Evidence and Double Standards – Toward a Solution

[Zzyzx]

.
Christian-selected standards of evidence

In these threads apologists frequently accuse the opposition of employing "double standards" in respect to what evidence is acceptable to verify claims and statements. Non-religionists are prone to disqualify rumor, hearsay, opinion, conjecture, religious promotional material and dogma (which Apologists lobby to have accepted as "evidence").

The charge is often made "you require more stringent evidence for Jesus than you do for Caesar" (or some other figure from historical stories). The charge is made whether or not Non-Theists promote any "historical figure" as being totally accurately portrayed.

Nevertheless, the "double standards" charge is a favored tactic in defense of theistic positions. I suggest a solution.

Let THEISTS declare what constitutes "evidence" to support stories about gods – with the proviso that exactly the same standards will be applied to OTHER "gods" and other characters of history or myth.

Let's apply the concept in this thread. Religionists can declare that any of the following are "evidence":

1. Stories that have not been or cannot be verified
2. Legends, fables, fairytales
3. Hearsay, rumor, urban myths
4. Unsubstantiated statements and claims
5. Supernatural events and entities
6. Fiction, parables, teaching stories, religious dogma
7. Opinions, conjecture, unverified statements
8. Religious promotional literature
9. Circularity (using a source to "prove" itself)

ANY or all of the above (or others) are hereby declared to be legitimate evidence in this thread if selected by theists. The standards are PURELY those of theists. Non-Theists are not allowed a vote or veto in the matter (in this thread).

Once the selections are made, the standards selected can be applied in an effort to find evidence of the Christian "god" (if religionists choose to demonstrate their favored "god's" existence to observers using their OWN standards of evidence).

After Christians have had the opportunity to apply the standards to the Christian "god" EXACTLY the same standards of evidence will be applied to other selected "gods" to determine if they are "real". There will be NO double standard.

As a further means to test the concept, exactly the same standards will also be applied to determine if Santa Claus and Leprechauns are real (using criteria selected by Christians). If unverified stories are acceptable as evidence in favor of the Christian "god", they are equally acceptable as evidence in favor of Leprechauns (or Odin, or Aphrodite). If circularity is permitted for Christians, it is also permitted for Muslims or worshipers of African or Asian "gods".

Fair enough?

Questions for debate:

Which of the above numbered items one through nine are acceptable as evidence for apologist arguments and which are not? (Kindly indicate yes or no for each)

What standards of evidence do our Apologist members specify as the standards to be used?





Here is a chance to be decisive and to prove your ability AND your claims.





Note: I have personally invited (by PM) Easyrider, ST_JB, Goose, Fisherking, and Joer to contribute their knowledge and wisdom to this thread.

[Goose]

Let THEISTS declare what constitutes "evidence" to support stories about gods – with the proviso that exactly the same standards will be applied to OTHER "gods" and other characters of history or myth.

OK, sounds good.

As a further means to test the concept, exactly the same standards will also be applied to determine if Santa Claus and Leprechauns are real (using criteria selected by Christians). If unverified stories are acceptable as evidence in favor of the Christian "god", they are equally acceptable as evidence in favor of Leprechauns (or Odin, or Aphrodite). If circularity is permitted for Christians, it is also permitted for Muslims or worshipers of African or Asian "gods".

You find me a professional historian that argues Santa, Leprachans, Odin, or Aphrodite are/were real historical people and we can look at the method used to arrive at that conclusion. Is that fair enough?

What standards of evidence do our Apologist members specify as the standards to be used?

Regarding matters of ancient history:

Here is my method:

1. Evidence from an eyewitness source
2. Evidence from an early source(during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses or by those that probably new the eyewitnesses)
3. Evidence from former/currently enemy or neutral sources
4. Evidence from sources where the evidence is multiply attested to by other early or eyewitness sources
5. Evidence that would be embarrassing
6. Evidence that is confirmed by archaeology

Evidence from sources that doesn't meet at least one of the criteria above I would deem as unacceptable. Evidence that is derived from a source that meets at least one of the criteria above I would deem as acceptable. Evidence that meets at least two criteria I would deem it strong. Evidence that meets at least three of the criteria I would deem it very strong.

The evidence that emerges from this method I would use to support the premises of my arguments. Conclusions drawn from premises supported by unacceptable evidence I would believe are probably not true. Conclusions drawn from premises supported by at least acceptable evidence I would believe are possibly true. Conclusions drawn from premises supported by at least strong evidence I would believe are probably true. Conclusions drawn from premises supported by at least very strong evidence I would believe are true.

[McCulloch]

Goose, you left out corroboration of multiple sources.

[Zzyzx]

.

