Can we at least agree on this?

[notachance]

There is no empirical evidence in support of any supernatural claim in the Bible.

The only evidence is hearsay anecdotal evidence.

That hearsay evidence in support of supernatural claims in the Bible is miniscule when stacked up against the overwhelming empirical evidence AGAINST any supernatural claims in the Bible.

For example, the only piece of evidence for Genesis is an old book written by anonymous authors who could not POSSIBLY have been alive at the time the event allegedly happened.

To the contrary there is overwhelming empirical evidence against genesis: Accurate, testable, empirical, measurable evidence that allows us to make accurate predictions, and the validity of which is supported by the fact that the same data-acquiring-method (the scientific method) is also responsible for getting us to the moon, performing heart transplants, creating computers, doubling life expectancy, inventing antibiotics and millions of others things which are measurably and irrefutably valid.

So, can we at least agree that the evidence against the veracity of supernatural Bible claims is more solid than the evidence in favor of it?

[Sing]

Is the existence of NYC evidence for the existence of Spiderman as depicted in many comics? Arguably yes, as outlined above.

Are you saying that existence of a part of Jericho which was spared utter ruin is evidence that a miracle as depicted in the bible occurred? Because we know that Comics are fiction. If we are agreeing here that the bible is fiction, then I agreed with you on this ^. However this speaks nothing to the whole point of the OP. Your supposed to be arguing that the bible supports the REALITY of a miracle, not the fact that it can be supported as a piece of fiction.

However, if you are arguing the above as support for the reality of bible miracles, then you have a major problem with your logic. So which is it?

[Mithrae]

I would like to make a $50 bet with anybody who is interested.

I bet $50 that, no matter what, Mithrae will NOT answer the question below with a yes or no:

Question: Does the empirical evidence that NYC exists constitute evidence in support of the notion that spiderman exists? YES OR NO!!!???

No.


------

To generalise(And hopefully clarify) the above argument, consider the hypotheses:
1) A and B are true.
2) A and C are true.
The probability of A is 0.5(Can be taken to be any finite, non-zero value for this), and the probabilities of B and C are arbitrarily small given current knowledge.
A set of information is discovered which gives us a new probability for B; 1.
Given this new information, the probability of hypothesis one can be evaluated to be 0.5, while the probability of 2) is arbitrarily small.

I would consider the set of information which increased the probability of 1) being true to be 'evidence' for 1) being correct.

I think you are way way missing the point here. Evidence that NYC exists is only evidence that NYC exists. It has nothing to do at all with the literal existence of spider man. It is claimed that the spider man adventures occurred in NYC. That's it. I think the OP's point is that evidence that NYC is real has no actual bearing on spider man. It only has bearing on rather or not NYC is real. You and Mithrea, if this is the line he is taking as well, are applying your own meaning to this argument in an attempt to make your point. I think most people would agree that:

Evidence of NYC's existence is just evidence of NYC's existence. And does not speak to any other claims. Evidence that NYC exists can not be extrapolated as evidence for spider man. And Evidence that part of the settlement of Jericho was not utterly destroyed, or that an earthquake may have ruptured part of the wall structure of Jericho is not evidence of a mirical.

Actually, I think it's you who is missing my point. The existence of Spiderman as an entity in and of himself is independent of the existence of NYC, but Spiderman as the character from the comics has many aspects as a part of his, residency in NYC included.
Is the existence of NYC evidence for the existence of a Human-Spider hybrid? No.
Is the existence of NYC evidence for the existence of Spiderman as depicted in many comics? Arguably yes, as outlined above.

I myself wouldn't argue that case, though I can't fault your logic. I was considering that reasoning I suppose, but didn't have the words for it. And for the record you would have lost your money if you'd bet on me, 'cos being a reactive sort I would have given my "no" and enjoyed a fuller response after Notachance did a victory dance over his flawed analogy.

. . . . not that he wasted any time with the mere formality of waiting to celebrate his triumph over my intellectual dishonesty


------

Regarding the above, archaeologists and historians would surely argue back and forth about the suggested date of the archaeological finds compared with the suggested date of the conquest of Canaan.

Isn't that a pretty big deal? If the bible said the walls of Jericho collapsed around 1450 BC, how does a destruction layer in Jericho carbon dated to the 17th/16th century BC provide evidence for the supernatural claims of the bible? If anything, isn't this fairly strong evidence against these claims?

It is a pretty big deal, and one which I haven't studied enough to answer with any confidence. From his responses I suspect Notachance hasn't either, which obviously was the primary purpose of posting this reply to his "no empirical evidence" claim.

