The Zzyzx Contradiction

[Goose]

However, unverified stories by supporters and promoters are VERY WEAK "evidence".

Let P = stories are evidence.

Evidence does NOT consist of stories...

~(P)

and

Stories are not evidence.

~(P)


(P)& ~(P)

Question for debate: Has DC&R's 2008 Best Debater, Zzyzx, contradicted himself?

Note: Zzyzx's quotes are taken from the OP Was/is Jesus Divine?

[Nilloc James]

Bible stories are not evidence...

goat disagrees with you.

Well, the bible is evidence.

Ah.. but you are doing what is known as 'quote mining'

What is the bible evidence of?? I specifically said 'The bible is evidence of belief'. The question was 'is Jesus divine'?

The bible is evidence of belief, it is not evidence of the divinity of Jesus.

So, it isn't a contradiction at all. What the bible is evidence for can not be used for evidence of the question at hand.

And that ends this.

Goose don't take thigs out of context.

[Goose]

Bible stories are not evidence...

goat disagrees with you.

Well, the bible is evidence.

Ah.. but you are doing what is known as 'quote mining'

What is the bible evidence of?? I specifically said 'The bible is evidence of belief'. The question was 'is Jesus divine'?

Don't you even remember what you wrote? You said:

Well, the bible is evidence. However, it is not evidence if Jesus was divine or not. It is evidence that some people made statements that other people interpreted as Jesus being divine. That is a big difference.

Where in this statement did you specifically say as you calim you did, 'The bible is evidence of belief'?

So, it isn't a contradiction at all. What the bible is evidence for can not be used for evidence of the question at hand.

How is (P) & ~(P) not a contradiction?

[Zzyzx]

.
Mr. Goose, what part of "in this thread" do you not understand?

When you first raised the "objection" I clarified the OP with the following exchange in http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 4&start=10 post #15..

Notice that Zzyzx opens the thread with an OP that specifies the conditions of debate. Mr. Goose objects to the OP and the following exchange occurred (abbreviated – full text available at above URL).

Zzyzx asks what evidence exists.

That is correct. Zzyzx opened a thread with a question in a debate forum.

Then Zzyzx tells us what is NOT evidence - i.e. the Bible is not evidence.

That is correct. Zzyzx disqualifies religious promotional literature as evidence in this thread.

So Zzyzx concedes that the Bible is evidence, although weak in his opinion.

That is correct. Stories in religious promotional literature are very weak evidence (at best); therefore, they are not acceptable as evidence in this thread.

Those who wish to regard the bible as "proof" or "evidence" are welcome to do so for themselves, but are not welcome to do so in this thread – OR in the C&A forum (see "Guidelines for C&A subforum"). Those who do not wish to abide by these conditions may feel more comfortable in Holy Huddle or Theology, Doctrine and Dogma sub-forums where the bible may be regarded as evidence.

Do you still fail to comprehend "in this thread"? Do you need further clarification?

Several apologists seem intent upon disputing the person rather than a topic of debate. That is understandable since the apologist position cannot be supported with evidence (the subject of the original thread in this matter).

This thread is an excellent demonstration of the level of "argument" presented in supposed defense of the bible. The thread where this "topic" arose was a very pointed challenge to the "evidence" supplied by apologists. That challenge is avoided – suggesting that there is NO evidence to support bible stories and the best "argument" that can be mustered is something like this thread.

[Goat]

Bible stories are not evidence...

goat disagrees with you.

Well, the bible is evidence.

Ah.. but you are doing what is known as 'quote mining'

What is the bible evidence of?? I specifically said 'The bible is evidence of belief'. The question was 'is Jesus divine'?

Don't you even remember what you wrote? You said:

Well, the bible is evidence. However, it is not evidence if Jesus was divine or not. It is evidence that some people made statements that other people interpreted as Jesus being divine. That is a big difference.

Where in this statement did you specifically say as you calim you did, 'The bible is evidence of belief'?

So, it isn't a contradiction at all. What the bible is evidence for can not be used for evidence of the question at hand.

How is (P) & ~(P) not a contradiction?

Do I have to spell out the word belief? I would say 'That some people took Jesus as divine' is certainly talking about what their belief is. I am sorry you are unable to understand that the sentence It is evidence that some people made statements that other people interpreted as Jesus being divine. is talking about belief.

[Zzyzx]

.
I must apologize to my fellow Non-Theists. I have failed you.

