bfniii

Now that’s scholarship! Still haven’t found a scholarly refutation to the points I offered? That’s ok. I’m sure you have many more insults like this one. You seem to be an expert on that.

Curious. Unless you’ve interviewed every living scholar on this issue, I don’t think you can quantify the term “mainstream�. Even if you could, being in the minority doesn’t make a person wrong.

I guess getting into the specifics to support your case is expecting too much.

Still not responding to the points I made…

I’m having trouble relating these criticisms to the OP. they are interesting issues, but hardly proof that Christianity is false.

rlogan

I don't know why anyone takes you seriously. You've repeated yourself ad nauseum. Challenging the opposition prove the negative is your core evidence for Christianity.

I prefer the sixth grader version because it is exactly the same, more compact, and demonstrates the intellectual maturity level involved:

"Oh yeah? Were you there then?"


It takes a lot of training to turn "nanny nanny poo-poo" into a full paragraph of pseudo-intellectual gibberish.

Might I respond at the requisite intellectual level?

Poopy on you.

DramaQ

Prove that you DIDN'T misrepresent my statement.

(Naw... skip the above sarcastic remark. I don't care.)

Well why didn't you say so in the first place?? We could have saved a lot of time and bandwidth.

Your position is that you intend to steadfastly believe the unprovable. Which is a nice, cozy haven from which you are immune from all opposition.

You don’t seek to convert us non-believers and your own position is impenetrable.

I can't imagine how. You never once challenged yourself to think something different.

Have the last word if you like. I won't see it. I'm taking rlogan's advice and walking away.

Sparrow

No, it is not the same, but when additional verification is not provided, it is justifiable to doubt the claim.

I thought I’d already suggested that. Given the unusual and fantastic events that are claimed to have happened surrounding the birth and life of Jesus, I would expect there to be extensive documents describing these events. There isn’t

Prove? Nothing. It simply increases the likelihood that the accounts we have reflect some past reality.

Not actually. You seem to believe that an ancient document should be taken as completely truthful and accurate, no matter how much its claims violate reality as we know it, simply because such claims are not categorically disproved. You are the only person I’ve known to argue that this is valid logical reasoning.

I believe we’ve actually covered how it isn’t. But I may be confusing this thread with another in which some liberal Christians are arguing that no intelligent, well read Christian would deny that Genesis, especially the creation and flood stories, are based on Sumerian and Akadian myth and not in any way factual.

Are you suggesting that because we have parts of seven verses on a document dated to the second century, that we can be certain that the complete (?) text we have from the fourth century accurately reflects the state of that text from 200 years earlier? Do you not see how it is possible that the text was added to, subtracted from, or altered in some way?

Because the point has nothing to do with specifics. We know that eyewitness testimony is not completely reliable. We cannot say for certain that the gospel stories are eyewitness accounts. Hearsay testimony is so unreliable that US courts do not accept it (I know some lawyer is going to find some arcane situation in which it would be acceptable, so spare us all that derailment, please)

For some things, it does. Do you actually think the earth’s rotation stopped? This would be necessary for the sun and to stand still right?

OK, not entirely true. However the extrabiblical references we have are very few and largely contested.

Let’s not derail this thread. Similar threads where you can find many non-theists’ answers to such a question are available if you search.

Not really, especially in the context in which I used it. It would be reasonable to expect someone to have written something describing the portable star (no electricity for the searchlights) hovering over the manger illuminating the throngs rushing to offer gifts and for some of those documents to have survived. Unless it didn’t happen that way or didn’t happen at all. Or maybe those Men in Black guys came along with their memory eraser thingie.

Remember, the birth of the messiah was a prophecy. Many of the Jews were anxiously awaiting it. Yet noone thought to write anything about it at the time?

I don’t understand your meaning here.

Craigart14

This is probably too late to be relevant, but a while ago someone mentioned CNN reporting miraculous events? First, CNN reports not miraculous events, but newsworthy ones. A miracle, after all, is a suspension of the laws of nature, something that cannot happen without divine intervention. CNN and other news organizations frequently report unusual or surprising events, but nothing yet that has shown to be a miracle. What would happen if one network did report a real miracle? I, for one, would check other sources. (Of course, if the miracle was reported on Fox, I would probably have a good laugh and go read a book.)

Craig

bfniii

I am hoping that if I have made such, you will point it out.

I guess we disagree.

So even if first century authors did refute the miracles, it wouldn’t have been substantive or supportable? If that is the case, do we have anything to go on other than the eyewitness accounts and is it reasonable to expect anything other type of verification?

That is also why I asked you for specific examples of how opponents might have provided falsification of the early Christian claim that Christ had risen and appeared to many. It was to get you to understand your argument was based on an unreasonable expectation.

