Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[Atheos]

Yes, we've heard it before. Again and again and again and again and again. It doesn't matter how often a falsehood is presented it still remains false.

"Hands up, don't shoot!"

 

[Torin]

Why is God fine tuned for life? There is literally no reason, a priori, that a disembodied omnipotent consciousness would prefer to create life.

The solution is: God is, in a sense, fine tuned for life. By us. We made him up, so he likes everything we like.

The fine tuning argument is nothing but an exercise in anthropomorphism.

I have more respect for the "argument from motion" of classical theism.

 

[atrib]

So the conclusion is: the best explanation how these accounts could exist is the one which says those miracle acts actually did happen, because there's no other way to explain how we have this evidence or these written accounts saying the events happened.

This blatant falsehood has been debunked multiple times in this thread, and in the earlier thread about this topic. There exists a huge number of naturalistic explanations for how the Jesus miracle stories originated. Someone could have made up the story. Someone could have been fooled into believing the story, perhaps through the deliberate actions of others. Someone could have visualized the story in a state of drunkenness or mental illness (kinda like how Paul got his revelations). Aliens from another planet could have staged the miracles using advanced technology. And so on. The odds of the story having a supernatural origin, i.e. through intervention by a supernatural entity from outside the universe, are so vanishingly small that they can be safely discarded.

 

[atrib]

How are these written accounts not evidence for the events

ANECDOTES ARE NOT EVIDENCE

Technically, written accounts are evidence. Just not very good evidence, especially since they are unsupported by any other evidence, and could not have been written by an eyewitness. And certainly insufficient to establish claims of a supernatural nature.


Also according to Lumpenproletariat
1. If I write a story and someone makes 10 copies of it, the story now has 11 credible sources.
2. Hearsay from anonymous strangers on the street constitute better evidence than the sworn testimony of known individuals.
and so on.
That is what you are up against.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

How are these written accounts not evidence for the events

ANECDOTES ARE NOT EVIDENCE

Technically, written accounts are evidence.

I'm so tired of having to explain this every single time. They are NOT evidence of the subject of the claim. They only evidence (as in "support") that someone experienced something unexplained.

It's a matter of equivocation. Anecdotes do not and cannot prove--i.e, serve as evidence--that a Bigfoot actually exists. So it is incorrect to say that someone telling you their story--regardless of whether or not it makes them an "eyewitness"--is evidence that a Bigfoot actually exists.

It is ONLY "evidence" that the person saw something that looked like it could be what others have claimed is a "bigfoot." In no possible universe can that story, however, serve as Evidence (noun, not verb) that a bigfoot actually exists.

See the distinction that no cult member can ever acknowledge and hence why I finally had to resort to using BIG EZ-2 READ TYPE?



Yes, I'm well aware. Again, that was the point of using the type. To bludgeon, not merely "get through." What's needed is a cudgel.

 

[atrib]

Technically, written accounts are evidence.

I'm so tired of having to explain this every single time. They are NOT evidence of the subject of the claim. They only evidence (as in "support") that someone experienced something unexplained.

It's a matter of equivocation. Anecdotes do not and cannot prove--i.e, serve as evidence--that a Bigfoot actually exists. So it is incorrect to say that someone telling you their story--regardless of whether or not it makes them an "eyewitness"--is evidence that a Bigfoot actually exists.

It is ONLY "evidence" that the person saw something that looked like it could be what others have claimed is a "bigfoot." In no possible universe can that story, however, serve as Evidence (noun, not verb) that a bigfoot actually exists.

I define evidence to be a piece of information or an object that can shed light on the credibility of a claim. Evidence can be testimony of an individual related to what he thinks he saw or perceived, what he thinks someone else saw or perceived (hearsay), or it can be an object that relates to the claim. Writing that describes certain events fits into that definition, and that would include the writings of the Bible.

Whether this evidence is of good quality, or sufficient to establish a claim as likely to be factual to a high level of confidence, is a different matter. The existence of the Bible is evidence that someone may have believed that the story of the Bible is true, and the story is the evidence for events described in the Bible. However, given that the story contains multiple seemingly supernatural, and extremely improbable events, and that none of these accounts can be corroborated by independent sources, my conclusion is that the evidence is not sufficient to overcome the skepticism of a rational, unbiased observer.

