(June 27, 2018 at 10:20 am)Simon Moon Wrote:

(June 27, 2018 at 9:11 am)SteveII Wrote: Your last paragraph is nothing but assertions (defined as a claim without evidence). You can't possibly know what other people experience or don't experience.

The plural of "anecdote" does not become evidence.

Well, um...there is an actual phrase reserved for that very thing: Anecdotal evidence. 

Quote:And again, how much special pleading can you possibly be guilty of?

You would never accept, as being evidence, Hindus or Muslims reporting experiences that they claim are their god. Nor would you accept the claims of other religious texts, the amount of time other religions have existed, or any other of the same sorts of evidence you offer for the truth of your religion.

I rely on a cumulative case for Christianity. I have 1000s of data points that those other religions don't have. No special pleading if I have reasons.

(June 27, 2018 at 12:21 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 27, 2018 at 10:20 am)Simon Moon Wrote: The plural of "anecdote" does not become evidence.

Well, um...there is an actual phrase reserved for that very thing: Anecdotal evidence. 

You are correct.

I should have stated "good" evidence.

After all, there are 1000's of anecdotal reports of alien abductions. I am sure both of us are unimpressed.

Quote:And again, how much special pleading can you possibly be guilty of?

You would never accept, as being evidence, Hindus or Muslims reporting experiences that they claim are their god. Nor would you accept the claims of other religious texts, the amount of time other religions have existed, or any other of the same sorts of evidence you offer for the truth of your religion.

Quote:I rely on a cumulative case for Christianity. I have 1000s of data points that those other religions don't have. No special pleading if I have reasons.

An accumulation of flawed 'data points', does not equal a good case.

Especially when supernatural claims are involved.

an·ec·do·tal

adjective: anecdotal

(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

(June 27, 2018 at 12:32 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: an·ec·do·tal

adjective: anecdotal

(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

Every thesaurus has the following words as synonyms for anecdotal:

unreliable, untrustworthy, based on rumour, unscientific

So, I stand by my previous statement.

No matter how many unreliable, untrustworthy, based on rumour and/or unscientific accounts there are, the results are not good evidence.

(June 27, 2018 at 10:26 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 4:54 pm)SteveII Wrote: And my point is that atheists do make claims and hold beliefs about that evidence. Perhaps different claims, but the simple non-belief thing is nonsense.

The claims of agnostic atheists don't include 'there is no God'. We don't claim to make no claims about anything. The only claim inherent to atheism is the definition: that it's the state of not believing in any deities. The only claim inherent to identifying as an atheist is that the definition of atheism applies to their mental state concerning deities. Of course we have opinions on the soundness of the evidence presented, who says we don't? Your 'point' seems like a non sequitur to me.

I think you are right about the definition, but that is not my point. I am claiming that when an atheist says something akin to: "You are wrong but I don't have to say why because I make no claims..." they are completely wrong. They are making both implicit and explicit claims to knowledge the moment they say the evidence is insufficient (or worse, there is no evidence).  I have no problems with atheists who don't tell me I'm wrong -- they don't have a burden of proof. But I am not sure there are any here.

---

(June 27, 2018 at 12:43 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(June 27, 2018 at 12:32 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: an·ec·do·tal

adjective: anecdotal

(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

Every thesaurus has the following words as synonyms for anecdotal:

unreliable, untrustworthy, based on rumour, unscientific

So, I stand by my previous statement.

No matter how many unreliable, untrustworthy, based on rumour and/or unscientific accounts there are, the results are not good evidence.

I am not saying that anecdotal evidence is the best evidence. But (1) that it is evidence and (2) it carries weight in proportion to the amount available.

(June 27, 2018 at 1:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: I think you are right about the definition, but that is not my point. I am claiming that when an atheist says something akin to: "You are wrong but I don't have to say why because I make no claims..." they are completely wrong. They are making both implicit and explicit claims to knowledge the moment they say the evidence is insufficient (or worse, there is no evidence).  I have no problems with atheists who don't tell me I'm wrong -- they don't have a burden of proof. But I am not sure there are any here.

I do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that you are wrong. My position is that I have no reason to believe you are right.

