Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
To the participants in the discussion. The failure of creationism is the most obvious example of a Biblical disproof. Unresolvable contradictions and failed prophecies also qualify.

Detailed discussion of such issues is technically a derailment of this thread, which specifically deals with a LACK of evidence FOR specific Biblical claims where evidence would be expected, and NOT the evidence AGAINST various OTHER Biblical claims.

That's why I created a new thread for the E/C stuff, which you still haven't responded to. We could create ANOTHER offshoot thread for Biblical contradictions and failed prophecies... but would you respond to it?
The Bible doesn't mention the YEAR of the resurrection.

And you are STILL assuming it actually happened! If the resurrection was FICTIONAL (which is what our 2nd century Jewish skeptic is trying to establish), and there are NO accounts which give the year... how is it possible for ANY skeptic to say "I have a witness who was there at that time and can testify that it didn't happen"?
If he was definitely in Tyre in 32 AD, he could still have been crucified in Jerusalem in 33 AD, or 34 AD, or 35 AD...
Again, the most obvious examples are the creationist ones. Many of them still say that evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or that there are "no transitional fossils"...
Throughout the whole of medieval Europe, Christians were the ONLY people around to copy documents, and we KNOW that they were selective about which ones they preserved!

And this goes way back. You've heard of the Council of Nicea and of Nag Hammadi, I hope? Try opening your Bible at the Gospel of Mary Magdalene - you can't, because it's not in there. If this is how they treat their own gospels, why do you imagine they'd faithfully preserve non-Christian refutations?
My offer to debate these in detail still stands.
Most eyewitnesses would have died of old age. Only a few would have been young enough to possibly still be alive, and it's quite likely that those few would have been killed or scattered in the wars. It is POSSIBLE that some might be alive and contactable, but also POSSIBLE (indeed, quite likely) that no survivors could be located by our hypothetical investigating skeptic.
Already answered, many times, by various people here. Maybe you should re-read the thread from the beginning?
...So dragons exist then? Did the soldiers in Iraq find one? Were there photographs?

BTW, Babylon still exists, and has remained inhabited since the prophecy was made.
Nope. The prophecy is quite specific: "In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction."
This never happened, and Caananite is now a dead language.
Tyre was supposed to be completely destroyed: so completely that "though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again". Erased so completely that nobody knows where it WAS.

And yet about 15,000 people live there, apparently. And the island WAS the main city: the part on the mainland was just a suburb. The main city of Tyre did not fall!

Furthermore, Ezekiel was completed AFTER the event, and therefore fails as a prediction:
You have yet to demonstrate any "misinterpretation". And, yes, I have plenty more (for another thread...)
Fallacy: reversal of the burden of proof.

YOU asserted that the gospel writers were "unable to engineer circumstances to fit well known prophecies". Apparently, the basis of YOUR assertion is that the events actually happened.

OK, prove it.

So far, your argument is equivalent to saying that Frodo's quest to destroy the One Ring can't be fiction because the major events (the war against the Orcs, the eruption of Mount Doom, the Fall of Mordor) were too conspicuous to be faked: everyone in Middle-Earth would know about them.
Where does the author say that he WAS a fisherman from Galilee?
Then you should refrain from claiming that you "haven't been given" evidence that the Bible is unreliable.
You tell me, you're the one who made the claim of "misinterpretation".
Another reversal of the burden of proof. YOU asserted that the lack of eyewitness accounts "was untrue". Therefore you have the burden of demonstrating that the gospels were eyewitness accounts.

Our reasons for believing otherwise have been stated. They were anonymous, there is evidence of plagiarism, there is evidence of unfamiliarity with local geography and customs, there are mutual contradictions (which we could go into in more depth, but again this would be a digression) and so forth. Furthermore, I think you'd agree that stories containing magical events are usually fictional (unless you're ready to start worshipping the Greek gods etc) - and there's the lack of confirmation of various noteworthy and conspicuous events by pagan historians.
Why use it as the basis for anything? Why believe it?

"Because I'm a Christian" isn't much of an answer. It's like saying "just because".

mindovermyth

Have not read this thread. Response to title question:

NO.

Supportive arguments:

Is lack of car a form of car? No.

Is lack of blue a form of blue? No.

Is lack of knowledge a form of knowledge? No.

Jack the Bodiless

I have split off a thread for discussion of failed prophecies, contradictions, and other Biblical errors not related either to creationism or lack of evidence.

Biblical Errors split from "Lack of Evidence..." thread

Sven

I suggest you actually read the thread and realize that you are wrong.

Regarding your supportive arguments:
Is lack of color a color? Yes. Take white light and take away blue - you'll get yellow.

Rameus

In my opinion, you are quite incorrect. I will demonstrate with an example.

