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?

[Flail]

More simply put, the OP defined things, and assumed, as a given, that 'fact' and 'direct evidence' mean something far more narrow than the dictionaries....and certainly any theist...would agree to. It is, indeed, a matter of defining 'bachelor' in a way as to preclude Patrick Stewart, from being a bachelor knight... in a discussion regarding his awards as an actor.

I'm not usually particularly interested in evidential debates against the bible, or any kind of theology, simply because generally, theists claim that the evidence we would accept would and should not be present, anyway. It doesn't give the non-theist much to argue against. If the theist has evidence they believe would be accepted, or why certain evidence should be accepted however, I'm all ears.

You are quite right. I disagree with the above. Logic and reason are the best ways to address scientific issues. They are not the ONLY valid ways to address theological and philosophical truths.

Science indeed utilizes logic and reason, but they are not particular to science, or even empirical evidence. What sort of 'other' methods do you refer to? If something is true, the it is true without needing to prepend "theological" or "philosophical" in front of it to somehow distinguish it from a different sort of truth.

Unless we're talking about two different meanings here.

We may be. I've been using the same word, 'truth' to describe the differences, but with a slight alteration in typeface.

"truth" (lower-case 't') is facts; things that we have solid, physical evidence for. There are footprints on the moon; that's truth. There is a supervolcano under Yellowstone National Park. That's truth. Evolution is truth. (well, I think so, anyway.) So are black holes, quarks, and Twinkie filling injection machines.

Yesterday my hair had a great deal more grey in it that I liked, and today it doesn't. That's also truth. When someone says 'thong' to me, my first thought is footwear (what people call 'flip-flops' now) not underwear. If someone asks "where were you when Kennedy was shot?" I have to admit to being in a high school English class. These things all lead up to the "truth" that I am--not in my twenties.

"Truth," however, (upper-case 'T') is a different critter. While truths and empirical evidence can support this...grander?...notion, they don't prove it; something else comes into play; something the Romanticists knew, and Jung attempted to describe.

Oh, shoot, just read Keats.

Excellent points. Perhaps big T truths are somewhat discernible via some form of logical progression, not from direct, objective, empirical evidence but from something more nuanced and subtle, less direct...something say...circumstantial.

[jamesmorlock]

"Truth," however, (upper-case 'T') is a different critter. While truths and empirical evidence can support this...grander?...notion, they don't prove it; something else comes into play; something the Romanticists knew, and Jung attempted to describe.

You're right, I have no idea what you're getting at. Are you sure that having Byronic-era romanticist poets explain it will help me understand it any better?

[dianaiad]

,snip to here>

I have apparently failed to draw the OP question suitably and will take my F and recede to the background. Your points are well taken however, and had I been attempting a full discussion of all things biblical and all things evidentiary and all things to prove or disprove 'God' I would have drawn my OP assumptions much differently. I seem to be the only one interested in circumstantial evidence as a stand alone consideration. Call it a fetish, but it is really an interesting concept if delved into as a logical consideration. But apparently, in attempting to draw the OP with ground rules that would permit only my fetish for circumstantial evidentiary considerations, I have done little else but to piss you off.

YOU didn't piss me off, Flail. I'm not pissed off. I'll admit to 'annoyed,' but only at the definitions.

OK, then, is it fair for me to restate your OP (just to see whether I understand where you are going with it) as a question of what circumstantial evidence might actually exist that might support the idea of the "BibleGod" as you define it, and further, what level of trust we might put in such circumstantial evidence--the bible itself not being considered?

Certainly you may rephrase or restate the OP any way you see fit. Such is the essence of debate IMO. Go for it. I might learn something.

Yeah, but did I restate it as you intended it? I'm asking you if I 'got' it.

[dianaiad]

More simply put, the OP defined things, and assumed, as a given, that 'fact' and 'direct evidence' mean something far more narrow than the dictionaries....and certainly any theist...would agree to. It is, indeed, a matter of defining 'bachelor' in a way as to preclude Patrick Stewart, from being a bachelor knight... in a discussion regarding his awards as an actor.

