Fair to Challenge Claims?

[JoeyKnothead]

In another thread there is much complaining about atheists challenging theist claims. I find it a bit weird, what with this being a debate site and all, but there we go.

For debate:

Is it fair for atheists to challenge theist claims on this, a debate site?

Is it fair for atheists to challenge theist claims outside of debate?

What are the real and possible ramifications of challenging theist claims?

What are the real and possible ramifications of allowing theist claims to go unchallenged?

[Zzyzx]

.

I am saddened by the fact that you commend me on a good start. I was born in 1953 just several short years after you. If I am just starting, I best pick up the pace a bit, if I hope to finish.

Babies.

My children were born not too long after 1953. Is longevity a deciding factor in these discussions? If so, I may hold a trump card being born in 1939.

[tar2]

Zzyzx,

Well I guess that is why there is wisdom in your posts.

And also why it is reasonable to respect your elders.

They have more years experiencing living than you do.

By the way, I read Grumpy's age wrong. I am actually OLDER than he is.

So please, Grumpy, a little respect here.

Regards, TAR

[tar2]

"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years." -- Mark Twain

[Jester]

Just so you know, I read, as I typically do, all of your post and find it well reasoned.

Thank you! I've been enjoying the interchange with you (and Joey) as well.

I comment on the above as an interjection into your debate with JoeyK. My point is that debating the truth of the 'God/No God claim' IS a vacuum without definition and verifiable evidence from which to start.

I agree completely that it is a vacuum without a definition. I'd go so far as to say that all claims are vacuums if terms are not understood.
I don't know about evidence, though. I'd like some kind of support that even an understood claim can only be considered in a vacuum until evidence is presented.
Without getting into the tangent of the debate over God's existence, I would also point out that I don't see that it has been established that there is no evidence. There was actually a moderator ruling in contradiction of that claim. You needn't agree with it, but this line of reasoning rests on establishing that point as well.

This differentiates,IMO, those particular claims on either side from most every other claim debated. Most other claims in life and in debate that are suspect of definition or evidence are couched as theory or hypothetical or hypothesis in their initial premise are they not? So why not the 'God exists' claims? If God truth claims were couched as hypotheticals we could get on with examining, analyzing and debating the various causes,effects, benefits, harm etc of all the various God beliefs and religions to which those claims relate. Debating truth claims as to the actual existence of 'gods' is as meaningless as debating the existence of 'schnorbs' or 'picanuers' or 'slidsens'.

Other than my disagreement above, I don't have any other real objections. I definitely agree that we should treat arguments consistently.

[Jester]

without a counterclaim (alternative explanation) one isn't presenting anyone with a good reason to reject the original claim.

I think you do not give enough credence to the inherent alternative. If someone makes a positive claim of existence the inherent alternative is that the positive claim is false, not that non-existence must be true. If you say "Unicorns do exist", I am well within the norm to just say "Show us evidence that your claim is true", it is not required that I say "Unicorns do not exist" as that is not a position I would claim or defend(we can never be certain)and I will not be forced to do so. The veracity of any claim is unrelated to the veracity of any other claim unless opposite claims are expressedly stated by the two sides and they are mutually exclusive. And the veracity of any claim can be determined without any other claim being made, each such claim must stand or fall on it's own merits. It is not my intention to convince anyone that god(s) do not exist(even though that is my conviction), it is simply to show that the claims of theists do not have merit/are not true as they are often claimed to be.

This has been explained many times, and I personally feel that this is a particularly good outline of the position opposing mine.
What I don't personally see yet (though perhaps it is further down) is a reason to agree with it.
My reasoning here is as follows:
Is it not the case that nothing can be shown to be true absolutely?
If so, is not every determination of the veracity of a claim a matter of considering it's likelihood to exist?
Is there a logical means of considering a claim, and rejecting it without determining it to be false?
If so, if a claim can be shown to be more likely to be true than false, should it be accepted?

I'm hoping that your answers will let me know at which point in my reasoning process that we diverge (and why, of course).

The first thing I'd like to do is to challenge that claim. Assuming that I do understand, is there a reason why I should believe it?
And, so as not to be completely hypocritical, my counterclaim is (not shockingly) that we can't determine whether or not we should accept a claim in a vacuum.

