Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

[Seth]

There is just no reason to believe it. Well, I'll leave it to you to explain the reasons there are to believe it. An explanation that someone somewhere might have evidence that you or I don't know about is simply a truism on every issue everywhere all the time. We all know that. The question is, what is that evidence? If the answer is "I don't know," then there is no reason to believe the assertion.

Until someone presents evidence for it, then it is not based on evidence.

Someone (a great many someones actually) has presented evidence. You just disbelieve the evidence.

Nope. They haven't. If you care to prove me wrong, present the evidence.

I have. You evade the consequences of that evidence by discounting it and denying that it is evidence, even though it is clearly and exactly evidence even according to your own argument because, in the case of the gospels, it's a record of observations of actual events set down by the observers of those events, which you yourself said constituted evidence.

You've said the Bible is evidence in and of itself.

I don't consider that to be evidence, but you do.

Fine, I also noted that if we assume it to be, arguendo, evidence, then we are still not justified in believing because your claim that it is the only evidence we have and is therefore the "preponderance" of the evidence is false, because YOU ignored the atheist writings, which is the same sort of evidence. Therefore, the Bible is not the only evidence.

Moreover, based on your own logic, the burden would be on you to prove Lucretius, and Ingersoll and Hitchens wrong. That is what you said was my burden in relation to the Bible. Logically, you can't have that one way.

Yes, no?

But the Atheist writings do not make claims of original observations of events. They merely state the author's opinions as to the veracity of the claims of original observations of the authors of the Bible. Hitchens does not say "I was at the Sermon on the Mount and I saw donkey-carts full of bread and fish being delivered from a nearby town," or "I was at the tomb and saw that the person Jesus brought from the tomb was not Lazarus but instead was Harry the Fishmonger from down the street dressed up in Lazarus' clothes and wearing a false beard." Therefore Hitchens' claims are not relevant to the truth-value of the claims of the Apostles...or the claims of the witnesses at Fatima.

Certainly Hitchens' et all's writings are evidence of something, but not of the claims of original observations of phenomena or events in the time of Jesus, because, well, Hitchens wasn't alive in the time of Jesus and never claimed to have been.

So, no, I do not have to disprove Hitchens' claims. Ingersoll I'm not familiar with I'm afraid.

As for Lucretius, his work is evidence as well, but its in the nature of philosophical thought, not claims of the observation of actual events, so it does not conflict with those observations and need not be disproven for the claims by the Apostles to be evidence, and true, in their own right.

But I cannot make the positive claim that Lucretius is wrong without presenting evidence to support that conclusion, and to do so would be irrational.

[Seth]

Nope. They haven't. If you care to prove me wrong, present the evidence.

I have. You evade the consequences of that evidence by discounting it and denying that it is evidence, even though it is clearly and exactly evidence even according to your own argument because, in the case of the gospels, it's a record of observations of actual events set down by the observers of those events, which you yourself said constituted evidence.

We don't even know who wrote the Gospels, much less that they are eyewitness testimony.

No, you refuse to believe that they are eyewitness testimony. But what you "know" does not impeach the truth of the claims, does it? It merely goes to your beliefs. And since you have not demonstrated with critically robust evidence that the claims are false, the preponderance of the evidence remains with the claims of original observations of phenomena and events, regardless of your lack of knowledge about the authors of the texts.

No, you refuse to believe in Robert Green Ingersoll's writings. But, that doesn't impeach the truth of his claims. It merely goes to your beliefs. And since you have not demonstrated with critically robust evidence that the claims of Robert Green Ingersoll are false, the preponderance of the evidence remains there, regardless of your lack of knowledge or lack of belief in Ingersoll's texts.

You keep making this argument, Seth, and you pretend that contrary writings to the Bible do not exist. On what basis do you make this "preponderance" claim, and on what basis do you keep claimign that the Bible is the "only" evidence, when it simply is not?

I don't know of his writings so I'm not able to render judgment or draw any conclusions about the truth-value of his writings either way. And therein lies my point. I cannot draw a rational conclusion about Ingersoll's writings because I know nothing about them, and I'm willing to admit that I cannot draw a rational conclusion. All I can say is "I don't know."

Why is it so difficult for you to say the same thing about the god-claims of theists about which you INSIST you have no evidence? It seems to me the only rational thing you can say about those claims is "I don't know," because you don't, in fact, know anything because you insist that they have provided no evidence of those claims.

