Atheism

[polymath257]

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.

---

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.

---

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.