(August 28, 2015 at 7:33 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Then why is it that no scholars (atheist or theist) take them seriously? Ehrman points out that only Richard Carrier has any REAL credentials, and yet, Ehrman still thinks Carrier is a loon.

Say, what you want about me. The problem is them.

First, Carrier is not the point.

The point is that you haven't spent years at university learning the methodology to evaluate written sources from different periods of time. You don't know the different genres, as has been proven by missing the mark on my question and you don't know how to extract useful information from a totally biased text.

(August 28, 2015 at 7:28 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: No, that would only mean that people have speculated about Jesus' genealogy. Joseph had a biological father (who died young) and a legal father who married Joseph's mother according the Levitical law.

You're making this up. Nothing hints at that at all.

Quote:The point is that you haven't spent years at university learning the methodology to evaluate written sources from different periods of time.

True.  What he did is listen to a fucking shithead like Habermas and decide that he knows everything.  The xtian asshole is a well known psychological type.

(September 4, 2015 at 3:28 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:The point is that you haven't spent years at university learning the methodology to evaluate written sources from different periods of time.

True.  What he did is listen to a fucking shithead like Habermas and decide that he knows everything.  The xtian asshole is a well known psychological type.

Pretty much that guy and theses types of people. But let the video speak for itself. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg

Wait, guys! I finally found it!

Some solid evidence for Jesus! Now where was it...

Ah shit, I shredded it. I got it mixed up with my junk mail. Oh well, I've told you that there was evidence, so that should be enough. It was an eye witness account of a guy who heard someone talking about some other evidence, which was really good apparently. Why would he lie about something like that?

This thread serves as a repository for my thoughts on the evidence for God's existence and for Christianity as well as for discussion of this topic. The following addition is relevant to the overall understanding of the nature and role of evidence:


There are only two categories of evidence, and Christians use both types of evidence when making a case for Christianity:

Category One: Direct Evidence

Eyewitness testimony. We must recognize that cross-examination of historical witnesses is not commonly possible.

Category Two: Indirect (Circumstantial) Evidence

Everything else. This includes:

• the internal evidence of language, pronoun use, and frequency of names relative to the population at large
  
• the internal descriptions of geography, culture and politics
  
• the evidence of archaeology
  
• the early reluctant parallel descriptions offered by non-Christians and Jewish believers
  
• the early dating of the Gospels established indirectly
  
• the transmission of the Gospels found in the writings of the early Church Fathers
  

Source.

(September 15, 2015 at 4:35 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: This thread serves as a repository for my thoughts on the evidence for God's existence and for Christianity as well as for discussion of this topic. The following addition is relevant to the overall understanding of the nature and role of evidence:


There are only two categories of evidence, and Christians use both types of evidence when making a case for Christianity:

Category One: Direct Evidence

Eyewitness testimony. We must recognize that cross-examination of historical witnesses is not commonly possible.

Category Two: Indirect (Circumstantial) Evidence

Everything else. This includes:

• the internal evidence of language, pronoun use, and frequency of names relative to the population at large
  
• the internal descriptions of geography, culture and politics
  
• the evidence of archaeology
  
• the early reluctant parallel descriptions offered by non-Christians and Jewish believers
  
• the early dating of the Gospels established indirectly
  
• the transmission of the Gospels found in the writings of the early Church Fathers
  

Source.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81RxaPUuKy8

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

As far s your source go they are making shit up so yeah... so they are lying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pauwBE1Rxfw

christianity and religion in general the worlds greatest lie sold to morons who had extra pocket change.

(September 15, 2015 at 7:04 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(September 15, 2015 at 4:35 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: This thread serves as a repository for my thoughts on the evidence for God's existence and for Christianity as well as for discussion of this topic. The following addition is relevant to the overall understanding of the nature and role of evidence:


There are only two categories of evidence, and Christians use both types of evidence when making a case for Christianity:

Category One: Direct Evidence

Eyewitness testimony. We must recognize that cross-examination of historical witnesses is not commonly possible.

Category Two: Indirect (Circumstantial) Evidence

Everything else. This includes:

• the internal evidence of language, pronoun use, and frequency of names relative to the population at large
  
• the internal descriptions of geography, culture and politics
  
• the evidence of archaeology
  
• the early reluctant parallel descriptions offered by non-Christians and Jewish believers
  
• the early dating of the Gospels established indirectly
  
• the transmission of the Gospels found in the writings of the early Church Fathers
  

Source.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

As far s your source go they are making shit up so yeah... so they are lying.

christianity and religion in general the worlds greatest lie sold to morons who had extra pocket change.

You make a strong, compelling case for atheism, dyresand. Impressive. Truly.