What vacuum? If you make a claim we can compare it to what we know of the real world. That data(knowledge)base is a mix of our education and experiences. If your claim violates what is known it is you that must convince me to abandon that knowledge, not vice versa. There is no vacuum(at least for anyone coherent enough to be debating in the first place).

The vacuum of not considering any other alternative explanations.
I don't know of anything in this world that can be proved absolutely. As such, I take the claim that seems most reasonable of those claims presented me (by myself or others). I can't do this so long as we are failing to consider any claims but one. I understand that you take a different approach, but I would like support of the veracity of that approach before accepting it.
Beyond that, I would like to make a bit of a tangential remark to say that I don't believe either of the God/no God claims violate what is known. Nor do I claim that either of them are somehow a default position (i.e. you would need to convince me). I've never felt that there is a default position in debate, and don't feel that anyone who wishes to make a point is free from having to do some convincing.

I'd say that last is exactly my trouble. All we have shown is that a particular person is unable to support that particular claim. It tells us nothing of the claim itself, and certainly nothing of similar claims.

So? Simply showing a claim to be unsupported(or the claimant being unable to provide support)is a step in the logic of the debate.

I completely agree.
I thought that I'd made it clear that I was not arguing against this practice, but merely arguing that this does not constitute a complete argument without other steps. If you have no concerns over that, feel free to ignore the statement.

If every claim required a positive counterclaim you would never get anywhere.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but this seems to be an argument from consequences that does not fit what I know to be true.
I can agree that opponents can always continue to argue, so in that sense no debate ever "gets anywhere" until one side ceases to do so. I don't see how requiring a counterclaim would exacerbate this problem at all, however. Perhaps it is best simply to ask for explanation instead of ramble:
Excepting the case of God (where we're sure to disagree), is there any topic on which requiring a counterclaim would halt progress, rather than aid it (as I believe)?
If so, what is it, and how is the halt caused?

"Show me" is a sufficient demand of those making positive claims,

I agree completely.
I've only pointed out that such a demand does not lead us to a conclusion. This may be personally insignificant to you if you don't wish to reach a conclusion. I'm not claiming that you do or don't, of course. I was merely pointing out something that may or may not be of interest.

Evolution can't be shown to be "true" in a vacuum (i.e. without knowing whether or not there is a better explanation out there).

The evidence has led us to evolution from many other explanations, including hundreds, if not thousands of years of Creationism. None of the earlier explanations could explain the facts anywhere near as well as evolution. What vacuum are you talking about?

I completely agree with the comments here about evolution.
The vacuum here would be the vacuum of considering one claim (say, evolution) without ever having considered anything else. It seems to me to be scientifically sloppy (at best) to try to "disprove" evolution without bothering to check and see if it is the best explanation out there. We can't perform that check so long as we sit there and say "show me" about evolution, and never look at other options.

And the theistic concept of what is "true" does not apply to anything in the real world. "To the best of our understanding/knowledge" is as good as it gets.

I'm not quite sure of what theistic concepts you mention, and don't suppose that's relevant, but I agree with the latter sentence. All I seem to be adding is: "therefore, we pick out the best fit for the data based on what we know".

By limiting ourselves to this standard we can be confident in what we do know while acknowledging that we can never be certain and we should avoid making positive claims without being able to show the evidence/logic.

This seems to be arguing that we can't make positive claims if we are aware that there is no absolute certainty.
I don't at all see the value of taking that position - or of (what seems to be) the latent claim that making a positive claim means having absolute certainty. Why isn't a provisional belief allowed to be claimed?

Second, if 'atheism' is defined above in the non-belief sense (as opposed to the belief that God does not exist), then this is not a response to my statement. Whatever one believes about the fairness of the question "does God exist", one is living either as if the answer were "yes" or the answer were "no".

I think that we need a new word to describe those who say "God(s) do not exist", maybe "anti-theist" because all atheism means is one is without belief in god(s),

I've heard this many times from those who claim that position. So far as has been demonstrated to me, however, the "non-belief" position is indistinguishable from agnosticism. It seems simpler to call it that than introduce a new term for something that has already been named.

I would be able to provide no support for a positive statement about non-existence, nor do I think it is necessary to do so to debate a positive theist claim, for the same reason, it is unsupportable.

I have no objection to your taking this position, but would point out that it means that you can't actually argue a point on the topic of God's existence. You are free to argue tangents, and may not be otherwise bothered by that position. I certainly don't claim that you need to be.