Eight people are in an empty room together. Each person has a notepad and records the events and conversations that transpired while inside the room. One of the people writes a fictitious account about how one of the other people pulled the pin from a grenade and it exploded in the middle of the room. Luckily, none of them were injured according to his account. After the eight people are allowed to leave the room, a team of historians goes through the various written accounts to determine what occurred.

Assuming that the written accounts are the only source of information that these historians are allowed to analyze, how might they determine if the single account of a grenade exploding in the room was history or fiction? They might argue that the silence of the other seven authors indicates that the one account was probably a fabrication. If we deny them this method (arguing from silence) then how else could they identify the account as being fictitious?

Many historians would agree with you that arguing from silence is not a valid method of inquiry. However they are mistaken, as you are.

Rameus

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii, perhaps we should apply your own criteria to a miracle claim from another religion.
According to Muslim tradition, this refers to an actual miracle of Islam: Mohammed caused the Moon to split into two pieces.

OK, here we go:

1. Could the storyteller arrange for this to happen? No, a storyteller can't split the Moon.

2. Could it be a mass hallucination? No, thousands (maybe millions) of people must have seen it.

3. Were there eyewitnesses? Yes, Mohammed and those with him (plus many others over half the planet...)

4. Do we have eyewitness accounts? Yes, several (apparently there are hadiths too).

4. Are there any contemporary refutations? None are known.

Therefore it must have happened.

Does this mean that you'll be reporting to your local mosque tomorrow?

mindovermyth

Sven quote:
"Regarding your supportive arguments:
Is lack of color a color? Yes. Take white light and take away blue - you'll get yellow."

Correct quote of my supporting evidence: Is lack of blue a form of blue?
Repeat: Is lack of blue a form of blue?

I.e meaning: is the lack X a form of X

You argue, yes, because if you take y and remove x you'll get z.

Is there a joke in here that I missed?
:wave:

mindovermyth

Rameus quote: "Eight people are in an empty room together."

Question: is this physically possible?

I was just contemplating the thread title: Is lack of evidence a form of evidence?

Perhaps a better title would been: Is lack of evidence a form of counter evidence?

In this case I was just playing with linguistics, sorry everyone. :angel:

Killer Mike

There is not one piece of evidence to prove that my great great grandfather existed. No contemporary writings, none wrote about him, no diary, nothing. That of course does not mean he did not exist. I mean does one really believe that Jesus did not exist? There were dozens of people claiming to be messianic prophets around the time Christianity came about. It seems more reasonable to me to think at least one of them would have developed a rather large following of believers that over time evolved into a new religion out of Judaism, then to believe it got started simply because people started telling stories about a man who never existed. :Cheeky:

Sparrow

We can say with certainty that you had a great great grandfather (actually, 8 of them!) even if we are unable to specify anything else about him. If you study genealogy, you'll rapidly discover this somewhere in your ancestral lines.

There are indeed those who believe that Jesus did not exist. One form of evidence which supports this belief is the lack of evidence one would expect to find. According to some accounts, when Jesus was born, many people, including at least three wise men, were drawn to the site of the birth by a star, where they brought the baby Jesus gifts. Personally, I would expect that someone would have written an account of these events. Yet none survives. This lack of evidence (expected evidence) serves as evidence itself at least to the star and wise men part of the story. It’s not conclusive evidence as we can imagine ways or reasons that such evidence might not have survived if it did in fact originally exist. But it is a form of evidence and the reason I answered ‘Yes’ to the OP. Such evidence can be immediately falsified by the discovery of an authentic document describing these events

It is certainly plausible that there was a single individual to whom the Jesus accounts refer. It is also plausible, at least to me, that Jesus was invented to add substantiation to the nascent religion. Given the dating and texts of the documents we have, combined with the fact that for a significant portion of their existence they were under the control of Christians, it is difficult to separate facts from embellishments. We see that current Christians are willing to lie for their cause. I have no reason to think this was not always the case. (And to forestall possible derailment, I am NOT claiming that all Christians always lie, nor that only Christians lie for their cause.)

There are dozens of scenarios that are plausible ranging from the idea that there was no historical Jesus, through the idea that there was an individual divine being as the most rabid fundamentalist might describe. I select from these based on what is consistent with what I know independently as well as the quality and quantity of evidence. I can’t say for certain whether or not Jesus existed. I’m more certain there was no portable star marking his birth. I cannot say for certain whether or not Jesus was a preacher. I am more certain he did not walk on water. I cannot say for certain whether or not Jesus was crucified, much less when, where and by whom for what reason. I’m more certain that he did not come back to life.

For the ordinary claims above (an entirely mortal preacher executed at the height of his popularity) I still don’t see enough evidence to conclusively decide either way. For the more extraordinary claims (messiah identified from birth, various miracles, resurrection) I find them inconsistent with reality as I know it and therefore need substantial additional information to conclude these events happened as described. Of course, your mileage may vary.