'Jesus Never Existed'- The book

[Minimalist]

You saying so does not make it so.

The proper way to say it is that "absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence." The fact that there is no evidence of a major imperial city in Jerusalem during the 10th century is absolutely evidence that such a city did not exist at that time.

If I assert that Martians landed in Las Vegas and built a combo taco stand and whorehouse my inability to produce any evidence is certainly evidence that no such thing happened.

Always in archaeology the next shovel in the ground can overturn the existing theory but that is not absence of evidence. It is finding new evidence.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

The proper way to say it is that "absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence."

No,it is not. It is indeed 'evidence'

Perhaps we are using the term 'evidence' in different ways?

This is what I mean:

From Wiki:

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

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


I think we agree in essence,and are arguing over semantics, IE to make the positive claim that gods do not exist because there is no evidence is a logical fallacy. I assert only "I do not believe due to lack of evidence" Implicit in my assertion is "I will believe if I see evidence'

[Minimalist]

Let me give the example I run into most frequently. (Again, this is more archaeological as opposed to historical where the idea is called the "Argument from Silence.")

Xtians insist that Jerusalem was the capital of a great empire under "David" and "Solomon" in the 10th century BC. 150 years of digging have failed to turn up any "evidence" of a major city in that time period. In fact, what has been uncovered is a miserable little shithole of a village. Moreover, surveys have shown that the entire region of Judah in the 10th-8th centuries BC was an underpopulated region of herders with a few scattered hamlets. When confronted with "evidence" of the "absence" of their precious Davidic empire xtians almost always reply with that mantra by which they mean "keep digging and you'll find it."

Archaeologists are down to bedrock in places in Jerusalem. They have found flint tools from neolithic inhabitants as well as Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, Iron Age and so on up to the present. What has not been found is any indication of a major city during the Iron Age which could be attributed to "David" or anyone else. Thus, the "absence of evidence" for such a city IS evidence of the absence of that city. It is not "proof" because someone could find something in the future but right now the idea of a major 10th century civilization in that spot lacks support outside of fundie circles and those twits will believe anything thats fits their fairy tale belief system.

Were I to assert that the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was founded by Europeans in 1500 and then organize an archaeological excavation to dig down to 1500 levels which found no evidence of Europeans in the area it could safely be assumed that I was full of shit. The absence of evidence for European settlement on the site at that time would be "evidence of absence."

[Happy UnBeliever]

P.S. - That chestnut is wrong.

You saying so does not make it so.

The assertion is a chestnut (cliche) precisely because it IS true. It is an accepted part of formal logic. The fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence is called 'argument from ignorance'.

Of course you may invent new rules of logic if you wish,but don't be surprised if they are not universally accepted.



It may be said; There is no evidence that Jesus existed, and that therefore I do not believe that he existed. However,to argue there is no evidence Jesus existed therefore he did not exist, is a logical fallacy.

I also consider the argument a red herring, as I make a clear distinction between a possibly historical Jesus and the mythical figure of the New Testament.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Wiki:

The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:

* Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen (often opposite) hypothesis is therefore considered likely or proven.
* Something is currently unexplained, or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) considered true, and the opposite position is considered likely.

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

And exactly what is the distinction between the historical and mythical figure?