The Zzyzx Contradiction

[Goose]

However, unverified stories by supporters and promoters are VERY WEAK "evidence".

Let P = stories are evidence.

Evidence does NOT consist of stories...

~(P)

and

Stories are not evidence.

~(P)


(P)& ~(P)

Question for debate: Has DC&R's 2008 Best Debater, Zzyzx, contradicted himself?

Note: Zzyzx's quotes are taken from the OP Was/is Jesus Divine?

[Flail]

I thought the debates here were about Christianity, not Zzyx????

concocted stories are not evidence of truth...

unverified stories could be true or concocted....

stories, in the end, should not be the topic of debate.

once upon a time...

[Zzyzx]

I request moderator opinion regarding whether this is a valid topic for the C&A sub-forum vs. whether it represents a personal problem for Mr. Goose and an effort to debate personal agendas rather then substantive issues.

In reply: Mr. Goose has failed to quote the entire issue.

What EVIDENCE exists to establish the divinity of Jesus? This is NOT a question of whether a person by that name existed 2000 years ago. There were probably many people by that name. What is questioned is the proof the biblically described Jesus can be shown to be or have been divine.

Zzyzx asks what evidence exists.

That is correct. Zzyzx opened a thread with a question in a debate forum.

Note: Evidence does NOT consist of stories told by preachers writing long after the supposed lifetime of Jesus, stories in religious promotional literature, circularity (citing a source to verify itself), legends, church dogma and doctrine, hearsay, opinion, or conjecture (no matter how fervently believed or emotionally presented).

Then Zzyzx tells us what is NOT evidence - i.e. the Bible is not evidence.

That is correct. Zzyzx disqualifies religious promotional literature as evidence in this thread.

It is acknowledged that there are "holy book" stories that imply divinity of Jesus. However, unverified stories by supporters and promoters are VERY WEAK "evidence". Many "gods" (divinities) are claimed by "holy" books of religions that promote one or more of the thousands of proposed "gods" worshiped or feared by humans. Stories are not evidence. Stories do not verify themselves.

Then Zzyzx tells us that "'holy book' stories that imply divinity of Jesus. However, unverified stories by supporters and promoters are VERY WEAK 'evidence'."

So Zzyzx concedes that the Bible is evidence, although weak in his opinion.

That is correct. Stories in religious promotional literature are very weak evidence (at best); therefore, they are not acceptable as evidence in this thread.

Those who wish to regard the bible as "proof" or "evidence" are welcome to do so for themselves, but are not welcome to do so in this thread – OR in the C&A forum (see "Guidelines for C&A subforum"). Those who do not wish to abide by these conditions may feel more comfortable in Holy Huddle or Theology, Doctrine and Dogma sub-forums where the bible may be regarded as evidence.

Anyone who has difficulty understanding or interpreting the Rules and Guidelines is welcome to PM Admin or Moderators for instruction.

Is that clear enough?

Let P = evidence

Zzyzx has stated ~(P) and (P). Zzyzx has contradicted himself. We'll call this the Zzyzx Contradiction

Zzyzx, is there or is there not evidence? Either (P) or ~(P). Let's start with clearing this up.

Now, if you can understand the above and if you are finished trying to distract from the topic, do you have anything of substance to contribute to the thread?

Mr. Goose, I challenge you to verify the "divinity" of Jesus with anything other than RPL (and other than non-evidence such as conjecture, opinion, hearsay, legend, fables, and fiction).

Note that making excuses for being unable to provide evidence is ONLY excuse-making and diversion. Those who maintain a position in debate are expected to substantiate their claims.

I understand that those who attempt to promote and defend ancient tales about "gods" (invisible, undetectable supernatural beings who can become human according to tales told) are at a disadvantage in ethical and reasoned debate based upon evidence. Those who LACK evidence typically attempt diversionary tactics in lieu of debate because they have NO evidence (and only offer their religious promotional literature to attempt to support tales told in that same literature) – which is why I specifically excluded RPL in this thread.

