Bible is sufficient evidence of God

[KingandPriest]

[Zzyzx]

.
A discussion of the relationship between conclusions / beliefs and evidence is presented at http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 791#833791

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 83 by KingandPriest]



[center]
The reliability of hearsay evidence
Part One[/center]

These fell under the category of hearsay evidence, so its up to the reader to decide whether the testimony is worthy of belief.

How reliable is hearsay evidence, in your opinion?

[Zzyzx]

.

If you allow documentation evidence to be treated as empirical for the purposes of proof of God, then non-theists can no longer argue that there is no evidence to support the existence of God. This claim surfaces all to often on this forum, so in an attempt to avoid the debate of whether documentation is "empirical enough", I tried to be safe and just treat it as non-empirical. I was attempting to demonstrate non-bias on my part by not forcing one to accept that documentation evidence is empirical and thus one can use such evidence to support a claim.

Empirical is defined as: a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empirical

Observing that a document exists is NOT empirical evidence that an event occurred. The existence of gods cannot be verified by observation or experiment.

'Evidence' for the existence of gods or for their supposed feats consists of 'Take my word for it, or his or this book' -- tales, testimonials, conjectures, opinions -- nothing that is verifiable.

[KingandPriest]

[Zzyzx]

.

If a group of individuals in California observe and experience an earthquake, it is emprical evidence to them that the ground moved. An individual who lives in NY for example who did not witness the earthquake can either rely on the testimony of the individual who lives in California, or refute the claim.

Correction: An earthquake in California (or elsewhere) is recorded by seismographs worldwide.

No one need accept the testimony of someone at the epicenter or nearby.

To the individual in NY, the fact that they did not observe the earthquake or can replicate the earthquake in a lab, does not mean it did not occur, or that the testimony of the person who lives in CA was not based on empirical evidence.

If someone testifies that an earthquake occurred but there is no record on seismographs, it is reasonable to conclude that the testimony is incorrect. This process is known as verification. Claims / stories / testimonials are checked against disconnected / independent sources and evidences.

Those that cannot be verified are considered as doubtful at best – except in theology where verification is often regarded as unnecessary and where testimonials are the highest form of evidence available for most claims and stories.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 83 by KingandPriest]

Non-theists demand evidence before belief.

In another thread, you said that with the god hypothesis, one must start out by believing the hypothesis, which I disagreed with. In this conversation, with you trying to convince me that the Bible can be trusted, am I supposed to start out by believing that the God is real?
I cannot and will not do that.

Your choice. This choice supports what I wrote about demanding evidence before belief.

How is it a choice? Are you able to flip a switch in your mind/brain and somehow believe or disbelieve something? Are you able to look at a family member, flip that switch and start believing that they are not related to you, for example?

[KingandPriest]

.

If a group of individuals in California observe and experience an earthquake, it is emprical evidence to them that the ground moved. An individual who lives in NY for example who did not witness the earthquake can either rely on the testimony of the individual who lives in California, or refute the claim.

Correction: An earthquake in California (or elsewhere) is recorded by seismographs worldwide.

No one need accept the testimony of someone at the epicenter or nearby.

So by your logic before seismographs were invented, earthquakes were not observed empirically. No one should believe the testimony of individuals describing an earthquake because there is no seismograph data to accompany it.

So by your logic no earthquake took place before 132AD. Very interesting.

To the individual in NY, the fact that they did not observe the earthquake or can replicate the earthquake in a lab, does not mean it did not occur, or that the testimony of the person who lives in CA was not based on empirical evidence.

If someone testifies that an earthquake occurred but there is no record on seismographs, it is reasonable to conclude that the testimony is incorrect. This process is known as verification. Claims / stories / testimonials are checked against disconnected / independent sources and evidences.

Those that cannot be verified are considered as doubtful at best – except in theology where verification is often regarded as unnecessary and where testimonials are the highest form of evidence available for most claims and stories.

So what ever cannot be verified independently should be considered doubtful?