I'm not usually particularly interested in evidential debates against the bible, or any kind of theology, simply because generally, theists claim that the evidence we would accept would and should not be present, anyway. It doesn't give the non-theist much to argue against. If the theist has evidence they believe would be accepted, or why certain evidence should be accepted however, I'm all ears.

You are quite right. I disagree with the above. Logic and reason are the best ways to address scientific issues. They are not the ONLY valid ways to address theological and philosophical truths.

Science indeed utilizes logic and reason, but they are not particular to science, or even empirical evidence. What sort of 'other' methods do you refer to? If something is true, the it is true without needing to prepend "theological" or "philosophical" in front of it to somehow distinguish it from a different sort of truth.

Unless we're talking about two different meanings here.

We may be. I've been using the same word, 'truth' to describe the differences, but with a slight alteration in typeface.

"truth" (lower-case 't') is facts; things that we have solid, physical evidence for. There are footprints on the moon; that's truth. There is a supervolcano under Yellowstone National Park. That's truth. Evolution is truth. (well, I think so, anyway.) So are black holes, quarks, and Twinkie filling injection machines.

Yesterday my hair had a great deal more grey in it that I liked, and today it doesn't. That's also truth. When someone says 'thong' to me, my first thought is footwear (what people call 'flip-flops' now) not underwear. If someone asks "where were you when Kennedy was shot?" I have to admit to being in a high school English class. These things all lead up to the "truth" that I am--not in my twenties.

"Truth," however, (upper-case 'T') is a different critter. While truths and empirical evidence can support this...grander?...notion, they don't prove it; something else comes into play; something the Romanticists knew, and Jung attempted to describe.

Oh, shoot, just read Keats.

Excellent points. Perhaps big T truths are somewhat discernible via some form of logical progression, not from direct, objective, empirical evidence but from something more nuanced and subtle, less direct...something say...circumstantial.

Circumstantial evidence, I think, is more like a Sudoku puzzle; one reaches the solutions not so much by what IS there, but rather by what can't be there--and the only possibilities left. As such, it can be used in courts of law; more than one person has been convicted, imprisoned--and even executed--as a result of circumstantial evidence.

The problem with proving that a deity exists, especially with a specific version of Deity, isn't whether the evidence is circumstantial or not. It's whether the evidence presented, direct or indirect, is accepted AS evidence.

Now, my grandfather used to tell me that when he was about five, a Nez Perce chief adopted him, gave him a pony, and protected his mother, sister and him from harm in the very small farm where they lived. It seems that, when he was five, he was trying to get a fish out of a trap, and when one if the Nez Perce boys wanted to take it away from him, G-dad threatened to hit him with a stick. It tickled the chief...who saw to it that this small family never went hungry or cold as long as the Nez Perce stayed in the area.

We always thought it was a fun story, but most of us considered it to be one of those imaginary tales thought up by lonely children; something out of a boy's adventure book. ONE of us, though, believed the story implicitly, because she trusted her grandfather. He told wonderful stories; she thought they were all, of course, absolutely true.

So, after he died, she did some digging, fully expecting to find corroboration. Nobody else in the family supported her; THEY thought it was a fairy story.

.....and she found it. Seems that this Nez Perce chief, after the government finally pinned the tribes down and got a census of sorts, claimed my g-grandfather as his son. He is formally listed as a member of the Nez Perce nation. The story was true.

Would it have been any LESS true if the chief hadn't claimed him in writing? Is truth...or Truth, only 'real' if the evidence for it reaches a specific level of acceptability?

What evidence can possibly be more tenuous, or less trustworthy, than the often repeated childhood memory of a man from when he was five years old, told when he was 90?

What about me, writing about it now on this forum; recounting HIS story told to me? That has GOT to be the epitome of 'hearsay,'

Yet what has that got to do, in reality, with whether the story is true?

As well, 'circumstantial' evidence depends, in part, about what possibilities are ultimately acceptable.

