Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Evidence is not always good evidence.

Correct. But it's always evidence. The truth-value of evidence is a matter entirely separate from it's nature and status as evidence.

Bad evidence, mediocre evidence, good evidence. And evidence in between. You mentioned Goodall. If her observations had not been confirmed by later research she would have been justifiably dismissed. Its the same with the Bible.

"Justifiably dismissed" according to whom? You? You aren't the arbiter of "justifiable dismissal" I'm afraid.

You're struggling. You know one researcher's work is just the start of a scientific process. If the results are not confirmed, they can be dismissed. Confirmation may come later, but it does appear, no rational researcher would bet the ranch on it.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Plainly you don't understand it.

A written claim is not evidence of that claim, and it doesn't matter that it's written down a long time ago, or recopied many times. It's still just an assertion.

That depends on what the claim is.

That's part of the reason why I asked you what part of the Bible you were talking about. If you're asking me about the whole Bible, it's impossible to address a particular claim. You refused to specify, and merely claimed that "there is evidence" in the Bible and if I say there is not, then I have to prove there is not.

The writing "I saw Judas betray Jesus to the Romans" is evidence of that claim.

That isn't in the Bible. However, let's say it is. It's only an assertion made by the narrator. It is no different than a verbal claim in the modern day that says "i saw Jesus descend from the clouds." It's not evidence - it's just an assertion.

Moreover, it is hearsay. It's a writing written in the first person, but the "I" is not here. That makes it hearsay.

It's documentary evidence of first-person testimony.

It's documentary evidence OF A HEARSAY DECLARATION. It is NOT evidence of the underlying assertion itself (i.e. it is not evidence that Judas actually did it). That is the distinction you're not getting. Just like Homer's Iliad is not evidence that Achilles actually did X, Y or Z, and we wouldn't take it as proven unless there was corroborating evidence.

The truth value of that writing is entirely different from it's status and nature as evidence. You may choose to disbelieve the evidence, but it's still evidence. And in the absence of any countervailing evidence that the testator did NOT see what he claims to have seen, it constitutes the preponderance of the evidence.

Total bollocks. First of all, a "testator" is someone who makes a will. Secondly, a preponderance of the evidence doesn't require that any particular piece of evidence be believed, so an unrebutted document does not need to be taken at face value. The jury can disregard it. Moreover, since you want to refer to this in legal terms, rather than scientific terms, the document would never be admitted because it is hearsay.

If unchallenged in civil court,

It's inadmissible in civil court as hearsay. It is not admissible to prove the matter asserted.

and absent any evidence to the contrary from the other side, that writing would prevail as the preponderance of the evidence.

Not true. That's not what preponderance of the evidence means.

Moreover, we're talking about scientific evidence not courtroom evidence here. But, even in the courtroom, the Bible would not be admissible to prove that Judas betrayed Jesus to the Romans because the "I" who is speaking is a "declarant" who is outside the trial or hearing (i.e. not here to be cross examined).

So, where's your countervailing evidence that the claims of the Apostles are not true?

You want this to be in the courtroom?

Seth: Your honor, I move to admit Exhibit X. It is a....

CES: Objection, your honor. Hearsay. May we approach? [asked to approach the bench to have a quiet conversation with the judge outside the hearing of the jury]

CES to Judge: Your Honor, this exhibit is a written statement purporting to be the statement of a person named Mark [or Matthew or whoever]. The document is apparently a copy of a 1900 year old document which no longer exists.

Judge to Seth: Counsel, what are you introducing this document to prove?

Seth: Your honor, I am offering this document to prove that Judas betrayed Jesus to the Romans.

CES: Your honor, the statement offered is by a declarant, Mark, who is not hear to testify and is not subject to cross examination. it is being offered to prove the matter asserted by Mark, and is therefore inadmissible.

Judge: Objection sustained. The document is excluded. Proceed counselor.

Seth: I have no other evidence your honor. We have to rest our case.

CES: Your honor, opposing counsel has no witnesses, no direct or forensic evidence, and his only documentary evidence is inadmissible hearsay and copies of long lost hearsay documents. At this point, we move for a directed verdict.

Seth: Ummmm... uhh.... ummmm...

Judge: Motion granted. The case of People vs. Judas Iscariot is dismissed with prejudice.

__________________________________________________________

The reason you're wrong in your evidentiary analysis is not only that the information is hearsay within hearsay, but also conceptually it is because by your logic, we have to conclude that the preponderance of the evidence is that everything in the Baghavad Gita, Tao Te Ching, Havamal, Iliad, Oddyssey, and the Egyptian Book of the Dead are evidence of their contents. Surely you see why that isn't the case?

[Seth]

In the absence of evidence that you took the money from the vault, the money in your account is yours, and it's irrelevant whether it's a miracle or not.

If there's money missing from the vault and Robert can't account for where he got his money, he's a suspect.

