Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

[Hermit]

the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

I could not agree more. Having said that, I suggest that we don't expend a lot of time on the implications of the existence of Rudolph the Rednosed Reindeer and Santa Claus until we encounter evidence that they may in fact exist.

there IS evidence pointing towards the facts claimed by the New Testament and the Old Testament

You keep asserting that. So far you have not provided any, though, and I have not encountered any myself. I don't expect you to take my word for it that you'll find evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in Richard Dawkins' books if only you look for it, but it seems you regard your refusal to back your assertion as reasonable and acceptable.

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

Please furnish evidence of the existence of God. No, repeated assertions of personal conviction to have witnessed God do not qualify as evidence. If that was the case, we'd have to accept the numerous mediaeval accounts of encounters with witches, fire-breathing dragons and other monsters as true.

[Svartalf]

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?

I dunno if such a trial is possible, unless you do it in absentia... maybe we should take the sentence on the lawyers wo refuse to plead guilty for him?

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Yes, of course evidence exists. But, of what?

You deny that this evidence has any probative value or is true when you claim there "is no evidence."

What evidence? And, what is does the evidence evidence?

You are not using good reasoning skills when you make such an unsupported claim as "there is no evidence."

Of course I am. 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. It's merely a statement of the claim. 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.

What you do is bootstrap an old "claim" and say that because it was written down a long time ago, it is now "evidence" of the same claim made now. What it is, however, is just a repeated claim.

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.

But, there isn't. there are only claims. State the claim 1,000 times or 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 times, and it's still just a claim. Write it down and bury it in the desert for 1500 years, and it's still just a 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." [/quote]

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.

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.

No, I'm admitting that some things written in the Bible are supported by evidence. Huge difference. The Bible isn't evidence that there was a Roman Empire. The Bible's claim that there was a Roman Empire is supported by evidence.

Thank you.

You misunderstood.

Now we come to whether or not any specific claim in the bible is true or not.

I don't know if any of the claims in the Bible are true or not, nor do I "know" if there ever was a Roman Empire. There is plenty of evidence for the Roman Empire, so I am justified in concluding that there was one. But, I suppose it's possible that "god planted the evidence of the Roman Empire to trick us, like the dinosaur bones." I don't know what the truth is. I only know what the evidence is. And, I know that to date, there isn't any evidence of the existence of god, like there is evidence of the existence of the Roman Empire. If you say there is, then present it and prove me wrong. If you show me the evidence, then I'll admit I'm wrong.

Pointing to the written claims in the Bible is merely to restate the assertion at issue.

Previously you claimed that there "is no evidence" that God exists.

What is the evidence that gods exist?

Now you admit that evidence does exist in the Bible,

Not for gods.

I also did not admit that evidence exists IN the Bible. I admitted that the Bible makes statements, and that some of those statements are corroborated with evidence.

but you discount that evidence for which YOU believe there is adequate independent verification.

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.

But the fact that there is insufficient independent verification to suit YOU in no way impeaches the evidence that exists in the Bible.

Evidence doesn't exist in the Bible, and there is no independent verification for the god claim. The Bible is not "independent verification." The Bible is an assertion. A hearsay within hearsay within hearsay statement of an asserted fact. That god-claim statement is not backed up by any evidence at all. The Roman Empire claim is. Savvy?

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.

I never said it was false or invalid. I said there is no evidence supporting the Bible's god claim. It may be true, though, just as Hercules may really have traveled to Hades, and it may be true the Odin was crucified to the World Tree. Might be true sure, and it's not "invalid" to make the claim. The claim just doesn't have any evidence for it. It's a mere claim.

Absence of evidence (of the falsity or truth of a god-claim) is not evidence of absence (of the god claimed),

I never said it was. I said absence of evidence is absence of evidence, and without evidence it is irrational to draw a conclusion.

You went further than me in responding something Gawdzilla said - you said that even where there is evidence, if it's only one data point, it's irrational to draw a conclusion. Thus, it's irrational to conclude that a god or gods exist. That's why I don't believe in gods. I don't believe in things about which it is irrational to draw conclusions.

Do you believe in things about which it is irrational to draw conclusions?

[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.

[Seth]

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. The writing "I saw Judas betray Jesus to the Romans" is evidence of that claim. It's documentary evidence of first-person testimony. 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. If unchallenged in civil court, and absent any evidence to the contrary from the other side, that writing would prevail as the preponderance of the evidence.

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

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Evidence is not always good evidence.

[Robert_S]

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. The writing "I saw Judas betray Jesus to the Romans" is evidence of that claim. It's documentary evidence of first-person testimony. 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. If unchallenged in civil court, and absent any evidence to the contrary from the other side, that writing would prevail as the preponderance of the evidence.

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

So, if the money is missing from the vault and I inexplicably have money in my account and, in the absence of any other evidence, at least one person will say it was a miracle...

[Seth]

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

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

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.

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, 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.

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." [/quote]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But Kepler's celestial observations and calculations are evidence for his claims about orbits, and that remains true whether or not those observations and claims can be or have been replicated or verified.

The observations of Jane Goodall about the behavior of gorillas in the forest are evidence of her observations, whether or not her observations were accurate or correct.

The written reports of the astronauts as to the nature of the moon-dust and regolith on the moon are evidence of the nature of moon-dust and regolith on the moon, even though YOU have not been able to independently verify or confirm those observations. They will remain evidence for eternity, notwithstanding your potential skepticism about the "assertions" made by the astronauts who actually made the observations.

And it is just as true that the observations recorded in the Bible regarding the events witnessed by the Apostles will remain evidence of the events that occurred forever, notwithstanding your skepticism regarding the truth-value of those statements.

[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.

[Seth]

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. The writing "I saw Judas betray Jesus to the Romans" is evidence of that claim. It's documentary evidence of first-person testimony. 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. If unchallenged in civil court, and absent any evidence to the contrary from the other side, that writing would prevail as the preponderance of the evidence.

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

So, if the money is missing from the vault and I inexplicably have money in my account and, in the absence of any other evidence, at least one person will say it was a miracle...

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?