Proof is for geometry and logic. The best we can do for our models of reality is to establish that these models work to a high degree of confidence, using our observations to test predictions that the models make. The concept of God is also a model of reality, albeit one that is deeply flawed in that it cannot be tested and falsified. As such, the various models of God(s) can be safely ignored.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What is the evidence for miracle-workers prior to Jesus in the Gospels?

(continued from previous Wall of Text)


We're told there were other reputed miracle-worker saviors prior to Jesus, but why can't anyone cite an ancient text source for them?

Other examples of dead-and-risen, miracle performing, personal savior mythological characters that were turned into fictional flesh and blood characters to increase their fan following:
Osiris
Adonis
Romulus
Zalmoxis
Inanna
Mithra (did not rise up from dead, but underwent terrible suffering/passion)

This meaningless laundry list and your incoherent description of it has nothing to do with miracle claims, or reported miracle acts, like those about the historical Jesus. You have no source to cite for this list or to connect it to any claims about alleged miracle events. All you have is your modern Jesus-debunker guru, no ancient source or evidence, for claiming any similarity of these figures to Jesus in the Gospels. There are no accounts, from ancient sources, saying that any of these were persons in history who performed any miracle acts.

Two or three might have been historical figures, but no ancient source says they did any miracle acts, like rising from the dead. All you're doing is regurgitating some rhetoric from your Jesus-debunker pundits, which you repeat as infallible doctrine never to be questioned. Your submission to these gurus is a greater leap of faith than that of believers in the pews listening to the preacher quoting from the Bible. This preacher cites an ancient source, near the time of the alleged events, relating what the ancient writers claim happened. For example:

(Mark 1) 40 And a leper came to him beseeching him, and kneeling said to him, "If you will, you can make me clean." 41 Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, "I will; be clean." 42 And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean.

This is one account of a miracle by Jesus, cited by 3 of the 4 Gospels, along with other similar reports, showing that Jesus performed such acts. Four written accounts attest to such events, and to these we can add Paul who attests to the death and resurrection, making 5 sources from the time attesting to the power he demonstrated. And so believers accept this evidence, from accounts of that time saying it happened.

But what is your belief based on, that there are other reported miracle-workers, others believed to have performed similar acts? You believe those accounts exist, that people believed similar claims about the above legendary heroes/deities. But why do you believe such accounts exist or that people believed such claims? Only because your Jesus-debunker guru preaches this to you, assuring you that these other reported miracle-workers were believed to have had such power and performed such acts.


And yet there is no evidence from the time saying any such thing, no documents you can quote, such as the above text from Mark which really does report a miracle act, along with many other reports, and other sources saying the same thing.

Why do you believe, blindly with no evidence, that there were any such reported miracle-workers? Why do you only slurp up the words of your debunker-guru as your source, with no documentation, no ancient source near the time? Your blind faith is stronger than that of the worshipers in the pews who believe the Jesus miracle stories because these claims are recorded in ancient documents from the time, from writers who had gathered these reports and wrote them down, then to be copied and copied again and again, because the reports were important for future generations to know about.

No doubt there were many charismatic messiahs or prophets making their miracle claims here and there, not taken seriously by anyone but a tiny group of cult members, each following their guru -- like you follow your Jesus-debunker pundit -- believing anything the guru said, but these and their guru were a tiny minority of fanatics not taken seriously and not recorded in writing, because they were disbelieved and not important.


There were no other instant-miracle-worker messiahs.

The Apollo, Hercules, Asclepius and other miracle legends evolved gradually, over centuries during which they became institutionalized and popularized widely, with no written record from the time of the original hero figure. No charismatic historical figure gained popularity as a miracle-worker in his own time.

Beliefs in the supernatural which did exist were the religious traditions about the ancient gods, respected not as claims about some recent instant miracle-worker showing up from somewhere, but as ancient legends passed on over many centuries and institutionalized in ritual ceremonies, and believed as personal entities one could pray to. These became identified with some poetry or rituals or incantations or rhetoric, but not with claims about any recent historical figure performing miracle acts.

