Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
no evidence no belief
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm

Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

Post #1

Post by no evidence no belief »

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 10038
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 1228 times
Been thanked: 1621 times

Post #1331

Post by Clownboat »

instantc wrote:
Clownboat wrote: He claimed this was evidence. Do you agree or not is what is important?
He was making an odd argument about how people in this forum are not capable of convincing people while the Bible has been successful. As far as I understood he merely said that there is evidence for the fact that the Bible has convinced billions of people. He didn't say that this would be evidence for its truth value.

I wouldn't call out argumentation fallacies, unless x is claimed to follow from y, when it in fact doesn't. It is often relevant to point out the popularity of a belief and by no means fallacious as such.
Now you are wrong. See the bold.
(He did make that argument, but as you can see I discounted it for being off topic and irrelevant). You are mistaken because you are addressing his wrong point. I don't care if he claims atheists can't convert, it has no bearing in this discussion. I take issue to his claim that he has evidence for the supernatural.

Here are his exact words (the words that I am actually addressing, not the ones that you think I am addressing):
The evidence.....

FACT: The iron age simpletons wrote a book which has persuaded billions of people over thousands of years in every corner of the world.
The evidence is.... that iron age simpletons wrote a book which has persuaded billions of people....

Please Instantc, explain how this is evidence.
We can disagree about it being a fallacy, but I really, really, really want to know if this is what you would consider as evidence for the supernatural. I am not interested in having a discussion with you or anyone for that matter about if atheists have converted people. I am specifically addressing what he has claimed to be evidence.

And again, even if I am wrong to call this a logical fallacy, that does not automatically make it evidence. It is this claimed evidence that I am addressing and if you disagree with me calling it a logical fallacy, it really matters not.
Has he supplied evidence for the supernatural?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

instantc
Guru
Posts: 2251
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:11 am

Post #1332

Post by instantc »

Clownboat wrote: We can disagree about it being a fallacy, but I really, really, really want to know if this is what you would consider as evidence for the supernatural. I am not interested in having a discussion with you or anyone for that matter about if atheists have converted people. I am specifically addressing what he has claimed to be evidence.

And again, even if I am wrong to call this a logical fallacy, that does not automatically make it evidence. It is this claimed evidence that I am addressing and if you disagree with me calling it a logical fallacy, it really matters not.
Has he supplied evidence for the supernatural?
No, I agree, he hasn't. I don't think he intended to either, his main point seems to be that we cannot convince people but the Bible can. He doesn't draw any conclusions, he just wants to point that out, just so we know that we suck at this.
Clownboat wrote: The evidence is.... that iron age simpletons wrote a book which has persuaded billions of people....
I understood that he meant 'The evidence shows.... that iron age simpletons have...'
Last edited by instantc on Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.

keithprosser3

Post #1333

Post by keithprosser3 »

NENB wrote:Goose wrote:
"Is this how evidence is treated in a trial? Let’s use your example of you allegedly committing a crime. What you are wanting is for the evidence you are guilty to be invalidated on the soul grounds you believe you have stronger evidence for your innocence. That’s not how a trial works."

Yes it is. It's called an ALIBI.
oooh er... an alibi is a plea that you weren't at the scene of a crime. From the Latin for 'elsewhere'.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 10038
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 1228 times
Been thanked: 1621 times

Post #1334

Post by Clownboat »

instantc wrote:
Clownboat wrote: We can disagree about it being a fallacy, but I really, really, really want to know if this is what you would consider as evidence for the supernatural. I am not interested in having a discussion with you or anyone for that matter about if atheists have converted people. I am specifically addressing what he has claimed to be evidence.

And again, even if I am wrong to call this a logical fallacy, that does not automatically make it evidence. It is this claimed evidence that I am addressing and if you disagree with me calling it a logical fallacy, it really matters not.
Has he supplied evidence for the supernatural?
No, I agree, he hasn't. I don't think he intended to either...
You have me beating a dead horse here. For (is it) the 3rd time:
The evidence.....

FACT: The iron age simpletons wrote....
Perhaps Philbert should be responding, I call in to question your ability to determine his intentions.
his main point seems to be that we cannot convince people but the Bible can. He doesn't draw any conclusions, he just wants to point that out, just so we know that we suck at this.
You are free to follow his rabbit trail. I do not wish to follow you.
Gah, this horse is going to be a pulp soon!
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

no evidence no belief
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm

Post #1335

Post by no evidence no belief »

keithprosser3 wrote:
NENB wrote:Goose wrote:
"Is this how evidence is treated in a trial? Let’s use your example of you allegedly committing a crime. What you are wanting is for the evidence you are guilty to be invalidated on the soul grounds you believe you have stronger evidence for your innocence. That’s not how a trial works."

Yes it is. It's called an ALIBI.
oooh er... an alibi is a plea that you weren't at the scene of a crime. From the Latin for 'elsewhere'.
Correct.

If you can successfully demonstrate that you were not at the scene of a crime, then any circumstantial evidence that you may have committed the crime is no longer relevant.