[Ronja]

Seth, please spend at least a little time finding actual information about the reliability of the "evidence" of the bible before you embarrass yourself any further. This should be a good enough place to start: Professor Bart D Ehrman's lecture Scirbes Who Altered Scripture, available on Youtube, in ten ten-minute parts (the first minutes of the first part consist of introductions and the two last parts are Q&A):

Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 - Part 6 - Part 7 - Part 8 - Part 9 - Part 10

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seriously? The Babble is accurate and first hand? Nobody believe that any more.

[Seth]

Seriously? The Babble is accurate and first hand? Nobody believe that any more.

Did I say that? I don't think so. I said that parts of the Bible are claimed to be first-hand observations of phenomena and events, and that no one here has provided critically robust evidence that the observations so recorded are not true, and that therefore it is irrational to conclude, based on zero evidence presented of the falsity of the observations of events found in the bible, that God does not exist, and that the only rational conclusion one can draw from the evidence before us is that we simply don't know whether God exists or not.

Is that a simple enough for you to comprehend?

[Seth]

Seth, please spend at least a little time finding actual information about the reliability of the "evidence" of the bible before you embarrass yourself any further.

That's not my job. I'm not the one making claims about the reliability of the evidence of the Bible, you are (or CES is) and therefore it's up to you to present critically robust evidence that a statement of observed reality recorded in the Bible is factually false before using that falsity as a premise in an argument that God does not exist.

I'm merely stating that the evidence exists, and that in the absence of countervailing evidence of a critically robust nature that refutes the evidence in the Bible, drawing conclusions about the existence of God based on what's in, or not in, or is factual or false about the Bible, is irrational.

It's an iteration of the Atheist's Fallacy as well, because disproving a claim in the Bible, even authoritatively using accepted science, does not disprove the existence of God, and cannot be rationally used as a premise in an argument against the existence of God because the claim may simply be a human mistake or error.

Once again, the ONLY claim that I am positively asserting here is that it is simply impossible to draw a RATIONAL, LOGICAL CONCLUSION about the existence of God based on the evidence, and therefore the only rational statement one can make about the existence of God is "We don't know whether or not God exists."

Everything else is analysis of the logical and reasoning failures of the various participants demonstrating why my statement above is true.

[Seth]

Nope. They haven't. If you care to prove me wrong, present the evidence.

I have. You evade the consequences of that evidence by discounting it and denying that it is evidence, even though it is clearly and exactly evidence even according to your own argument because, in the case of the gospels, it's a record of observations of actual events set down by the observers of those events, which you yourself said constituted evidence.

We don't even know who wrote the Gospels, much less that they are eyewitness testimony.

No, you refuse to believe that they are eyewitness testimony. But what you "know" does not impeach the truth of the claims, does it? It merely goes to your beliefs. And since you have not demonstrated with critically robust evidence that the claims are false, the preponderance of the evidence remains with the claims of original observations of phenomena and events, regardless of your lack of knowledge about the authors of the texts.

No, you refuse to believe in Robert Green Ingersoll's writings. But, that doesn't impeach the truth of his claims. It merely goes to your beliefs. And since you have not demonstrated with critically robust evidence that the claims of Robert Green Ingersoll are false, the preponderance of the evidence remains there, regardless of your lack of knowledge or lack of belief in Ingersoll's texts.

You keep making this argument, Seth, and you pretend that contrary writings to the Bible do not exist. On what basis do you make this "preponderance" claim, and on what basis do you keep claimign that the Bible is the "only" evidence, when it simply is not?

I challenge you to cite the passage wherein I use the word "only" in relation to the evidence found in the Bible.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seriously? The Babble is accurate and first hand? Nobody believe that any more.

Did I say that? I don't think so. I said that parts of the Bible are claimed to be first-hand observations of phenomena and events, and that no one here has provided critically robust evidence that the observations so recorded are not true, and that therefore it is irrational to conclude, based on zero evidence presented of the falsity of the observations of events found in the bible, that God does not exist, and that the only rational conclusion one can draw from the evidence before us is that we simply don't know whether God exists or not.

Is that a simple enough for you to comprehend?

You won't defend your source, the Babble, so you lose. Is that simple enough for you to comprehend?

[Coito ergo sum]

I have. You evade the consequences of that evidence by discounting it and denying that it is evidence, even though it is clearly and exactly evidence even according to your own argument because, in the case of the gospels, it's a record of observations of actual events set down by the observers of those events, which you yourself said constituted evidence.

We don't even know who wrote the Gospels, much less that they are eyewitness testimony.

No, you refuse to believe that they are eyewitness testimony. But what you "know" does not impeach the truth of the claims, does it? It merely goes to your beliefs. And since you have not demonstrated with critically robust evidence that the claims are false, the preponderance of the evidence remains with the claims of original observations of phenomena and events, regardless of your lack of knowledge about the authors of the texts.