So we should doubt the scientific explanation for the formation of our solar system, planet formation, evolution, composition of the earths core, etc. After all, we don't have a time machine to be able to independently verify these theorized explanations. Just because they make sense to us today, does not mean we can verify with absolute certainty these explanations are correct.

We cannot verify the composition of the earths core, do you doubt the theorized composition of a core which is mostly iron and nickel?

If not, why not?

This would refute what you just wrote above.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 83 by KingandPriest]

Non-theists demand evidence before belief.

In another thread, you said that with the god hypothesis, one must start out by believing the hypothesis, which I disagreed with. In this conversation, with you trying to convince me that the Bible can be trusted, am I supposed to start out by believing that the God is real?
I cannot and will not do that.

Your choice. This choice supports what I wrote about demanding evidence before belief.

How is it a choice? Are you able to flip a switch in your mind/brain and somehow believe or disbelieve something? Are you able to look at a family member, flip that switch and start believing that they are not related to you, for example?

Sure, people do it all the time.

Sometimes they are right. Children sometimes doubt they are related to their brother or sister. When they get older, they sometimes find out their doubt was justified because their brother or sister was adopted. Their choice to "not believe" their parents could be justified.

The converse is also true, where a person finds out that a "family member" is actually not related to them, biologically speaking. Regardless of the evidence to prove the individual is not related to them, they still choose to maintain a belief that the individual is family because of the experiences they have shared over many years. They may find out that a person was adopted, but still choose to call that person a member of their family.

[Zzyzx]

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 95 by KingandPriest]


[center]The reliability of hearsay evidence
Part Two: Seismographs[/center]

If a group of individuals in California observe and experience an earthquake, it is emprical evidence to them that the ground moved. An individual who lives in NY for example who did not witness the earthquake can either rely on the testimony of the individual who lives in California, or refute the claim.

Correction: An earthquake in California (or elsewhere) is recorded by seismographs worldwide.
No one need accept the testimony of someone at the epicenter or nearby.

So by your logic before seismographs were invented, earthquakes were not observed empirically. No one should believe the testimony of individuals describing an earthquake because there is no seismograph data to accompany it.

So by your logic no earthquake took place before 132AD. Very interesting.

I am very skeptical of your grasp of Z's logic.

If you read Z's post again, you might notice that he isn't talking about the EXISTENCE of earthquakes, but about EVIDENCE for earthquakes. He stated that:

"An earthquake in California (or elsewhere) is recorded by seismographs worldwide.
No one need accept the testimony of someone at the epicenter or nearby." is the way that I think he put it.

"Testimony" and "seismographs" refer to the evidence for an earthquake. Not the EXISTENCE of the earthquakes. We have evidence of other kinds for historic earthquakes .... You might be interested in visiting the Kobe Earthquake Memorial Museum", for example. They seem to have more than hearsay evidence there.

http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e3555.html

________________

Hearsay evidence isn't necessarily empirical.
Seismographic tests are necessarily empirical.
________________


You stated that:

"An individual who lives in NY for example who did not witness the earthquake can either rely on the testimony of the individual who lives in California, or refute the claim."

That NY individual doesn't have to rely on hearsay evidence.
He can refer to seismographic data.

At any time, the NY resident can CHOOSE to accept unreliable evidence.
I'd say it would be a very bad choice, indeed.

Even before the advent of seismographs, the NY resident could have GONE to the claimed earthquake zone and gathered OTHER kinds of empirical evidence.

However, with unreliable methods, one can only expect to get unreliable results.
Empirical evidence such as seismographs is FAR more reliable that hearsay evidence.

That's why they tend to FAVOR empirical evidence in courts, in debates, and in science.

Hearsay evidence seems to be all the rage with apologists, and certain politicians.
" I've heard people say that... " has become quite a famous turn of phrase these days.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ening.html

Agnostics and skeptics such as "Blastcat" are unimpressed with the quality of such evidence.

I've asked you for your opinion concerning hearsay evidence already, and you haven't yet answered it. Maybe you missed that post. So, I will ask you again:

____________

Question:

• How reliable is hearsay evidence, in your opinion?

____________