Circumstantial Evidence against BibleGod

[Flail]

Definitions:

Evidence: the available body of facts indicating whether a proposition is true.

Facts: things that are indisputably the case.

Direct evidence: that which directly proves truth.

Circumstantial evidence: that which merely suggests truth.

Hearsay: that which is repeated 'second-hand removed' from the original declarant which is propounded to prove the truth of an assertion via someone else who is either not known or not present and thus not subject to questioning. Hearsay is inadmissible in courts of law as having been demonstrated unreliable; and as dependent for veracity upon things not available for examination and testing such as: the identity, character, bias, motive, observation and reporting ability, mental acuity etc, of the original reporter or declarant.

Second hand 'testimony' that is not propounded to prove the truth of the matter at issue, but for some other purpose (such as demonstrating the basis for the oppositional claim) is admissible and may be considered as such.

Background:
Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof, or at a minimum, the burden of going forward with the evidence. Arguments can be made in the broadest sense that there is no such thing as direct evidence, and that all we have as 'proof currency' to support truth claims is circumstantial evidence.

The OP Proposition (claim): "BibleGod (JesusGod) does not exist.'

Assume that this claim does not refer to 'God', as in some as yet undefined supernatural creature that may or may not exist, and for which no coherent definition is available, and for which any claims of existence or non-existence are meaningless. Assume that the OP refers solely to BibleGod as presented in the NT and as supplemented by Christianity.

Assume for purposes of the OP that there is no verifiable, 'direct evidence' upon which to either prove or disprove this claim. What we are left with then is circumstantial evidence, ie, evidence which merely suggests the truth and for which an inference is required to connect it to a proposition of fact (claim).

Further presume that hearsay evidence, as defined above, is not admissible to prove the truth of the claim since such evidence is unreliable as emanating from un-trustworhty sources.

Question for debate(s): What available circumstantial evidence( if any) suggests (tends to prove) that BibleGod is fictional?

What available circumstantial evidence (if any) suggests (tends to prove) that BibleGod is actual and extant?

[Flail]

Definitions:

Evidence: the available body of facts indicating whether a proposition is true.

Facts: things that are indisputably the case.

Direct evidence: that which directly proves truth.

Circumstantial evidence: that which merely suggests truth.

Hearsay: that which is repeated 'second-hand removed' from the original declarant which is propounded to prove the truth of an assertion via someone else who is either not known or not present and thus not subject to questioning. Hearsay is inadmissible in courts of law as having been demonstrated unreliable; and as dependent for veracity upon things not available for examination and testing such as: the identity, character, bias, motive, observation and reporting ability, mental acuity etc, of the original reporter or declarant.

Second hand 'testimony' that is not propounded to prove the truth of the matter at issue, but for some other purpose (such as demonstrating the basis for the oppositional claim) is admissible and may be considered as such.

Background:
Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof, or at a minimum, the burden of going forward with the evidence. Arguments can be made in the broadest sense that there is no such thing as direct evidence, and that all we have as 'proof currency' to support truth claims is circumstantial evidence.

The OP Proposition (claim): "BibleGod (JesusGod) does not exist.'

Assume that this claim does not refer to 'God', as in some as yet undefined supernatural creature that may or may not exist, and for which no coherent definition is available, and for which any claims of existence or non-existence are meaningless. Assume that the OP refers solely to BibleGod as presented in the NT and as supplemented by Christianity.

Assume for purposes of the OP that there is no verifiable, 'direct evidence' upon which to either prove or disprove this claim. What we are left with then is circumstantial evidence, ie, evidence which merely suggests the truth and for which an inference is required to connect it to a proposition of fact (claim).

Further presume that hearsay evidence, as defined above, is not admissible to prove the truth of the claim since such evidence is unreliable as emanating from un-trustworhty sources.

Question for debate(s): What available circumstantial evidence( if any) suggests (tends to prove) that BibleGod is fictional?

What available circumstantial evidence (if any) suggests (tends to prove) that BibleGod is actual and extant?

Dianaiad wrote:

Hmnn.

