Circumstantial Evidence against BibleGod

[Flail]

Definitions:

Evidence: the available body of facts indicating whether a proposition is true.

Facts: things that are indisputably the case.

Direct evidence: that which directly proves truth.

Circumstantial evidence: that which merely suggests truth.

Hearsay: that which is repeated 'second-hand removed' from the original declarant which is propounded to prove the truth of an assertion via someone else who is either not known or not present and thus not subject to questioning. Hearsay is inadmissible in courts of law as having been demonstrated unreliable; and as dependent for veracity upon things not available for examination and testing such as: the identity, character, bias, motive, observation and reporting ability, mental acuity etc, of the original reporter or declarant.

Second hand 'testimony' that is not propounded to prove the truth of the matter at issue, but for some other purpose (such as demonstrating the basis for the oppositional claim) is admissible and may be considered as such.

Background:
Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof, or at a minimum, the burden of going forward with the evidence. Arguments can be made in the broadest sense that there is no such thing as direct evidence, and that all we have as 'proof currency' to support truth claims is circumstantial evidence.

The OP Proposition (claim): "BibleGod (JesusGod) does not exist.'

Assume that this claim does not refer to 'God', as in some as yet undefined supernatural creature that may or may not exist, and for which no coherent definition is available, and for which any claims of existence or non-existence are meaningless. Assume that the OP refers solely to BibleGod as presented in the NT and as supplemented by Christianity.

Assume for purposes of the OP that there is no verifiable, 'direct evidence' upon which to either prove or disprove this claim. What we are left with then is circumstantial evidence, ie, evidence which merely suggests the truth and for which an inference is required to connect it to a proposition of fact (claim).

Further presume that hearsay evidence, as defined above, is not admissible to prove the truth of the claim since such evidence is unreliable as emanating from un-trustworhty sources.

Question for debate(s): What available circumstantial evidence( if any) suggests (tends to prove) that BibleGod is fictional?

What available circumstantial evidence (if any) suggests (tends to prove) that BibleGod is actual and extant?

[Mithrae]

The author does claim to have been a witness in 1:14. Some might interpret this as a non-specific 'we,' as in 1 John 1:1-3, but I don't suspect it that it's a very convincing view. The anonymous references to the 'beloved disciple' and the aforementioned 19:35 fit in well with that view. And of course since John 21:24 was written by someone else it provides additional confirmation, which personally I wouldn't say is a reason to dismiss it as irrelevant.

Actually, that does not meet the evaluation of most Johnaine scholars. The full article about it is here

Rather than derailing the thread any more than I already have, I've replied in detail in my own thread on the subject. You can see the reasons for my conclusion that "there's a very solid balance of evidence favouring Johannine authorship" here.

[jamesmorlock]

"Fact" is something that is perceived to be actual; many things that humans have firmly believed to be facts turned out not to be.

The fact is the true thing itself. If people believe something, and it's not true, then it's not a factual belief. Sure, people might call it "a fact", but that people believe something to be a fact doesn't necessarily make it so.

However, it's near impossible to have 100% "factual beliefs", which is what evidence is for - our attempt at getting as close as we can. The only beliefs we can have that could be 100% factual would be for example, things that are defined to be a certain way - "all bachelors are unmarried", " etc.

So yes, "facts" are true, and not disputable (by definition) - but the evidence is very much disputable.

[Flail]

Definitions:

Evidence: the available body of facts indicating whether a proposition is true.

Now, I KNOW you love Wikipedia and all, but if you are going to use it to define a word, rather than the dictionary, you might want to include the entire definition. In this case, you left out a bit: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid


Color emphasis mine..."information" isn't 'fact."

Facts: things that are indisputably the case.

Dang; Wikipedia strikes again...WEBSTER defines 'fact' this way:

1
: a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b : crime <accessory after the fact> c archaic : action
2
archaic : performance, doing
3
: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4
a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5
: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

Please note: there is nothing 'indisputable' about the above definition. "Fact" is something that is perceived to be actual; many things that humans have firmly believed to be facts turned out not to be. No philosopher or scientist I know (and I know quite a few; rocket scientists, even...) would define 'fact' as something that is 'indisputably the case." The entire idea behind science is that EVERYTHING is disputable; you just have to have some really, really, REALLY good evidence.

