What is "Preponderance of Evidence"?

[Zzyzx]

What is "Preponderance of Evidence"?

If the bible is the "inerrant" or "infallible word of god" ALL of its passages must be accurate and true or it is a fraud. All must represent truth in every detail IF the book is "the word of god".

Nice try. While the Bible may well have been inerrant in it's original manuscripts, that's not to say certain copyist errors have not crept in over the centuries. It's nevertheless perfectly legitimate to base one's belief in God's Word on the preponderance of the evidence that remains. Which is what juries base their decisions on - the preponderance of the evidence.

Is the bible now inerrant or does it contain errors?

If the bible is not inerrant or infallible, how does one decide with certainty what is "god's word" and what is "copyist error"?

Yeah there's a number of copyist errors. But what you miss is redundancy of the important truths in the Bible. You can argue about how many horses there were in a certain passage but horses there were nevertheless. You can argue about the age of an individual but the individual still existed. And you can argue about who saw the resurrected Christ first or how many angels there were at the tomb, but the resurrection itself was not in question. The preponderance of the evidence, Zzyzx.

Does "preponderance of evidence" mean?

My book says so
My book says so
My book says so
My preacher says so
My preacher says so
My preacher says so

Preponderance is defined as: superiority in weight, power, importance, or strength

Evidence is defined as: something that furnishes proof

Strong evidence is that which is drawn from many independent, impartial, verifiable sources. An argument based on a single or narrow source is NOT based on evidence but upon conjecture and opinion.

Give it your one best shot, Easyrider. (To borrow a trite phrase from someone).

[Easyrider]

I don't think there's any evidence a dedicated Jesus-denier will accept. You've shown your mind is totally closed. There's tons of scholarly works on the historical Jesus from highly educated individuals but you wave your hand and try to make them disappear anyway. So why bother? IMO you can't see the forest for the trees.

[The Duke of Vandals]

I don't think there's any evidence a dedicated Jesus-denier will accept.

You're right. There aren't many kinds of evidence a dedicated truthful person will accept on the subject of Jesus. In fact there's only one: valid evidence.

Since none exist, Christ-allegers have it pretty rough.

You've shown your mind is totally closed.

Are you open to the idea 1+1 can equal '3'? No? Well then you've shown your mind is totally closed.

Having an 'open mind' is a buzz phrase that emerged long ago, but drew strength in the multiculturalism in the 90's. Apologists have (in a move that smacks of desperation) adopted the phrase in an impotent attempt to guilt truthful individuals into considering their nonsense.

There's tons of scholarly works on the historical Jesus from highly educated individuals

No, Easy, there aren't. In fact there isn't a single one.

Professional historians are not necessarily engaged by any particular interest in the issue of Jesus and are all too aware of its controversial nature. A scholar who announces that he thinks there was no historical Jesus is likely to face scorn, even ridicule, and will gain little for his candour.

Thus most scholars, raised and educated in a Christian culture are content either to assume Jesus lived (and defer to the opinions of biblical specialists who are often men of faith) or, given the paucity of evidence for a great many historical personages, preface their uncertainty with a "probably". It is much safer for them to aver the "probability of a man behind the legend" even while arguing that layers of encrusted myth obscure knowing anything about him.

This "safe" and gutless option maintains simultaneously the "obscurity" of a carpenter in an ancient provincial backwater ("absence of evidence is not evidence of absence") and an academic detachment from "faith issues" which raised that supposed obscure guru to an iconic status.

www.jesusneverexisted.com

but you wave your hand and try to make them disappear anyway.

We don't even need to wave our hands. We can sit here at our computers and enjoy the truth without any silly sleight of hand. Have fun with your ritualized vampirism / cannibalism.

So why bother? IMO you can't see the forest for the trees.

On the off chance we can figure out how to save people like you from the propaganda you've spent your entire life ensalved to.

[Zzyzx]

So why bother? IMO you can't see the forest for the trees.

On the off chance we can figure out how to save people like you from the propaganda you've spent your entire life ensalved to.

Duke, may I make a suggestion?

I regard any effort to save people from the propaganda to which they are enslaved is a big waste of time and energy.

An alternative that appeals to me is to address people who are not enslaved, those who are questioning "faith" and who are honestly looking for answers to serious questions. Many people reading these threads are able to evaluate and decide what makes sense in their life.

The "locked minds" are helpful because they present such a negative picture of religon that any sensible alternative looks good by comparrison.

In a way, that is similar to addressing younger generations with new ideas instead of wasting effort convincing the older generations to accept anything different than what they knew as children. Perhaps it is human nature????

That is my opinion and my approach. I encourage the "most righteous" to pontificate, then point out the weakness in what they claim.

[Easyrider]

So why bother? IMO you can't see the forest for the trees.

On the off chance we can figure out how to save people like you from the propaganda you've spent your entire life ensalved to.

<chuckle>

He whom the Son sets free is free indeed. Come out of bondage to your false ideas and see the light!

[mister_lee]

So why bother? IMO you can't see the forest for the trees.

On the off chance we can figure out how to save people like you from the propaganda you've spent your entire life ensalved to.

<chuckle>

He whom the Son sets free is free indeed. Come out of bondage to your false ideas and see the light!