First, I apologize for not reading the entirety of the OP before I reacted to the definitions. Those so completely annoyed me that I had to stop and react to them, specifically, without dealing with where you were going with them. It was a case of making sure that my reaction was to the use of the definitions, so that it would not be colored by the point you were trying to prove with them.

I accept your apology and your point as to the definitions;

You do? Having read the rest of the post, I do beg leave to doubt that. That's quite a nasty little ad hominem you snapped back.

I was merely attempting to set some parameters to begin a discussion of the OP topic as to the inherent unreliability of hearsay as second hand information and as to circumstantial evidence as the currency utilized toward proofs where there is a total lack of empirical evidence. That said, I do note how often you express your annoyance with others in these threads and your emotional reactions, and I am wondering to what end you share such things as I don't see where they are any of our business.

I COULD have accused you of, oh...plagiarism, for instance, (you DID take the definition of 'fact' word for word from Wikipedia, with some important terms removed....and you didn't cite the quote) or being deliberately disingenuous and setting up the debate proposition in a way that predetermines the outcome--in your favor. Instead, I chose to admit to my curmudgeonliness regarding those definitions, and poke a little fun at myself.

Should I have made the other choice?

Dianaiad wrote:

OK, first....define 'BibleGod' for me. You describe this deity as "Assume that the OP refers solely to BibleGod as presented in the NT and as supplemented by Christianity." Simply looking around at the many different belief systems, all claiming to believe in the 'BibleGod,' and coming up with very different notions of Who He is, I am finding it interesting to consider that:

a: you feel no need to define Him, assuming that
b: we all know exactly Who you are talking about, and that
c: your version of Him, should you care to define it, would trump all those who actually believe in one.

There are indeed many versions of BibleGod. Because such is the case I was attempting to confine considerations, for purposes of the intended focus of this OP, to BibleGod as broadly considered as incarnate in Jesus per the NT and Christianity, as opposed to Jewish precursors in the OT.

Ok, that helps...but it still doesn't speak to the problem.

I thought this sufficient to begin a discussion of hearsay and circumstantial evidence as applied to religious beliefs in supernatural beings. In reading back, I could have been more clear. But these concepts would certainly apply to most any rendition of most any supernatural being proposed by most any theism meant to be taken as literal or inerrant.

Here's the problem that I see: you set the discussion up as a question of whether the 'BibleGod' exists, not as whether heresay evidence is acceptable. You simply dismissed the bible AS 'hearsay,' rather than as the sort of direct evidence one would get from eye witness testimony. IN doing so, you are begging the question. OF COURSE, if the Bible is only 'hear say,' it isn't admissible in any court of law, or, frankly, admissible in any discussion of whether God exists.

However, if it is NOT 'hearsay,' then it IS the sort of direct evidence you have already concluded it isn't. You are, then, begging the question.

Big time.

What you are stumbling over, here, is that question of whether the bible IS 'hearsay' in any sense. It could be 'hearsay' in the sense that eyewitness testimony in a court of law is 'hearsay.' That is, not at all.

Such testimony is considered direct evidence, no matter how long it's been since it was given.

So, again, the question is....IS the Bible 'hearsay?"

If so, then the question goes one way--and one gets into the matter of whether 'hearsay' means the same thing in theological terms as it does in legal ones.

If not, then the question as you posed it is still not a good one; because there is no such thing as a 'standard' version of the 'BibleGod.' Now you get into the sorts of arguments that have engaged, split and caused balding domes of biblical scholars for more than two thousand years.

Dianaiad wrote:

Basically, though...if the Bible is true, then it in itself is direct evidence for God. The question shouldn't be 'is there a BibleGod," but (in terms of this conversation) 'is the Bible true?"

I certainly could have phrased it in the manner you command since BibleGod has no roots other than in the Bible; but either way, a discussion of hearsay and circumstantial evidence could ensue in like fashion.

The problem is that you have already, in the OP, determined that the bible IS 'hearsay.' You have left no room for any other argument. Since that's so, I don't see the point of the question. It's highly circular.

Dianaiad wrote:

In a court of law, direct evidence is eye-witness testimony (the Bible has a lot of that) and stuff like one sees in CSI. The reason it is accepted is because the sources are trusted. What the Bible is, if properly vetted, is like a deposition taken from an eyewitness who is physically unable to attend a trial. It's just as good.---but only if the testimony is taken properly, by people who are trusted, and the witness is sworn and all the other legal niceties are taken into account.