Direct evidence: that which directly proves truth.

I have NO idea where you got that one. Direct evidence is simply evidence which stands on its own, whereas circumstantial evidence is evidence from which conclusions must be inferred; in terms of evolution, for instance, direct evidence for the existence of dinosaurs is the actual fossils that we can touch, manipulate and put together into a skeleton. Circumstantial evidence would be the inferred conclusion that dinosaur fossils that had feathers means that modern birds may well have, and even probably, descended from critters like those.

Ah, well....

If you are going to set us all up for predetermined conclusions by manipulating the definitions.....why bother entering into the discussion?

You make the OP point. Regardless of what source of definition, from courtroom legalese, to scientific, to expansive wiki definitions and discussions etc, there is indeed very little we are able to discern that is factual...ie that is indisputably the case, even when we have something empirical. The scientific method deals with theories and hypotheticals, constantly testing and retesting in the broad scientific community all things supposedly 'evidentiary.' On the contrary, BibleGod proponents simply want us to swallow the dogma whole...to 'just believe', regardless of how doubtful or unbelievable the sources of information.

So to the OP; since there is very little 'information' or 'facts' or 'direct evidence', (regardless of the chosen discipline, field of endeavor, and however narrowly or broadly one chooses to define these terms) to demonstrate anything for certain in the world that is 'necessarily the case', even when we can verify it, confirm it, observe or discern it, then the literal inerrancy ideas as to BibleGod become even more nebulous; so doubtful and untrustworthy as to be beyond belief.

If present first hand renderings of observations of occurrences are often demonstrated to be faulty under cross examination as to motive, bias, prejudice, opportunity and ability to observe and relate etc etc, how deeply untrustworthy are the BibleGod hearsay renderings when we get them third and fourth hand after being anonymously penned in antique eras under circumstances wherein we have no opportunity to examine and cross examine? And then we are to believe these sources as to supernaturals. Really? Circumstantial evidence is often that which, by common sense and common experience, tends to demonstrate that things claimed are not the case, and when we are dealing with BibleGod such evidence is overwhelming.

So when we are presented ancient, unverified stories via hearsay as to virgin births; when we have to add a supernatural being to the equation for believability, circumstantial evidence would indicate the contrary; that if there was a pregnancy and a birth, somebody was having intercourse...and it wasn't with the 'Gods.'

[dianaiad]

"Fact" is something that is perceived to be actual; many things that humans have firmly believed to be facts turned out not to be.

The fact is the true thing itself. If people believe something, and it's not true, then it's not a factual belief. Sure, people might call it "a fact", but that people believe something to be a fact doesn't necessarily make it so.

However, it's near impossible to have 100% "factual beliefs", which is what evidence is for - our attempt at getting as close as we can. The only beliefs we can have that could be 100% factual would be for example, things that are defined to be a certain way - "all bachelors are unmarried", " etc.

So yes, "facts" are true, and not disputable (by definition) - but the evidence is very much disputable.

Ok, I'll give you that one.

The problem with the OP...at least that I saw...(and I hereby freely admit that I didn't read it beyond the definitions, because they irritated me so much) is that they were set up to be specific to the argument: that is, the definitions themselves were set up as evidence for the conclusion; a circular argument in the making.

Using your example of 'all bachelors are unmarried,' for instance; if one were to, for the purpose of a conversation, state that 'all bachelors are unmarried,' and then engage in a discussion about, oh, movie and TV stars, you'd have a bit of a problem. Sir Patrick Stewart, for instance, is very much married...and a Knight Bachelor. Lots of married bachelors around, actually, especially in England. The SCA also has quite a few.

Ordinarily that wouldn't matter; we understand the basic differentiation between 'bachelor,' meaning 'never married man,' and the degrees of knighthood. The problem arises when equivocation is used to set up a circular argument.

OK. Now I'll go read the rest of the OP.