That there is no parallel between these in your list and Jesus in the Gospels is demonstrated by the fact that you can cite no ancient source, no ancient text or record describing the alleged deeds of these characters. All you can cite is the rhetoric of your guru-pundit debunker authority, who is your high priest dictating to you what to think rather than offering you evidence for you to perform your own inquiry into the truth.

But the preacher in church offers to his listeners evidence from the ancient sources near to the time of the alleged events. Though some of the believers enshrine this evidence and turn it into something religious or mystical, its origin is its actual existence in the ancient record, from the 1st century when the events were recorded by writers who believed they happened.

For your claims about the ancient miracle legends your only source is your modern-day debunker pundit, whose narrative and sophistry you take on faith, automatically, as infallible, without any evidence from the ancient sources to check the accuracy. Your list of messiahs or miracle legends is just the script from your guru, and you are his puppet mouthing words programmed into you by your debunker puppeteer guru.

Small list of personal savior gods predating the Jesus myth who had been resurrected from the dead or suffered through a passion.

None of them reportedly resurrected from the dead. You can't cite any ancient source saying they did. There are at least five written sources from the 1st century saying Jesus resurrected, dating from 25-70 years from the alleged event. You have nothing like this for any of the above listed deities. No source anywhere near the time they lived saying any such thing. In fact, there's virtually no source at all claiming any of these resurrected. Only your modern Jesus-debunker guru, who is your Pope which you take as infallible.

And these are just the ones that can be authoritatively documented.

No they cannot be. You can't cite any documentation from an ancient source saying any of them resurrected. Your only authority is your modern Jesus-debunker guru.

Personal savior resurrected messiahs were all the rage in the 500 years leading up to the Jesus myth, and every cult had one.

Then why can't you name one and give an ancient source reporting it? Why can't you offer anything other than the above laundry list provided to you by your guru but can't cite a single ancient source yourself? You can't name any example of such a messiah/savior who was a historical figure reported to have resurrected after having died.

Your original meaningless laundry list at this url has now been replaced by an old video of your guru Richard Carrier giving no ancient sources or citations, whom you accept on faith, without question, without checking anything claimed, without questioning the authority of the pundits who list these ancient legend figures.

It's not true that there are any "personal savior resurrected messiahs" named in this list (or the original list, or named by your guru). The period "leading up to the" 1st century AD was as devoid of miracles and "resurrected messiahs" as any period. It had less of this than any of the previous centuries or the centuries after 100 AD. The period of Jesus, and that just prior, has fewer miracle legends than any other, and less expectation of any miracles. The Asclepius cult, the closest to having miracle claims, died out after 200 BC and later experienced a sudden revival at about 100 AD, when we see a new explosion of miracle claims, continuing into the Middle Ages. Earlier than 100 AD there is absolutely no pattern of miracle beliefs to explain the sudden outburst of miracle stories we find in the Gospel accounts.

You can't quote any ancient source to show any "authoritatively documented" evidence for your above laundry list of reported "personal savior gods" having resurrected or performed any miracle acts. All you can quote is a meaningless list, or your modern guru-pundit feeding you this rhetoric for you to copy and paste here. The simple believer in the pew has more evidence and documentation for his belief than you have for your phony list or for these talking points of your guru, who never cites any ancient source but assumes you're gullible enough to believe everything he dog-whistles at you and programs you to repeat.

If you had any legitimate miracle claims from this list of ancient deities, you'd give the ancient text source and quote from the part which reports those ancient miracle events or miracle acts which were allegedly performed. That you never do this, and cannot do it, shows that your list is nothing but an incoherent outburst from you, programmed into you by your Jesus-debunker-pundit as a knee-jerk response for you to emit spontaneously, like a salivating pavlovian dog, when confronted with the evidence for the Jesus miracles from the 1st-century written record.

You use this term "supernatural" as if no such events can ever happen even though such an event is reported to have happened, and so the report has to be rejected, no matter what. You're saying the report is automatically repudiated as false as long as you label it as a "supernatural" event. You're demanding everyone submit to your authority to designate any claim you don't like as "supernatural" and therefore false, regardless of any evidence that it's true.