You apparently realize as well as I do that the ONLY "evidence" for the divinity of Jesus that can rationally be offered IS in the form of "miracle" stories and claims in the bible – NONE of which can be verified. NOTHING else has been brought forward to show that Jesus was / is divine (and apologists would be proud and anxious to bring it forth if it was available). Christian doctrine and dogma built upon the stories is no more valid than the unsupported stories themselves.

Those who wish to believe bible stories and/or the "divinity" if Jesus are welcome to believe whatever they wish – but are NOT entitled to promote their beliefs as being truth based upon evidence. Belief is OPINION based upon EMOTION (fear and hope primarily, in my opinion).

Those who do not understand the topic, who dislike the subject, who prefer obscurantism to debate, or who cannot contribute to the thread are welcome to ignore the thread.

[McCulloch]

I'm not quite sure that Zzyzx's comments should always be read quite so literally. In saying that, unverified stories by supporters and promoters are VERY WEAK "evidence". he is making the point that if you put forth such stories as evidence, they are not conclusive evidence or even evidence that would sway the objective reviewer to one's point of view. That is, they really are not evidence in any meaningful sense of the word. Poetic language, Hebrew parallelism, hyperbole perhaps. Contradiction: not.

[LittlePig]

However, unverified stories by supporters and promoters are VERY WEAK "evidence".

Let P = stories are evidence.

Evidence does NOT consist of stories...

~(P)

and

Stories are not evidence.

~(P)

(P)& ~(P)

Question for debate: Has DC&R's 2008 Best Debater, Zzyzx, contradicted himself?

Note: Zzyzx's quotes are taken from the OP Was/is Jesus Divine?

The hostile eye finds discord; the friendly eye finds harmony.

A Possible Zzyzxian Harmony
Evidence does not consist of stories. Rather, evidence consists of unverified stories. For we all know that faith is the evidence of things not seen, and only unverified stories require faith. But unverified stories without faith are not evidence, as faith without an unverified story is evidence of nothing. Therefore, unverified stories are, at best, only partial evidence, and, hence, quite weak.

Zzyzxian innerrancy remains unbesmirched. Methinks you work too hard to find fruitless contradiction.

[micatala]

Moderator Opinion

I think we can let the thread stand, with the caveat that the questions for debate include the extent to which Biblical stories constitute evidence.

There is precedence for using statements made by a forum member to start another thread, and yes, critique those statements in the OP.

However, I would ask debaters not to make this some kind of referendum on Zzyzx. Address his statements and positions, not his "character as a debater."

[JoeyKnothead]

Zzyzx, might I recommend you check out the usergroup "The Pledge"?

[Goat]

However, unverified stories by supporters and promoters are VERY WEAK "evidence".

Let P = stories are evidence.

Evidence does NOT consist of stories...

~(P)

and

Stories are not evidence.

~(P)


(P)& ~(P)

Question for debate: Has DC&R's 2008 Best Debater, Zzyzx, contradicted himself?

Note: Zzyzx's quotes are taken from the OP Was/is Jesus Divine?

Well, the bible is evidence. However, it is not evidence if Jesus was divine or not. It is evidence that some people made statements that other people interpreted as Jesus being divine. That is a big difference.

[Goose]

I request moderator opinion regarding whether this is a valid topic for the C&A sub-forum vs. whether it represents a personal problem for Mr. Goose and an effort to debate personal agendas rather then substantive issues.

It's very valid. But, I can understand where you'd want to see thread swept into an obscure sub-forum. Why would you take my pointing out a violation of one the three basic laws of thought to be a "personal problem" or "personal agenda"?

In reply: Mr. Goose has failed to quote the entire issue.

I provided a link to the thread.

Zzyzx, it's a very simple question. Are stories, contained in the Bible, evidence? Either they are or they are not. There's no need for commentary or sermons.

(P) V ~(P)

Which is it?

For clarity: Evidence:
"Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion."

[OnceConvinced]

Wow, for a moment there I thought we had 2bitsmedia back with us!

Seems to me he was looking at it from the other perspective very briefly. IF it is evidence, it is very weak. Doesn't sound like he's contracting his other statements.

Bible stories evidence? It may add some integrity to a claim, but certainly can't be classed as evidence. If it is classed as evidence, it is very weak.