(September 15, 2015 at 7:36 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

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

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.

Well my side has evidence in reality science and history you have bronze age myth and wishful thinking i.e. "faith" and faith itself is useless virtue all it is in reality
wanting something so bad to be real or wanting to get something so bad without taking any action and that is the same for prayer. You can pray your sickness away chances are 
it wont work where as getting your ass up and to a doctor that works.

(September 15, 2015 at 7:39 pm)Jenny A 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.

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.

Jenny-

First, you are flat dead wrong about the eyewitness accounts contained in the gospels. I have other threads which have demonstrated the evidence, and your constant harping to the contrary doesn't change the fact one bit. I'm not sure why you cling so DESPERATELY to this false notion...well, actually, I have a pretty good idea. Because if the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, it changes everything for you, doesn't it?

Second, I have looked at this a fair bit, and although I'm not an attorney, I suspect that J. Warner Wallace, a detective who has a flawless record in convicting solving cold case murders in California, has some understanding of how evidence is accepted in a court of law. I have quoted Wallace who in turn has quoted California's instructions given to jurors. Wallace WAS an atheist, but not today. Think about why.

In the meantime, I'm going with his definitions and explanations. Thanks.

The other day, I came across an idea of how circumstantial evidence can be used concerning the bible...
It seems Mark is the gospel that was first written.
And it seems that the first versions of this gospel missed a part at the end... the resurrection part. It ends with women finding an empty tomb and telling no one. (if they told no one, how could Mark know about it to write it?)
There are, at least, 3 surviving manuscripts with this version of Mark, all dating from the first 3 centuries CE.

Then, something happens. Mark's gospel gets an addition in tandem with the stories in the remaining gospels... curious that...
It's almost as if Mark didn't know anything about that resurrection...
If he didn't know, then how come the other, later, guys did?
I mean, Mark did know quite a bit about J.C.'s life... what happened to his sources concerning J.C.'s post-life?

This circumstantial evidence suggests, to me, that all the other gospel writers... lied (perhaps not on purpose, they may have just continued a story that was already floating by).

(September 15, 2015 at 8:07 pm)pocaracas Wrote: The other day, I came across an idea of how circumstantial evidence can be used concerning the bible...
It seems Mark is the gospel that was first written.
And it seems that the first versions of this gospel missed a part at the end... the resurrection part. It ends with women finding an empty tomb and telling no one. (if they told no one, how could Mark know about it to write it?)
There are, at least, 3 surviving manuscripts with this version of Mark, all dating from the first 3 centuries CE.

Then, something happens. Mark's gospel gets an addition in tandem with the stories in the remaining gospels... curious that...
It's almost as if Mark didn't know anything about that resurrection...
If he didn't know, then how come the other, later, guys did?
I mean, Mark did know quite a bit about J.C.'s life... what happened to his sources concerning J.C.'s post-life?

This circumstantial evidence suggests, to me, that all the other gospel writers... lied (perhaps not on purpose, they may have just continued a story that was already floating by).

It's highly doubtful if there is one intact manuscript from the first three centuries, let alone three about the same topic.

Oh ye of little faith
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus

You know, I really would like to take Randy's arguments at face value and assess his sources; but I find all the arrogant posturing extremely offputting. I find myself thinking he's trying to misdirect me.

(September 15, 2015 at 7:44 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(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.

Would a professional historian (theist or skeptic) relegate the four gospels to the dustbin of mere hearsay? Apparently not by all accounts.

Quote:

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.

Thank you. This is a rare thing here at AF where "refutation" consists primarily in using foul language and obscene memes instead of reasoned arguments that carry real weight. I had always heard that atheists think of themselves as the "brights" and those of us who actually think there is something to be said for the existence of an uncaused cause to be as the shallow end of the gene pool...but that's not really so obvious here, is it?

Present company excepted, of course.

Quote: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.

If you read the article carefully, you noted that Wallace does give a word of caution concerning the gospels as direct evidence, no?

Quote: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.

I agree with you...and so does Wallace. I have read his book twice...taken notes, underlined, posted portions here and elsewhere...in short, I think I know what he's say reasonable well, and he goes to GREAT lengths to argue for early dating, authorship, internal corroboration, external corroboration (archaeological and otherwise), enemy attestation, the criterion of embarrassment...the whole shootin' match. I think it's fair to say that he pieces together a very compelling case for the core message of Christianity based upon an embarrassment of circumstantial riches.

However, the one article quoted from his website could not possibly do justice to all of that and it may have given you the impression that he's attempting to skip over a few steps in the process. It would be wrong to judge the corpus of his work on one such article.

Quote: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...

I have posted the essence of his arguments for traditional authorship and early dating the the Reliability of the New Testament Thread. He's following (I think) Habermas and Strobel and others who see a clear path to early Markan authorship. While I am aware that Catholic scholars have tended to be more conservative regarding the dates, I think the reasoning advanced by these scholars and outlined in my thread is compelling.

Quote: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?

"Fully establish?"

No, Mike, I don't. If that surprises you, it shouldn't. What I do think is that circumstantial evidence points to the probability that the gospel is more likely to be true than not - healing the blind, walking on water, and all. The Shroud, NDE's, the bones under St. Peter's, the fact that the Catholic Church even exists at all, the prophecies concerning the Messiah from the OT, the Cosmological or Teleological arguments for God's existence...all this and more can only take us so far. These things clear away the intellectual objections, but they don't coerce us.