No, you refuse to believe in Robert Green Ingersoll's writings. But, that doesn't impeach the truth of his claims. It merely goes to your beliefs. And since you have not demonstrated with critically robust evidence that the claims of Robert Green Ingersoll are false, the preponderance of the evidence remains there, regardless of your lack of knowledge or lack of belief in Ingersoll's texts.

You keep making this argument, Seth, and you pretend that contrary writings to the Bible do not exist. On what basis do you make this "preponderance" claim, and on what basis do you keep claimign that the Bible is the "only" evidence, when it simply is not?

I challenge you to cite the passage wherein I use the word "only" in relation to the evidence found in the Bible.

Here you specifically say the Biblical accounts beat "no evidence at all." But, there IS other evidence (arguendo, writings), which I have pointed out. http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... e#p1078214 And, you did it again here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... e#p1078214 You wrote "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."

The reality is, though, that we have many, many writings that say the opposite, that god does not exist, and that provide proofs thereof. Therefore, based on the writings, your claim that you've found a preponderance of the evidence because "some" evidence (one or another of the many versions of the Bible) constitutes more evidence than "none." Under your definition of "evidence", there is other evidence.

Your challenge was accepted and met.

You claimed the writings were evidence in and of themselves, and that their existence meant that there is some scintilla of evidence, at least, that what is alleged therein is true. Therefore it was my obligation to produce evidence that the allegations therein were not true.
You did it in relation to all the "writings of the ancients," of which the various versions and translations of the different Bibles are some: ""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."

Here is part of the exchange where you are doing it: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... e#p1078954

Here you are explaining exactly your position on this: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... e#p1078870 You said that if you write down that you saw a dove alight from a tower, that ABSENT COUNTERVAILING EVIDENCE, then the preponderance of the evidence is that it happened. That's what I'm telling you. We have, in the case of God and the Bibles, other writings by other observers that attest that the doves did not alight from the tower, and that gods do not exist. Those, too, must be evidence.

Here you take a specific quote from the Bible, and claim it is the only evidence. You say "absent any countervailing evidence." http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... e#p1078765 You then ask "where is your countervailing evidence that claims of the Apostles are not true?" I've offered the writings of every great atheist, ancient and recent, who wrote that the apostles either did not exist, didn't see what they say they saw, have disparate and inconsistent accounts of what they wrote happened, etc., etc. Those, too, must be evidence. There is countervailing evidence, if - arguendo - we consider the writings themselves to be evidence at all (which I don't, but you do, so I'm assuming that arguendo to be the case).



Again, you dodge the issue I raised with you - since we also have ancient and not so ancient writings of atheists attesting to the non-existence of gods, then don't you have to accept them as evidence under your formulation? And, therefore, isn't it correct that there is no prepoonderance of the evidence based on the writings?

I, seriously, would greatly appreciate a straight answer.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth, please spend at least a little time finding actual information about the reliability of the "evidence" of the bible before you embarrass yourself any further.

That's not my job. I'm not the one making claims about the reliability of the evidence of the Bible, you are (or CES is)

I'm not.

and therefore it's up to you to present critically robust evidence that a statement of observed reality recorded in the Bible is factually false before using that falsity as a premise in an argument that God does not exist.

What is "critically robust evidence? Certainly not the Bible. It's not critically robust. Since you say that for the the atheist claim to be used as a premise in an argument, they must present not only "evidence" but "critically robust" evidence. You've never even called the Bible "critically robust." So, on what basis do you give the god-proponents only the obligation to present a "scintilla" of any evidence, but you then demand that the no-god-proponents present "Critically robust" evidence?

I'm merely stating that the evidence exists, and that in the absence of countervailing evidence of a critically robust nature that refutes the evidence in the Bible,

There is no absence of such evidence. I've pointed you to it several times (the various writings I pointed out). You can't, then draw any conclusions and at best there is evidence pointing to god, and evidence pointing to no god, and it's written evidence by dead people that can't be tested, right? So, since conclusions can't rationally be drawn, isn't it irrational to adopt a belief? If not, why not?

A serious answer, on point, without a dodge, would be most appreciated.

[Coito ergo sum]

We've already clarified that I make no affirmative claim that there is no evidence somewhere. I've already acknowledged that I'm open to seeing it.

And, I've made clear over and over again that belief does not equal truth, nor is truth dependent on belief.

However, do you agree that it is irrational to believe that something is, in fact, true, if you have no reason or evidence to believe it to be true?

That depends on what you mean by "no reason or evidence."