I don't know the specifics regarding carbon-dating of remains at Jericho, though it's worth noting that there's an error margin of at least a few decades from the result in the best of cases. To my knowledge the biblical chronology is fairly precise in many cases but contradictory, whereas the Egyptian chronology is somewhat sketchy (and also somewhat inconsistent, albeit reconciled by scholars, from what little I know). But if there's a best candidate for a major Semitic migration from Egypt into Canaan, I suspect the expulsion of the Hyksos in the mid-16th century BCE may fit the bill. As I've suggested, in decades past and future there'll probably be no end to the debates and theories about how well various historical scenarios fit various archaeological data. But from what I know there is some measure of justification for arguing that archaeological evidence at Jericho can be associated with the biblical story.


In response to Notachance's earlier request I did offer a specific biblical/supernatural topic about which I think I do have enough background knowledge to competently discuss the balance of evidence - one which we've previously discussed, no less. But so far he seems uninterested in further pursuing his request. His wagers and comments regarding my obvious lack of intellectual honesty no doubt count as a 'win' for him.

[LiamOS]

Is the existence of NYC evidence for the existence of Spiderman as depicted in many comics? Arguably yes, as outlined above.

Are you saying that existence of a part of Jericho which was spared utter ruin is evidence that a miracle as depicted in the bible occurred? Because we know that Comics are fiction. If we are agreeing here that the bible is fiction, then I agreed with you on this ^. However this speaks nothing to the whole point of the OP. Your supposed to be arguing that the bible supports the REALITY of a miracle, not the fact that it can be supported as a piece of fiction.

However, if you are arguing the above as support for the reality of bible miracles, then you have a major problem with your logic. So which is it?

That's what we call a false dichotomy. I don't know of any fault in my logic, other than the possible failure of one or more of my axioms(Feel free to show them false).

Also, you'd be correct in saying that by my argument the existence of a part of Jericho is evidence that a miracle in the Bible happened. However, my argument does not discern strong or weak evidence. In this case and the cases I've been using as examples, the evidence is extremely weak and circumstantial, but I maintain that it is evidence nonetheless.
A proposition can be evidenced, but in order to be accepted it must be evidenced sufficiently(However you define that).

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I don't know the specifics regarding carbon-dating of remains at Jericho, though it's worth noting that there's an error margin of at least a few decades from the result in the best of cases. To my knowledge the biblical chronology is fairly precise in many cases but contradictory, whereas the Egyptian chronology is somewhat sketchy (and also somewhat inconsistent, albeit reconciled by scholars, from what little I know). But if there's a best candidate for a major Semitic migration from Egypt into Canaan, I suspect the expulsion of the Hyksos in the mid-16th century BCE may fit the bill. As I've suggested, in decades past and future there'll probably be no end to the debates and theories about how well various historical scenarios fit various archaeological data. But from what I know there is some measure of justification for arguing that archaeological evidence at Jericho can be associated with the biblical story.

Actually it's news to me that there is as much debate about this as you are suggesting. I was under the impression that from an archaeological standpoint there exists little, if any evidence for the historicity of the Exodus and conquest of Canaan. ie:

The prevailing scholarly view is that Joshua is not a factual account of historical events. The apparent setting of Joshua is the 13th century; this was a time of widespread city-destruction, but with a few exceptions (Hazor, Lachish,) the destroyed cities are not the ones the Bible associates with Joshua, and the ones it does associate with him show little or no sign of even being occupied at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_o ... oricity.29

Historians today argue that Israelites were not external conquerors of the Levant, instead they gradually emerged from Canaanite culture:

Canaan in the Late Bronze Age was a shadow of what it had been centuries earlier: many cities were abandoned, others shrank in size, and the total settled population was probably not much more than a hundred thousand. Settlement was concentrated in cities along the coastal plain and along major communication routes; the central and northern hill country which would later become the biblical kingdom of Israel was only sparsely inhabited although letters from the Egyptian archives indicate that Jerusalem was already a Canaanite city-state recognising Egyptian overlordship. Politically and culturally it was dominated by Egypt, each city under its own ruler, constantly at odds with its neighbours, and appealing to the Egyptians to adjudicate their differences.

The Canaanite city-state system broke down at the end of the Late Bronze period, and Canaanite culture was then gradually absorbed into that of the Philistines, Phoenicians and Israelites. The process was gradual rather than swift: a strong Egyptian presence continued into the 12th century BC, and, while some Canaanite cities were destroyed, others continued to exist in Iron I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... Bronze_Age

I agree that notachance's rhetoric is (as usual) imprecise and overbearing, I just wanted to point out that this particular piece of evidence isn't as special as you're making it out to be (not that you're making it out to be anything amazing, mind you). Personally I don't see a problem saying that there is some empirical evidence that may directly or indirectly support some supernatural claims of the bible. "There's no evidence!" and "there's a small amount of very weak evidence!" are functionally equivalent for the most part, but it is important to be as accurate as possible when discussing these things. So I see your point.

