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?

[Nilloc James]

I don't think it is a contradiction.

[Zzyzx]

.
From http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 4&start=10 post #15.

Notice that Zzyzx opens the thread with an OP that specifies the conditions of debate. Mr. Goose objects to the OP and the following exchange occurred (abbreviated – full text available at above URL).

Zzyzx asks what evidence exists.

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

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.

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.

From post #18 of that same thread:

Perhaps you chose to overlook

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.

Do you choose to run away from the challenge Mr. Goose?

Perhaps the reason for diversionary tactics is apparent. Mr. Goose CANNOT verify the supposed "divinity" of Jesus with anything other than Religious Promotional Literature – the subject of that thread.

[Negative Proof]

Of course this is not a contradiction. Notice how Zzyzx puts "very weak" in all caps, and the very word "evidence" in quotations, meaning that he is using the word as Goose would. Not to mention the context and conditions of the thread this is pasted from.

Selective bolding of the words one wants to hear and argue against is a thin scrim, indeed, and I don't think readers will have any trouble seeing through it. Goose may have been better off quoting and using "..." to cover the parts he didn't want readers to see.

[Cmass]

I'm sorry, I'm really trying hard....but I don't get this OP. Bible stories are not evidence and as a careful debater ZZ requests solid evidence for debate claims. So what? I thought that was universally understood.



I smell cooked goose.

[Scrotumus2]

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

No. You may have noted that Dave quoted Evidence to clearly mark that no confusion would arise. Not to mention that I never seen him contradict himself, and if so, not correct himself.

Pointless Topic and clearly an attack on a member because you cant defend your own dogma.

[Goose]

Perhaps the reason for diversionary tactics is apparent. Mr. Goose CANNOT verify the supposed "divinity" of Jesus with anything other than Religious Promotional Literature – the subject of that thread.

Diversionary? The irony is so thick I can cut it with a knife.

Zzyzx, are the stories in the Bible evidence? Yes or no. (P) V ~(P)

Stop dodging, and answer the question, or concede you are contradicting yourself with (P) & ~(P).

[Goose]

Of course this is not a contradiction. Notice how Zzyzx puts "very weak" in all caps, and the very word "evidence" in quotations, meaning that he is using the word as Goose would. Not to mention the context and conditions of the thread this is pasted from.

If he's using the word as I would then he concedes the stories in the Bible are evidence (P). Zzyzx then states ~(P) in the same sense. Please explain logically how (P) & ~(P) is not a contradiction.

[Goose]

Bible stories are not evidence...

goat disagrees with you.

Well, the bible is evidence.

[Goose]

No. You may have noted that Dave quoted Evidence to clearly mark that no confusion would arise.

The word evidence means evidence with or without quotes.

Not to mention that I never seen him contradict himself, and if so, not correct himself.

Except in this thread.

[Goat]

Bible stories are not evidence...

goat disagrees with you.

Well, the bible is evidence.

Ah.. but you are doing what is known as 'quote mining'

What is the bible evidence of?? I specifically said 'The bible is evidence of belief'. The question was 'is Jesus divine'?

The bible is evidence of belief, it is not evidence of the divinity of Jesus.

So, it isn't a contradiction at all. What the bible is evidence for can not be used for evidence of the question at hand.