I was inconsistent for a span of three posts (from question of the OP meaning of "evidence" in post #12 to clarification in post #15 in the thread http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 4&start=10)

What a terrible thing I have done to be self-contradictory from 11:04 AM to 12:33 PM of January 15th 2009. I make a full confession and ask your forgiveness.

What have I done. What have I done. Woe is me. I allowed an opening for Mr. Goose to insert his best "argument" ever in defense of the bible. Our cause is lost.

OMG. Making such blunders and contradictions might indicate that I became a theist overnight. Say "atheist prayers" to save me from damnation and theism.

[Scrotumus2]

.
I must apologize to my fellow Non-Theists. I have failed you.

I was inconsistent for a span of three posts (from question of the OP meaning of "evidence" in post #12 to clarification in post #15 in the thread http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 4&start=10)

What a terrible thing I have done to be self-contradictory from 11:04 AM to 12:33 PM of January 15th 2009. I make a full confession and ask your forgiveness.

What have I done. What have I done. Woe is me. I allowed an opening for Mr. Goose to insert his best "argument" ever in defense of the bible. Our cause is lost.

OMG. Making such blunders and contradictions might indicate that I became a theist overnight. Say "atheist prayers" to save me from damnation and theism.

Hi Dave, nice to see you.

According to the author (Goose), words always mean as defined in dictionary, and things like Irony and Sarcasm does not exist. Your attempt to Quote (") Evidence did not actually mean anything to him as he did not understand what the quotation meant.

I had similar experience with people who do not understand irony, They simple look blank. I suspect this is what its all about. He did not understand the way you expressed yourself (I use his own post to me as the basis for this):

No. You may have noted that Dave quoted Evidence to clearly mark that no confusion would arise.

The word evidence means evidence with or without quotes.

[Flail]

Evidence is defined as something tending to prove the truth of an assertion. Therefore,simply repeating the assertion itself cannot be evidence. Evidence must be something seperate from the assertion. A story wherein an assertion is made that is of common experience, such as 'it rained all day and night' would not require strong evidence...but a story wherein an assertion is made that defys common experience such as 'I saw God and he walked on water' would require the strongest evidence and verification to be at all acceptable as proving the truth of the assertion.

To say that the Bible stories are evidence of the Bible stories gets us absolutely nowhere...and is akin to saying 'cause I said so'....

[Confused]

.
I must apologize to my fellow Non-Theists. I have failed you.

I was inconsistent for a span of three posts (from question of the OP meaning of "evidence" in post #12 to clarification in post #15 in the thread http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 4&start=10)

What a terrible thing I have done to be self-contradictory from 11:04 AM to 12:33 PM of January 15th 2009. I make a full confession and ask your forgiveness.

What have I done. What have I done. Woe is me. I allowed an opening for Mr. Goose to insert his best "argument" ever in defense of the bible. Our cause is lost.

OMG. Making such blunders and contradictions might indicate that I became a theist overnight. Say "atheist prayers" to save me from damnation and theism.

All this aside, would ask if the logical argument presented in the OP is a valid logical proposition in your opinion?

[Zzyzx]

.

All this aside, would ask if the logical argument presented in the OP is a valid logical proposition in your opinion?

A logical argument specifying that P cannot be equal to or coexistent with not P is valid.

Assignment of values to P is in question.

As pointed out in my "Apology to fellow Non-Theists", I clarified the meaning of "evidence" as I used the term in my OP as soon as it was called to my attention that there was controversy raised concerning the "contradictory" use of the term.

My allowance of "weak evidence" for bible stories is in deference to the new "Guidelines for C&A subforum". Whereas I personally regard bible stories as NO evidence, I am willing to abide by forum guidelines and accept them as "weak evidence" for purposes of debate in C&A.

[Confused]

.

All this aside, would ask if the logical argument presented in the OP is a valid logical proposition in your opinion?

A logical argument specifying that P cannot be equal to or coexistent with not P is valid.

Assignment of values to P is in question.

As pointed out in my "Apology to fellow Non-Theists", I clarified the meaning of "evidence" as I used the term in my OP as soon as it was called to my attention that there was controversy raised concerning the "contradictory" use of the term.

My allowance of "weak evidence" for bible stories is in deference to the new "Guidelines for C&A subforum". Whereas I personally regard bible stories as NO evidence, I am willing to abide by forum guidelines and accept them as "weak evidence" for purposes of debate in C&A.

Thank you for clarifying this.