I couldn't disagree more. Live eye witness testimony is one form of direct evidence and in the long history of jurisprudence has proven, when subjected to vigorous cross examination in open court as to motive, bias, agenda, interest, mental state etc, to be very unreliable and untrustworthy. When we are removed by centuries from any possibility of such cross examination we no longer have direct evidence and when we permit anonymous, second hand ancient writings to be paraded as admissible evidence of supernaturals, we can quickly succumb to being duped and indoctrinated by dogma.

Now you are flying far away from the point of the OP as YOU present it. Again, you are assuming the consequent.

So the question is, again...not whether the BibleGod exists (Whoever you think He is) but whether the bible is an acceptable witness of Him.

That would be another OP, albeit along a similar vein, but with a similar conclusion.

You are quite right. It would be another OP....the one this SHOULD have been.

The Bible is hearsay and as such is totally untrustworthy as a 'truth' document; and the overwhelming circumstantial evidence tends to demonstrate that BibleGod as an extant supernatural being is a fiction of religiosity and dogma.

....and there you go. This is the place you begin as a 'given,' in order to get into a discussion of whether the 'BibleGod' exists...which you have already predetermined as 'not,' because you so carefully set up the proposition so as to make it impossible to come to any other conclusion.

Begging the Question.
Affirming the Consequent.

Leaving NO room for disagreement--or even contributions from anybody but those who already agree with you.

So to clarify for you, let's go behind the music for a minute and explain the intent of the OP.

I think I clearly stated, at least I intended to do so, that the OP was based upon presuppositions. So yes I proposed the entire OP as a given, for the purposes of having a discussion of what should and should not be considered in determining the existence of the particular supernatural being I described in broad terms and labeled BibleGod. I get it that you are not pleased with the wording and the presuppositions clearly labeled as such in the OP.

I risk another definition, recognizing, as with all maters in the field of evidence, that volumes have been written.
Hearsay: Information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate.
The legal concept of hearsay is similar to the above definition, as generally being the statements of someone not present and available for cross examination propounded to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
To repeat, the problem with second hand reports(hearsay) is that the person(s) reporting are absent and not available for questioning as to character and credibility. I suggested, strictly for purposes of the OP mind you, that we assume that second hand reports (hearsay) were not admissible for our purposes (I pointed out the reasons why) and further I asked that we assume, strictly for the purposes of the OP mind you, that there was no direct, verifiable evidence, to prove the claim (thus eliminating claims of personal experiences).

My intent was always to discuss circumstantial evidence as a concept for proofs, unencumbered, strictly for the purposes of the OP mind you, by second hand reports from the Bible and claims of direct experiences. So, for the purposes of the OP only, I was attempting to narrow everything down to circumstances, to circumstantial evidence alone ( and so I had to make some artificial presumptions); so ie, just examining circumstantial evidence and nothing else, presuming, just for the purposes of the OP mind you, that nothing else was admissible. Then, given all of those assumptions and ground rules, I concluded with my two OP questions as to what circumstantial evidence could show or not show as to claims about the existence of BibleGod.

I would be more than happy to debate the reliability of hearsay and eye witness testimony, concepts of evidence and proofs, the trustworthiness of the Bible etc, that you seem bent to focus upon. But I really wanted to see what debaters though about the narrow issue of circumstantial evidence for supernaturals like a BibleGod without the encumbrances of the typical issues, just for the purposes of the OP mind you, so I asked that my ground rules (the ones you don't like) be assumed. You could start your own OP with your own ground rules you know.

[dianaiad]

No...not if the discussion is being held in, say...an entertainment forum and an awards subforum. (where it is perfectly logical to talk about Patrick Stewart..) Given that the "Knight Bachelor" is the level of British knighthood given to entertainers and artists in the UK, the 'flip-flopping' here would be NOT to include the award in a discussion of 'bachelor."