What standards of evidence do our Apologist members specify as the standards to be used?

Regarding matters of ancient history:

Here is my method:

1. Evidence from an eyewitness source
2. Evidence from an early source(during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses or by those that probably new the eyewitnesses)
3. Evidence from former/currently enemy or neutral sources
4. Evidence from sources where the evidence is multiply attested to by other early or eyewitness sources
5. Evidence that would be embarrassing
6. Evidence that is confirmed by archaeology

Evidence from sources that doesn't meet at least one of the criteria above I would deem as unacceptable. Evidence that is derived from a source that meets at least one of the criteria above I would deem as acceptable. Evidence that meets at least two criteria I would deem it strong. Evidence that meets at least three of the criteria I would deem it very strong.

The evidence that emerges from this method I would use to support the premises of my arguments. Conclusions drawn from premises supported by unacceptable evidence I would believe are probably not true. Conclusions drawn from premises supported by at least acceptable evidence I would believe are possibly true. Conclusions drawn from premises supported by at least strong evidence I would believe are probably true. Conclusions drawn from premises supported by at least very strong evidence I would believe are true.

I notice that you do not ask for ANY verification of truth, veracity or accuracy of the sources of information – therefore no source is excluded. Correct? Or, are there secret / undisclosed limitations upon sources? This is a critical matter so kindly answer precisely.

1. Evidence from an eyewitness source

I notice that you carefully avoid saying "eyewitness account". Could that be because you realize that there are only SUPPOSED or REPORTED or CLAIMED eyewitnesses to the supposed "miracles" revered by Christianity – and no actual eyewitness accounts?

Notice that you have NOT excluded "testimony" from characters in the story or source itself.

If ONE person (possibly in the story or source) says that they saw a "god" you MUST regard that as evidence because that meets your criteria of "an [clearly implying singular] eyewitness source". Correct?

If ONE or more people say that "Allah appeared to me and spoke to me" (including Mohammad claiming such in a story) that is one point of evidence. Correct?

2. Evidence from an early source(during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses or by those that probably new the eyewitnesses)

If ONE or more sources living during the time of Mohammad CLAIM that he did or experienced miraculous things, they provide the second point of evidence in favor of Allah. Correct?

Can the "source" be the person telling the tale or must the source be someone other than the storyteller? Careful here.

3. Evidence from former/currently enemy or neutral sources

If the source itself claims that one of the characters giving evidence was a former enemy, is that adequate indication? If not, what exactly is adequate indication of "former enemy" status?

4. Evidence from sources where the evidence is multiply attested to by other early or eyewitness sources

Again, you did not exclude "testimony" from "early or eyewitness sources" within the story itself.

If several people from "long ago" tell similar stories about Allah speaking to them, that meets your criteria. Correct?

5. Evidence that would be embarrassing

If ONE or more people relate a story that would be "embarrassing" to them regarding their claimed "Allah experience", that is another point of evidence. Correct?

6. Evidence that is confirmed by archaeology

If archeological evidence reveals that cities mentioned in the koran actually existed, that meets the criteria. Correct?


Now, Goose, you have CLEARLY stated that if three or more of YOUR criteria are met the evidence is "very strong" and that you WILL believe a conclusion supported by very strong evidence (three points from your list). Those are YOUR statements, correct?

Therefore, according you your very clear statements, if I present information that meets three or more of the above, will you respect your own criteria and acknowledge before this entire forum that "Allah is god"?

Of course you won't accept your own criteria. You are "between a rock and a hard place". Your "criteria" are carefully selected to accept Christian "evidence" to support bible stories. Unfortunately, when you construct "criteria" that are "loose" enough to allow Christian tales to meet the criteria, OTHER tales also meet the criteria.

My point is that apologists "stack the deck" (employ a double standard) to accept evidence supporting their "god" theories but attempt to exclude identical or similar evidence supporting other "gods" – in an effort to maintain exclusivity for their worship practices and beliefs ("one true god" and "all other gods are false gods", etc).

If you (or readers) realize that your criteria support the existence of "other gods" either:

1. Your criteria is in error by being too inclusive (allowing "false gods" to be confirmed as true)

2. The Christian "god" is not "the only god" (according to your specified criteria)

Take your pick.

Note that your criteria MUST be very inclusive (accepting, vague) in order to accept "evidence" that bible stories are true. When the SAME criteria are applied to other "holy" books they too are shown to be true by the same criteria.


On a simple level, if one claims that the presence of life is evidence that their god exists, another person favoring a different god can make exactly the same claim with equal validity (or lack thereof). If one "holy" book's claim that "miracles were witnessed by many" is accepted as true, that same clam by another "holy" (or unholy) book MUST be accepted or the position is exposed as being irrational.