Present an idea being the best fit for the data as support. The idea that support can't be had because things can't be supported on their own has it's roots in the idea that selecting the best fit is not rational. Anyone who thinks that it is (and I'd wager that everyone uses this reasoning every day) is not hindered by the idea of there being no support.
In looking at ideas in a vacuum, support indeed falls to nothing. There's always something wrong with any given idea (nothing's perfect), which is why choosing what to believe has always been about comparing competing ideas.

It is a false dichotomy that just because we can never be certain that means we cannot provide support for a claim.

I don't remember claiming otherwise.
If there is support for an idea, by all means, claim it. Support for a position, however, usually involves determining whether or not it fits the facts better than the alternatives.

Even if evolution were to be totally falsified tomorrow Creationism would not replace it automatically(a point I wish some theists understood).

I agree, that is because it would be a simple matter to come up with a theory that better fit the evidence (even a half-hearted attempt could beat out YEC, in my view).
If evolution is overturned, it will be like the case of Newtonian physics, in which a better explanation pushes out an older, less complete one.

For centuries the church ran everything and made all decisions.

Tangent, I know, but that is a deep exaggeration at best.

What did we learn about disease and medicine in all those years? Nothing!

Could we at least acknowledge that the church founded the first hospitals and sponsored their research?

Only after these Creationist beliefs were safe to be questioned did scientists begin the work that led to our knowledge and it was that knowledge that showed evolution as the best explanation.

Last tangent:
Christians have been questioning the idea of a literal reading of Genesis at least since Aristotle.

[Flail]

Flail wrote:

I comment on the above as an interjection into your debate with JoeyK. My point is that debating the truth of the 'God/No God claim' IS a vacuum without definition and verifiable evidence from which to start.

Jester responded:

I agree completely that it is a vacuum without a definition. I'd go so far as to say that all claims are vacuums if terms are not understood.
I don't know about evidence, though. I'd like some kind of support that even an understood claim can only be considered in a vacuum until evidence is presented.

Definitions are, by definition, evidentiary. How does one begin to define something without evidence?
Jester wrote:

Without getting into the tangent of the debate over God's existence, I would also point out that I don't see that it has been established that there is no evidence. There was actually a moderator ruling in contradiction of that claim. You needn't agree with it, but this line of reasoning rests on establishing that point as well.

I should have said 'verifiable' evidence. There is certainly alot of 'claimed' evidence that is either subjective or hearsay, but which is beyond any reasonable attempt at proving. Based upon claimed subjective experiences or opinions as to the opinions of the subjective experiences and opinions of ancient authors known and unknown, anything can be the cause of anything. Claiming such utterances are 'evidentiary' would get you laughed out of any courtroom.

[Crazy Ivan]

I've heard this many times from those who claim that position. So far as has been demonstrated to me, however, the "non-belief" position is indistinguishable from agnosticism. It seems simpler to call it that than introduce a new term for something that has already been named.

What you have also heard many times, is that agnosticism is a position of non-commitment to one's beliefs or lack thereof.

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

In no shape or form, does agnosticism mean "non-belief". What is your difficulty in understanding the concept of "commitment"? This is just one demonstration you consistently refuse to acknowledge.

[Grumpy]

Jester wrote:

I've heard this many times from those who claim that position. So far as has been demonstrated to me, however, the "non-belief" position is indistinguishable from agnosticism. It seems simpler to call it that than introduce a new term for something that has already been named.

Anti-theists=Active disbelief(absolute certainty, the god(s) meme has no validity at all, often includes proselytizing). Does not accept even the possibility of a god's existence.

Atheist=non-belief(not accepting the god(s) meme as having enough validity for it to be real, necessary, good, etc), but accepts on principle that god(s) may indeed exist.

Agnostic=There is not enough information, therefore no conclusion/belief about the god(s) meme.

I am not anti-theist, I see no reason that everyone has to believe god(s) do not exist, but I have reached the conclusion that god(s) are not likely enough to raise them above the level of probability that most would call impossible. So I have no belief in god(s) and it would be of absolutely no importance to me if it were not for those trying to replace scientific reasoning with religious beliefs.

ALL superstitious, supernatural memes(ideas/entities)are at that same level for the same reasons, no valid, positive, scientific evidence. So they are almost certainly not real other than as ideas/constructs of man. IE I have no belief that god(s) actually exist but know better than to claim he doesn't(we don't know everything).