[notachance]

l evidence that NYC exists constitute evidence in support of the notion that spiderman exists? YES OR NO!!!???

No.

Ok, thank you!

So you agree that the empirical evidence for the existence of New York does NOT constitute evidence in support of Spiderman.

Next question:
Does empirical evidence for the occurrence of an earthquake constitute evidence in support of magical powers of nomadic barbarians? Yes or no.

Please don't make me go through a dozen posts of begging and pleading like last time. Please just answer the question.

[Sing]

Is the existence of NYC evidence for the existence of Spiderman as depicted in many comics? Arguably yes, as outlined above.

Are you saying that existence of a part of Jericho which was spared utter ruin is evidence that a miracle as depicted in the bible occurred? Because we know that Comics are fiction. If we are agreeing here that the bible is fiction, then I agreed with you on this ^. However this speaks nothing to the whole point of the OP. Your supposed to be arguing that the bible supports the REALITY of a miracle, not the fact that it can be supported as a piece of fiction.

However, if you are arguing the above as support for the reality of bible miracles, then you have a major problem with your logic. So which is it?

That's what we call a false dichotomy. I don't know of any fault in my logic, other than the possible failure of one or more of my axioms(Feel free to show them false).

Also, you'd be correct in saying that by my argument the existence of a part of Jericho is evidence that a miracle in the Bible happened. However, my argument does not discern strong or weak evidence. In this case and the cases I've been using as examples, the evidence is extremely weak and circumstantial, but I maintain that it is evidence nonetheless.
A proposition can be evidenced, but in order to be accepted it must be evidenced sufficiently(However you define that).

I like where your going with this. And I accept your explanation as expressed above, though I can't wholly agree with you on it.

I feel like we are really beating a dead horse here, but I will attempt one more time the Spider man reference. And how your attempting to use it.

We know that Spider man is fictional. At least, the extraordinary weight of evidence tells us that for all practical purposes, Spider man is fictional. I don't wish to get in to a pee pee match about the fact that we can't absolutely prove that spider man is fictional, and I am aware that's not your goal either.

What your saying here, unless I am really just not getting it, is that regardless of how weak the link is, the fact that the the comics refer to NYC is still evidence for spider mans existence

Fundamentally, I disagree with this assertion. By that reasoning, JRR Tolkiens books are evidence that all matter of fantastical creatures exist. After all it's clear that Middle earth was based on the English countryside. It's not the intention that by referencing real land marks, people places or things in a work of fiction for them to be used as evidence that the fictional parts are real. It's to add a sense of plausibility, a sense that the fictional bits COULD be real with a little poetic license. However this really all is a matter of splitting hairsr. Because even you went out of your way to say such evidence is extremely weak. Especially in the face of much more reasonable interpretations of such evidence. But because I don't wish to spend more effort on something I personally see as insignificant, Id like to move on to the bigger picture.

You said, well, I have to paraphrase because I think you actually left some words out that should have been there.

You are arguing that a part of Jericho that was left untouched is evidence of a miracle as described in the Bible.

How do you mean? To what degree now that you have muddied the waters. Are you saying that you emphatically and whole hardheartedly believe that a miracle occurred at Jericho based on the evidence that part of the city was left untouched?

OR

Are you arguing, as you did with spider man, that although the evidence could be weakly at best interpreted as evidence of a miracle as described in the bible, that there are more more reasonable ways to interpret the evidence that are indeed much stronger.


I may be editing this, I was rushed as I am running out the door. Ill give it another go over when I get home.

[notachance]

There is no empirical evidence in support of any supernatural claim in the Bible.

The only evidence is hearsay anecdotal evidence.

That hearsay evidence in support of supernatural claims in the Bible is miniscule when stacked up against the overwhelming empirical evidence AGAINST any supernatural claims in the Bible.

For example, the only piece of evidence for Genesis is an old book written by anonymous authors who could not POSSIBLY have been alive at the time the event allegedly happened.

To the contrary there is overwhelming empirical evidence against genesis: Accurate, testable, empirical, measurable evidence that allows us to make accurate predictions, and the validity of which is supported by the fact that the same data-acquiring-method (the scientific method) is also responsible for getting us to the moon, performing heart transplants, creating computers, doubling life expectancy, inventing antibiotics and millions of others things which are measurably and irrefutably valid.

