Support NeoGAF

[oneils]

Do we all agree that evidence or proof would have to be true? Im pretty sure we all agree on that one.

A piece of evidence is usually presumed to be "true." I can share something as "evidence" to support my conclusion but I still have a looong way to go to prove my conclusion.

In the case of the bible, what is true is that some people made testimonies to god's existence. The testimonies are evidence. But very weak evidence. That.is.it. Still have a long way to go to prove his existence.

 

[Thaedolus]

"God does not exist."

Are these words which are now on the internet evidence of God's non-existence?

No they are not. Neither is The Bible good evidence of God's existence. Neither are eyewitnesses good evidence at trial.

The Bible is a collection of words written by fallible human beings with an infantile understanding of the workings of the universe making unsubstantiated claims, nothing more.

 

[RyanReedyMusic]

You're aware of Zeus, correct? I recall Hanuman was mentioned in the other thread as well.

They've been mentioned, so surely they exist. As does our True Lord Sir Squiddington IV.

It exists as soon as you say it. Regardless of whether its true or not is the second thing everyone must decide.

God exists in thought, word etc. Whether he is real or true or not is in your hands to decide.

 

[Log4Girlz]

We could really just stick to "Truth" of Gods existence. Really its a True or Not true situation.

God does not exist. By all measures of certainty it does not. Though I admit we can never be absolutely certain of anything, considering we may all be simulations run by some future ancestors attempting to recreate the universe, any such musings are beyond evidence and are thus not worth considering. God is a similar concept. An infinitely complex being capable of anything cannot exist. Therefore the concept of the abrahamic god is impossible. If we start limiting our definitions of god then the chances of existence start to increase. By how much, we can never say, but they become more believable. The simpler the being, the more likely it becomes.

Some have tried to constrain god by envisioning a benevolent alien race seeding the earth and care taking it. Well that is nearly infinitely more believable than the abrahamic god, even if it may be false.

 

[Newline]

You are QUOTING A STORY.

Let us pick up AN XMEN COMIC SHALL WE? What can we discuss about it?

Wolverine is in it
Wolverine has claws
Therefore Wolverine factually has claws.

In the context of the story, we can make all of those observations. BUT WHETHER HE EXISTS OR NOT IN REALITY IS A DIFFERENT STORY.

Jesus being in the bible is EVIDENCE THAT THE BIBLE FACTUALLY MENTIONS JESUS AND NOTHING ELSE.

Does that help?

Dropped into the thread and read this. Can't believe you even had to explain that to someone. I'm out!

 

[RyanReedyMusic]

A piece of evidence is usually presumed to be "true." I can share something as "evidence" to support my conclusion but I still have a looong way to go to prove my conclusion.

In the case of the bible, what is true is that some people made testimonies to god's existence. The testimonies are evidence. But very weak evidence. That.is.it. Still have a long way to go to prove his existence.

Thanks Oneils \=/

 

[Count Dookkake]

It exists as soon as you say it. Regardless of whether its true or not is the second thing everyone must decide.

God exists in thought, word etc. Whether he is real or true or not is in your hands to decide.

I have decided that unicorns are real and I think we should institute legislation based on that truth.

 

[CornBurrito]

Ryan, do you believe there exists evidence that the Christian deity is secretly evil?

 

[RyanReedyMusic]

I have decided that unicorns are real and I think we should institute legislation based on that truth.

DO IT \=/

 

[Log4Girlz]

I have decided that unicorns are real and I think we should institute legislation based on that truth.

I can support this. The evidence for unicorns is right there in his post.

 

[oneils]

Thanks Oneils \=/

RRM, think of it this way. I write a book. In that book I compile a bunch of testimony claiming that God does not exist. Is my book evidence of god's non-existence? Is it proof?

 

[CatPee]

Ryan, do you believe there exists evidence that the Christian deity is secretly evil?

You just said it, therefore it must exist. Since it exists, it must be evidence. Since evidence for it exists, it must be true.

 

[Thaedolus]

Ryan, do you believe there exists evidence that the Christian deity is secretly evil?

Certainly there is such evidence, read The Bible.

 

[RyanReedyMusic]

RRM, think of it this way. I write a book. In that book I compile a bunch of testimony claiming that God does not exist. Is my book evidence of god's non-existence? Is it proof?

It is proof. Yes. Is it true or not true. That is up to you and I to believe one way or the other.

 

[Hawkian]

It is all evidence whether it is fiction or non fiction.

This is incorrect, but it is a helpful statement in determining how you have gone so far astray.

Fiction is not evidence of any kind unless the truth being sought is also fictional.

For example, to play on the "let's use an X-men comic" angle from before.