Is it not the case that nothing can be shown to be true absolutely?

Yes.

If so, is not every determination of the veracity of a claim a matter of considering it's likelihood to exist?

That is what evidence is for, not to "prove" it, but to give it legitimate support.

Is there a logical means of considering a claim, and rejecting it without determining it to be false?

Yes. That which is claimed which has no support can be rejected without consideration. We do it all the time, especially with children. The monster under the bed(who must be selectively visible)is dealt with by an adult without for one second thinking it is possible in reality. Santa Claus is another meme we outgrow/become educated about. A god(s) is just a Santa Claus for adults, IMHO.

If so, if a claim can be shown to be more likely to be true than false, should it be accepted?

If it is shown likely, yes. But it must be according to the actual real world, not the made up worlds of math and logic. While both are good tools they, like all tools, are only as good as their application and on their own are not(necessarily)about reality.

The vacuum of not considering any other alternative explanations.

Again, you are ignoring the inherent counterclaim to any positive statement, no alternative positive or negative claim is necessary to require that the original claim be supported by evidence. That is not a vacuum, ideas must be supported on their own merits. Einstein did not need to tear down Newton, he supported his own claim to the level where most of his peers accepted it as a better explanation.

I don't know of anything in this world that can be proved absolutely.

That does not mean there are not things in this world that have massive support by the evidence. Nor does it mean there are not things in this world for which no evidence exists. The choice between these things is really not that difficult.

The vacuum here would be the vacuum of considering one claim (say, evolution) without ever having considered anything else.

Positive claims stand and fall on their own merits. It is only AFTER they are confirmed as to being valid or at least evidenced that two competing claims(the second also being evidenced in the same way)can be compared. It is a useless excersize to argue over unevidenced claims other than to point out the lack of support.

It seems to me to be scientifically sloppy (at best) to try to "disprove" evolution without bothering to check and see if it is the best explanation out there.

On the contrary, it is scientific rigour to consider the validity of evolution or anything else. If it cannot stand on it's own merits how can it stand against other, competing claims? In order to have two competing claims it is necessary that they are both supported by evidence. Unevidenced claims are not even considered in the running.

It is the validity of the evidence(and conclusions drawn from it)on both sides that is being compared to judge the relative validity of two competing claims. If one claim is unevidenced the evidenced claim is deemed more likely to be true.

So, before you can even get to a comparison both claims must be supported by evidence.

This seems to be arguing that we can't make positive claims if we are aware that there is no absolute certainty.
I don't at all see the value of taking that position - or of (what seems to be) the latent claim that making a positive claim means having absolute certainty. Why isn't a provisional belief allowed to be claimed?

I should have said claims of certainty. You can hold any belief you like, but that is not an indicator of validity. Many people believe many unevidenced(thus unlikely)things. It is only what you can provide evidence for that rises to the level of influencing probability.

Grumpy wrote:
I would be able to provide no support for a positive statement about non-existence, nor do I think it is necessary to do so to debate a positive theist claim, for the same reason, it is unsupportable.

I have no objection to your taking this position, but would point out that it means that you can't actually argue a point on the topic of God's existence. You are free to argue tangents, and may not be otherwise bothered by that position. I certainly don't claim that you need to be.

People like me should be seen by theists as a truth squad for claims, not as someone trying to convince you to agree with what I accept as reality. I don't feel any need to talk someone out of their belief system. But what I feel cannot be accepted is faulty logic and erroneous claims of evidence of unevidenced things. If you are going to evidence a god belief I think you should have to meet the same standards as science requires. And god beliefs should be judged(as to probability)by those same standards.

In looking at ideas in a vacuum, support indeed falls to nothing.

But it is not possible to have a vacuum, we all have various levels of knowledge about the world around us and it is possible to judge an idea on it's own merits without reference to any other competing ideas(in fact, science frowns on trying to prove your case based upon other ideas having flaws), you must prove your case based on the evidence for it, not on evidence against another. Creationist attacks on evolution do nothing to support creation, it is not a viable alternative(as history shows). If it isn't viable how can it be argued to be the most probable? Unless and until solid scientific evidence can be presented in support of creationism being true it is in no way comparable to evolution as an explanation of the facts. The Bible is not a source of scientific evidence, nor are traditional beliefs, and personal incredulity says nothing about the facts. So what is the basis for claiming unscientific things?