Dead people don't rise up from the grave and wander around in the streets, or fly off into the sky under their own power.

Generally they don't. But some unusual events can happen, i.e., which usually don't happen. So just saying this doesn't usually happen is beside the point. It happened at least this one time. And some other unusual events have probably also happened, but such cases are very rare, and you can say "people don't" do these things, generally. But we're talking about events which are reported, witnessed, and attested to in multiple sources, even though such events don't generally happen.

Just noting that such events "don't" happen, that "dead people don't rise up" and so on does not address the point that it did happen in this case, for which there is evidence, even though it does not normally happen. That it's not normal is the whole point. I.e., this is why it's important that in this one case it actually did happen.

This has been explained to you in depth and I am not going to repeat myself again. And it is dishonest to pretend that you don't understand what the word supernatural means, or how historians evaluate historical records.

We all know they set aside "supernatural" claims from the official record, but this doesn't mean there have been absolutely no such events. There is a huge doubtful category of reported events, where it's not clear that the event did or did not happen. It's not the place of historians to declare which alleged odd events really did or did not happen. In some cases claims have been debunked, but not others, and there is a large number of claims that have to be set aside into the doubtful category, which we can't be sure did or did not happen.

Of course one can reasonably disbelieve this or that dubious claim, but it's also reasonable to leave open the possibility that the doubtful event did happen if there's evidence. There's nothing wrong with saying it's doubtful, and some believe it, as a reasonable possibility, while others do not.

There is not the unanimity of historians which you imagine and are trying to impose onto everyone. They don't agree unanimously on all the doubtful claims. The miracles of Jesus go into the doubtful category, believed by some and disbelieved by others. It's not unreasonable to believe unusual claims when there is evidence.

I am still waiting for you to provide sources for the gospel stories.

We don't know the sources (or most of them) for Tacitus and Josephus and Suetonius, etc., but we believe them, generally. Just because you can name an "author" does not mean you know how they got their information. And, just because an account is anonymous does not mean the story has no source or has to be false. Anonymous accounts can be reliable, while a named source can be incorrect in its claims. Documents are discovered and accepted as credible sources even if we don't know the source of the source. We can reasonably separate the fact from the fiction, with much of the historical record relying on guesswork rather than certainty.

We know where the authors of Luke and Matthew got their stories from (Mark and their imaginations), but . . .

They also relied on the Q Document, and on other sources. We don't know all the sources, but clearly some of it came from early sources rather than from the time of the final document in 80 or 90 or 100 AD. There are many "stories" in the mainline histories which we cannot trace back to their origin. We don't have to determine the origin of all the "stories" in the writings in order to believe the accounts which report the "stories" to us. We can assume there is a mixture of fact and fiction in the Gospel "stories" just as there is in the "stories" of Herodotus and other historians, and in the non-"historical" ancient writings.

. . . but how did the author of Mark come upon these stories and how did he go about verifying their credibility?

We usually don't have the answer to this for our ancient history record. Just because we have some of that for Thucydides does not make this a requirement for all accounts of the ancient history. For most of that historical record we don't know how the writer came upon the reported "stories" or how these were verified.

Why did no contemporary historian ever write anything about this . . .

"contemporary"? There are no writings, which survived, of any "contemporary" historian, on any subject, during the period of 20-60 AD.

. . . ever write anything about this famous messiah who . . .

He wasn't "famous" outside Judea-Palestine.

. . . messiah who was performing miracles left and right?

He's mentioned in Josephus and Tacitus, but not by anyone "contemporary" to his time, because there were no historians (whose writings have survived) contemporary to his time.

The historians who lived at the time, and whose writings all perished, were not in Judea-Palestine and did not write on any events there.

Assuming any historians (Tacitus or Suetonius or Plutarch, or others) heard of the events, they wrote nothing about him (or almost nothing) mainly because they did not believe such claims and routinely rejected all beliefs in any messiah (other than the emperor), considering them all to be fraudulent claims of charlatans. Virtually everyone rejected miracle claims from charlatans. Also they ignored the Jesus cults because the trouble-maker in question, whose public career lasted only 1-3 years, acquired no political power of any kind, and had no impact on the political events. I.e., he was not another Eunus or Spartacus who led slave revolts and won some military victories.

