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?

[Goat]

What a terrible thing I have done to be self-contradictory from 11:04 AM to 12:33 PM of January 15th 2009. I make a full confession and ask your forgiveness.

What have I done. What have I done. Woe is me. I allowed an opening for Mr. Goose to insert his best "argument" ever in defense of the bible. Our cause is lost.

OMG. Making such blunders and contradictions might indicate that I became a theist overnight. Say "atheist prayers" to save me from damnation and theism.

Ummm...a simple "Yes, I made a mistake and contradicted myself" would have sufficed. It's obvious from that rather juvenile rant that your concession was painful. I do, however, appreciate your intellectual honesty here.

A logical argument specifying that P cannot be equal to or coexistent with not P is valid.

Agreed. Now, on to the next issue.

Assignment of values to P is in question.

Yes, let's discuss the truth value of (P).

Let (P) = stories are evidence.

Where stories = stories concerning ancient persons, places, and events that are taken from ancient texts such as the Bible.
Where evidence is defined as: "Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion."

Proposition (P) - stories are evidence - is either true (1) or false (0). Which is it? Your personal opinion and feelings are irrelevant. (P) is either true or false.

The problem as I see it is that there is the Proposition P1 and the Proposition P2.

On is that it is evidence of, the other is it evidence of belief in.

There is this problem that is someone believes something, it ain't necessarily so, even if they did write it down.

Is the Koran evidence that Mohammad was the last prophet of God?

[Zzyzx]

Ummm...a simple "Yes, I made a mistake and contradicted myself" would have sufficed. It's obvious from that rather juvenile rant that your concession was painful.

First, Mr. Goose, let's use the entire statement that I made

I must apologize to my fellow Non-Theists. I have failed you.

I was inconsistent for a span of three posts (from question of the OP meaning of "evidence" in post #12 to clarification in post #15 in the thread http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 4&start=10)

What a terrible thing I have done to be self-contradictory from 11:04 AM to 12:33 PM of January 15th 2009. I make a full confession and ask your forgiveness.

What have I done. What have I done. Woe is me. I allowed an opening for Mr. Goose to insert his best "argument" ever in defense of the bible. Our cause is lost.

OMG. Making such blunders and contradictions might indicate that I became a theist overnight. Say "atheist prayers" to save me from damnation and theism.

Leaving off the first two paragraphs changes the flavor of what I said, doesn't it?

Second, I see no reason for any concession, as my sarcasm indicates. You DID recognize that as sarcasm, didn't you? Even my comment about your accusation being your best argument was a bit sarcastic – there may have been one better though I cannot recall that for certain.

I do not consider taking an hour and a half to clarify a questioned meaning as being a mistake requiring any concession. Nothing beyond the clarification was necessary in my opinion.

Perhaps, Mr. Goose, your effort to discredit me unfairly and unjustly has damaged YOUR credibility rather than mine. It appears to be obvious to those who post that you are not debating in good faith. It is very clear that you evade the issue of "evidence supporting bible stories".

Do you hold yourself to the same extremely precise standards of ethical debate, Mr. Goose? If you don't, others will insist now that you have made a point of your great concern for accuracy.

I do, however, appreciate your intellectual honesty here.

I do NOT complement intellectual honesty on your part. The comments in the original thread and in this thread are NOT material to any discussion of the topic of "Was / is Jesus Divine?"

In the thread where this started, Mr. Goose, I directly and personally challenged you to DEBATE the ISSUE of evidence supporting the supposed "divinity" of Jesus. Perhaps you could divert some of your effort and attention to the matter that was being discussed there.

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?

You choose to run away.

[Goose]

[1]First, I would suggest that what counts as evidence depends on the venue in which it is presented, and this venue includes the audience to which it is addressed. [2]In particular, each of us as individual's is free to define our own criteria for what counts as evidence for us. So are groups. [3]Scientists, for example, have fairly rigid requirements for what counts as evidence, theologians rather different requirements, and members of a particular denomination or church yet different requirements. Even the subforums of DC&R have somewhat different criteria, as has been noted above.

The first two statements are false. [1]Evidence is either evidence or it is not. The venue in which it is presented or the intended audience is irrelevant. [2]The second statement is absolutely false as well. A juror, for example, is not free to define his own criteria for what counts as evidence for him.[3] I would agree. Different disciplines utilize different types of evidence.

Secondly, as goat has pointed out through example, what counts as evidence depends on what claim that evidence is meant to support. Goat suggests the Bible can be taken as evidence for a group of people having believed in God and holding certain doctrines in relation to that belief. Granting this, however, does not mean one must accept that the Bible is evidence for the existence of God or that Jesus is God.

Let (P) = stories are evidence.