[dianaiad]

Definitions:

Evidence: the available body of facts indicating whether a proposition is true.

Facts: things that are indisputably the case.

Direct evidence: that which directly proves truth.

Circumstantial evidence: that which merely suggests truth.

Hearsay: that which is repeated 'second-hand removed' from the original declarant which is propounded to prove the truth of an assertion via someone else who is either not known or not present and thus not subject to questioning. Hearsay is inadmissible in courts of law as having been demonstrated unreliable; and as dependent for veracity upon things not available for examination and testing such as: the identity, character, bias, motive, observation and reporting ability, mental acuity etc, of the original reporter or declarant.

Second hand 'testimony' that is not propounded to prove the truth of the matter at issue, but for some other purpose (such as demonstrating the basis for the oppositional claim) is admissible and may be considered as such.

Background:
Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof, or at a minimum, the burden of going forward with the evidence. Arguments can be made in the broadest sense that there is no such thing as direct evidence, and that all we have as 'proof currency' to support truth claims is circumstantial evidence.

The OP Proposition (claim): "BibleGod (JesusGod) does not exist.'

Assume that this claim does not refer to 'God', as in some as yet undefined supernatural creature that may or may not exist, and for which no coherent definition is available, and for which any claims of existence or non-existence are meaningless. Assume that the OP refers solely to BibleGod as presented in the NT and as supplemented by Christianity.

Assume for purposes of the OP that there is no verifiable, 'direct evidence' upon which to either prove or disprove this claim. What we are left with then is circumstantial evidence, ie, evidence which merely suggests the truth and for which an inference is required to connect it to a proposition of fact (claim).

Further presume that hearsay evidence, as defined above, is not admissible to prove the truth of the claim since such evidence is unreliable as emanating from un-trustworhty sources.

Question for debate(s): What available circumstantial evidence( if any) suggests (tends to prove) that BibleGod is fictional?

What available circumstantial evidence (if any) suggests (tends to prove) that BibleGod is actual and extant?

Hmnn.

First, I apologize for not reading the entirety of the OP before I reacted to the definitions. Those so completely annoyed me that I had to stop and react to them, specifically, without dealing with where you were going with them. It was a case of making sure that my reaction was to the use of the definitions, so that it would not be colored by the point you were trying to prove with them.

OK, first....define 'BibleGod' for me. You describe this deity as "Assume that the OP refers solely to BibleGod as presented in the NT and as supplemented by Christianity." Simply looking around at the many different belief systems, all claiming to believe in the 'BibleGod,' and coming up with very different notions of Who He is, I am finding it interesting to consider that:

a: you feel no need to define Him, assuming that
b: we all know exactly Who you are talking about, and that
c: your version of Him, should you care to define it, would trump all those who actually believe in one.

As well, why did you leave out the OT? Certainly it has been a rather frequent habit of critics in here to concentrate upon the OT and completely ignore the NT...and you are here ignoring the OT and concentrating only on the NT. Why?

Basically, though...if the Bible is true, then it in itself is direct evidence for God. The question shouldn't be 'is there a BibleGod," but (in terms of this conversation) 'is the Bible true?"

In a court of law, direct evidence is eye-witness testimony (the Bible has a lot of that) and stuff like one sees in CSI. The reason it is accepted is because the sources are trusted. What the Bible is, if properly vetted, is like a deposition taken from an eyewitness who is physically unable to attend a trial. It's just as good.---but only if the testimony is taken properly, by people who are trusted, and the witness is sworn and all the other legal niceties are taken into account.

So the question is, again...not whether the BibleGod exists (Whoever you think He is) but whether the bible is an acceptable witness of Him.

[jamesmorlock]

(and I hereby freely admit that I didn't read it beyond the definitions, because they irritated me so much)

I have the bad habit of skimming through posts longer than medium-ish length, for the reason that people on this forum tend to rant. I'm trying to not do that as much, because occasionally something that I disagree with will end up being addressed in something that I happened to skim over.

Ordinarily that wouldn't matter; we understand the basic differentiation between 'bachelor,' meaning 'never married man,' and the degrees of knighthood. The problem arises when equivocation is used to set up a circular argument.