So? In the ABSENCE of other evidence, it's Robert's money. You're trying to move the goalposts by sneaking in the indirect evidence "Robert can't account for where he got his money." Not allowed.

I said "Suspect", not guilty. Did you miss that part?

Not at all. I made note of the fact that you are trying to weasel-in evidence (that Robert can't account for where he got his money) in order to support your evident, though vague claim that absent any evidence of guilt Robert should be considered a suspect.

The fact is that if there is money missing from the vault, absent other evidence, specifically evidence pointing towards Robert as a suspect, the balance in Robert's account is not evidence that he took the money.

You're trying to sneak in "other evidence," which is goalpost shifting. The evidence you're trying to sneak in includes evidence that prior to the money going missing, Robert's bank account balance was something other than it was after the money went missing. That's "other evidence."

But if we stick with the example, we have two facts: Money is missing from the vault and Robert has money.

Neither of those facts, in and of themselves, points to Robert as a suspect without other evidence being introduced.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In the absence of evidence that you took the money from the vault, the money in your account is yours, and it's irrelevant whether it's a miracle or not.

If there's money missing from the vault and Robert can't account for where he got his money, he's a suspect.

So? In the ABSENCE of other evidence, it's Robert's money. You're trying to move the goalposts by sneaking in the indirect evidence "Robert can't account for where he got his money." Not allowed.

I said "Suspect", not guilty. Did you miss that part?

Not at all. I made note of the fact that you are trying to weasel-in evidence (that Robert can't account for where he got his money) in order to support your evident, though vague claim that absent any evidence of guilt Robert should be considered a suspect.

The fact is that if there is money missing from the vault, absent other evidence, specifically evidence pointing towards Robert as a suspect, the balance in Robert's account is not evidence that he took the money.

You're trying to sneak in "other evidence," which is goalpost shifting. The evidence you're trying to sneak in includes evidence that prior to the money going missing, Robert's bank account balance was something other than it was after the money went missing. That's "other evidence."

But if we stick with the example, we have two facts: Money is missing from the vault and Robert has money.

Neither of those facts, in and of themselves, points to Robert as a suspect without other evidence being introduced.

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.

[Svartalf]

You mean the three wise men looted the church coffers on the way back home?

[Robert_S]

In the absence of evidence that you took the money from the vault, the money in your account is yours, and it's irrelevant whether it's a miracle or not.

If there's money missing from the vault and Robert can't account for where he got his money, he's a suspect.

So? In the ABSENCE of other evidence, it's Robert's money. You're trying to move the goalposts by sneaking in the indirect evidence "Robert can't account for where he got his money." Not allowed.

I said "Suspect", not guilty. Did you miss that part?

Not at all. I made note of the fact that you are trying to weasel-in evidence (that Robert can't account for where he got his money) in order to support your evident, though vague claim that absent any evidence of guilt Robert should be considered a suspect.

The fact is that if there is money missing from the vault, absent other evidence, specifically evidence pointing towards Robert as a suspect, the balance in Robert's account is not evidence that he took the money.

You're trying to sneak in "other evidence," which is goalpost shifting. The evidence you're trying to sneak in includes evidence that prior to the money going missing, Robert's bank account balance was something other than it was after the money went missing. That's "other evidence."

But if we stick with the example, we have two facts: Money is missing from the vault and Robert has money.

Neither of those facts, in and of themselves, points to Robert as a suspect without other evidence being introduced.

I used to work at the bank, I am familiar with the security system and I am known to despise the guy in charge of security, I don't have an alibi, I got fired over some minor rule infraction that everyone else violates weekly (if not daily)...

Maybe it isn't enough to convict, but if total strangers proclaim I must be innocent and that the money appearing in my account is actually a supernatural event... Well I won't complain but I won't fault other folks for calling those people nutters.

[Seth]

Evidence is not always good evidence.

Correct. But it's always evidence. The truth-value of evidence is a matter entirely separate from it's nature and status as evidence.

Bad evidence, mediocre evidence, good evidence. And evidence in between. You mentioned Goodall. If her observations had not been confirmed by later research she would have been justifiably dismissed. Its the same with the Bible.

"Justifiably dismissed" according to whom? You? You aren't the arbiter of "justifiable dismissal" I'm afraid.

You're struggling. You know one researcher's work is just the start of a scientific process. If the results are not confirmed, they can be dismissed. Confirmation may come later, but it does appear, no rational researcher would bet the ranch on it.

The problem with your argument is that you assume that there is some ultimate arbiter of "justifiably dismissed" when there isn't. A thing is either true or false. What human beings may or may not know about the thing, or what they may or may not understand about the thing does not change the truth or falsity of the thing.