[Goat]

Let THEISTS declare what constitutes "evidence" to support stories about gods – with the proviso that exactly the same standards will be applied to OTHER "gods" and other characters of history or myth.

OK, sounds good.

As a further means to test the concept, exactly the same standards will also be applied to determine if Santa Claus and Leprechauns are real (using criteria selected by Christians). If unverified stories are acceptable as evidence in favor of the Christian "god", they are equally acceptable as evidence in favor of Leprechauns (or Odin, or Aphrodite). If circularity is permitted for Christians, it is also permitted for Muslims or worshipers of African or Asian "gods".

You find me a professional historian that argues Santa, Leprachans, Odin, or Aphrodite are/were real historical people and we can look at the method used to arrive at that conclusion. Is that fair enough?

What standards of evidence do our Apologist members specify as the standards to be used?

Regarding matters of ancient history:

Here is my method:

1. Evidence from an eyewitness source

That certainly leaves out the gospels. The claim that 'other people' saw it is not an eyewitness account. Nor, are any of the synoptic gospels eye witnesses.

2. Evidence from an early source(during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses or by those that probably new the eyewitnesses)

There seems to be a great bit of disagreement about exactly when the Gospels were written. Except for rumors from biased sources probably 100 years after it was written, we don't know who or when to attribute the gospels to. That criteria is eliminated for a historical source.

3. Evidence from former/currently enemy or neutral sources

That has to be taken one at a time. However, the only 'enemy or neutral' source in the first century was strongly tampered with, and therefore is
corrupted and inconclusive. Having admitted it was at least modified, we
then need evidence to show that it existed at all.

4. Evidence from sources where the evidence is multiply attested to by other early or eyewitness sources

Well, that again elminates the synoptic gospels, since they copied each other.

5. Evidence that would be embarrassing

THat again elminates the Gospels.

6. Evidence that is confirmed by archaeology

I would like to see any archeological evidence you can present for the existence of Jesus.

Evidence from sources that doesn't meet at least one of the criteria above I would deem as unacceptable. Evidence that is derived from a source that meets at least one of the criteria above I would deem as acceptable. Evidence that meets at least two criteria I would deem it strong. Evidence that meets at least three of the criteria I would deem it very strong.

The evidence that emerges from this method I would use to support the premises of my arguments. Conclusions drawn from premises supported by unacceptable evidence I would believe are probably not true. Conclusions drawn from premises supported by at least acceptable evidence I would believe are possibly true. Conclusions drawn from premises supported by at least strong evidence I would believe are probably true. Conclusions drawn from premises supported by at least very strong evidence I would believe are true.

[Flail]

The only difference between the fiction of Paradise Lost and that of the Bible is that Milton admits that he made it up....without his admission of fiction and using the OP standards of proof, there would be no ability to discern any difference...because there isnt any difference

If Christianity would just admit the fiction we could all go on with our lives free from the superstitions,hatred and judgment engendered by the Biblical fraud ,notwithstanding some interesting philisophical points that are Biblical in origin.

[Goose]

I notice that you do not ask for ANY verification of truth, veracity or accuracy of the sources of information – therefore no source is excluded. Correct? Or, are there secret / undisclosed limitations upon sources? This is a critical matter so kindly answer precisely.

Actually, multiple attestation, archaeological confirmation, enemy attestation could all be viewed as verification. What else are you expecting for "verification"? But to answer your question. You are correct. I do not exclude a source from consideration.

1. Evidence from an eyewitness source

I notice that you carefully avoid saying "eyewitness account". Could that be because you realize that there are only SUPPOSED or REPORTED or CLAIMED eyewitnesses to the supposed "miracles" revered by Christianity – and no actual eyewitness accounts?

I don't see a material difference here. Change it to "eyewitness account" if you feel I'm so devious. How do you know there are "no actual eyewitness accounts"? What method are you using to establish authorship of an ancient text? Using a standard method we can be reasonably sure, as sure as we are for other ancient texts, who wrote the Gospels/Acts. Would you like to argue otherwise?

Notice that you have NOT excluded "testimony" from characters in the story or source itself.

Your point is...

If ONE person (possibly in the story or source) says that they saw a "god" you MUST regard that as evidence because that meets your criteria of "an [clearly implying singular] eyewitness source". Correct?

Correct. If a first hand account claims they saw a god or God, that would be evidence that they saw something.

If ONE or more people say that "Allah appeared to me and spoke to me" (including Mohammad claiming such in a story) that is one point of evidence. Correct?

The Quran says the Angel Gabriel, not God, appeared and spoke to Mohamed. What do you mean here anyway? Where there are different sources claiming the same corporate event? Or two separate sources claiming that God spoke to them individually at different times? Not clear here.