True, then "all bachelors are unmarried" would be false, but relies on a flip flopping of definitions. That's why I suppose we should maintain a level of uncertainty with any claim, because of possible ambiguities such as this. There's nothing wrong with the "truth" itself, but quite a lot wrong with our reasoning and ways of getting there.

[dianaiad]

(and I hereby freely admit that I didn't read it beyond the definitions, because they irritated me so much)

I have the bad habit of skimming through posts longer than medium-ish length, for the reason that people on this forum tend to rant. I'm trying to not do that as much, because occasionally something that I disagree with will end up being addressed in something that I happened to skim over.

Ordinarily that wouldn't matter; we understand the basic differentiation between 'bachelor,' meaning 'never married man,' and the degrees of knighthood. The problem arises when equivocation is used to set up a circular argument.

True, then "all bachelors are unmarried" would be false, but relies on a flip flopping of definitions.

No...not if the discussion is being held in, say...an entertainment forum and an awards subforum. (where it is perfectly logical to talk about Patrick Stewart..) Given that the "Knight Bachelor" is the level of British knighthood given to entertainers and artists in the UK, the 'flip-flopping' here would be NOT to include the award in a discussion of 'bachelor."

What set me off was that very carefully elided quote from Wikipedia used to define 'fact,' followed by the cherry picking of the rest of the defined words. "Flip flopping' indeed.

....but don't mind me; I"m having a curmudgeonly day.

That's why I suppose we should maintain a level of uncertainty with any claim, because of possible ambiguities such as this. There's nothing wrong with the "truth" itself, but quite a lot wrong with our reasoning and ways of getting there.

OK, There isn't a single thing about the above paragraph that I can argue with. What are trying to do, ruin my day?

[Flail]

Definitions:

Evidence: the available body of facts indicating whether a proposition is true.

Facts: things that are indisputably the case.

Direct evidence: that which directly proves truth.

Circumstantial evidence: that which merely suggests truth.

Hearsay: that which is repeated 'second-hand removed' from the original declarant which is propounded to prove the truth of an assertion via someone else who is either not known or not present and thus not subject to questioning. Hearsay is inadmissible in courts of law as having been demonstrated unreliable; and as dependent for veracity upon things not available for examination and testing such as: the identity, character, bias, motive, observation and reporting ability, mental acuity etc, of the original reporter or declarant.

Second hand 'testimony' that is not propounded to prove the truth of the matter at issue, but for some other purpose (such as demonstrating the basis for the oppositional claim) is admissible and may be considered as such.

Background:
Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof, or at a minimum, the burden of going forward with the evidence. Arguments can be made in the broadest sense that there is no such thing as direct evidence, and that all we have as 'proof currency' to support truth claims is circumstantial evidence.

The OP Proposition (claim): "BibleGod (JesusGod) does not exist.'

Assume that this claim does not refer to 'God', as in some as yet undefined supernatural creature that may or may not exist, and for which no coherent definition is available, and for which any claims of existence or non-existence are meaningless. Assume that the OP refers solely to BibleGod as presented in the NT and as supplemented by Christianity.

Assume for purposes of the OP that there is no verifiable, 'direct evidence' upon which to either prove or disprove this claim. What we are left with then is circumstantial evidence, ie, evidence which merely suggests the truth and for which an inference is required to connect it to a proposition of fact (claim).

Further presume that hearsay evidence, as defined above, is not admissible to prove the truth of the claim since such evidence is unreliable as emanating from un-trustworhty sources.

Question for debate(s): What available circumstantial evidence( if any) suggests (tends to prove) that BibleGod is fictional?

What available circumstantial evidence (if any) suggests (tends to prove) that BibleGod is actual and extant?

Dianaiad wrote:

Hmnn.

First, I apologize for not reading the entirety of the OP before I reacted to the definitions. Those so completely annoyed me that I had to stop and react to them, specifically, without dealing with where you were going with them. It was a case of making sure that my reaction was to the use of the definitions, so that it would not be colored by the point you were trying to prove with them.

