your own rules.

Have you examined all the documents and other evidence the Vatican holds?

No, and why would I have to?

Because you made the claim that there is "no evidence" of god in the Vatican. Now you must prove it or have your claim summarily dismissed, according to your own rules, because you are making an ipse dixit claim. We are expected to believe that your assertion that the Vatican has no proof of the existence of God is true merely because you claim that this proof does not exist.

If they have the evidence, and they, as they say they do, wan to convert people to the One True Faith to save their souls, why would they hold onto the evidence and keep it secret, if it exists?

You'd have to ask them. They don't have to answer you. Sucks to be you.

Do you know, as a result of a comprehensive examination of every document and artifact in the possession of the Vatican that no object or account proving the existence of God exists?

No, and it isn't my burden.

Sure it is. You made the positive claim that there is no such evidence, therefore the burden lies on you to prove that claim.

1. It would make no sense whatsoever for a Church which says it is committed to bringing the world to the One (tripartite) God to withhold such evidence.

It may make no sense to you, but it may make perfect sense to them. This does not support your claim that there is "no evidence" however.

Therefore, it is a reasonable conclusion that such an organization, having had 1600 years or more to present the evidence, simply doesn't have it. Alternatively, they do have it, but for reasons known only to them, they will not disclose it.

And in your alternative, you're still wrong and the burden of proof still lies with you to prove your claim of "no evidence."

2. If the Vatican is making the claim that God exists, it is their burden of proof to prove it.

Not if they don't want to it isn't.

If they don't, then they are asking us to rely on their word, which is ipse dixit.

Or, they are saying, "here's the evidence (and there's a lot of it), now it's up to you to believe it or not. You might want to ask God about it." Interestingly, many people over the generations have said they've asked God about it and gotten an affirmative answer from him about his existence. That too is evidence of the existence of God.

If they are saying, and they haven't said it, but you have, that they have the evidence in their files, then it is incumbent upon them to produce the evidence of their claim, or what is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. It's as simple as that.

Right, your claim that "there is no evidence" can be dismissed because you have provided no evidence that there is no evidence. On the other hand, I've provided evidence (in the form of the Bible) that God does exist. Now it's up to you to disprove that evidence if you can.

3. If they have the evidence and are sitting on it, then that would seem to be odds with their claim that they care about cluing people in on the "Truth." So, they are scoundrels in that case, too.

That may be, but that doesn't change the nature of the evidence that exists.

Your skepticism and denial are neither evidence nor proof of anything at all,

Nor are they asserted to be.

But you said that there is "no evidence" when clearly there is evidence. Then you temporized and backpedaled and said there is some evidence that meets with your approval, and presumably some that does not. But your admission that there is evidence in the Bible demonstrates that the Bible is evidence, and that your skepticism about the claims in the Bible do not change the nature of the evidence in the Bible.

Therefore, you are quintessentially deep in a state of dogmatic religious belief about the utter absence of existence of the evidence that God exists that's precisely the same in character as the dogmatic religious belief that God DOES exist.

Welcome to the ranks of religious believers!

Crock of shit.

Your religious dogmatism? Certainly is.

I never said that there was an utter absence of the existence of evidence, other than in the sense that those making the assertion haven't presented any evidence. Do I know if there is evidence on Pluto? No, of course not. I can't claim to know anything about what is on Pluto. Maybe there is evidence of God there. But, nobody here making the assertion has presented any evidence. Therefore, I don't believe in God.

Nobody asked you to believe in God. All I'm trying to get across to you is that you can't claim to know anything about the existence of God, and that all you can rationally and logically say about God is "I don't know."

As for your claim that the written document is "evidence," I already addressed that.

Yes, wrongly.

If you want to call it evidence, then I'll just need to clarify the type of evidence that it is.

I did. It's documentary evidence of original observations of actual events written down by those who observed the events. If you disbelieve this documentary evidence, then feel free to present your critically robust evidence that the statements are false. The burden of proof lies with you to do so.

It's like the Havamal and Poetic and Prose Edda. Those books, to me, are not "evidence" of god claims. Neither is the Bible. You can call them evidence of that all you want, but they aren't. I'm not ignoring evidence. You're calling something evidence which isn't.

No, it's you who is failing to understand the meaning of the word "evidence." Go look it up.

[DaveD]

Evidence exists.

Evidence has been claimed by you to exist, but you have shown no evidence that it does, nor has the Catholic church.

No, it's you who is failing to understand the meaning of the word "evidence." Go look it up.

ev·i·dence   [ev-i-duhns] noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. Well we can't know whether the church's purported evidence tends to prove anything, since we only have the word of interested parties that there is any.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever. The church's purported evidence cannot make anything plain or clear, since the existence of that evidence isn't plain or clear.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. The only evidence I'm acquainted with as to the truth of the church's claims is hearsay, which isn't accepted in any court in even a moderately civilised country.

[Robert_S]

Evidence exists.

Evidence has been claimed by you to exist, but you have shown no evidence that it does, nor has the Catholic church.

No, it's you who is failing to understand the meaning of the word "evidence." Go look it up.

ev·i·dence   [ev-i-duhns] noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. Well we can't know whether the church's purported evidence tends to prove anything, since we only have the word of interested parties that there is any.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever. The church's purported evidence cannot make anything plain or clear, since the existence of that evidence isn't plain or clear.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. The only evidence I'm acquainted with as to the truth of the church's claims is hearsay, which isn't accepted in any court in even a moderately civilised country.

Now you're putting the Lord God Al(most)mighty on trial on charges of possible non-existence?

[DaveD]

No, but courts tend to be less stringent than scientists, and even they won't accept hearsay, so why should we? I'm left wondering what Seth regards as evidence, since dictionaries don't seem to help him.

[Robert_S]

No, but courts tend to be less stringent than scientists, and even they won't accept hearsay, so why should we? I'm left wondering what Seth regards as evidence, since dictionaries don't seem to help him.

Spectral evidence was good enough in Salem.