Let us say that the truth I am seeking is whether or not Wolverine has claws. One could make a value judgement on this truth (it is true) using evidence found in comics and statements by the authors of the comics, as well as other media in which the character has been portrayed (Wolverine: Origins, shitty as it was, would be your best primary source because it shows that he naturally has claws). The truth I have validated is evidentially true within the context of fiction (things that are not factual or empirical).

However, Wolverine does not exist. Furthermore, mutants (in the X-men sense) do not exist. I cannot use X-men comics or movies to prove that mutants exist, because they are fiction. All of the evidence I draw from to prove that mutants do not exist is non-fictional.

Thus, you have two options:

1. Posit that the bible is evidence for the existence of God, but fictional, and thus indicative of God being fictional, just like Wolverine
2. Deny that the bible is evidence for the existence of God, and adhere to the principle that belief in God is predicated on faith alone.

I recommend the second option. No matter how much evidence is uncovered by science, it will always be valid.

It is proof. Yes. Is it true or not true. That is up to you and I to believe one way or the other.

Incorrect. Proof, by definition, is evidence of sufficient quantity and quality to establish truth. Proof cannot be untrue, ever.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

It is proof. Yes. Is it true or not true. That is up to you and I to believe one way or the other.

Time to discuss proofs, facts, etc.

I hate that bit of this thread :/

 

[Thaedolus]

It is proof. Yes. Is it true or not true. That is up to you and I to believe one way or the other.

You fail logic 101.

 

[KtSlime]

It is proof. Yes. Is it true or not true. That is up to you and I to believe one way or the other.

The truth of something is not something people can choose, it exists externally.

 

[Log4Girlz]

With such incredibly low standards of evidence you would think all christians would unquestionably believe in evolution.

 

[Erigu]

You misunderstood the point of the argument - at least the strand of the argument I'm arguing with you. Evidence/proof can be subjective and still be true.

We were talking about the Bible, the existence of the universe and Jesus Christ as proof of the Christian god's existence. They simply aren't, and there's nothing subjective about that. That's what I was saying.

 

[Amir0x]

With such incredibly low standards of evidence you would think all christians would unquestionably believe in evolution.

at this point I sort of wish I could hear the internal thoughts of true believers when they are deciding what to internalize and what to reject as fair 'evidence' for any given theory

it must be fascinating, like hearing someone who who has multiple personality disorder suddenly shift identities

 

[Log4Girlz]

at this point I sort of wish I could hear the internal thoughts of true believers when they are deciding what to internalize and what to reject as fair 'evidence' for any given theory

it must be fascinating, like hearing someone who who has multiple personality disorder suddenly shift identities

Would go something like this "But that's not in the bible".

 

[CatPee]

So your thinking for me. I stated what I came in here for and you deny what I said. You say its something else entirely. Does that make any sense to you at all? Interesting

It's called psychology. Look it up. One can easily infer another's motives by analyzing their actions. Hell, you may even just be seeking justification at a subconscious level.

 

[Thaedolus]

There really are some stunning cases of smart people turning off their brains when it comes to religion. My brother is very intelligent, PhD in computer science, very well off...yet doesn't believe in evolution because it conflicts with Mormonism's doctrine. Though he claims it's because it's an unproven theory.

Right.

 

[Mario]

God exists in thought, word etc. Whether he is real or true or not is in your hands to decide.

The existence of God is independent to human thought.

You don't "decide" or "choose" what is true. Something is inherently true or not.

 

[Log4Girlz]

There really are some stunning cases of smart people turning off their brains when it comes to religion. My brother is very intelligent, PhD in computer science, very well off...yet doesn't believe in evolution because it conflicts with Mormonism's doctrine. Though he claims it's because it's an unproven theory.

Right.

Willful ignorance. Cognitive dissonance. Selective stupidity.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

It is all evidence whether it is fiction or non fiction.

Fine, let's assume everything in the Bible is evidence. The question is: of/for what is it evidence?

The answer is: the Bible.
The answer is not: Jesus/God.

That is, the Bible is only evidence that the Bible exists. Claims about Jesus in the Bible are only evidence that there are claims about Jesus in the Bible. Reports of miracles are only evidence that there are reports of miracles.

However, the Bible is not evidence that Jesus actually existed, nor is it evidence that miracles actually occurred.

Put it in the context of the definition of "evidence": The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

If the belief or proposition is that the Bible exists then, obviously, we have the evidence and it's rock solid; we can obtain a Bible.

However, if the belief or proposition is that the Bible's claims are true, then the Bible CANNOT be evidence of said claims, unless you find circular reasoning attractive (the Bible is true and we know it's true because the Bible says it's true).

Right?

 

[Dude Abides]

Fine, let's assume everything in the Bible is evidence. The question is: of/for what is it evidence?

The answer is: the Bible.
The answer is not: Jesus/God.

That is, the Bible is only evidence that the Bible exists. Claims about Jesus in the Bible are only evidence that there are claims about Jesus in the Bible. Reports of miracles are only evidence that there are reports of miracles.