I accept your apology and your point as to the definitions; I was merely attempting to set some parameters to begin a discussion of the OP topic as to the inherent unreliability of hearsay as second hand information and as to circumstantial evidence as the currency utilized toward proofs where there is a total lack of empirical evidence. That said, I do note how often you express your annoyance with others in these threads and your emotional reactions, and I am wondering to what end you share such things as I don't see where they are any of our business.
Dianaiad wrote:

OK, first....define 'BibleGod' for me. You describe this deity as "Assume that the OP refers solely to BibleGod as presented in the NT and as supplemented by Christianity." Simply looking around at the many different belief systems, all claiming to believe in the 'BibleGod,' and coming up with very different notions of Who He is, I am finding it interesting to consider that:

a: you feel no need to define Him, assuming that
b: we all know exactly Who you are talking about, and that
c: your version of Him, should you care to define it, would trump all those who actually believe in one.

There are indeed many versions of BibleGod. Because such is the case I was attempting to confine considerations, for purposes of the intended focus of this OP, to BibleGod as broadly considered as incarnate in Jesus per the NT and Christianity, as opposed to Jewish precursors in the OT. I thought this sufficient to begin a discussion of hearsay and circumstantial evidence as applied to religious beliefs in supernatural beings. In reading back, I could have been more clear. But these concepts would certainly apply to most any rendition of most any supernatural being proposed by most any theism meant to be taken as literal or inerrant.
Dianaiad wrote:

Basically, though...if the Bible is true, then it in itself is direct evidence for God. The question shouldn't be 'is there a BibleGod," but (in terms of this conversation) 'is the Bible true?"

I certainly could have phrased it in the manner you command since BibleGod has no roots other than in the Bible; but either way, a discussion of hearsay and circumstantial evidence could ensue in like fashion.

Dianaiad wrote:

In a court of law, direct evidence is eye-witness testimony (the Bible has a lot of that) and stuff like one sees in CSI. The reason it is accepted is because the sources are trusted. What the Bible is, if properly vetted, is like a deposition taken from an eyewitness who is physically unable to attend a trial. It's just as good.---but only if the testimony is taken properly, by people who are trusted, and the witness is sworn and all the other legal niceties are taken into account.

I couldn't disagree more. Live eye witness testimony is one form of direct evidence and in the long history of jurisprudence has proven, when subjected to vigorous cross examination in open court as to motive, bias, agenda, interest, mental state etc, to be very unreliable and untrustworthy. When we are removed by centuries from any possibility of such cross examination we no longer have direct evidence and when we permit anonymous, second hand ancient writings to be paraded as admissible evidence of supernaturals, we can quickly succumb to being duped and indoctrinated by dogma.
Dianaiad wrote:

So the question is, again...not whether the BibleGod exists (Whoever you think He is) but whether the bible is an acceptable witness of Him.

That would be another OP, albeit along a similar vein, but with a similar conclusion. The Bible is hearsay and as such is totally untrustworthy as a 'truth' document; and the overwhelming circumstantial evidence tends to demonstrate that BibleGod as an extant supernatural being is a fiction of religiosity and dogma.

[dianaiad]

Definitions:

Evidence: the available body of facts indicating whether a proposition is true.

Facts: things that are indisputably the case.

Direct evidence: that which directly proves truth.

Circumstantial evidence: that which merely suggests truth.

Hearsay: that which is repeated 'second-hand removed' from the original declarant which is propounded to prove the truth of an assertion via someone else who is either not known or not present and thus not subject to questioning. Hearsay is inadmissible in courts of law as having been demonstrated unreliable; and as dependent for veracity upon things not available for examination and testing such as: the identity, character, bias, motive, observation and reporting ability, mental acuity etc, of the original reporter or declarant.

Second hand 'testimony' that is not propounded to prove the truth of the matter at issue, but for some other purpose (such as demonstrating the basis for the oppositional claim) is admissible and may be considered as such.

Background:
Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof, or at a minimum, the burden of going forward with the evidence. Arguments can be made in the broadest sense that there is no such thing as direct evidence, and that all we have as 'proof currency' to support truth claims is circumstantial evidence.