[Flail]

,snip to here>

I have apparently failed to draw the OP question suitably and will take my F and recede to the background. Your points are well taken however, and had I been attempting a full discussion of all things biblical and all things evidentiary and all things to prove or disprove 'God' I would have drawn my OP assumptions much differently. I seem to be the only one interested in circumstantial evidence as a stand alone consideration. Call it a fetish, but it is really an interesting concept if delved into as a logical consideration. But apparently, in attempting to draw the OP with ground rules that would permit only my fetish for circumstantial evidentiary considerations, I have done little else but to piss you off.

YOU didn't piss me off, Flail. I'm not pissed off. I'll admit to 'annoyed,' but only at the definitions.

OK, then, is it fair for me to restate your OP (just to see whether I understand where you are going with it) as a question of what circumstantial evidence might actually exist that might support the idea of the "BibleGod" as you define it, and further, what level of trust we might put in such circumstantial evidence--the bible itself not being considered?

Certainly you may rephrase or restate the OP any way you see fit. Such is the essence of debate IMO. Go for it. I might learn something.

Yeah, but did I restate it as you intended it? I'm asking you if I 'got' it.

Yes, you got it. You essentially repeated the final sentence of the OP. However, I suspect that the discussions would have devolved into discussions of evidence per se and literalisms as is typical. Which is what I (poorly perhaps) was attempting to avoid by a narrow, artificially constructed hypothetical OP. If you read my post #41 you will see the type of arguments I was looking for and that I replied to there.

[Flail]

Dianaiad wrote:

"Truth," however, (upper-case 'T') is a different critter. While truths and empirical evidence can support this...grander?...notion, they don't prove it; something else comes into play; something the Romanticists knew, and Jung attempted to describe.

Oh, shoot, just read Keats.

Flail responded:

Excellent points. Perhaps big T truths are somewhat discernible via some form of logical progression, not from direct, objective, empirical evidence but from something more nuanced and subtle, less direct...something say...circumstantial.

Dianaiad wrote:

Circumstantial evidence, I think, is more like a Sudoku puzzle; one reaches the solutions not so much by what IS there, but rather by what can't be there--and the only possibilities left. As such, it can be used in courts of law; more than one person has been convicted, imprisoned--and even executed--as a result of circumstantial evidence.

Agreed except as to circumstantial evidence in courts of law. In litigation, (as opposed to the inane television renditions where, for ease of fiction, eye witness testimony is revered,) circumstantial evidence has proven an invaluable tool, a scalpel for dissecting false claims; false claims that often emanate from what appears to be 'reliable direct evidence'.

The classic 'direct evidence' that we refer to as 'eye witness testimony' is perhaps the most misunderstood and unreliable form of evidence existing. Until DNA, it has been circumstantial evidence under the skillful use of cross examination, that has kept many an otherwise innocent defendant from being convicted upon false eye witness testimony. Although far from a perfect tool, circumstantial evidence can be overwhelmingly convincing.

DNA of course is a superior form of scientific direct evidence. A great number of incarcerated defendants have been exonerated by DNA trumping the 'eye witness testimony' that landed them behind bars.

I am suggesting (just as Keats delved the big T truth from considering a common vase) that theists might proffer more convincing arguments for BibleGod by using the logic of circumstances rather than unprovable, impossible literalisms that often get in their way.

Dianaiad wrote:

The problem with proving that a deity exists, especially with a specific version of Deity, isn't whether the evidence is circumstantial or not. It's whether the evidence presented, direct or indirect, is accepted AS evidence.

Agreed. But there is no direct, viable, verifiable evidence for any Deity. None. All we have are subjective opinions and hearsay reports that are beyond nebulous without the aid of circumstantial arguments and logical progressions to assist them. By themselves, particularly as to supernaturals, such stories and literal claims must be seen as delusional or tales of fiction. How could they be rationally perceived otherwise? But as with Grecian Urns, there are Big T's in there, and the best tool for mining them is circumstantial evidence.

Indeed...

'When old age shall this generation waste
Thou shall remain. In midst of other woe
than ours.' Keats

[Susma]

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?