Where stories = stories concerning ancient persons, places, and events that are taken from ancient texts such as the Bible.
Where evidence is defined as: "Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

Is proposition (P) true or false?

Now, as a question for goose, I would suggest he consider whether the statements made by Zzyzx present a stronger or more substantial or more important contradiction than one can find by statements made in the Bible.

And I would ask micatala not to attempt to derail this thread into an off topic Bible Contradiction thread. I would ask micatala to start his own thread for this. There are two fundamental issues at stake here in this thread.

A) Has Zzyzx contradicted himself? - this has been resolved as yes.
and consequently:
B) Are Biblical stories evidence? - still waiting on this one.

After all, one could argue that "weak evidence" is pretty close to "no evidence" on a scale of "evidentiary strength." Both imply that the evidence is not to be relied upon, and that it is not compelling.

"Weak evidence" and "no evidence" are entirely different statements with different meanings. "No evidence" means no evidence exists. There is no evidence. Period. ~(evidence). "Weak evidence" is a subjective statement. Without an objective method and baseline by which to compare we have no way of evaluating what constitutes "weak" or "strong" evidence. We then have no way of objectively determining if the assertions "weak evidence" or "strong evidence" are true or false.

[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.

Please explain logically how (P) & ~(P) is not a contradiction.

(P) & ~(P) is clearly a logical contradiction. However, as much as what you want what Zzyzx posted to be ~(P), it is really just another way of saying (P).

To clear this up:

If he's using the word as I would then he concedes the stories in the Bible are evidence.

Wrong. He's advocating your definition of the word "evidence" which apparently includes RPL and hearsay, and opining that such "evidence" would be (as capitalized) VERY WEAK.

And, as with every other post here about it, you fail to address the original thread's context and OP. It would seem you are more comfortable diverting attention to this red-herring-contradiction rather than actually debating the root subject matter, and tactics such as these do not seem honorable. I'm honestly surprised this thread still exists.

I would be willing to retract my statements and apologize if I were given evidence that you are, in fact, not intelligent enough to understand why what you posted is not a contradiction. However, since you clearly understand logic, and since I have yet to misunderstand anything you post, the evidence would have to be very persuasive.

[Goose]

The problem as I see it is that there is the Proposition P1 and the Proposition P2.

There is no second proposition, goat.

Is (P) true or false?

Is the Koran evidence that Mohammad was the last prophet of God?

The Koran is evidence, yes. The Civil Wars by Caesar, Parallel Lives by Plutarch, The Annals by Tacitus and so on are evidence too.

[Goose]

You choose to run away.

Speaking of running away.

Allow me to repost in case you missed it:

Assignment of values to P is in question.

Yes, let's discuss the truth value of (P).

Let (P) = stories are evidence.

Where stories = stories concerning ancient persons, places, and events that are taken from ancient texts such as the Bible.
Where evidence is defined as: "Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion."

Proposition (P) - stories are evidence - is either true (1) or false (0). Which is it? Your personal opinion and feelings are irrelevant. (P) is either true or false.[/quote]

[Goose]

(P) & ~(P) is clearly a logical contradiction. However, as much as what you want what Zzyzx posted to be ~(P), it is really just another way of saying (P).

Take it up with Zzyzx. He has already conceded his contradiction.

[micatala]

[1]First, I would suggest that what counts as evidence depends on the venue in which it is presented, and this venue includes the audience to which it is addressed. [2]In particular, each of us as individual's is free to define our own criteria for what counts as evidence for us. So are groups. [3]Scientists, for example, have fairly rigid requirements for what counts as evidence, theologians rather different requirements, and members of a particular denomination or church yet different requirements. Even the subforums of DC&R have somewhat different criteria, as has been noted above.

The first two statements are false. [1]Evidence is either evidence or it is not. The venue in which it is presented or the intended audience is irrelevant.

I entirely disagree. I will offer additional evidence that [1] is not false.

Hearsay evidence is not evidence in a court of law, at least in the U.S.

However, it very well could be considered evidence by police searching for criminals. They may very well act on this type of evidence in order to find out who did what. Then, because hearsay evidence is not admissable in court, they would have to produce others kinds of evidence to obtain a conviction.


In addition, what counts as evidence in a court of law in the U.S. may not count in the courts of another country, and vice versa. What counts as evidence in a civil trial may not count in a criminal trial.

In fact, I believe it can be said that what counts as evidence even within the U.S. can vary from courtroom to courtroom based on the presiding judge. One judge may exclude from evidence that which another judge would allow.

[2]The second statement is absolutely false as well. A juror, for example, is not free to define his own criteria for what counts as evidence for him.