Only a few educated persons (the Gospel writers) investigated the Jesus case and reported it, and they all report the miracle acts as real events -- the only case, in all the ancient literature, of miracle events reported near the time of the alleged events and attested to as true rather than fraudulent. There were probably no professional historians anywhere near these events (or none who left any writings).

Why won't you touch the resurrection story?

"touch"? What about the resurrection story didn't I "touch"? The word "resurrection" occurs several times in my Walls of Text.

All reasonable questions, but likely impossible for you to answer.

I answered them and will answer them again.

A question you have not answered is: What ancient written source can you provide for your claim that "Personal savior resurrected messiahs were all the rage in the 500 years leading up to the Jesus myth"?

Can you offer any ancient text for this, giving an example of a "savior resurrected messiah" who reportedly performed miracle acts, leading up to Jesus in the Gospels?

 

[Treedbear]

(continued from previous Wall of Text)
...

I don't see how you can think anyone is going to read these tediously long sermons you keep putting up. I never do. Not because they argue from a Christain point of view. But on any topic in any forum if someone does this kind of thing (and nobody ever goes to the extreme you do) then apparently they aren't interested in discussion. Their mind is closed on the subject. Why would I enter a discussion when anything I have to add stands no chance of being taken seriously? Take one issue, make a point or two, gives a couple examples, and wait for people to join in. Who has the time to seriously consider what you're saying when it seems like your just talking to yourself?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

(continued from previous Wall of Text)
...

I don't see how you can think anyone is going to read these tediously long sermons you keep putting up. I never do. Not because they argue from a Christain point of view. But on any topic in any forum if someone does this kind of thing (and nobody ever goes to the extreme you do) then apparently they aren't interested in discussion. Their mind is closed on the subject. Why would I enter a discussion when anything I have to add stands no chance of being taken seriously? Take one issue, make a point or two, gives a couple examples, and wait for people to join in. Who has the time to seriously consider what you're saying when it seems like your just talking to yourself?

So you think Atrib is not worth responding to?

How about you answering the question: What ancient written source can you provide for atrib's claim that "Personal savior resurrected messiahs were all the rage in the 500 years leading up to the Jesus myth"?

You think his claim is a worthless piece of shit not deserving any response?

Or, you agree with atrib that Richard Carrier's mouth is the SOURCE OF TRUTH not to be questioned. And it's blasphemous to ask a certified Debunker for evidence.

 

[skepticalbip]

(continued from previous Wall of Text)
...

I don't see how you can think anyone is going to read these tediously long sermons you keep putting up. I never do. Not because they argue from a Christain point of view. But on any topic in any forum if someone does this kind of thing (and nobody ever goes to the extreme you do) then apparently they aren't interested in discussion. Their mind is closed on the subject. Why would I enter a discussion when anything I have to add stands no chance of being taken seriously? Take one issue, make a point or two, gives a couple examples, and wait for people to join in. Who has the time to seriously consider what you're saying when it seems like your just talking to yourself?

Amen..

Lumpy has been given a list of resurrected gods several times and yet continues to pretend that Jesus is the only example. It is hardly worth trying to have a discussion with him since he just ignores anything contrary to his belief or what he wants to be true.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Technically, written accounts are evidence.

I'm so tired of having to explain this every single time. They are NOT evidence of the subject of the claim. They only evidence (as in "support") that someone experienced something unexplained.

It's a matter of equivocation. Anecdotes do not and cannot prove--i.e, serve as evidence--that a Bigfoot actually exists. So it is incorrect to say that someone telling you their story--regardless of whether or not it makes them an "eyewitness"--is evidence that a Bigfoot actually exists.

It is ONLY "evidence" that the person saw something that looked like it could be what others have claimed is a "bigfoot." In no possible universe can that story, however, serve as Evidence (noun, not verb) that a bigfoot actually exists.

I define evidence to be a piece of information or an object that can shed light on the credibility of a claim.