2. Evidence from an early source(during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses or by those that probably new the eyewitnesses)

If ONE or more sources living during the time of Mohammad CLAIM that he did or experienced miraculous things, they provide the second point of evidence in favor of Allah. Correct?

If a source from the time of the events and eyewitnesses or at least durring the time of the those that new the eyewitnsses claimed the person in question did miraculous things that would be early attestation that the person did miraculous things. However, the Quran reports no miracles by Mohammad.

Can the "source" be the person telling the tale or must the source be someone other than the storyteller? Careful here.

Why must I be careful here? The source can be either. Let me be clear here. When I say "source" I mean author of the text.

3. Evidence from former/currently enemy or neutral sources

If the source itself claims that one of the characters giving evidence was a former enemy, is that adequate indication? If not, what exactly is adequate indication of "former enemy" status?

If the source acknowledges they were once/currently an enemy in their own writings or another early source acknowledges they were once/currently an enemy. It is obvious from the content of the text that some sources are enemy or neutral.

4. Evidence from sources where the evidence is multiply attested to by other early or eyewitness sources

Again, you did not exclude "testimony" from "early or eyewitness sources" within the story itself.

If several people from "long ago" tell similar stories about Allah speaking to them, that meets your criteria. Correct?

If more than one source during the life of witnesses or people that knew the witnesses give similar evidence, yes that would be multiple attestation. However, the Quran fails on this point. The Quran is a single source - Mohammed.

5. Evidence that would be embarrassing

If ONE or more people relate a story that would be "embarrassing" to them regarding their claimed "Allah experience", that is another point of evidence. Correct?

If it's in relation to an event or claim yes. If there is an embarrassing aspect to the claim it is unlikely the claim was made up. It strengthens the evidence that supports the assertion.

6. Evidence that is confirmed by archaeology

If archaeological evidence reveals that cities mentioned in the koran actually existed, that meets the criteria. Correct?

Yes. If the claim is that a particular city or place existed and it is confirmed by archaeology it would strengthen the evidence that supports the claim that the particular city existed.

Now, Goose, you have CLEARLY stated that if three or more of YOUR criteria are met the evidence is "very strong" and that you WILL believe a conclusion supported by very strong evidence (three points from your list). Those are YOUR statements, correct?

Correct.

Therefore, according you your very clear statements, if I present information that meets three or more of the above, will you respect your own criteria and acknowledge before this entire forum that "Allah is god"?

Umm...you do realize that Muslims believe Allah to be the God of the Old Testament, don't you? Further, where did Mohammad meet three of the criteria for the claim "Allah is God"? What evidence that passes three of the criteria supports the premises for the argument that "Allah is God"? Which evidence that passes the criteria supports the argument that Mohammed's revelation supersedes Jesus?

Of course you won't accept your own criteria. You are "between a rock and a hard place". Your "criteria" are carefully selected to accept Christian "evidence" to support bible stories. Unfortunately, when you construct "criteria" that are "loose" enough to allow Christian tales to meet the criteria, OTHER tales also meet the criteria.

You haven't shown any such thing. You've only said it is so.


Let's look at an example. Let (P)= Jesus was not crucified

Evidence to support (P):
The Quran claims Jesus was not crucified (4:157)

However, this evidence from the Quran meets none of the criteria. It would be unacceptable evidence under the criteria and therefore the assertion that Jesus was not crucified is probably not true.

Do you understand the method?

My point is that apologists "stack the deck" (employ a double standard) to accept evidence supporting their "god" theories but attempt to exclude identical or similar evidence supporting other "gods" – in an effort to maintain exclusivity for their worship practices and beliefs ("one true god" and "all other gods are false gods", etc).

Your point is hallow. You have yet to establish this point. You've got plenty more work to do.

[Nilloc James]

I got a magor laugh that despite the terms Z laid out there is still a large amount of bickering.

[earendil]

.

The charge is often made "you require more stringent evidence for Jesus than you do for Caesar" (or some other figure from historical stories). The charge is made whether or not Non-Theists promote any "historical figure" as being totally accurately portrayed.

This argument is typically made only when people deny that Jesus as a person existed at all. And...yes I often see a double standard used.

The rest of this post is just nonsense and completely irrelevant to the specific argument stated above.

[Beto]

If more than one source during the life of witnesses or people that knew the witnesses give similar evidence, yes that would be multiple attestation. However, the Quran fails on this point. The Quran is a single source - Mohammed.

So, if what is known as the Qur'an included some Hadith collections, it would be on par with the Bible? Because let's face it... isn't that what the Bible really is? A collection of Hadith's, without the Qur'an?