I will agree with the particular point, but that does not negate my general point. For example, my wife might be perfectly willing to use her own standards of evidence regarding whether she considered that I was a faithful husband or not. She could choose to listen to rumors and accept that as evidence or not. She could choose to consider me being in a bar with another woman as evidence of infidelity, or she could choose not to consider this as evidence.

[3] I would agree. Different disciplines utilize different types of evidence.

To me, this is just a special case of [1] and [2] with more well-defined rules of evidence. If you agree with [3], how is this not agreeing with [1]? What counts as evidence in the venue of a psychology journal or an educational research journal may not count in a medical journal or a biology journal.

Secondly, as goat has pointed out through example, what counts as evidence depends on what claim that evidence is meant to support. Goat suggests the Bible can be taken as evidence for a group of people having believed in God and holding certain doctrines in relation to that belief. Granting this, however, does not mean one must accept that the Bible is evidence for the existence of God or that Jesus is God.

Let (P) = stories are evidence.

Where stories = stories concerning ancient persons, places, and events that are taken from ancient texts such as the Bible.
Where evidence is defined as: "Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

Is proposition (P) true or false?

I would say your proposition is not well-defined enough to qualify as a proposition.

For example, does the following stories qualify as evidence in your view, and perhaps more importantly what assertions would it be evidence for?

19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Now, as a question for goose, I would suggest he consider whether the statements made by Zzyzx present a stronger or more substantial or more important contradiction than one can find by statements made in the Bible.

And I would ask micatala not to attempt to derail this thread into an off topic Bible Contradiction thread. I would ask micatala to start his own thread for this.

Fair enough.

There are two fundamental issues at stake here in this thread.

A) Has Zzyzx contradicted himself? - this has been resolved as yes.
and consequently:
B) Are Biblical stories evidence? - still waiting on this one.

My position on (B) is that it depends on the story and it depends on the assertion the story is meant to provide evidence for.

For example, I do not consider Genesis chapter 1 to be evidence that world was created in six literal 24 hour days. I do consider it at the very least to be evidence that the author and those he was writing to believed in God, believed in that God as the creator of the world/universe, considered man a special part of that creation, and believed that man could have a special relationships with God. I also accept it as an artifact of the ancient Hebrew civilization, and as such, evidence that that civilization existed. Furthermore, this civilization had roots in ancient Mesopotamia and Genesis serves to give us some information about this civilization and cities within it.

After all, one could argue that "weak evidence" is pretty close to "no evidence" on a scale of "evidentiary strength." Both imply that the evidence is not to be relied upon, and that it is not compelling.

"Weak evidence" and "no evidence" are entirely different statements with different meanings. "No evidence" means no evidence exists. There is no evidence. Period. ~(evidence). "Weak evidence" is a subjective statement. Without an objective method and baseline by which to compare we have no way of evaluating what constitutes "weak" or "strong" evidence. We then have no way of objectively determining if the assertions "weak evidence" or "strong evidence" are true or false.

I agree, "weak evidence" is a subjective statement. On the other hand, I would again point out that the proposition as you have stated it is also not without its underlying subjectivity. We cannot judge whether your proposition P is true or not, it seems to me, without knowing the standards of evidence, what qualifies as a story, and what assertions the stories are supposed to be evidence for. Again, consider my discussion of Genesis above.


To qualify as a proposition, the statement must have an unambiguous truth value. I don't see that P really does. We don't even have to know whether the truth value is true or not, only that it DOES have a truth value.

For example, the statement "there are infinitely many prime numbers p for which p+2 is also prime" is clearly a proposition. Either there are infinitely many such primes, or there are at most finitely many (and to give one example, p=3 works). Most mathematicians believe this proposition to be true, but no one has been able to determine this in something approaching 400 years.

[Negative Proof]

Take it up with Zzyzx. He has already conceded his contradiction.

Oh, I see. His sarcastic jest was enough for you, and you feel the discussion has ended.

In that case, I apologize for and retract my statements that brought your debating tactics into question.

(Edit - Spelling)

[Goat]

The problem as I see it is that there is the Proposition P1 and the Proposition P2.

There is no second proposition, goat.

Is (P) true or false?

Is the Koran evidence that Mohammad was the last prophet of God?

The Koran is evidence, yes. The Civil Wars by Caesar, Parallel Lives by Plutarch, The Annals by Tacitus and so on are evidence too.

If P is 'evidence that Jesus is divine' then P is false.

If P is 'evidence that people believed Jesus is divine' then P is true.

Which proposition are you talking about? If you are saying that the bible is evidence that Jesus was indeed divine, then I will have to object to that.

What does P represent exactly... narrow down the specifics. You are painting what P is with too wide a brush for it to have meaning.