That's a rather esoteric definition.

Evidence can be testimony of an individual related to what he thinks he saw or perceived,

Which, once again, can only "evidence" an experience, NOT serve as evidence of--aka, proof of--the veracity of the subject of the claim.

Again, my claiming I saw Xenu smoking a joint on Ventura boulevard cannot in any way prove that Xenu objectively exists. Yet this is the equivocation cult members always attempt when they say the incomplete sentence, "this is evidence." No, you need to finish that sentence. This is evidence that someone had an experience in which they claimed something existed. It it NOT, however, evidence that proves or establishes the objective existence of said something.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Evidence can be testimony of an individual related to what he thinks he saw or perceived, what he thinks someone else saw or perceived (hearsay), or it can be an object that relates to the claim.

is it still evidence, though, if we do not know who wrote the Gospels (for example), or when, or for what purpose?
And we don't know if it was hearsay or something else?

 

[Treedbear]

(continued from previous Wall of Text)
...

I don't see how you can think anyone is going to read these tediously long sermons you keep putting up. I never do. Not because they argue from a Christain point of view. But on any topic in any forum if someone does this kind of thing (and nobody ever goes to the extreme you do) then apparently they aren't interested in discussion. Their mind is closed on the subject. Why would I enter a discussion when anything I have to add stands no chance of being taken seriously? Take one issue, make a point or two, gives a couple examples, and wait for people to join in. Who has the time to seriously consider what you're saying when it seems like your just talking to yourself?

So you think Atrib is not worth responding to?

How about you answering the question: What ancient written source can you provide for atrib's claim that "Personal savior resurrected messiahs were all the rage in the 500 years leading up to the Jesus myth"?

You think his claim is a worthless piece of shit not deserving any response?

Or, you agree with atrib that Richard Carrier's mouth is the SOURCE OF TRUTH not to be questioned. And it's blasphemous to ask a certified Debunker for evidence.

Never mind me. I didn't know what I was stepping into. You were still responding to something atrib said back on 4/30/19! That was 560 posts ago! But carry on. It seems you're not the only one. Both sides go on and on heaping on allegations that I just don't have the time to go through and sort out, let alone check the evidence. But the really long posts started with you at 105. As I recall it was around then that even Lion IRC dropped out.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But the really long posts started with you at .... As I recall it was around then that even Lion IRC dropped out.

This time.
Lumpy picked up the wall of text habit (and the label) in kyroot's thread for 2194 reasons Christainity is verklempt. Same tactics. Repeat the same arguments over and over, ignore counters for long periods, dismiss disproofs, then claim no one can disprove...
Rinse and repeat.

 

[atrib]

I define evidence to be a piece of information or an object that can shed light on the credibility of a claim.

That's a rather esoteric definition.

Evidence can be testimony of an individual related to what he thinks he saw or perceived,

This is how the google dictionary defines the word evidence:

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

And the usual sources offer fairly similar definitions.

Which, once again, can only "evidence" an experience, NOT serve as evidence of--aka, proof of--the veracity of the subject of the claim.

Again, my claiming I saw Xenu smoking a joint on Ventura boulevard cannot in any way prove that Xenu objectively exists. Yet this is the equivocation cult members always attempt when they say the incomplete sentence, "this is evidence." No, you need to finish that sentence. This is evidence that someone had an experience in which they claimed something existed. It it NOT, however, evidence that proves or establishes the objective existence of said something.

Human testimony based on what people think they saw, heard or otherwise perceived has long been accepted as evidence in a court of law, including death penalty trials. In fact, sworn testimony by a witness is the ONLY WAY evidence can be admitted at a trial. If Person A testifies that he saw Defendant Y shoot Victim Z at some specific time and place, the testimony serves as evidence of Defendant Y's guilt, both with the Grand Jury, and with the jury seated to judge the case. Likewise, if Defendant Y had written down in his journal that he planned to shoot Victim Z, and the police were able to recover the journal as part of a legal search, the words of Defendant Y could be offered up in trial as evidence of the defendant's guilt. And in a similar vein, if the police had been able to recover and test the weapon and come to certain conclusions, the only way the gun could be introduced as evidence in the trial would be through the testimony of the police officer who collected the gun and the expert who tested the gun. What do all these things have in common, namely what a person apparently saw, what they apparently wrote in a journal (as read by someone on the witness stand), and what an expert apparently found out about the gun? It is the testimony of human beings who described their observations while sitting in the witness box.

