Evidence

[cuchulain]

On 12/14/2019 at 2:06 PM, Dan56 said:

 

My comment wasn't specific to you.. I'm aware that your agnostic and are in a constant state of "I don't know"..  I was just amused that an atheist who completely disbelieves in the existence of God, will simultaneously entertain the idea that life exist on other planets, despite the absence of objective evidence to prove either is true.. It goes to show that people choose to personally believe whatever seems likely, plausible, or rational to them. Whereas, one persons belief is mocked as a far fetched myth, while the perception of their own unproven belief is portrayed as a unique possibility.

I held the possibility of God existing until I explored the possibility.  I rejected the evidence of your God as unreasonable.  I have not explored the possibility of life on other world's.  I'm apathetic to it. 

You should, in light of the topic, look up the definition of evidence.  A writing doesn't qualify as concrete evidence.  Your allegedly fulfilled prophecy also falls short of the definitions standard.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

What definitive answers does your science provide about the origin of life? Zip! Imo, every hypotheses science has come up with to explain how life originated is more mythological than anything I believe. Not to mention a complete absence of the meaning or purpose of life. Find your answers where you can, but I personally ain't satisfied with scientific explanations. 

 

 

Its not my truth, its biblical truth.. Other ideas aren't facts, and most are backed by less evidence than the bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

On 12/16/2019 at 4:11 AM, cuchulain said:

I held the possibility of God existing until I explored the possibility.  I rejected the evidence of your God as unreasonable.  I have not explored the possibility of life on other world's.  I'm apathetic to it. 

You should, in light of the topic, look up the definition of evidence.  A writing doesn't qualify as concrete evidence.  Your allegedly fulfilled prophecy also falls short of the definitions standard.  

 

I'm aware of an absence of verifiable facts to prove the bible, but there is prophetic evidence. Even that type of evidence must be believed though, if you deny Christ even existed, then of course any prophecy of him is moot. You obviously dismiss all evidence that can't be factually confirmed, but as I've mentioned, any jury would consider the written testimony (affidavit) of a witness as evidence. And imo, when you have several people all swearing to have witnessed the same things as demonstrated by the gospels, then the preponderance of non-contradictory recorded testimonies certainly lend credibility to a truth.. But as you say, its still not concrete evidence, because it still requires belief.

 

If I were on a jury and had the sworn non-conflicting affidavits of a half dozen people who witnessed a murder and identified the killer, I'd convict the defendant, especially if the witnesses had no motivation, purpose,  or reason to be anything but truthful. You on the other hand, would let the killer go because there was no video providing direct evidence of the defendant killing his victim. That's the basic difference between us, we don't weigh evidence the same way.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

16 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

I'm aware of an absence of verifiable facts to prove the bible, but there is prophetic evidence. Even that type of evidence must be believed though, if you deny Christ even existed, then of course any prophecy of him is moot. You obviously dismiss all evidence that can't be factually confirmed, but as I've mentioned, any jury would consider the written testimony (affidavit) of a witness as evidence. And imo, when you have several people all swearing to have witnessed the same things as demonstrated by the gospels, then the preponderance of non-contradictory recorded testimonies certainly lend credibility to a truth.. But as you say, its still not concrete evidence, because it still requires belief.

 

If I were on a jury and had the sworn non-conflicting affidavits of a half dozen people who witnessed a murder and identified the killer, I'd convict the defendant, especially if the witnesses had no motivation, purpose,  or reason to be anything but truthful. You on the other hand, would let the killer go because there was no video providing direct evidence of the defendant killing his victim. That's the basic difference between us, we don't weigh evidence the same way.

 

 

  When evidence requires belief, it's not evidence.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

36 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

  When evidence requires belief, it's not evidence.     

 

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

 

     Anything?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Key]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Dan, you just opened the floodgates with this comment against your stance. You may wish to restate differently.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Key said:

Dan, you just opened the floodgates with this comment against your stance. You may wish to restate differently.

 

 

 

This is nothing new.  Dan thinks that faith is evidence.

 

 

 

[Dan56]

9 hours ago, Key said:

Dan, you just opened the floodgates with this comment against your stance. You may wish to restate differently.