I find it interesting that when I don’t encounter a reason compelling enough to change what I know, I’m guilty of “faith� or “dogma�. But when skeptics are steadfast, they’re not guilty of the same.

Since you are unable to think of some, I’ll provide them for you.
1. jews record that the affidavit of the innkeeper and staff in Bethlehem know of no such birth
2. census and townspeople testimony shows that no such messianic family lived in Nazareth.
3. jews know exactly where the bones of Jesus are
4. money changers testify that there was no overturning of the tables in the temple
5. roman records show there were no crucifixions at Passover that year (or that it was known that no one named Jesus was crucified).

I think you get the idea.

To whom?

I hope that you aren’t suggesting that a dragon in a garage is analogous to biblical claims.

If I know that you claim to be a procurator of komodo dragons, you display an expertise on them, I have seen you moving dragon-keeping equipment in and out of your house, people who have been in your house don’t deny that you have them and claim to have heard a strange noise, why would I doubt that you have a dragon?

Not being familiar with your neighbor, why should I believe their opinion is the one true opinion?

Not really. I just feel that if a person is going to claim the bible is false, they need to have proof. Otherwise, why should I believe them when they say things like “any person with a functioning brain� or “how things work� or “personal experience�.

I provided 6 reasons to vorkosigan that are as yet, without refutation here. On the other hand, I have responded to opposing reasons given in this thread.

Because skeptics assert that if there were indeed miracles, there should have been proof of them. I have asked several times what kind of proof would exist making the miracle irrefutable.

That’s not exactly what I said. In regards to parts of the bible that are miraculous or not verifiable, I’m asking for why we shouldn’t believe what it says. We know that a historical document claims it and we know that from eyewitnesses. It seems that some people are skeptical for the sake of being skeptical which is an interesting intellectual exercise, but not proof.

First, I didn’t assume the conclusion. Second, I showed how there was an excluded middle by presenting one. I have also agreed that the same can be done in the case of biblical evidence. I don’t see how your response addresses those two points.

You first claim that your personal experience in regards to physical phenomena makes the biblical claims unlikely. Then you claim that you’re not sure how applicable reason is in terms of the miraculous. I was hoping you would address this apparent inconsistency.

Respectfully, I haven’t seen any evidence whatsoever from anyone on this entire thread. I have seen conjecture and extrapolation which makes for interesting conversation.

Is there a reason why an omnipotent God could NOT perform those miracles?

I’m hoping this time you will provide some examples of these evidences other than Chinese astronomical records that could be doctored or incorrect.

So it’s possible that there are some documents that Christians would be unable to gain control over?

It’s a miracle by an omnipotent being.

I read through your response and it sounds very much like you’re describing an appeal to numbers. The fact that the corroboration comes from an unrelated, independent account doesn’t change the fact that in the end, you’re still saying that there is another person who believes the same thing.

First, “your understanding� is subjective and not agreeable by everyone. Second, your “evidence� is not agreed upon by everyone. Therefore, your stance does indeed require faith, even though you don’t seem to admit it.

This repetition does not address that there is nowhere in the stated passage that even implies that they are discussing where He was born. “from� does not imply where a person was born. I am not from the place I was born. I only lived there for about a year. I spent the vast majority of my life in another city. Any time a person asks where I am from (which happens quite frequently), I respond by stating the place that I spent the majority of my time growing up. Telling that person where I was born, tells them nothing of the place I was raised which is pertinent to my personality and upbringing.

This scenario does not accurately portray the situation. The person wasn’t asking how the messiah could be from Nazareth. He was making a snide comment regarding the class of people who come from that place or else he would not have used the word “good�.

The bible is then in the same situation it is already in, no worse off. The OP referred to the lack of substantiation from authors such as josephus. If josephus’ works are unreliable, then his silence isn’t so deafening and the bible is back where it started from which is the reliance on the eyewitness testimony and whatever other external evidence there is or is discovered. I wouldn’t classify that as no substantiation.

Making that statement doesn’t necessarily mean that he formally converted to Christianity.

You assume that I haven’t. I was asking a question to find out what your assessment is.

Ok, “no one had heard of it� isn’t exactly “know the specific claims�. I apologize. At any rate, I provided examples above.

I really fail to see how you support this assertion. Christians failing to copy certain texts does not equal others failing to preserve them or others not making them at all. The inaction of Christians should not lead to the that particular action.

I guess I’ll be more specific. Do you believe miraculous claims can be falsified or verified other than an appeal to numbers?

This statement stands in stark contrast to others you have previously made. Here you say there are documents that Christians couldn’t doctor because they don’t have control of the document whereas in the past you have held that Christians destroyed any evidence of disputation. Which is it? If it’s possible that Christians couldn’t ecumenically eradicate every single document that opposes Christianity, then there is no reason why such documents shouldn’t exist today.