Now to come to the second part of what I was saying, that humans are inherently imperfect observers, be it an eyewitness or a scientist, and their observations and conclusions can be flawed. Which is why juries are instructed in most states that they are free to accept or reject, in part or in whole, any testimony offered by a witness on the stand. The jury gets to decide what evidence is credible and what evidence is not. It works in a very similar way with the evaluation of historical claims, or even claims that we encounter in our day-to-day lives. The people, historians, scientists and common, everyday folk, as the case may be, get to decide what constitutes good evidence of a claim. Your claim that you saw a supernatural creature named Xenu smoking a joint is evidence that (a) a supernatural creature named Xenu exists, and (b) that he was smoking a joint. Most reasonable people would likely reject this claim as being untrue because the claim is wildly improbable based on our experiences with the real world. But the fact remains that your testimony serves as evidence in this matter. Your claim would be more credible if you recorded the incident with a video camera, even more so if you work for NASA and were somehow able to confirm certain highly improbable phenomena that could be associated and correlated with your claim.

At the end, all we have are our experiences, all of which are subjective to at least some small degree. That is all we have.

 

[atrib]

But the really long posts started with you at .... As I recall it was around then that even Lion IRC dropped out.

This time.
Lumpy picked up the wall of text habit (and the label) in kyroot's thread for 2194 reasons Christainity is verklempt. Same tactics. Repeat the same arguments over and over, ignore counters for long periods, dismiss disproofs, then claim no one can disprove...
Rinse and repeat.

You really should check out Mr. Max on Youtube. The similarities are astounding!

 

[skepticalbip]

That's a rather esoteric definition.

This is how the google dictionary defines the word evidence:

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

And the usual sources offer fairly similar definitions.

Which, once again, can only "evidence" an experience, NOT serve as evidence of--aka, proof of--the veracity of the subject of the claim.

Again, my claiming I saw Xenu smoking a joint on Ventura boulevard cannot in any way prove that Xenu objectively exists. Yet this is the equivocation cult members always attempt when they say the incomplete sentence, "this is evidence." No, you need to finish that sentence. This is evidence that someone had an experience in which they claimed something existed. It it NOT, however, evidence that proves or establishes the objective existence of said something.

Human testimony based on what people think they saw, heard or otherwise perceived has long been accepted as evidence in a court of law, including death penalty trials. In fact, sworn testimony by a witness is the ONLY WAY evidence can be admitted at a trial. If Person A testifies that he saw Defendant Y shoot Victim Z at some specific time and place, the testimony serves as evidence of Defendant Y's guilt, both with the Grand Jury, and with the jury seated to judge the case. Likewise, if Defendant Y had written down in his journal that he planned to shoot Victim Z, and the police were able to recover the journal as part of a legal search, the words of Defendant Y could be offered up in trial as evidence of the defendant's guilt. And in a similar vein, if the police had been able to recover and test the weapon and come to certain conclusions, the only way the gun could be introduced as evidence in the trial would be through the testimony of the police officer who collected the gun and the expert who tested the gun. What do all these things have in common, namely what a person apparently saw, what they apparently wrote in a journal (as read by someone on the witness stand), and what an expert apparently found out about the gun? It is the testimony of human beings who described their observations while sitting in the witness box.

Now to come to the second part of what I was saying, that humans are inherently imperfect observers, be it an eyewitness or a scientist, and their observations and conclusions can be flawed. Which is why juries are instructed in most states that they are free to accept or reject, in part or in whole, any testimony offered by a witness on the stand. The jury gets to decide what evidence is credible and what evidence is not. It works in a very similar way with the evaluation of historical claims, or even claims that we encounter in our day-to-day lives. The people, historians, scientists and common, everyday folk, as the case may be, get to decide what constitutes good evidence of a claim. Your claim that you saw a supernatural creature named Xenu smoking a joint is evidence that (a) a supernatural creature named Xenu exists, and (b) that he was smoking a joint. Most reasonable people would likely reject this claim as being untrue because the claim is wildly improbable based on our experiences with the real world. But the fact remains that your testimony serves as evidence in this matter. Your claim would be more credible if you recorded the incident with a video camera, even more so if you work for NASA and were somehow able to confirm certain highly improbable phenomena that could be associated and correlated with your claim.