But then the problem is solved simply by asking what a bachelor is. If the definition is "an unmarried man", then "all unmarried men are unmarried" is just a flat tautology. In the "knight bachelor" case, marriage is not included in it's definition so we can safely say that "all bachelor's are unmarried" is false, since we can come up with at least one knight bachelor who is married.

Indeed. However, when the entire premise of the argument depends upon equating 'all bachelors are unmarried men" in a discussion of men who are actually married Knight's Bachelors...in order to prove that they are NOT Knight Bachelors...you see the problem?

More simply put, the OP defined things, and assumed, as a given, that 'fact' and 'direct evidence' mean something far more narrow than the dictionaries....and certainly any theist...would agree to. It is, indeed, a matter of defining 'bachelor' in a way as to preclude Patrick Stewart, from being a bachelor knight... in a discussion regarding his awards as an actor.

Hey.

You came up with the metaphor.


I guess the problem is even more simple; the OP is starting the conversation one bridge ahead of himself, is all.

When arguing (I'm not a math person, but I like to do this anyway) is to assign things variables in my head or on paper - knight bachelor could be X, unmarried man could be Y, etc. It really helps me organize things into a logical structure and I've found it a good way to avoid conflations and ambiguity.

OK, There isn't a single thing about the above paragraph that I can argue with. What are trying to do, ruin my day?

I could probably think something up that you'd disagree with. Perhaps something like: I believe that logic and reason, unhindered by emotion or faith, is the best way to align beliefs closest to truth, and that any other way is arbitrary and self-defeating.

You are quite right. I disagree with the above. Logic and reason are the best ways to address scientific issues. They are not the ONLY valid ways to address theological and philosophical truths.

[dianaiad]

<snip to here>

So to clarify for you, let's go behind the music for a minute and explain the intent of the OP.

OK.

I think I clearly stated, at least I intended to do so, that the OP was based upon presuppositions. So yes I proposed the entire OP as a given, for the purposes of having a discussion of what should and should not be considered in determining the existence of the particular supernatural being I described in broad terms and labeled BibleGod. I get it that you are not pleased with the wording and the presuppositions clearly labeled as such in the OP.

You are quite correct; as it sits, your OP is an exercise in assuming the consequent: you present a 'given' that the Bible is hearsay and thus not appropriate evidence for the existence of the "BibleGod" you claim it testifies of. Your definitions preclude using anything BUT direct evidence (from which you exclude the Bible). Then you want to discuss whether there is any evidence for the 'BibleGod?"

Since you begin with a specific exclusion of any and all evidence that would support this "BibleGod," then the answer is preprogrammed; the very definition of assuming the consequent, or begging the question.

The interesting part is how you can, given that you have disallowed the bible as any sort of evidence for this 'BibleGod,' use that very same bible to define the 'BibleGod' you claim the bible cannot be used as evidence for.

By the way, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with my beliefs regarding Deity, believe it or not. It has everything to do with the absolutely impossible task you have set up for anybody who takes a position different from yours; you have defined your terms as to completely exclude any opposing view.

I risk another definition, recognizing, as with all maters in the field of evidence, that volumes have been written.

Then it would be a good idea to use one of those, rather than one you came up with on your own, or borrowed only some of from some other source, yes?

Hearsay: Information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate.
The legal concept of hearsay is similar to the above definition, as generally being the statements of someone not present and available for cross examination propounded to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
To repeat, the problem with second hand reports(hearsay) is that the person(s) reporting are absent and not available for questioning as to character and credibility. I suggested, strictly for purposes of the OP mind you, that we assume that second hand reports (hearsay) were not admissible for our purposes (I pointed out the reasons why) and further I asked that we assume, strictly for the purposes of the OP mind you, that there was no direct, verifiable evidence, to prove the claim (thus eliminating claims of personal experiences).

You do remember that I didn't address or quarrel with your definition of 'hearsay,' yes? I should have, since you seemed to fold into that original definition of everything ever said or written by someone who is no longer around to confirm what was written/said. You didn't allow for anything written/said that could be confirmed by someone other than the writer. "not known, or not present and thus not subject to questioning" is how you defined it. I do prefer the one you used above.