However, the Bible is not evidence that Jesus actually existed, nor is it evidence that miracles actually occurred.

Put it in the context of the definition of "evidence": The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

If the belief or proposition is that the Bible exists then, obviously, we have the evidence and it's rock solid; we can obtain a Bible.

However, if the belief or proposition is that the Bible's claims are true, then the Bible CANNOT be evidence of said claims, unless you find circular reasoning attractive (the Bible is true and we know it's true because the Bible says it's true).

Right?

The Bible is evidence that the events in it happened. It is old, unreliable, and based on chains of hearsay after hearsay, so it is very weak evidence, but it is evidence.

 

[Mario]

The Bible is evidence that the events in it happened. It is old, unreliable, and based on chains of hearsay after hearsay, so it is very weak evidence, but it is evidence.

Is the Harry Potter book series evidence that the events described therein happened?

How about Homer's Odyssey?

 

[Log4Girlz]

Ryan, in short, the bible is useless as a piece of evidence. Useless. Weak. Worthless. Meritless. Terrible. Awful. Horrible.

By what standard are we holding it to? The ability to convince others who are skeptical. Such as atheists or anyone else who is not christian. There is nothing in the bible which would convince anyone of the validity of its claims. It is a list of meritless claims. A comic book is about as convincing.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

At least the Quran has a divinely inspired language and poetry unlike that of any other literary work.

 

[Dude Abides]

Is the Harry Potter book series evidence that the events described therein happened?

How about Homer's Odyssey?

Yes. The question is, does X piece of information make it more likely that event Y occurred than if X piece of information did not exist? Here, the fact that there are exist accounts of the events make it more likely that the events occurred than if there were no such accounts.

In the Harry Potter case, however, we know that the events did not occur because we also have additional evidence indicating that the person who wrote the books did not intend it to be a description of actual events. And we can't get Homer here to ask him whether the Iliad happened, so it's hearsay, and we don't even know that there was a single person who wrote it, when it was written, or how it came to be written, so it's very weak evidence. But evidence nonetheless.

 

[Mario]

Yes. The question is, does X piece of information make it more likely that event Y occurred than if X piece of information did not exist? Here, the fact that there are exist accounts of the events make it more likely that the events occurred than if there were no such accounts.

In the Harry Potter case, however, we know that the events did not occur because we also have additional evidence indicating that the person who wrote the books did not intend it to be a description of actual events. And we can't get Homer here to ask him whether the Iliad happened, so it's hearsay, and we don't even know that there was a single person who wrote it, when it was written, or how it came to be written, so it's very weak evidence. But evidence nonetheless.

Such "evidence" is purely anecdotal and therefore does not, scientifically speaking, meet the standard of "validating evidence".

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

The Bible is evidence that the events in it happened. It is old, unreliable, and based on chains of hearsay after hearsay, so it is very weak evidence, but it is evidence.

I sort of understand where you're coming from. To the degree that anything recorded or testified is automatically evidence (albeit weak as fuck), I guess you could argue the Bible is evidence that the events in it happened.

I think for me, any evidence as weak as that is treated strictly as evidence only of itself. In other words, the Bible is evidence simply of the fact that people wrote down that events in it happened, but not that the events actually happened.

I'm happy to concede that it is all evidence though, because, whether you follow your line of logic or mine, we reach the same conclusion: the Bible is not a credible source.

 

[creationtheory]

The Bible is evidence that the events in it happened. It is old, unreliable, and based on chains of hearsay after hearsay, so it is very weak evidence, but it is evidence.

The bible is the claim not the evidence.

 

[Dude Abides]

Such "evidence" is purely anecdotal and therefore does not, scientifically speaking, meet the standard of "validating evidence".

But we're not talking about anecdotes v. data. We're talking about whether you should believe that a singular event X happened. Sometimes an account of that event is reliable enough to justify believing that it did, other times not. The question is whether the account is reliable enough to justify it, not whether the account is evidence is all.

I sort of understand where you're coming from. To the degree that anything recorded or testified is automatically evidence (albeit weak as fuck), I guess you could argue the Bible is evidence that the events in it happened.

I think for me, any evidence as weak as that is treated strictly as evidence only of itself. In other words, the Bible is evidence simply of the fact that people wrote down that events in it happened, but not that the events actually happened.

I'm happy to concede that it is all evidence though, because, whether you follow your line of logic or mine, we reach the same conclusion: the Bible is not a credible source.

I agree. It is so weak that we can dismiss it.

The bible is the claim not the evidence.

That's like saying that Thucydides is not evidence that the Pelopponesian war occurred.

 

[KtSlime]

That's like saying that Thucydides is not evidence that the Pelopponesian war occurred.

We have a fair amount of other sources of evidence that Thucydides was mostly on the mark. That and he doesn't really make any outlandish claims, anyone that starts out by denouncing the mythological reasons for war is OK in my book.