Similarly, if you can successfully demonstrate donkeys can't talk and zombies can't raise from the dead, then any circumstantial evidence that donkeys can talk and zombies can raise from the dead is no longer relevant.

User avatar
help3434
Guru
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:19 pm
Location: United States
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Post #1336

Post by help3434 »

[Replying to post 1332 by Clownboat]

I agree with instanc here. Philbert is not even a Christian, so why would he claim that it is evidence for the supernatural?

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

Post #1337

Post by Danmark »

Goose wrote:You are wanting to invalidate the evidence for a position on the grounds that you believe the evidence against that position is stronger. Is this how evidence is treated in a trial? Let’s use your example of you allegedly committing a crime. What you are wanting is for the evidence you are guilty to be invalidated on the soul grounds you believe you have stronger evidence for your innocence. That’s not how a trial works. All evidence, for and against, which passes the criteria of admissibility is valid. In a trial, evidence is invalid only if it doesn’t pass the criteria of admissibility. The evidence for or against isn’t made invalid on the basis that the other side has stronger evidence – think about it. Even if you are cleared as innocent the evidence for your alleged guilt isn’t made invalid on that basis alone as evidence is only made invalid if it is inadmissible for some reason.
What you say about admissibility of evidence in a trial is correct, but misleading.

And NENB points this out in his response. In a trial, all evidence that meets the Rules of Evidence is admitted. Its weight regarding how convincing it is, is a question for the jury. There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule for example. In general, absent one of the exceptions, out of court statements "a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement" is hearsay and inadmissible.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801

The testimony of Paul or Luke or any none eyewitness about what others supposedly said about the resurrection is hearsay and inadmissible.

But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that such weak evidence was somehow admitted for the jury's consideration. We then plug in NENB's argument about the powerful alibi evidence of 100,000 people who saw the QB too far from the scene of the crime at the time of the crime. It's true that the weak hearsay evidence still comes in [for the sake of argument]; it is technically not irrelevant; but the weight of that hearsay evidence is so weak it will be judged lighter than air compared to the profound weight of the alibi testimony.

Where this trial analogy breaks down is that a prosecuting attorney faced with this evidence, would not even bring the case against the QB in the first place.

In this analogy the eyewitness alibi testimony is our knowledge of how nature works; of science and principles of medicine, physics, and common experience. The questionable hearsay evidence is the purported 'witnesses' to the resurrection. The case for the supernatural is so weak it would not even be filed, let alone be adjudicated by the jury.

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #1338

Post by Nickman »

Philbert wrote:
Nickman wrote: A person that you meet on the street that claims that they have been abducted by aliens has more credibility than any biblical author. The problem is that this person is here and now and is easily discredited by examining their claims first hand. We can interrogate this individual, ask questions and receive answers, visit the sites that they claim, check their alibi, meet their family members and friends for character verification, and check their sanity. We cannot do this with any of the Biblical authors. This allows for people to rely on faith without any verification. Most claims that the Biblical authors make, are unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiabilty does not equate with reliability, credibility, and veracity. Some claims that Biblical authors make are falsifiable and if we can show these to be false then there is no reason to believe the ones we cannot falsify.

All this goes away if we focus on the parts of Christianity which already are what everybody says they wish it was.
You make zero sense. Can you address the post in the same way I do yours? Are the NT author's claims falsifiable?

Focus on does not equal converting to Christianity.

Focus on equals being practical and logical, scooping up whatever is useful, discarding what is not, and keep on moving forward.
So what is practical, logical, and useful in the bible? Don't get me wrong, there are some of each in the bible, but I want to know what you are saying that we should focus on?

Note: My statement is not one that says there is nothing practical, logical, or useful in the bible.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #1339

Post by Danmark »

no evidence no belief wrote:
keithprosser3 wrote:
NENB wrote:Goose wrote:
"Is this how evidence is treated in a trial? Let’s use your example of you allegedly committing a crime. What you are wanting is for the evidence you are guilty to be invalidated on the soul grounds you believe you have stronger evidence for your innocence. That’s not how a trial works."

Yes it is. It's called an ALIBI.
oooh er... an alibi is a plea that you weren't at the scene of a crime. From the Latin for 'elsewhere'.
Correct.

If you can successfully demonstrate that you were not at the scene of a crime, then any circumstantial evidence that you may have committed the crime is no longer relevant.

Similarly, if you can successfully demonstrate donkeys can't talk and zombies can't raise from the dead, then any circumstantial evidence that donkeys can talk and zombies can raise from the dead is no longer relevant.
Just a technical quibble here from an old trial lawyer:
If admitted under the rules of evidence, the weak circumstantial evidence would still be 'relevant;' it simply would not be persuasive, and thus would be discounted by the jury.

keithprosser3

Post #1340

Post by keithprosser3 »

re Philbert, I think his challenge to atheists is to face up to the fact that billions of people have been persuaded to believe the bible is true but we atheists on DCR have very few if any conversions to our viewpoint to boast about.

Am I right about that much, Philly? I don't want to go on if I'm on the wrong tack.

Locked