My intent was always to discuss circumstantial evidence as a concept for proofs, unencumbered, strictly for the purposes of the OP mind you, by second hand reports from the Bible and claims of direct experiences. So, for the purposes of the OP only, I was attempting to narrow everything down to circumstances, to circumstantial evidence alone ( and so I had to make some artificial presumptions); so ie, just examining circumstantial evidence and nothing else, presuming, just for the purposes of the OP mind you, that nothing else was admissible. Then, given all of those assumptions and ground rules, I concluded with my two OP questions as to what circumstantial evidence could show or not show as to claims about the existence of BibleGod.

Ok...how can I put this; your OP needs improvement. It assumes the very conclusions you are after. It doesn't allow for opposing arguments. If you fix the definition so that these assumptions are NOT automatic and forced, then the discussion could be a very good one.

It's just that when you narrow definitions and assumptions too much, you force conclusions that might not be valid, even if they ARE the conclusions you would prefer to reach.

I would be more than happy to debate the reliability of hearsay and eye witness testimony, concepts of evidence and proofs, the trustworthiness of the Bible etc, that you seem bent to focus upon. But I really wanted to see what debaters though about the narrow issue of circumstantial evidence for supernaturals like a BibleGod without the encumbrances of the typical issues, just for the purposes of the OP mind you, so I asked that my ground rules (the ones you don't like) be assumed. You could start your own OP with your own ground rules you know.

You still don't see the problem, which you have richly illustrated in the above paragraph. In the OP you assumed that the Bible IS hearsay, and that hearsay evidence is not valid. Then you asked whether such evidence can be used to support something.

You have done something like this:

Bachelors are unmarried men.
Unmarried men cannot be trusted to give advice on marriage.
Question: can bachelors be trusted to give advice on marriage?

[Flail]

<snip to here>

So to clarify for you, let's go behind the music for a minute and explain the intent of the OP.

OK.

I think I clearly stated, at least I intended to do so, that the OP was based upon presuppositions. So yes I proposed the entire OP as a given, for the purposes of having a discussion of what should and should not be considered in determining the existence of the particular supernatural being I described in broad terms and labeled BibleGod. I get it that you are not pleased with the wording and the presuppositions clearly labeled as such in the OP.

You are quite correct; as it sits, your OP is an exercise in assuming the consequent: you present a 'given' that the Bible is hearsay and thus not appropriate evidence for the existence of the "BibleGod" you claim it testifies of. Your definitions preclude using anything BUT direct evidence (from which you exclude the Bible). Then you want to discuss whether there is any evidence for the 'BibleGod?"

Since you begin with a specific exclusion of any and all evidence that would support this "BibleGod," then the answer is preprogrammed; the very definition of assuming the consequent, or begging the question.

The interesting part is how you can, given that you have disallowed the bible as any sort of evidence for this 'BibleGod,' use that very same bible to define the 'BibleGod' you claim the bible cannot be used as evidence for.

By the way, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with my beliefs regarding Deity, believe it or not. It has everything to do with the absolutely impossible task you have set up for anybody who takes a position different from yours; you have defined your terms as to completely exclude any opposing view.

I risk another definition, recognizing, as with all maters in the field of evidence, that volumes have been written.

Then it would be a good idea to use one of those, rather than one you came up with on your own, or borrowed only some of from some other source, yes?

Hearsay: Information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate.
The legal concept of hearsay is similar to the above definition, as generally being the statements of someone not present and available for cross examination propounded to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
To repeat, the problem with second hand reports(hearsay) is that the person(s) reporting are absent and not available for questioning as to character and credibility. I suggested, strictly for purposes of the OP mind you, that we assume that second hand reports (hearsay) were not admissible for our purposes (I pointed out the reasons why) and further I asked that we assume, strictly for the purposes of the OP mind you, that there was no direct, verifiable evidence, to prove the claim (thus eliminating claims of personal experiences).

You do remember that I didn't address or quarrel with your definition of 'hearsay,' yes? I should have, since you seemed to fold into that original definition of everything ever said or written by someone who is no longer around to confirm what was written/said. You didn't allow for anything written/said that could be confirmed by someone other than the writer. "not known, or not present and thus not subject to questioning" is how you defined it. I do prefer the one you used above.