It wasn’t until just a few lines above that I recall you for the first time asserting that Christians just “failed to copy� certain works which lead to their disappearance. However, this would fall under the category of Christians not being “in control� of the document because they are not actively preventing someone else from perpetuating the text.

You have a habit of assuming that other people see things the way you think they ought to see them. Your brand of common sense might not be so obvious to someone else. Perhaps you could show how your opinions are superior and should be adopted by everyone else thus conforming to your brand of truth.

Interesting. If the works are anonymous, why do they have titles now?

I have read that non biblical works quoted in this thread were originally anonymous.

Thus rendering any impending argument subjective.

Really? So any story written in first person is necessarily eyewitness testimony? I am positive that skeptics consider certain biblical passages in first person to not be eyewitness testimony (mistaken, hallucinating, false testimony). Anyway, I don’t disagree. I just think your point is incomplete. That is not the only way a story could be related in eyewitness fashion.

“Hebrew speech�. He then continues by adding they were “interpreted as best they could� into greek.

The compilation of the oracles is not the entirety of the book but the crux of it. Matthew fills in the historical narrative to connect the oracles and to provide setting.

I asked that you show me where I went wrong and you don’t. how can I understand your point if you don’t help me?

Curious. You claim there is a discrepancy but don’t show how. The two accounts differ, but don’t contradict. One person relates one part of the story, another relates another part. They are complimentary, not contradictory. Squishing does not equal discrepancy.

In understand that is how you feel. I have stated my case in regards to apostolic authorship. I respect your opinion because you have thought the matter through.

Amaleq13

Reread the thread.

Voicing a suspicion is not declaring guilt.

The stories attributed to Luke and Matthew are not thought to have been written until around 80 years after the alleged birth. Given that the end of the war and the destruction of Jerusalem resulted in the slaughter or dispersal of the Jews, it is idiotic to suggest anyone would make the effort to try to obtain such an affidavit/records nor that they would be successful even if they tried.

First, how would they know this if the body was stolen or, as Crossan argues, it was thrown in the same common grave as most other crucifixion victims? Second, how would they prove to whom the bones belonged? Do you imagine there was a CSI Jerusalem?

We still have no reason to think this story was circulated prior to Mark being written (c.70CE) so the same problems exist as for the birth narratives. Just identifying the money changers seems an impossible task.

Even if the Romans were willing to allow an Investigating Jew to review their records despite just having destroyed their capital, what would stop the devout Christian from simply parroting your position and declaring "Just because you couldn't find them doesn't mean they don't exist!"?

I certainly do. You are entirely willing to believe even less credible stories in order to support your faith in the Gospels.

"Irrefutable" is an irrational standard that might appeal to you but no one else has assserted it as a requirement. Supportive evidence simply makes the claim something other than inherently unbelievable and, therefore, easily rejected.

Because they are inherently unlikely and there is no good reason to think they are, despite that fact, true.

"We" know no such thing. You believe it. I see only religious texts whose authors are unknown.

No problem. I never made the second statement. I consider reason to be applicable in determining the likelihood of any physical event.

You are incorrect. I've explained what constitutes an appeal to numbers and recognizing that independent corroborating accounts constitute support for a claim clearly does not qualify.

The evidence indicates they were added in the mid to late 2nd century.

Why do you insist on changing my statements into exaggerated strawmen? Can't you just deal with them as they were written? I said that, if a story is written from a first person persepective, that is supportive of the notion that it was written by an eyewitness.

There doesn't appear to be much hope for a rational discussion with such a person.

These aren't claim I have made but I'm perfectly willing to let my posts in this thread be judged against yours.

Respectfully, I don't think you are honestly interested in recognizing any evidence contrary to your faith. You seem to me to be more interested in trying to force those who refuse to accept your conclusions to argue against them by irrational standards then claim victory when no one can meet them.

This has already taken more of my time that it deserves. Buh-bye. :wave:

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
I'm creating a thread in E/C which will cover the "falsehood of the Genesis creation account". We could also cover "failed prophecies, Biblical contradictions, historical errors", but that would need another separate thread.

The E/C thread is here: E/C split from "Is Lack of Evidence a form of Evidence?"
This will be addressed in the new thread. Here, I will simply point out that your analogy fails because there IS abundant tangible, physical evidence of macroevolution.
Not so. They are discussed regularly on this forum.
...Where?
Circular reasoning.

I am pointing out that if the entire event was FICTIONAL, there would be no need for "mass hallcination", and there would be no person who was actually at the event to refute the miracle claim because there was no event to be at.

Not a single miracle in the NT took place at a specified location in space and time (even the resurrection can't be pinned down to a specific year). Not a single skeptic could say "hey, I was there at that time!".
None of the world's 2 billion Christians now living actually witnessed any miracle described in the NT. Even in the early days, and even if such miracles happened: very few converts supposedly witnessed them.