 

[Mario]

But we're not talking about anecdotes v. data. We're talking about whether you should believe that a singular event X happened. Sometimes an account of that event is reliable enough to justify believing that it did, other times not. The question is whether the account is reliable enough to justify it, not whether the account is evidence is all.

I'm going to suggest the word evidence is being used far too broadly and loosely in this thread then.

As for the reliability of the accounts of the Bible, I doubt many could consider any of it reliable when

- it was mostly written decades after the death of Jesus
- the authors were mostly (if not all) not direct witnesses to the events described
- there are different accounts of events that contradict each other
- there are events described which have been scientifically proven to have not happened


Taking this into account, as mentioned on the prior page, it is amazing that some believers can still credit the Bible with any credibility and completely dismiss the body of work supporting evolution in the same sentence.

 

[Dude Abides]

We have a fair amount of other sources of evidence that Thucydides was mostly on the mark. That and he doesn't really make any outlandish claims, anyone that starts out by denouncing the mythological reasons for war is OK in my book.

Right. But Thucydides' account is still evidence, and would be so even without corroboration.

 

[creationtheory]

That's like saying that Thucydides is not evidence that the Pelopponesian war occurred.

It's like saying The Lord of the Rings is not evidence that the War of the Ring occurred.

 

[Leucrota]

Is the Harry Potter book series evidence that the events described therein happened?

How about Homer's Odyssey?

Ridiculous. The author of HP claims the book as fiction.

About Homer's work, I don't know the content, or the author's intention.

There are documents which mention Jesus. One was written by a man named Paul. There are secular sources which mention Xtians in the 2 century CE and how they followed a man named Jesus. Thus, we can look at parts of the New Testament, which mention a prophet named Jesus and see what it says. We can then see what is believable (i.e. that a man named Jesus existed, prophesized, and was later executed) and what would be too much to swallow (i.e. unlimited wine at wedding, bringing dead back to life) and then we can use our evaluation of these documents to come to a conclusion: Some guy named Jesus existed, but that is about all we know until more corraborating evidence is found.

To say the Bible can be dismissed out of hand and Jesus that did not exis because of the miracles mentioned and such is completely infantile. 1 Maccabees is obvious somewhat historical as are other books in the Bible. Although the book is not divinely inspired, it is not completely fiction either.

 

[Mario]

To say the Bible can be dismissed out of hand and Jesus that did not exis because of the miracles mentioned and such is completely infantile.

I never made such claims.

 

[creationtheory]

Ridiculous. The author of HP claims the book as fiction.

That (and the age of the work) is the only difference.

 

[CornBurrito]

Is the Harry Potter book series evidence that the events described therein happened?

How about Homer's Odyssey?

According to Ryan, yes. In an attempt to legitimize his position he has legitimized any and all positions.

That (and the age of the work) is the only difference.

Also there's evidence that she lied about the book being fiction.

1. Humans lie

2. She is human

3. Therefore she can lie

And in her supposed work of "fiction" we see what happens to wizards who threaten to violate the masquerade.

Of course this is terrible evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

 

[KtSlime]

Not to veer too much off topic, but how does one not know the contents of The Odyssey, is it not required reading? There seems to be more and more people who have no clue about Greek stories and myth, has education really gotten this bad?

/minirant

 

[CornBurrito]

Not to veer too much off topic, but how does one not know the contents of The Odyssey, is it not required reading? There seems to be more and more people who have no clue about Greek stories and myth, has education really gotten this bad?

/minirant

I think my class covered maybe a couple paragraphs from it. Is it the one where the dude goes on a quest, and his wife waits for him, and then later finds out that his wife and him are related by blood? Or is that some other story?

 

[KtSlime]

I think my class covered maybe a couple paragraphs from it. Is it the one where the dude goes on a quest, and his wife waits for him, and then later finds out that his wife and him are related by blood? Or is that some other story?

You got to be pulling my tail... If so, good work, but if not, you seem to be merging the story of The Odyssey with possibly Oedipus Rex (or any number of dramas).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey

 

[Leucrota]

Oh dog, this thread makes me not want to self-identify as an atheist.

 

[CornBurrito]

You got to be pulling my tail... If so, good work, but if not, you seem to be merging the story of The Odyssey with possibly Oedipus Rex (or any number of dramas).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey

Sadly I am not pulling your leg.

 

[Leucrota]

Not to veer too much off topic, but how does one not know the contents of The Odyssey, is it not required reading? There seems to be more and more people who have no clue about Greek stories and myth, has education really gotten this bad?

/minirant

I spend most of my time reading astrophysics journal articles, philosophy of science articles, and doing homework.

Ya, sorry I forget reading a couple of paragraphs of Homer's work. It is unlikely to have interested me.