RE: Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God
March 17, 2017 at 12:10 pm
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2017 at 12:32 pm by SteveII.)
(March 17, 2017 at 11:10 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:(March 17, 2017 at 10:27 am)SteveII Wrote: Your problem is with word definitions.
Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth or existence of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. They are NOT synonyms.
Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence.
So, to say that my list is not evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine, I don't care what your opinion is.
But none of it is testable, supportive evidence for your god or the veracity of the bible.[1] The NT may be evidence of people writing a book,[2] but is not testable, supporting evidence that what is says is fact [3]. It's the same for every other piece of "evidence" that has been claimed by believers. [4] And why is evidence so important to you anyway? I thought faith was enough. [5]
1. Testable? Since when is analysis of historical evidence ever been testable? That is something made up by atheists just for this particular topic and its called special pleading.
2. Regarding your comment "writing a book" -- are you not aware we are talking about 27 different documents--plus the additional evidence that comes to light from the books/letters themselves (that I outlined a couple of posts back)?
3. The evidence I presented are facts (or tell me which one's you don't think are true) --that's what makes them evidence.
4. The evidence is overwhelming that contemporaneous people believed the events cataloged and discussed at length in the NT. What other category of evidence could there be?
5. That glib comment just illustrates that you don't know much about what it is you criticize.
Of course, your position might be that everything about the NT was made up as part of a conspiracy so none of it is evidence of anything. Is that your position? If so, can you lay out your arguments for that conclusion?
(March 17, 2017 at 11:10 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: You don't seem to be very good at discerning what people really mean, Steve. Maybe you should refrain from telling them what they mean and ask for clarification instead.
The claim is that the miraculous events described in the NT really happened. An example of evidence of that claim would be if the pagan Romans noted the sky darkening from noon to three the day they crucified that Jewish rabble-rouser, or resurrected Jews wandering around Jerusalem appearing to many people. It wouldn't be great evidence, but it would be actual evidence.
If I misunderstand him, he should use more words to convey his meaning. However, I don't think I have. He said over and over that the NT is not and does not contain evidence. That is obviously false.
You are talking about additional corroborating evidence. That would be nice, but little has survived. That would strengthen the proof (the conclusion), but does not affect the evidence we do have.
(March 17, 2017 at 2:11 am)Stimbo Wrote:(March 16, 2017 at 6:56 pm)SteveII Wrote: No, the claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God. Evidence for this claim is that people wrote about it.
And the evidence that Santa flies around the world in one night every year on a magic sleigh pulled by magic flying reindeer is the millions of letters written to him by children over the centuries.
I could have written the second sentence better:
Evidence for this claim are the people and events surrounding the life of Jesus that the authors wrote about.