My intent was always to discuss circumstantial evidence as a concept for proofs, unencumbered, strictly for the purposes of the OP mind you, by second hand reports from the Bible and claims of direct experiences. So, for the purposes of the OP only, I was attempting to narrow everything down to circumstances, to circumstantial evidence alone ( and so I had to make some artificial presumptions); so ie, just examining circumstantial evidence and nothing else, presuming, just for the purposes of the OP mind you, that nothing else was admissible. Then, given all of those assumptions and ground rules, I concluded with my two OP questions as to what circumstantial evidence could show or not show as to claims about the existence of BibleGod.

Ok...how can I put this; your OP needs improvement. It assumes the very conclusions you are after. It doesn't allow for opposing arguments. If you fix the definition so that these assumptions are NOT automatic and forced, then the discussion could be a very good one.

It's just that when you narrow definitions and assumptions too much, you force conclusions that might not be valid, even if they ARE the conclusions you would prefer to reach.

I would be more than happy to debate the reliability of hearsay and eye witness testimony, concepts of evidence and proofs, the trustworthiness of the Bible etc, that you seem bent to focus upon. But I really wanted to see what debaters though about the narrow issue of circumstantial evidence for supernaturals like a BibleGod without the encumbrances of the typical issues, just for the purposes of the OP mind you, so I asked that my ground rules (the ones you don't like) be assumed. You could start your own OP with your own ground rules you know.

You still don't see the problem, which you have richly illustrated in the above paragraph. In the OP you assumed that the Bible IS hearsay, and that hearsay evidence is not valid. Then you asked whether such evidence can be used to support something.

You have done something like this:

Bachelors are unmarried men.
Unmarried men cannot be trusted to give advice on marriage.
Question: can bachelors be trusted to give advice on marriage?

I think I see the problem, or your problem with my OP, and I think I have attempted to explain where I was heading.

Once more...

In simple terms I just wanted to know if debaters could offer any circumstantial evidence that tended to prove BibleGod existed; and if debaters could offer any circumstantial evidence that tended to prove that BibleGod did not exist and was therefore a fiction. I attempted to explain (and apparently failed in your view) that I wanted to create an artificial setting wherein we disallow any other considerations BUT circumstances, ie, circumstantial evidence; ie are there inferences that can logically be drawn circumstantially from the proffered existence of the supernatural being I labeled BibleGod and as represented by Jesus in the NT and promoted by Christianity?

For the purpose of focusing JUST on circumstantial evidence I wanted to avoid discussing the second hand reported claims of 500 witnesses etc etc that have dominated previous debates on evidence, and that we refrain from citing examples wherein readers claimed to have a personal relationship with Jesus (direct evidence). I have always had an attraction to the notion of circumstantial evidence and the inferences that might arguably be drawn from circumstances common to human experience as relating to standards of proof.

I have apparently failed to draw the OP question suitably and will take my F and recede to the background. Your points are well taken however, and had I been attempting a full discussion of all things biblical and all things evidentiary and all things to prove or disprove 'God' I would have drawn my OP assumptions much differently. I seem to be the only one interested in circumstantial evidence as a stand alone consideration. Call it a fetish, but it is really an interesting concept if delved into as a logical consideration. But apparently, in attempting to draw the OP with ground rules that would permit only my fetish for circumstantial evidentiary considerations, I have done little else but to piss you off.

[jamesmorlock]

More simply put, the OP defined things, and assumed, as a given, that 'fact' and 'direct evidence' mean something far more narrow than the dictionaries....and certainly any theist...would agree to. It is, indeed, a matter of defining 'bachelor' in a way as to preclude Patrick Stewart, from being a bachelor knight... in a discussion regarding his awards as an actor.

I'm not usually particularly interested in evidential debates against the bible, or any kind of theology, simply because generally, theists claim that the evidence we would accept would and should not be present, anyway. It doesn't give the non-theist much to argue against. If the theist has evidence they believe would be accepted, or why certain evidence should be accepted however, I'm all ears.

You are quite right. I disagree with the above. Logic and reason are the best ways to address scientific issues. They are not the ONLY valid ways to address theological and philosophical truths.