(September 15, 2015 at 4:35 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: This thread serves as a repository for my thoughts on the evidence for God's existence and for Christianity as well as for discussion of this topic. The following addition is relevant to the overall understanding of the nature and role of evidence:


There are only two categories of evidence, and Christians use both types of evidence when making a case for Christianity:

Category One: Direct Evidence

Eyewitness testimony. We must recognize that cross-examination of historical witnesses is not commonly possible.

Category Two: Indirect (Circumstantial) Evidence

Everything else. This includes:

• the internal evidence of language, pronoun use, and frequency of names relative to the population at large
  
• the internal descriptions of geography, culture and politics
  
• the evidence of archaeology
  
• the early reluctant parallel descriptions offered by non-Christians and Jewish believers
  
• the early dating of the Gospels established indirectly
  
• the transmission of the Gospels found in the writings of the early Church Fathers
  

Source.

I think you need to look up the difference between direct and circumstantial (otherwise know as indirect evidence).  Direct evidence is merely evidence that does not require further information or inferences to be probative.  Indirect evidence does.  Eyewitness testimony can be either.  I say I saw you come out of a hotel, that's direct evidence that you did, and indirect evidence that you either had a room there or were visiting someone who did.  

I'm not certain why you feel the need to differential between circumstantial and direct evidence because some direct evidence is less probative than indirect evidence and vis-versa.

If a drunken man says he saw a man walking two feet above the ground, it's direct evidence that a man was walking two feet above the ground but not very good direct evidence.   If I say that I was outside at noon and the ground was dry, but when I went out at two the ground was covered in snow, that's indirect evidence that it snowed between noon and two.  The snow itself is direct evidence that it snowed at some time.

That said, Christians don't have ANY eyewitness testimony,  unless you count Paul's statements in his letters.   The Gospels and Acts are not written in the first person and there is nothing about them that suggests that the are written by eyewitnesses.  

Finally, even as a collective all Christian evidence is laughably short of what is need to make the divinity, miracles, or resurrection of Jesus more likely than not.  Six eyewitnesses modern accounts would be insufficient.  So why bother trying to prove the unprovable?

If there were a god and he had any interest in proving his existence, he could do it.

(September 15, 2015 at 4:35 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: There are only two categories of evidence, and Christians use both types of evidence when making a case for Christianity:

But they don't, really? They use category two and then, as your source neatly shows, then attempt to special plead the bible into the first category when it's little more than hearsay.

Quote:Category One: Direct Evidence

Eyewitness testimony. We must recognize that cross-examination of historical witnesses is not commonly possible.

So I took a look at your source. Wallace asserts that the gospels count as eyewitness testimony, despite fitting all the criteria of hearsay, and to support this he links to another article of his that is, at best, self serving in its omissions. I mean, for starters it's pretty interesting that a guy so intent on using his a forensic approach on the case for christianity as Wallace is would so easily dismiss the efficacy of that same approach when its application wouldn't lead one to accept the gospels as evidence, but even if we take his demand that we use a different standard for the gospels while still considering them eyewitness testimony, he's still in the wrong.

Wallace's second standard, the one for establishing the truth of historical accounts, is flat out incorrect, and presents a ridiculous dichotomy to get there. He claims that "history is established on the written testimony of eyewitnesses," and that's not entirely true; in actuality, the probability of historical events being true are established by research into the provenance of the testimony and additional investigation of its claims. That's why we have fields like archaeology and so on, so that we don't have to rely on the say-so of testimony, and in many cases, so we can discount testimony when the balance of evidence shows otherwise. Wallace says that we can't reject every claim about the past that cannot be supported by living testimony, either unaware or ignoring the fact that this isn't what we're asking when we say that the gospels are hearsay. Thus far I've ignored the obvious issue (and Wallace seems happy to do likewise) that the authorship of the gospels is a contentious issue with no clear answer, making the claim that they are written accounts by eyewitnesses dubious to begin with. But given that Wallace constructs a strawman of his opposition to begin with, well...

Quote:Category Two: Indirect (Circumstantial) Evidence

Everything else. This includes:

• the internal evidence of language, pronoun use, and frequency of names relative to the population at large
  
• the internal descriptions of geography, culture and politics
  
• the evidence of archaeology
  
• the early reluctant parallel descriptions offered by non-Christians and Jewish believers
  
• the early dating of the Gospels established indirectly
  
• the transmission of the Gospels found in the writings of the early Church Fathers
  

Source.

So, I have a question: Keeping in mind that I disagree with Wallace's views on hearsay and historical texts, do you really think that circumstantial evidence is enough to fully establish the biblical claims? Including the supernatural stuff, for which none of what you list would directly point?

More broadly, do you think that the sort of evidence we would accept for ordinary claims is sufficient to justify extraordinary ones, that again, we haven't even established are possible?