 

There is Factual or objective evidence, but there is also circumstantial evidence, demonstrative evidence, documentary evidence, exculpatory evidence, hearsay evidence, prima facie evidence, statistical evidence, testimonial evidence, physical evidence, direct evidence, character evidence, analogical evidence, etc... I'm not saying that all types of evidence prove anything, but it could all be construed as relative information or fall under the category of subjective evidence.... I didn't know I had a specific stance? And I can't very well ask Wikipedia to restate their opinion!

[cuchulain]

Can we look up scientific evidence now?  It's evidence that doesn't rely on opinion, but fact... never mind.  No point.

[Pete]

20 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

It has to be built up on presented facts. It cannot be just anything.  A book on Hobbits or Vampires does not make evident that either is true or exists. I hold the bible also in that category.  Just because some bronze age person says something does not make it true or that god is real. That is a belief and not evidence. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

There is Factual or objective evidence, but there is also circumstantial evidence, demonstrative evidence, documentary evidence, exculpatory evidence, hearsay evidence, prima facie evidence, statistical evidence, testimonial evidence, physical evidence, direct evidence, character evidence, analogical evidence, etc... I'm not saying that all types of evidence prove anything, but it could all be construed as relative information or fall under the category of subjective evidence.... I didn't know I had a specific stance? And I can't very well ask Wikipedia to restate their opinion!

 

 

Evidence that requires belief.     

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Can we look up scientific evidence now?  It's evidence that doesn't rely on opinion, but fact... never mind.  No point.

 

 

No point at all.  Dan thinks that science is our religion.   

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

It has to be built up on presented facts. It cannot be just anything.  A book on Hobbits or Vampires does not make evident that either is true or exists. I hold the bible also in that category.  Just because some bronze age person says something does not make it true or that god is real. That is a belief and not evidence. 

 

 

Yes.     

 

 

[Dan56]

4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Evidence that requires belief.     

No point at all.  Dan thinks that science is our religion.   

 

 

True, many types of evidence require belief; e.g. If several witnesses all testify to the same exact thing, a jury is likely to believe them and accept their testimony as reliable evidence, even though they could all be lying. 

Science isn't a religion, but you have faith in nothing else, and that's your Achilles heel .

[Pete]

56 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

True, many types of evidence require belief; e.g. If several witnesses all testify to the same exact thing, a jury is likely to believe them and accept their testimony as reliable evidence, even though they could all be lying. 

Science isn't a religion, but you have faith in nothing else, and that's your Achilles heel .

Achilles heal? A court does not prove the truth but given what evidence there is then what is the plausible explanation.  I am sure there are many people in prison who are innocent. 

The bible fails on the plausibility and what there is open to interpretation.  That is why you feel you need to defend myth with more myth. That is your Achilles heal.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

41 minutes ago, Pete said:

Achilles heal? A court does not prove the truth but given what evidence there is then what is the plausible explanation.  I am sure there are many people in prison who are innocent. 

The bible fails on the plausibility and what there is open to interpretation.  That is why you feel you need to defend myth with more myth. That is your Achilles heal.

 

 

This nonsense about Bible evidence is continuing.  Dan is comparing courtroom testimony to Scripture.

 

Maybe if the testimony were from unknown witnesses.  If the alleged witness were giving testimony, to things that happened before their birth.  If the testimony, over centuries, changed with translations.  If fraudulent detail had been mixed in, after the fact.

 

Of course, the witnesses -- long dead and unidentified --would not be available for questioning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pete]

That and there is plausible evidence in reality to back it up. No case would stand on this.

[Pete]

Your Honor, the deed was committed by a being called a God. You can't see them or hear them or see them intervene. You can talk to it but you won't hear a reply. He comes in three parts. One of those parts you testify that he was born of a virgin, killed and rose from the dead. This was a long time ago but you want the jury to accept this as evidence.  Yep! Best of luck with that.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

55 minutes ago, Pete said:

That and there is plausible evidence in reality to back it up. No case would stand on this.

 

 

It's so much worse.  We have modern, eye witness accounts -- from living people -- who have spotted Elvis Presley walking around.  Who insist that they have been abducted by alien space craft.  Who have encountered the Loch Ness Monster.  Who say that they have time traveled from the future.  This is the modern world.  Guess what?  People don't rush to investigate.  Because it's silly.  They know it's silly and they have better things to do, than get lost in rumor mongering.  Two thousand years ago, was it different?