Science indeed utilizes logic and reason, but they are not particular to science, or even empirical evidence. What sort of 'other' methods do you refer to? If something is true, the it is true without needing to prepend "theological" or "philosophical" in front of it to somehow distinguish it from a different sort of truth.

Unless we're talking about two different meanings here.

[Mithrae]

My intent was always to discuss circumstantial evidence as a concept for proofs, unencumbered, strictly for the purposes of the OP mind you, by second hand reports from the Bible and claims of direct experiences. So, for the purposes of the OP only, I was attempting to narrow everything down to circumstances, to circumstantial evidence alone ( and so I had to make some artificial presumptions); so ie, just examining circumstantial evidence and nothing else, presuming, just for the purposes of the OP mind you, that nothing else was admissible. Then, given all of those assumptions and ground rules, I concluded with my two OP questions as to what circumstantial evidence could show or not show as to claims about the existence of BibleGod.

That clarifies things a little
I've got about 20 minutes 'til my pizza arrives...

The OP Proposition (claim): "BibleGod (JesusGod) does not exist.'

Assume that this claim does not refer to 'God', as in some as yet undefined supernatural creature that may or may not exist, and for which no coherent definition is available, and for which any claims of existence or non-existence are meaningless. Assume that the OP refers solely to BibleGod as presented in the NT and as supplemented by Christianity.

Using the NT as the source for our understanding of 'BibleGod,' what kind of circumstantial evidence might we be looking for?

• 2 Corinthians 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.
  
  
  2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

According to the source for our understanding of BibleGod, non-belief is circumstantial evidence of those who have been deceived and refuse to believe the truth.

• Acts 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:
  TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.
  Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.
  
  
  Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

The existence of the world is, as defined by our source, strong circumstantial evidence for the existence of its creator BibleGod.

• Hebrew 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, meaning king of peace, 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.
  
  John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
  (Adapted from the Hindu Pancavimsa Brahmana 20.14.2)

It would seem that the revelation and understanding of his nature in different times and cultures is also, as suggested by our source regarding BibleGod, circumstantial evidence for the truth of his Being.



All three points, I would guess, are fairly solidly confirmed through the gamut of human experience. There seems to be sound circumstantial evidence for the existence of BibleGod then.

[Flail]

My intent was always to discuss circumstantial evidence as a concept for proofs, unencumbered, strictly for the purposes of the OP mind you, by second hand reports from the Bible and claims of direct experiences. So, for the purposes of the OP only, I was attempting to narrow everything down to circumstances, to circumstantial evidence alone ( and so I had to make some artificial presumptions); so ie, just examining circumstantial evidence and nothing else, presuming, just for the purposes of the OP mind you, that nothing else was admissible. Then, given all of those assumptions and ground rules, I concluded with my two OP questions as to what circumstantial evidence could show or not show as to claims about the existence of BibleGod.

That clarifies things a little
I've got about 20 minutes 'til my pizza arrives...

The OP Proposition (claim): "BibleGod (JesusGod) does not exist.'

Assume that this claim does not refer to 'God', as in some as yet undefined supernatural creature that may or may not exist, and for which no coherent definition is available, and for which any claims of existence or non-existence are meaningless. Assume that the OP refers solely to BibleGod as presented in the NT and as supplemented by Christianity.

Using the NT as the source for our understanding of 'BibleGod,' what kind of circumstantial evidence might we be looking for?

• 2 Corinthians 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.
  
  
  2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

According to the source for our understanding of BibleGod, non-belief is circumstantial evidence of those who have been deceived and refuse to believe the truth.

• Acts 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:
  TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.
  Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.
  
  
  Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

The existence of the world is, as defined by our source, strong circumstantial evidence for the existence of its creator BibleGod.

• Hebrew 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, meaning king of peace, 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.
  
  John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
  (Adapted from the Hindu Pancavimsa Brahmana 20.14.2)

It would seem that the revelation and understanding of his nature in different times and cultures is also, as suggested by our source regarding BibleGod, circumstantial evidence for the truth of his Being.



All three points, I would guess, are fairly solidly confirmed through the gamut of human experience. There seems to be sound circumstantial evidence for the existence of BibleGod then.