Why not just say,"I know you are but what am I." That's what I feel like I here sometimes during these arguments

[achilles12604]

Being a deputy, I deal with this question daily.

Here is the official legal definition:

PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE - The level of proof required to prevail in most civil cases. The judge or jury must be persuaded that the facts are more probably one way (the plaintiff's way) than another (the defendant's).

This becomes a little muttled for our purposes, when you realize that everyone on earth, (or at the very least everyone on this site) is either on the prosecutors side, or the defense side. So really there is no jury here.

[Zzyzx]

Being a deputy, I deal with this question daily.

Here is the official legal definition:

PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE - The level of proof required to prevail in most civil cases. The judge or jury must be persuaded that the facts are more probably one way (the plaintiff's way) than another (the defendant's).

This becomes a little muttled for our purposes, when you realize that everyone on earth, (or at the very least everyone on this site) is either on the prosecutors side, or the defense side. So really there is no jury here.

I agree that most of us who write in these threads are biased.

However, in civil court there is NOT a prosecutor. That office is found in criminal court. In civil court there is a "claimant" and a "defendant". There is no "jail" threat for losing a case in civil court only some sort of economic or personal penalty (liens, judgments, settlements, etc). Civil cases are known as "suits" or "civil action". Civil cases may or may not be heard before a jury.

Likewise, in civil court there is no "defense" or no one charged with a crime. However, there is a defendant a person being sued for some injury or damage to the claimant.

Please note that I am not an attorney, but am somewhat experienced with the conduct of civil and criminal court systems. If there are attorneys here present, I would appreciate knowledgeable input, verification, clarification, or disagreement (but I am not soliciting legal advice or opinion).

I would like to add that there IS a "jury" composed of the many people who read these threads anonymously without posting. Many threads have hundreds or thousands of "views" and are active for months or years. With hundreds or thousands of views and often only a handful of members posting, there is some reason to conclude that many people read these threads without becoming involved in the discussions or debates.

The level of proof in civil cases (probable cause) is far less stringent than in criminal court (beyond doubt), partially because criminal court conviction can result in incarceration for any period up to life in prison or even to a sentence of death. Civil court cannot result in "conviction", only "finding against" (with action possible against present or future property and possessions of the defendant).

Thus, we are the "claimant" and the "defense" in civil court and the readers are our jury. The "judge" is represented by the moderators appointed by the site owner (the court of last resort).

With those corrections in place, I like your analogy. Thank you for pointing out the similarities between our discussions / debates and the processes in civil court. That is inspired insight.

Perhaps in your analogy my position is often somewhat similar to "claimant" and religionists are "the defendant". I bring suit against religionists for fraud.

[achilles12604]

Being a deputy, I deal with this question daily.

Here is the official legal definition:

PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE - The level of proof required to prevail in most civil cases. The judge or jury must be persuaded that the facts are more probably one way (the plaintiff's way) than another (the defendant's).

This becomes a little muttled for our purposes, when you realize that everyone on earth, (or at the very least everyone on this site) is either on the prosecutors side, or the defense side. So really there is no jury here.

I agree that most of us who write in these threads are biased.

However, in civil court there is NOT a prosecutor. That office is found in criminal court. In civil court there is a "claimant" and a "defendant". There is no "jail" threat for losing a case in civil court only some sort of economic or personal penalty (liens, judgments, settlements, etc). Civil cases are known as "suits" or "civil action". Civil cases may or may not be heard before a jury.

Likewise, in civil court there is no "defense" or no one charged with a crime. However, there is a defendant a person being sued for some injury or damage to the claimant.

Please note that I am not an attorney, but am somewhat experienced with the conduct of civil and criminal court systems. If there are attorneys here present, I would appreciate knowledgeable input, verification, clarification, or disagreement (but I am not soliciting legal advice or opinion).

I would like to add that there IS a "jury" composed of the many people who read these threads anonymously without posting. Many threads have hundreds or thousands of "views" and are active for months or years. With hundreds or thousands of views and often only a handful of members posting, there is some reason to conclude that many people read these threads without becoming involved in the discussions or debates.

The level of proof in civil cases (probable cause) is far less stringent than in criminal court (beyond doubt), partially because criminal court conviction can result in incarceration for any period up to life in prison or even to a sentence of death. Civil court cannot result in "conviction", only "finding against" (with action possible against present or future property and possessions of the defendant).

Thus, we are the "claimant" and the "defense" in civil court and the readers are our jury. The "judge" is represented by the moderators appointed by the site owner (the court of last resort).

With those corrections in place, I like your analogy. Thank you for pointing out the similarities between our discussions / debates and the processes in civil court. That is inspired insight.

Perhaps in your analogy my position is often somewhat similar to "claimant" and religionists are "the defendant". I bring suit against religionists for fraud.

Ok fair enough. Civil court also works as an analogy. Being in law enforcement, I am subject to many more criminal cases than civil, hence I used what I was familiar with, just as you did.

But we agree. That is what is important.

[Zzyzx]

Yes, the important thing is that we agree on some basic issues and that we communicate to exchange ideas. That is the way we expand our experience and knowledge.

I suggest that we continue the discussion in a separate thread. When I get a few thoughts together in a more organize fashion I will open a thread to "bring suit against religion". It will be interesting to see how that develops.