I'll stop you right there and define it for you. For the purposes of this question, "reason or evidence" means whatever Seth thinks it means.

So, on that basis, do you agree that it is irrational to believe that something is, in fact, true, if you have no reason or evidence to believe it to be true?

[apophenia]

Nope. They haven't. If you care to prove me wrong, present the evidence.

I have. You evade the consequences of that evidence by discounting it and denying that it is evidence, even though it is clearly and exactly evidence even according to your own argument because, in the case of the gospels, it's a record of observations of actual events set down by the observers of those events, which you yourself said constituted evidence.

We don't even know who wrote the Gospels, much less that they are eyewitness testimony.

No, you refuse to believe that they are eyewitness testimony. But what you "know" does not impeach the truth of the claims, does it?

What claim? I said I'm willing to be corrected on the point, but I'm not aware of anywhere in the Gospels where the author claims to be an eyewitness to the events recounted. And since you didn't demonstrate such a claim, I suspect I was right and that no such claim exists within the Gospels. Prove me wrong, cite the passages in the Gospels where the (anonymous) author claims to be an eye witness to the events. Failing that, any claim that they are eyewitness testimony is a claim about the Gospels which itself needs to be independently assessed.

ETA: Matter of fact, here's the author of Luke explicitly declaiming himself as a witness:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

And your critically robust evidence that Luke did not accurate recount the events as they actually occurred based on his careful investigation is....???

Well isn't that special. Unfortunately the question it was testifying against was not "are the Gospels true," but rather are they eyewitness testimony. So your rejoinder is not even relevant.

[Coito ergo sum]

Nope. They haven't. If you care to prove me wrong, present the evidence.

I have. You evade the consequences of that evidence by discounting it and denying that it is evidence, even though it is clearly and exactly evidence even according to your own argument because, in the case of the gospels, it's a record of observations of actual events set down by the observers of those events, which you yourself said constituted evidence.

We don't even know who wrote the Gospels, much less that they are eyewitness testimony.

No, you refuse to believe that they are eyewitness testimony. But what you "know" does not impeach the truth of the claims, does it?

What claim? I said I'm willing to be corrected on the point, but I'm not aware of anywhere in the Gospels where the author claims to be an eyewitness to the events recounted. And since you didn't demonstrate such a claim, I suspect I was right and that no such claim exists within the Gospels. Prove me wrong, cite the passages in the Gospels where the (anonymous) author claims to be an eye witness to the events. Failing that, any claim that they are eyewitness testimony is a claim about the Gospels which itself needs to be independently assessed.

A nice, concise phrasing of my point that each of the various versions of the different Bibles are hearsay within hearsay within hearsay.

We don't HAVE an eyewitness. We have a person writing a book who claims that someone else witnesses something. Not only that, we don't have the original writing. So, we have an unknown scribe, who may or may not have accurately copied a manuscript, that may or may not have been the original manuscript, by an unknown original author, who was writing down what he either thought up himself or was reported to him happened decades before the writing occurred.

That is not "eyewitness testimony." Eyewitness testimony is, axiomatically, testimony of an eyewitness. We don't have that. We have a decades after the fact report, written by a person who wasn't there, writing about events AT BEST reported to him, and we don't know who the writer was. That writing was supposedly copied, and the original subsequently lost.

[Coito ergo sum]

And your critically robust evidence that Luke did not accurate recount the events as they actually occurred based on his careful investigation is....???

Well isn't that special. Unfortunately the question it was testifying against was not "are the Gospels true," but rather are they eyewitness testimony. So your rejoinder is not even relevant.

And, one might just as well ask what Seth's critically robust evidence is that the writers of the Poetic and Prose Edda and the Heimskringla did not accurately recount events as they actually occurred based on his careful investigation is....???

And, I love how Seth assumes, without any critically robust evidence, that Luke did a "careful investigation." Where, Seth, is your critically robust evidence that Luke made a careful investigation, or that he even wrote the book of Luke?

[Seth]

Seriously? The Babble is accurate and first hand? Nobody believe that any more.

Did I say that? I don't think so. I said that parts of the Bible are claimed to be first-hand observations of phenomena and events, and that no one here has provided critically robust evidence that the observations so recorded are not true, and that therefore it is irrational to conclude, based on zero evidence presented of the falsity of the observations of events found in the bible, that God does not exist, and that the only rational conclusion one can draw from the evidence before us is that we simply don't know whether God exists or not.

Is that a simple enough for you to comprehend?

You won't defend your source, the Babble, so you lose. Is that simple enough for you to comprehend?

Since I never set out to defend it, I cannot lose, so you lose, comprehend?