The truth or falsity of a written record of an observed event is not determined by later investigation of the record. The record remains either true or false irrespective of "scientific" analysis of the record or the claim. This means that if it is true, the failure or refusal of science to investigate it, or the failure of science to disprove the claims is meaningless as to the actual truth or falsity of the claim.

The only way that one can rationally say that a documented claim of an observation of an event or phenomenon is false is for science to demonstrate that the event or phenomenon either did not or cannot occur, to a scientific certainty. Anything less is merely a lack of information or an inability to disprove the claim or mere skepticism about the claim.

If I write down, "On December 25th, I saw a white dove alight on the top of a statute of Mary at the Catholic church downtown," that is evidence of an event that I observed occurring. That you or science are unable to demonstrate using critically robust scientific evidence that I saw that event occur does not mean that the event did not occur or that it is impossible for the event to have occurred. Therefore, in the absence of critically robust scientific evidence that my observation did not occur (you might prove that I was somewhere besides in a position to observe the statute and dove on that date) or that it was impossible for that event to have occurred (you might prove that there is no statute of Mary at the Catholic church downtown, or that the Catholic church downtown is located in Lunopolis and that the vacuum surrounding the statute makes it impossible for a dove to fly and land on the statute), the claim stands alone and unopposed by countervailing evidence that would impeach the truth-value of the claim. Therefore, absent such countervailing evidence, the claim stands as the preponderance of the evidence that the event occurred as described and I was there to observe it, the burden of proof being on you to present the countervailing evidence, and not upon me to further support the claim.

Nor is the "scientific process" the arbiter of "justifiably dismissed" I'm afraid, unless it can present critically robust countervailing evidence against the claim.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Still failing.

[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.

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.

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.

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

And, it doesn't tend to prove anything.

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.

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

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.

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

You lose.

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.

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.

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.

The weight of the evidence is not with the writer of Beowulf that Grendel and his Mother really existed. I won't explain it again. You're just 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.

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?

No, what you are calling "evidence" is an assertion. Assertions aren't evidence. That's the silliness of your argument. You're suggesting that because Matthew or Mark "asserted" that Jesus was the Son of God, risen from the dead, etc., that there is "evidence" for that proposition. No. Writing down the thing at issue doesn't make it "evidence." It makes it a written assertion, and in this case that assertion is ancient hearsay within hearsay within hearsay.

It ain't evidence. It's a hearsay assertion or declaration.

Hearsay evidence is still evidence. It's excluded in some courtrooms because as hearsay it is less reliable (the truth value is reduced) than original testimonial evidence and it's important in a criminal proceeding that the accused have the opportunity to face his accusers directly.

Not just criminal proceedings. All proceedings. The Bible is admissible. Moreover, The Bible has an authentication problem too. It's not even evidence because it can't be authenticated. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. This is done with the testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be. Nobody can testify to that about the Bible. You need a witness.

However, hearsay evidence is allowed in other court venues, as is documentary evidence. A scrawl in blood on the floor next to the murder victim in his own hand that "Jim kilt me" is direct documentary evidence of a claim of factual events observed by the victim. The statement of a detective on the stand saying "I saw a scrawl in blood in the hand of the victim saying "Jim kilt me"" is indirect evidence of the written statement of a factual event observed by the victim. The detective's written report, in which he writes "On the floor next to the victim was written, in the victim's blood, the words "Jim kilt me." is documentary evidence of a direct observation of factual events by the detective, from which it may be rationally inferred that the victim wrote "Jim kilt me" in blood before he died. The truth value of that bloody scrawl is another thing entirely, but all the above are absolutely and unequivocally "evidence" of the events and observations.

The Bible is not a dying declaration. You lose. Excluded.

You don't have a witness to authenticate it.

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.

You just want to call it an "assertion" because you disbelieve the nature of the recorded observation and its truth value. But again, your skepticism doesn't change the actual nature of the writings as evidence.

In science, documents are not evidence.

In courtrooms, you have no witness to authenticate the document, and it's inadmissible hearsay. And, it also has zero probative value because it doesn't tend to prove anything at all, and is therefore not evidence.

[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.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

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

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

Yet, according to Seth, this is evidence of Robert's guilt. We can choose to dismiss the evidence if we like, but it is still evidence. 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.

Case closed, right Seth?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gee, Seth, I guess we don't want to look for suspects, do we?

[Svartalf]

Who needs suspects? we have an accomplice.

[Coito ergo sum]

Gee, Seth, I guess we don't want to look for suspects, do we?

According to Seth, anything can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence by writing something down.

"We, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, hereby state that there are seven gods, all of them shaped roughly like Victoria's Secret Models. When a man dies, if his penis is at least six inches long, he will get issued a Victoria's Secret Model of his own, whose only wish is to fellate a man (and juggle the balls, too) for all eternity. Anyone with less than a six inch long penis gets issued a Hillary Clinton look-alike."

Proven by a preponderance of the evidence due to lack of countervailing evidence.

[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.