The OP Proposition (claim): "BibleGod (JesusGod) does not exist.'

Assume that this claim does not refer to 'God', as in some as yet undefined supernatural creature that may or may not exist, and for which no coherent definition is available, and for which any claims of existence or non-existence are meaningless. Assume that the OP refers solely to BibleGod as presented in the NT and as supplemented by Christianity.

Assume for purposes of the OP that there is no verifiable, 'direct evidence' upon which to either prove or disprove this claim. What we are left with then is circumstantial evidence, ie, evidence which merely suggests the truth and for which an inference is required to connect it to a proposition of fact (claim).

Further presume that hearsay evidence, as defined above, is not admissible to prove the truth of the claim since such evidence is unreliable as emanating from un-trustworhty sources.

Question for debate(s): What available circumstantial evidence( if any) suggests (tends to prove) that BibleGod is fictional?

What available circumstantial evidence (if any) suggests (tends to prove) that BibleGod is actual and extant?

Dianaiad wrote:

Hmnn.

First, I apologize for not reading the entirety of the OP before I reacted to the definitions. Those so completely annoyed me that I had to stop and react to them, specifically, without dealing with where you were going with them. It was a case of making sure that my reaction was to the use of the definitions, so that it would not be colored by the point you were trying to prove with them.

I accept your apology and your point as to the definitions;

You do? Having read the rest of the post, I do beg leave to doubt that. That's quite a nasty little ad hominem you snapped back.

I was merely attempting to set some parameters to begin a discussion of the OP topic as to the inherent unreliability of hearsay as second hand information and as to circumstantial evidence as the currency utilized toward proofs where there is a total lack of empirical evidence. That said, I do note how often you express your annoyance with others in these threads and your emotional reactions, and I am wondering to what end you share such things as I don't see where they are any of our business.

I COULD have accused you of, oh...plagiarism, for instance, (you DID take the definition of 'fact' word for word from Wikipedia, with some important terms removed....and you didn't cite the quote) or being deliberately disingenuous and setting up the debate proposition in a way that predetermines the outcome--in your favor. Instead, I chose to admit to my curmudgeonliness regarding those definitions, and poke a little fun at myself.

Should I have made the other choice?

Dianaiad wrote:

OK, first....define 'BibleGod' for me. You describe this deity as "Assume that the OP refers solely to BibleGod as presented in the NT and as supplemented by Christianity." Simply looking around at the many different belief systems, all claiming to believe in the 'BibleGod,' and coming up with very different notions of Who He is, I am finding it interesting to consider that:

a: you feel no need to define Him, assuming that
b: we all know exactly Who you are talking about, and that
c: your version of Him, should you care to define it, would trump all those who actually believe in one.

There are indeed many versions of BibleGod. Because such is the case I was attempting to confine considerations, for purposes of the intended focus of this OP, to BibleGod as broadly considered as incarnate in Jesus per the NT and Christianity, as opposed to Jewish precursors in the OT.

Ok, that helps...but it still doesn't speak to the problem.

I thought this sufficient to begin a discussion of hearsay and circumstantial evidence as applied to religious beliefs in supernatural beings. In reading back, I could have been more clear. But these concepts would certainly apply to most any rendition of most any supernatural being proposed by most any theism meant to be taken as literal or inerrant.

Here's the problem that I see: you set the discussion up as a question of whether the 'BibleGod' exists, not as whether heresay evidence is acceptable. You simply dismissed the bible AS 'hearsay,' rather than as the sort of direct evidence one would get from eye witness testimony. IN doing so, you are begging the question. OF COURSE, if the Bible is only 'hear say,' it isn't admissible in any court of law, or, frankly, admissible in any discussion of whether God exists.

However, if it is NOT 'hearsay,' then it IS the sort of direct evidence you have already concluded it isn't. You are, then, begging the question.

Big time.

What you are stumbling over, here, is that question of whether the bible IS 'hearsay' in any sense. It could be 'hearsay' in the sense that eyewitness testimony in a court of law is 'hearsay.' That is, not at all.