That is very good, you have given some concepts about what is evidence.

But you have not given any concept whatever of the BibleGod.

Now, suppose this late in the day, you give in less than 50 words what is your concept of the BibleGod.

Otherwise I will be very disappointed with you, that as you take the care to give some concepts of what is evidence and the kinds of, that serve your cause to advance the thesis that the BibleGod does not exist, you should have continued with your good rational mind: to also present (but make it in less than 50 words) what is your concept of the BibleGod.



Now, I suspect that the concepts of evidence and the kinds of you present do not come from your own thinking in your own words, although based on your research into evidence as evinced in writings of people who examine the ideas and facts about evidence.

Because they sound familiar in internet writings.


Next time please give the links to sources where you derived almost literatim your concepts of things you give definitions of.



When you have given what is your concept of the BibleGod in not more than 50 words in your own writing, then I will invite you to still reduce it to at most only 20 words: in order that you will really do serious rational thinking to come to the core essence of the BibleGod.

Otherwise your knowledge of the BibleGod is at most wishy-washy.




Susma

[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?

That is very good, you have given some concepts about what is evidence.

But you have not given any concept whatever of the BibleGod.

Now, suppose this late in the day, you give in less than 50 words what is your concept of the BibleGod.

Otherwise I will be very disappointed with you, that as you take the care to give some concepts of what is evidence and the kinds of, that serve your cause to advance the thesis that the BibleGod does not exist, you should have continued with your good rational mind: to also present (but make it in less than 50 words) what is your concept of the BibleGod.



Now, I suspect that the concepts of evidence and the kinds of you present do not come from your own thinking in your own words, although based on your research into evidence as evinced in writings of people who examine the ideas and facts about evidence.

Because they sound familiar in internet writings.


Next time please give the links to sources where you derived almost literatim your concepts of things you give definitions of.



When you have given what is your concept of the BibleGod in not more than 50 words in your own writing, then I will invite you to still reduce it to at most only 20 words: in order that you will really do serious rational thinking to come to the core essence of the BibleGod.

Otherwise your knowledge of the BibleGod is at most wishy-washy.

Susma

There are many versions of BibleGod with KoranBibleGod and JesusBibleGod being the most prevalent; but within both of these are innumerable other versions. The Bible is so loosely drawn that multiple subjective interpretations are possible while an objective version is impossible.

Keeping to the confines of the OP, my subjective view of BibleGod is this: Based upon circumstantial evidence and logical progressions therefrom, it is more probably true than not true that BibleGod does not exist and is merely a fiction of man.

[Flail]

More simply put, the OP defined things, and assumed, as a given, that 'fact' and 'direct evidence' mean something far more narrow than the dictionaries....and certainly any theist...would agree to. It is, indeed, a matter of defining 'bachelor' in a way as to preclude Patrick Stewart, from being a bachelor knight... in a discussion regarding his awards as an actor.

I'm not usually particularly interested in evidential debates against the bible, or any kind of theology, simply because generally, theists claim that the evidence we would accept would and should not be present, anyway. It doesn't give the non-theist much to argue against. If the theist has evidence they believe would be accepted, or why certain evidence should be accepted however, I'm all ears.

You are quite right. I disagree with the above. Logic and reason are the best ways to address scientific issues. They are not the ONLY valid ways to address theological and philosophical truths.

Science indeed utilizes logic and reason, but they are not particular to science, or even empirical evidence. What sort of 'other' methods do you refer to? If something is true, the it is true without needing to prepend "theological" or "philosophical" in front of it to somehow distinguish it from a different sort of truth.

Unless we're talking about two different meanings here.

We may be. I've been using the same word, 'truth' to describe the differences, but with a slight alteration in typeface.

"truth" (lower-case 't') is facts; things that we have solid, physical evidence for. There are footprints on the moon; that's truth. There is a supervolcano under Yellowstone National Park. That's truth. Evolution is truth. (well, I think so, anyway.) So are black holes, quarks, and Twinkie filling injection machines.