Grumpy

[Jester]

Okay, greetings once again!

>Y'all do me a favor and if I use "must" or "require" or some such, just consider it as "need" or "a good idea" or something similar<

Will do.

I don't mean at all to claim that a challenge must require an alternate explanation. I agree with you there.

I use "must" as it relates to "good reason to reject" an initial claim. I'll try to refrain from that as I agree it is a bit too strong for what you suggest.

Ahhh (nodding sagely), that's making much more sense then.

What I claimed (or thought I claimed, or meant to claim...) was that, without a counterclaim (alternative explanation) one isn't presenting anyone with a good reason to reject the original claim.

Where I would consider the initial claim, I don't so much fret with whether an alternate explanation is better, but whether the intitial claim itself has merit.

Okay, this, I did understand before. I know that's your position; I'm asking for support.

Is a traffic light on green? This question can be answered solely by considering the properties of illumination and / or green, and need not bother with the properties of red or yellow.

A counterclaim, as I meant it, didn't need to mention red or yellow at all. It could simply be "it is not green". If someone is saying "I challenge your claim that it is green, but I'm not saying it isn't green", that's where I start to wonder about the validity of the conversation. The person is, quite specifically, not saying that the claim is wrong, and is therefore not making a case against it.

If I understand your "let the observer decide" position, I think you might agree on that point. I'm not sure (and definitely shouldn't speak for you), but, either way, I do think it's a different statement.

I definitely agree an alternate explanation can assist us all, but don't think it necessary in all (most?) cases.

Got it, but support needed. Why should I (or the observer) change my (his/her) position to agree with you about that?

What I am saying is that the truthfulness of a claim is relatively independent of alternate explanations.

The first thing I'd like to do is to challenge that claim. Assuming that I do understand, is there a reason why I should believe it?
And, so as not to be completely hypocritical, my counterclaim is (not shockingly) that we can't determine whether or not we should accept a claim in a vacuum.

Relatively independent. I don't doubt some claims may be harder to consider in a vacuum than others, but contend many (most?) can. See the above example of a traffic light.

I responded (and clarified a bit) there, but still need support.

I'd say that last is exactly my trouble. All we have shown is that a particular person is unable to support that particular claim. It tells us nothing of the claim itself, and certainly nothing of similar claims.

Such is the nature of some claims. I think this is especially in place when we consider claims based in logic or reason in the absence of physical, emperical evidence. Here then I think the need to consider alternates becomes more important, but may or may not be needed to determine the veracity of an initial claim.

I don't know that my comment here was addressed with your final statement. As such, I'm going to try to spare you another repetition of my position, and simply ask again for support.

>example<
That's why I argue that discussing claims in a vacuum is unproductive. As to why I consider a comparison analysis a better approach:

You've won me there, but I still don't think it applies to all claims, nor need apply to all claims.

Thanks!
Getting into proving that it applies to all claims is probably an unhelpful tangent. I think I'll just maintain that it definitely applies to the debate over God's existence. But, if you can provide a claim to which it would clearly not apply, I'd definitely take that as support for your overall case.

I don't feel that you need to argue evolution; I tend not to myself. But that doesn't negate the point.
I'm very pleased with those who were willing to say "no, we can't prove that Macro-evolution is true in a vacuum, but there really is nothing that better fits the data". The scientists who have looked at the possibilities, chosen the best one, and done research based on it have done a lot of good for a lot of people that they couldn't have done saying that they weren't going to support this whole unprovable claim.
Frankly, modern science can't exist without the willingness to choose the best fit in this way.
Now, you and I aren't scientists, but the same logic applies to any decision we make. All actions are based on our beliefs, and we have to act (or sit around rotting). If we're going to do any good in the world, considering the best fit for the information available is acutely important.

Of course, that's not to say that you haven't considered. From what I gather, you have made a decision on the matter of God's existence, but simply don't feel that you can defend it in debate:

This is kina my point. Where I can't honorably defend any alternate explanation, I consider it a derailment of the debate, and not always necessary in considering the merits of the initial claim.

I can understand that. I've had that situation on many topics. Either I'm ignorant of how little I can defend (which is a whole 'nother story), or I realize it, and decide not to debate. I can make a side comment or two, but admit quickly that I'm not really making a case about the veracity of any claim, because I know I can't support it.