Although, my belief you are wrong is extremely strong, and based on good evidence. Much better evidence than you have to support your position.

Quote:I am not saying that anecdotal evidence is the best evidence. But (1) that it is evidence and (2) it carries weight in proportion to the amount available.

So, 1.1 billion Hindus' anecdotal evidence, and 1.5 billion Muslims' anecdotal evidence carries weight with you? If Islam becomes the largest religion, will their anecdotal evidence become stronger than Christian anecdotal evidence?

Sorry, but your ad populum fallacy is laughable.

(June 27, 2018 at 9:08 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: If you’re going to accept large numbers of testimony as sufficient evidence for supernatural claims, you had better be consistent across the board.  What about the Mandela effect?  Surely there is enough personal testimony out there to reach the reasonable conclusion that the phenomenon is caused by parallel universes slipping in and out of each other, rather than a simple misfiring of the brain’s memory system, yeah?

No theists care to address this?  Interesting.

(June 27, 2018 at 11:37 am)SteveII Wrote: The NT is entirely filled with the reasons why they believe the way they do. Every one of the 1000+ events chronicled "have a bearing on the truth of that idea." There, you just supported that the NT is evidence as to the question: is there a God.

---

(June 27, 2018 at 9:20 am)polymath257 Wrote: No, I am not saying it is insufficient. I'm saying it doesn't shift the probabilities of the idea being true or not.

As for the last sentence, that is *precisely* why it isn't evidence: knowing their claim of an experience doesn't change the probability the claim is true.

Are you saying that if a million people report a changed life, a new outlook, a feeling of the presence of God, and a sense of leading of the Holy Spirit is the same as absolutely no one reporting those things? It seems like you need that to be true to make your point. 

If that is your point, then let's change it a little. What if a million people saw an event (say an elephant walked into town and walked out the other side and disappeared never to be seen again). No video, just people and their eyeballs. Is the reporting of what those people saw "change the probability" that that event actually happened? 

One more change. Same scenario but they all saw a man appear out of thin air, say a blessing on everyone, and disappear the same way. Does that "change the probability" that that event actually happened?

No, there are NOT 1000+ chronicled events. There are *at most* a handful.

Yes, I am saying that if a million people reported having a changed life, etc, that it would have NO bearing on the question of whether a deity exists. All that shows is that people have beliefs that change their lives. But that is well supported in other ways. That has no actual bearing on whether those beliefs are *true* since false beliefs can and do change people's lives also.

In the cases of the elephant and the man appearing out of nowhere, it would be *slight* evidence, but would then be discounted by the known laws of physics. It is more likely in the second case especially that it was a mass hallucination. In the first case, it *could* be that a local zoo had an elephant escape. So the case of the elephant would be a slight increase in the probability of the occurrence and in the case of the nowhere man, of no value as evidence one way or the other.

---

(June 27, 2018 at 1:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: I am not saying that anecdotal evidence is the best evidence. But (1) that it is evidence and (2) it carries weight in proportion to the amount available.

It is evidence, but slight evidence. And no, it does NOT carry weight in proportion to the amount available. A lot of poor evidence does not mean there is good evidence.

(June 27, 2018 at 2:18 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(June 27, 2018 at 9:08 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: If you’re going to accept large numbers of testimony as sufficient evidence for supernatural claims, you had better be consistent across the board.  What about the Mandela effect?  Surely there is enough personal testimony out there to reach the reasonable conclusion that the phenomenon is caused by parallel universes slipping in and out of each other, rather than a simple misfiring of the brain’s memory system, yeah?

No theists care to address this?  Interesting.

Who said anything about "sufficient evidence"? Christianity is and has always been supported by a cumulative case with a wide variety of types of evidences. Your Mandela effect theory lacks any other evidence of any type. The theory is so ad hoc as to not even have a starting place for examination.

(June 27, 2018 at 2:47 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 27, 2018 at 2:18 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: No theists care to address this?  Interesting.

Who said anything about "sufficient evidence"? Christianity is and has always been supported by a cumulative case with a wide variety of types of evidences. Your Mandela effect theory lacks any other evidence of any type. The theory is so ad hoc as to not even have a starting place for examination.

What else does Christianity have besides testimony, Steve?