Yesterday my hair had a great deal more grey in it that I liked, and today it doesn't. That's also truth. When someone says 'thong' to me, my first thought is footwear (what people call 'flip-flops' now) not underwear. If someone asks "where were you when Kennedy was shot?" I have to admit to being in a high school English class. These things all lead up to the "truth" that I am--not in my twenties.

"Truth," however, (upper-case 'T') is a different critter. While truths and empirical evidence can support this...grander?...notion, they don't prove it; something else comes into play; something the Romanticists knew, and Jung attempted to describe.

Oh, shoot, just read Keats.

Excellent points. Perhaps big T truths are somewhat discernible via some form of logical progression, not from direct, objective, empirical evidence but from something more nuanced and subtle, less direct...something say...circumstantial.

Circumstantial evidence, I think, is more like a Sudoku puzzle; one reaches the solutions not so much by what IS there, but rather by what can't be there--and the only possibilities left. As such, it can be used in courts of law; more than one person has been convicted, imprisoned--and even executed--as a result of circumstantial evidence.

The problem with proving that a deity exists, especially with a specific version of Deity, isn't whether the evidence is circumstantial or not. It's whether the evidence presented, direct or indirect, is accepted AS evidence.

Now, my grandfather used to tell me that when he was about five, a Nez Perce chief adopted him, gave him a pony, and protected his mother, sister and him from harm in the very small farm where they lived. It seems that, when he was five, he was trying to get a fish out of a trap, and when one if the Nez Perce boys wanted to take it away from him, G-dad threatened to hit him with a stick. It tickled the chief...who saw to it that this small family never went hungry or cold as long as the Nez Perce stayed in the area.

We always thought it was a fun story, but most of us considered it to be one of those imaginary tales thought up by lonely children; something out of a boy's adventure book. ONE of us, though, believed the story implicitly, because she trusted her grandfather. He told wonderful stories; she thought they were all, of course, absolutely true.

So, after he died, she did some digging, fully expecting to find corroboration. Nobody else in the family supported her; THEY thought it was a fairy story.

.....and she found it. Seems that this Nez Perce chief, after the government finally pinned the tribes down and got a census of sorts, claimed my g-grandfather as his son. He is formally listed as a member of the Nez Perce nation. The story was true.

Would it have been any LESS true if the chief hadn't claimed him in writing? Is truth...or Truth, only 'real' if the evidence for it reaches a specific level of acceptability?

What evidence can possibly be more tenuous, or less trustworthy, than the often repeated childhood memory of a man from when he was five years old, told when he was 90?

What about me, writing about it now on this forum; recounting HIS story told to me? That has GOT to be the epitome of 'hearsay,'

Yet what has that got to do, in reality, with whether the story is true?

As well, 'circumstantial' evidence depends, in part, about what possibilities are ultimately acceptable.

You continue to conflate writings as to things verifiable and confirmable, (GP's adoption by the Indians, fault lines and blue sky) with ancient tales of the supernatural. It goes without saying that what someone writes about something has nothing whatever to do with whether the reports are true or false. Which is why tales that happen to have been written by someone and then collated into the Bible have zero to do with whether they are true or not. Our task then it to attempt to discern what might be true; to verify and confirm. There is a vast difference in believing Bible tales of supernatural beings that have never been confirmed by anyone at anytime, than in believing reports of blue sky things that are verifiable by simply looking up.

So when it comes to ancient tales of the supernatural containing claims that some supernatural being exists and has rules for us to follow, I think it incumbent upon us to try to discern as much about the author of such a story as is possible. For instance, I once represented an educated man of seeming great intelligence; he had great verbal skills, albeit a verbose almost non-stop stream of consciousness. During the court proceedings he was declared incompetent and was confined as being a potential danger to himself or others since he was claiming to be Jesus and had written volumes in his cell encouraging others to follow him to the promise land. Getting to know him and observe him was essential to an understanding that his claims of divinity were insane.

PS (He ate an entire styrofoam paper cup while sitting at council table.)