Such testimony is considered direct evidence, no matter how long it's been since it was given.

So, again, the question is....IS the Bible 'hearsay?"

If so, then the question goes one way--and one gets into the matter of whether 'hearsay' means the same thing in theological terms as it does in legal ones.

If not, then the question as you posed it is still not a good one; because there is no such thing as a 'standard' version of the 'BibleGod.' Now you get into the sorts of arguments that have engaged, split and caused balding domes of biblical scholars for more than two thousand years.

Dianaiad wrote:

Basically, though...if the Bible is true, then it in itself is direct evidence for God. The question shouldn't be 'is there a BibleGod," but (in terms of this conversation) 'is the Bible true?"

I certainly could have phrased it in the manner you command since BibleGod has no roots other than in the Bible; but either way, a discussion of hearsay and circumstantial evidence could ensue in like fashion.

The problem is that you have already, in the OP, determined that the bible IS 'hearsay.' You have left no room for any other argument. Since that's so, I don't see the point of the question. It's highly circular.

Dianaiad wrote:

In a court of law, direct evidence is eye-witness testimony (the Bible has a lot of that) and stuff like one sees in CSI. The reason it is accepted is because the sources are trusted. What the Bible is, if properly vetted, is like a deposition taken from an eyewitness who is physically unable to attend a trial. It's just as good.---but only if the testimony is taken properly, by people who are trusted, and the witness is sworn and all the other legal niceties are taken into account.

I couldn't disagree more. Live eye witness testimony is one form of direct evidence and in the long history of jurisprudence has proven, when subjected to vigorous cross examination in open court as to motive, bias, agenda, interest, mental state etc, to be very unreliable and untrustworthy. When we are removed by centuries from any possibility of such cross examination we no longer have direct evidence and when we permit anonymous, second hand ancient writings to be paraded as admissible evidence of supernaturals, we can quickly succumb to being duped and indoctrinated by dogma.

Now you are flying far away from the point of the OP as YOU present it. Again, you are assuming the consequent.

So the question is, again...not whether the BibleGod exists (Whoever you think He is) but whether the bible is an acceptable witness of Him.

That would be another OP, albeit along a similar vein, but with a similar conclusion.

You are quite right. It would be another OP....the one this SHOULD have been.

The Bible is hearsay and as such is totally untrustworthy as a 'truth' document; and the overwhelming circumstantial evidence tends to demonstrate that BibleGod as an extant supernatural being is a fiction of religiosity and dogma.

....and there you go. This is the place you begin as a 'given,' in order to get into a discussion of whether the 'BibleGod' exists...which you have already predetermined as 'not,' because you so carefully set up the proposition so as to make it impossible to come to any other conclusion.

Begging the Question.
Affirming the Consequent.

Leaving NO room for disagreement--or even contributions from anybody but those who already agree with you.

[jamesmorlock]

No...not if the discussion is being held in, say...an entertainment forum and an awards subforum. (where it is perfectly logical to talk about Patrick Stewart..) Given that the "Knight Bachelor" is the level of British knighthood given to entertainers and artists in the UK, the 'flip-flopping' here would be NOT to include the award in a discussion of 'bachelor."

But then the problem is solved simply by asking what a bachelor is. If the definition is "an unmarried man", then "all unmarried men are unmarried" is just a flat tautology. In the "knight bachelor" case, marriage is not included in it's definition so we can safely say that "all bachelor's are unmarried" is false, since we can come up with at least one knight bachelor who is married.

When arguing (I'm not a math person, but I like to do this anyway) is to assign things variables in my head or on paper - knight bachelor could be X, unmarried man could be Y, etc. It really helps me organize things into a logical structure and I've found it a good way to avoid conflations and ambiguity.

OK, There isn't a single thing about the above paragraph that I can argue with. What are trying to do, ruin my day?

I could probably think something up that you'd disagree with. Perhaps something like: I believe that logic and reason, unhindered by emotion or faith, is the best way to align beliefs closest to truth, and that any other way is arbitrary and self-defeating.