Well now, finally, we're getting somewhere. Excellent examples, well reasoned. Hopefully we will get more examples of circumstantial (indirect) evidence on both OP questions. You nailed it.

[dianaiad]

,snip to here>

I have apparently failed to draw the OP question suitably and will take my F and recede to the background. Your points are well taken however, and had I been attempting a full discussion of all things biblical and all things evidentiary and all things to prove or disprove 'God' I would have drawn my OP assumptions much differently. I seem to be the only one interested in circumstantial evidence as a stand alone consideration. Call it a fetish, but it is really an interesting concept if delved into as a logical consideration. But apparently, in attempting to draw the OP with ground rules that would permit only my fetish for circumstantial evidentiary considerations, I have done little else but to piss you off.

YOU didn't piss me off, Flail. I'm not pissed off. I'll admit to 'annoyed,' but only at the definitions.

OK, then, is it fair for me to restate your OP (just to see whether I understand where you are going with it) as a question of what circumstantial evidence might actually exist that might support the idea of the "BibleGod" as you define it, and further, what level of trust we might put in such circumstantial evidence--the bible itself not being considered?

[dianaiad]

More simply put, the OP defined things, and assumed, as a given, that 'fact' and 'direct evidence' mean something far more narrow than the dictionaries....and certainly any theist...would agree to. It is, indeed, a matter of defining 'bachelor' in a way as to preclude Patrick Stewart, from being a bachelor knight... in a discussion regarding his awards as an actor.

I'm not usually particularly interested in evidential debates against the bible, or any kind of theology, simply because generally, theists claim that the evidence we would accept would and should not be present, anyway. It doesn't give the non-theist much to argue against. If the theist has evidence they believe would be accepted, or why certain evidence should be accepted however, I'm all ears.

You are quite right. I disagree with the above. Logic and reason are the best ways to address scientific issues. They are not the ONLY valid ways to address theological and philosophical truths.

Science indeed utilizes logic and reason, but they are not particular to science, or even empirical evidence. What sort of 'other' methods do you refer to? If something is true, the it is true without needing to prepend "theological" or "philosophical" in front of it to somehow distinguish it from a different sort of truth.

Unless we're talking about two different meanings here.

We may be. I've been using the same word, 'truth' to describe the differences, but with a slight alteration in typeface.

"truth" (lower-case 't') is facts; things that we have solid, physical evidence for. There are footprints on the moon; that's truth. There is a supervolcano under Yellowstone National Park. That's truth. Evolution is truth. (well, I think so, anyway.) So are black holes, quarks, and Twinkie filling injection machines.

Yesterday my hair had a great deal more grey in it that I liked, and today it doesn't. That's also truth. When someone says 'thong' to me, my first thought is footwear (what people call 'flip-flops' now) not underwear. If someone asks "where were you when Kennedy was shot?" I have to admit to being in a high school English class. These things all lead up to the "truth" that I am--not in my twenties.

"Truth," however, (upper-case 'T') is a different critter. While truths and empirical evidence can support this...grander?...notion, they don't prove it; something else comes into play; something the Romanticists knew, and Jung attempted to describe.

Oh, shoot, just read Keats.

[Flail]

,snip to here>

I have apparently failed to draw the OP question suitably and will take my F and recede to the background. Your points are well taken however, and had I been attempting a full discussion of all things biblical and all things evidentiary and all things to prove or disprove 'God' I would have drawn my OP assumptions much differently. I seem to be the only one interested in circumstantial evidence as a stand alone consideration. Call it a fetish, but it is really an interesting concept if delved into as a logical consideration. But apparently, in attempting to draw the OP with ground rules that would permit only my fetish for circumstantial evidentiary considerations, I have done little else but to piss you off.

YOU didn't piss me off, Flail. I'm not pissed off. I'll admit to 'annoyed,' but only at the definitions.

OK, then, is it fair for me to restate your OP (just to see whether I understand where you are going with it) as a question of what circumstantial evidence might actually exist that might support the idea of the "BibleGod" as you define it, and further, what level of trust we might put in such circumstantial evidence--the bible itself not being considered?

Certainly you may rephrase or restate the OP any way you see fit. Such is the essence of debate IMO. Go for it. I might learn something.