...
My issue isn't, to me, an issue over how a debate should go so much as my view on drawing reliable conclusions.
...

See my example of the traffic light. We can draw a reliable conclusion regarding "is green on", without bothering with the other lights.

I agree, but we can't do as much without deciding between "green" and "not green". I don't personally see why we should consider and reject "green" based on inadequate support without doing the same for "not green". This seems inconsistent.

Second, if 'atheism' is defined above in the non-belief sense (as opposed to the belief that God does not exist), then this is not a response to my statement. Whatever one believes about the fairness of the question "does God exist", one is living either as if the answer were "yes" or the answer were "no".
That's not to say that I'm pushing any particular answer here, it simply means that we've all answered that question with our actions. I feel that those actions should be informed by a line of reasoning regarding the question, rather than by an avoidance of it.

This is true for my go / no go brethren, but not applicable to those who think, "Well, I see no evidence for God, so I'm gonna live a certain way". Notice here the issue of non-existence (alternate explanation) doesn't come into play.

It may or may not come into play in terms of this person's conscious thinking, but he/she is still living one way or the other (my guess: as if God does not exist). That's each individual's choice, of course, but saying that it "doesn't come into play" doesn't mean that the person is living in some neutral fashion.
These people may believe that the question isn't valid - and needn't be answered. Again, that is their choice, but this is a belief in direct contradiction with Christianity
(which claims that it is an infinitely necessary question).
Simply by saying "that doesn't come into play for me", one is saying that the claims of Christianity are flawed at best. Fair enough to claim, but this isn't a neutral position. It is living as if the Christian God does not exist.

I know I'm rehashing a bit of the same matter I covered with the science analogy here, but I do feel that I need an explanation of what "shown to be true" means, if not "more likely than not". In this world of uncertainty (we can't prove anything), I don't feel that there's much of anything about which I can say "that's not just more likely than not; it's been shown to be true".
Is there anything about which you would say that?

Is the traffic light on green?

I don't really understand this response.
Is that to say that the traffic light has been shown to be green, as opposed to it being more likely that it's green than that I'm just mistaken/need glasses?
I don't see any way that the traffic light can be shown to be green or not green either one absolutely. We can't even prove absolutely that it exists at all (or that it doesn't exist).
So, basically, could you explain that one? I'm not picking up what you're getting at here.

Okay, fantasizing for a moment that everything I've been writing here is absolutely true. Even then, this would still be simply a frustrating and unfortunate reality if it means that we must make claims that we can't support - meaning that we can't actually post within the rules.
...

And we notice there are those folks here, across the a/religious spectrum who don't post what they can't honorably defend.

I agree that this is a good thing.
I personally can't defend any absolute claim, and try very hard not to make them.
I do, however, feel that I can defend provisional claims about likelihood. That seems to me to be the way to go.
If, however, one can't even defend a provisional claim about likelihood (on a given subject), then I would say that one's challenges don't say much about the subject itself.

[Jester]

I agree completely that it is a vacuum without a definition. I'd go so far as to say that all claims are vacuums if terms are not understood.
I don't know about evidence, though. I'd like some kind of support that even an understood claim can only be considered in a vacuum until evidence is presented.

Definitions are, by definition, evidentiary. How does one begin to define something without evidence?

I feel that there is an understood definition of a unicorn, but, so far as I know, there is no evidence.
Could you offer any support to the claim that definitions are evidence in themselves - or that one cannot offer a definition without evidence.

Without getting into the tangent of the debate over God's existence, I would also point out that I don't see that it has been established that there is no evidence. There was actually a moderator ruling in contradiction of that claim. You needn't agree with it, but this line of reasoning rests on establishing that point as well.

I should have said 'verifiable' evidence. There is certainly alot of 'claimed' evidence that is either subjective or hearsay, but which is beyond any reasonable attempt at proving. Based upon claimed subjective experiences or opinions as to the opinions of the subjective experiences and opinions of ancient authors known and unknown, anything can be the cause of anything. Claiming such utterances are 'evidentiary' would get you laughed out of any courtroom.

Testimony has always been admissible in court.

As such, this seems a misunderstanding of the term "evidence".
The term "verified" seems here to be indistinguishable from "established as true". Evidence points toward a conclusion, and historical texts have always counted. This does not mean that it is established as solid or conclusive, but merely evidence.