So, can we at least agree that the evidence against the veracity of supernatural Bible claims is more solid than the evidence in favor of it?

What if the super natural claims in the bible can be shown to have in fact been natural events?

Well, if they can be shown to be natural, then they weren't supernatural.

Case closed.

Next?

[notachance]

I would like to make a $50 bet with anybody who is interested.

I bet $50 that, no matter what, Mithrae will NOT answer the question below with a yes or no:

Question: Does the empirical evidence that NYC exists constitute evidence in support of the notion that spiderman exists? YES OR NO!!!???

I can only afford to spend $150, so the first 3 people to take up my wager will be accepted, and the others will not, sorry.

Not being a betting man, I won't back my post up with any money, but I'll wager any and all tokens(I bet this isn't what Oliver had in mind...) that Mithrae will answer either yes or no, but with a lengthy(And probably valid) qualification of his answer.


As for my thoughts on the matter, you're not really sufficiently qualifying what 'evidence' in this sense amounts to.
I would contend that the existence of New York City, at least to some degree constitutes evidence for Spiderman's existence.
To illustrate my point, let us compare the following two hypotheses:
1) Spiderman exists and inhabits New York City.
2) Spiderman exists and inhabits Atlantis.
Despite both being extremely improbable, the fact that the first location exists(Or is at least known to) makes the second statement more likely to be incorrect, if we associate a probability(Or lack thereof) with Atlantis' existence, due to the probability of NYC's existence being one(Or arbitrarily close to it).
If we consider evidence to be something which, when known, makes something more likely to be the case from one's perspective(William Lane Craig would agree here), it follows that, in the case of Spiderman, the existence of New York City constitutes evidence of Spiderman's existence. The strength of the evidence is immaterial in this consideration, as you only requested a yes or no answer.

To generalise(And hopefully clarify) the above argument, consider the hypotheses:
1) A and B are true.
2) A and C are true.
The probability of A is 0.5(Can be taken to be any finite, non-zero value for this), and the probabilities of B and C are arbitrarily small given current knowledge.
A set of information is discovered which gives us a new probability for B; 1.
Given this new information, the probability of hypothesis one can be evaluated to be 0.5, while the probability of 2) is arbitrarily small.
I would consider the set of information which increased the probability of 1) being true to be 'evidence' for 1) being correct.

Aki, my friend, you are plain wrong.

Fiction set in an imaginary location is just as fictional as fiction set in a real location.

"2+2=4, Bigfoot is real and 3+3=6"

"2+2=5, the Lockness monster is real, and 2+4=7".

Is the probability of bigfoot being real any higher than the probability of the Lockness monster being real, just because the statement about Bigfoot is surrounded by true statements?

Let's apply that to the spiderman scenario.

"New York exists and spiderman lives there"

"Krypton exists and superman lives there"

Is the probability of spiderman being real any higher than the probability of superman being real, just because the statement about spiderman is next to a true statement and the statement about superman is next to an untrue statement?

Fiction set in an imaginary location is just as fictional as fiction set in a real location.

The notion that a claim is NOT fictional must be determined on the merits of the claim itself, not on the merits of unrelated claims it happens to be sitting next to.

My hunch is that you presented your case more as a thought experiment than as something you're emotionally invested in, so hopefully you'll have no difficulty retracting

[notachance]

I don't know of any fault in my logic, other than the possible failure of one or more of my axioms(Feel free to show them false)

The fault in your logic is that you've failed to adequately demonstrate the truth of the outlandish claim that if a false statement (spiderman exists) is sitting next to a true statement (NYC exists) then the truth of the second statement makes the false statement less false.

Imagine there are two dice. One is rigged (analogy for a false statement), and the other is not rigged (analogy for a true statement).

If you throw the rigged and the non-rigged dice at the same time, the fact that the rigged dice is being thrown together with a non-rigged one, is in NO WAY going to reduce it's "rigged-ness".

The rigged die is going to behave like a rigged die irrespective of whether you throw it at the same time as a dozen other rigged dice, or at the same time as a dozen NON-rigged dice.

[LiamOS]

How do you mean? To what degree now that you have muddied the waters. Are you saying that you emphatically and whole hardheartedly believe that a miracle occurred at Jericho based on the evidence that part of the city was left untouched?

OR

Are you arguing, as you did with spider man, that although the evidence could be weakly at best interpreted as evidence of a miracle as described in the bible, that there are more more reasonable ways to interpret the evidence that are indeed much stronger.


I may be editing this, I was rushed as I am running out the door. Ill give it another go over when I get home.

The latter of the two.