And, yes, plenty of modern Christian apologists still fail to mention refutations. This can easily be seen on any creationist website, for instance: or lists of "successful Biblical prophecies" that don't mention the failures.
More circular reasoning. You're assuming that the gospels were written soon after the events they described, and were available to skeptics as "purported eyewitness accounts". Fictions written decades later could not be refuted by actual "eyewitnesses".
Anyone who reads the Bible.

Here's a few. Have fun.
The most blatant example is the "stunt rider" incident. From PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED:
Fallacy: reversal of the burden of proof.

You're arguing that the gospel writers would have lacked the knowledge to invent claims of "prophecy fulfillment" because they were uneducated.

OK, prove that they WERE uneducated. I guess you could start by proving that the "Gospel of John" was actually written by a "rugged fisherman". Good luck.

BTW, "John" stole the philosophical concept of the "Logos" (in the beginning was the Word...) from Greek philosophy. Rugged Hebrew fishermen were educated in Greek classics?
I have repeatedly responded to these.

I have repeatedly pointed out that we DO have proof that certain Biblical claims are untrue.

I have pointed out that SOME Biblical claims are obviously true, but that this signifies nothing.

I have repeatedly pointed out that we DO have proof that the bible is false or unreliable.

...And I will discuss these issues in detail in relevant threads: on THIS thread, it is sufficient merely to note that your assertions are erroneous.
Belief in "Biblical errancy" is increasingly popular because the Bible is erroneous. This is "natural selection" at work: competent scholars soon discover this, leaving only the incompetent and/or ignorant ones behind.

Ceverante

First of all, a sincere thank you to all who've replied in this thread and/or took part in the discussion. And it is all thanks to these people that I am now more lost than ever :Cheeky:

Anyway, I learn what I can, and based on this thread I have made a personal conclusion to the original question which I posted, "Is lack of evidence a form of Evidence?".

I now feel that a specific lack of evidence is evidence substantial enough to prove a non existence. For example, if I were to claim that the Empire State Building was blown up by a bomb. For such an incident to have happened (affirmative existence), it has to have some verifiable and substantial affirmative results. Someone HAS to be found injured. Someone HAS to have reported witnessing the incident. Someone HAS to have heard the explosion. Someone HAS to felt the tremours. The news HAS to report it.

But on the scene, you see the building still intact, everyone you asked have no knowledge of any explosions, no one heard anything, no one saw anything, nor felt anything. Faced with such total lack of evidence, we can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the claim is untrue.

The fact is, it is simply impossible as well as illogical to find any affirmative evidence to prove that something did NOT take place.

On the other hand, lack of evidence should not be a basis for proving an affirmative. To prove an affirmative, we have to look for affirmative, verifiable and substantial results as evidence. Affirmative evidence can only result from an existence. A non existence can never produce any affirmative evidence due to the nature that it did not exist.

I am constantly challenging my own beliefs, and this is no exception. I welcome everyone to poke holes in my conclusion.

Sparrow

Perhaps a better analogy would be if I claimed that the ‘World Gullibility Center’ had been built in New York City in 1925 and destroyed in the Second World War by German atomic bombs. You go to New York City and can find no evidence of its foundations. You go to City Hall and can find no record of a permit application. The architects I claim designed the WGC were in fact architects, but began their practice in 1929. You find photos of the skyline taken in 1927, but although I claim the WGC to be the tallest in the city, you can’t find it on the photos. Newspaper records of the time do not reference the building, nor do phone books or city directories. In fact, the only mention you can find of the building is in documents under my control. You would soon conclude that no such building had been constructed, simply because evidence you expect to be there is not.

“Ah yes�, I say, “but the Allies did not want the public to panic over the knowledge of the terrible bomb the Germans developed, so all such records were carefully destroyed to make it look as if the building never existed. Oh, I know what you’re going to say next. You’re going to assume that someone must have witnessed the explosion and documented it in some way. Well I do have the testimony of four such eyewitnesses right here in my documents. See, they all proclaim how tall and beautiful the WGC was!�

After examining my documents, you remark how unusual it is that the areas in which the accounts agree, they are word for word copies, and in the areas that they don’t agree, they differ in basic details that would seem to be hard to get wrong. Not only that, but only one of them claims to have actually seen the building. You still doubt whether the WGC ever existed.

Supposedly, Jesus was born and instantly adored by throngs, yet no one outside the gospel accounts wrote of the star marking this location or about the crowds flocking to the new messiah. Despite being the messiah as foretold by prophecy, no one pays any attention at all to his childhood or early adulthood. Despite touring the countryside performing miracles, no one outside the gospel accounts wrote anything about any of these events. Despite being crucified, the messiah rises from the dead and is witnessed by many, none of whom, apparently, can write.

Believe what you want, but I’ll choose to disbelieve until someone unearths at least some of the evidence that should have existed.