At the end, all we have are our experiences, all of which are subjective to at least some small degree. That is all we have.

But then since you bring up testimony of a first hand account a witness saw offered in a trial as admissible evidence you need to also add what is not allowed as evidence in a trial. This would be hearsay evidence (second or third hand or rumored accounts). This is because the veracity of the original account or the veracity of those in the chain repeating the account can not be evaluated. The gospels are all hearsay with absolutely no first hand accounts so no way to determine if they may be pure propaganda, fanciful stories, wishful thinking, or outright lies.

 

[Learner]

But then since you bring up testimony of a first hand account a witness saw offered in a trial as admissible evidence you need to also add what is not allowed as evidence in a trial. This would be hearsay evidence (second or third hand or rumored accounts). This is because the veracity of the original account or the veracity of those in the chain repeating the account can not be evaluated. The gospels are all hearsay with absolutely no first hand accounts so no way to determine if they may be pure propaganda, fanciful stories, wishful thinking, or outright lies.

Cases are not (necessarily) solved in court, which is not quite a good notion, to soley rely on the negation of the hearsay thing. IOW's for example Detectives or investigators usually act on "hearsay" in investigations outside court, continuously searching.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But then since you bring up testimony of a first hand account a witness saw offered in a trial as admissible evidence you need to also add what is not allowed as evidence in a trial. This would be hearsay evidence (second or third hand or rumored accounts). This is because the veracity of the original account or the veracity of those in the chain repeating the account can not be evaluated. The gospels are all hearsay with absolutely no first hand accounts so no way to determine if they may be pure propaganda, fanciful stories, wishful thinking, or outright lies.

Cases are not (necessarily) solved in court, which is not quite a good notion, to soley rely on the negation of the hearsay thing.

But in genrral, the reason we disallow 'the hearsay thing' in courts of law is hecause aftrr years upon years of trying various ways to test truth claims, everyone pretty much agrees that 'the hearsay thing' does not work often enough to be trustworthy. Everyone agrees to this, right up until they realize that the best evidence they have for a cherished belief is hearsay...at best.

I mean, you would not pay a $45000 tax bill you only have rumors that you owe...
Or buy a bridge on friend of a friend of a friend's tale it's for sale.
But when the hearsay is your superstition....

IOW's for example Detectives or investigators usually act on "hearsay" in investigations outside court, continuously searching.

Sure. So, what evidence have you encountered by following up the hearsay in the biblical acvounts? Stuff that will stand up to scrutiny?

And if you have that, why defend the hearsay?

 

[skepticalbip]

But then since you bring up testimony of a first hand account a witness saw offered in a trial as admissible evidence you need to also add what is not allowed as evidence in a trial. This would be hearsay evidence (second or third hand or rumored accounts). This is because the veracity of the original account or the veracity of those in the chain repeating the account can not be evaluated. The gospels are all hearsay with absolutely no first hand accounts so no way to determine if they may be pure propaganda, fanciful stories, wishful thinking, or outright lies.

Cases are not (necessarily) solved in court, which is not quite a good notion, to soley rely on the negation of the hearsay thing. IOW's for example Detectives or investigators usually act on "hearsay" in investigations outside court, continuously searching.

Indeed. Eric Von Daniken gave us several accounts to describe much physical evidence that demonstrates that the Earth was in the past visited by highly advanced extraterrestrial aliens. That the amazing abilities of these aliens convinced earlier humans that they were gods and so the source of all the world's religions today.

He was not an actual witness but his testimony should be taken as truth... after all, he did testify it was so. Many people have since repeated Von Daniken's explanation accepting it as true as further evidence for its veracity.