In the end, we still have to face our emotional objections - the hurts we may have endured from Christians who bore poor witness to the love of God, for example - and we have to choose. We have to DECIDE that we will say, "Yes" to God. In doing so, we begin to experience God personally, and this carries us the rest of the way home.

Quote: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?

You have said it. "Sufficient" is the key word, and yes, I do think that the evidence we have is sufficient to bring a reasonably objective person who examines these things without presuppositions to the point of being able to say "yes" to God's grace.

And it IS by grace alone that we reach this point of decision. In the end, faith itself is a gift from God which we must desire in order to receive.

(September 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

---

(September 15, 2015 at 7:39 pm)Jenny A Wrote: 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.

---

Jenny-

First, you are flat dead wrong about the eyewitness accounts contained in the gospels. I have other threads which have demonstrated the evidence, and your constant harping to the contrary doesn't change the fact one bit. I'm not sure why you cling so DESPERATELY to this false notion...well, actually, I have a pretty good idea. Because if the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, it changes everything for you, doesn't it?

You have tons of posts in which you attempted to show that the gospels are eyewitness testimony.  They are not the least convincing.

But, even if they were eye witness testimony, it wouldn't change things much.  Eye witness testimony about miracles from an age in which people readily accepted miracles wouldn't mean much.

(September 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Second, I have looked at this a fair bit, and although I'm not an attorney, I suspect that J. Warner Wallace, a detective who has a flawless record in convicting solving cold case murders in California, has some understanding of how evidence is accepted in a court of law. I have quoted Wallace who in turn has quoted California's instructions given to jurors. Wallace WAS an atheist, but not today. Think about why.

In the meantime, I'm going with his definitions and explanations. Thanks.

I don't know what being an attorney, or a detective has to do with the definition of direct and indirect evidence as it is also philosophical and scientific concept, but I do have a number of sources legal sources for my definition:

Circumstantial evidence is:

Quote:Evidence directed to the attending circumstances; evidence which inferentially proves the principal fact by establishing a condition of surrounding and limiting circumstances, whose existence is a premise from which the existence of the principal fact may be concluded by necessary laws of reasoning. State v. Avery, 113 Mo. 475, 21 S. W. 193; Howard v. State, 34 Ark. 433; State v. Evans, 1 Marvel (Del.) 477, 41 Atl. 136; Comm. v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 319, 52 Am. Dec. 711; Gardner v. Preston, 2 Day (Conn.) 205. 2 Am. Dec. 91; State v. Miller, 9 Houst. (Del.) 564, 32 Atl. 137. When the existence of any fact is attested by witnesses, as having come under the cognizance of their senses, or is stated in documents, the genuineness and veracity of which there seems no reason to question, the evidence of that fact is said to be direct or positive. When, on the contrary, the existence of the principal fact is only inferred from one or more circumstances which have been established directly, the evidence is said to be circumstantial. And when the existence of the principal fact does not follow from the evidentiary facts as a necessary consequence of the law of nature, but is deduced from them by a process of probable reasoning, the evidence and proof are said to be presumptive. Best, Pres. 240; Id. 12. All presumptive evidence is circumstantial, because necessarily derived from or made up of circumstances, but all circumstantial evidence is not presumptive, that is, it does not operate in the way of presumption, being sometimes of a higher grade, and lending to necessary conclusions, instead of probable ones. Burrill. CIRCUMSTANTIBUS, TALES DE.

http://thelawdictionary.org/circumstantial-evidence/

Quote:Direct evidence can prove a fact by itself. For example, if a witness testifies she saw a jet plane flying across the sky, that testimony is direct evidence that a plane flew across the sky. Some evidence proves a fact indirectly. For example, a witness testifies that he saw only the white trail that jet planes often leave. This indirect evidence is sometimes referred to as “circumstantial evidence.” In either instance, the witness’s testimony is evidence that a jet plane flew across the sky.

https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation...0/202.html

Quote:There are two types of evidence that can be used during court proceedings: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. While one or the other type of evidence is useful, having both types of evidence will solidify the prosecution’s case.

Direct evidence differs from circumstantial evidence because it expressly shows that something is a fact. Some examples of direct evidence are: testimony from a reliable witness, audio and videotapes, and physical evidence of the crime. With direct evidence, the jury does not have to infer whether the defendant is guilty or not and, in some criminal cases, the evidence is sufficient in proving guilt or innocence.

Circumstantial evidence is used during a trial to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. This indirect evidence is the result of combining different, but seemingly unrelated, facts that the prosecution uses to infer the defendants guilt.

http://www.probablecause.org/circumstant...dence.html

Notice that depending on the principle fact (i.e. the fact to be proven) the testimony can be either direct or indirect evidence.  So testimony by a witness that they found the tomb empty would be direct evidence that it was empty but only circumstantial evidence about what happened to the body.

LOL @ Randy accusing Jenny of "constant harping".

One way I try and get people to reflect upon the standard of evidence they are using is to pose this question:

If you were on trial for murder, and the prosecution presented evidence like this against you, would you accept being found guilty as reasonable (whether or not you did the crime)?