Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-15-2012, 11:33 AM

For years HJers keep repeating the same thing--Absence of evidence of HJ is NOT evidence of Absence.

Well, HJers do not really know what Absence of Evidence means.

Please, if there is NO evidence that my great, great....grandfather was Jesus Christ then I cannot make such an argument.

Please, if there is NO evidence that my great, great.........grandmother was Mary then I cannot pursue such an argument.

Please, if there is NO EVIDENCE of HJ of Nazareth then NO argument can be made for HJ.

Please, go to any court trial, ARGUMENTS are made For or Against the charge BASED on Evidence--NOT Absence of Evidence

Absence of Evidence MEANS NO argument can be made.

It cannot be argued that the Pauline writings are early when the Evidence is ABSENT.

It cannot be argued that the Jesus story was written in the 1st century when the Evidence is ABSENT.

It cannot be argued there was an HJ when the Evidence is ABSENT.

Absence of Evidence MEANS NO Argument.

An HJ cannot be argued.

Keith&Co. · 07-15-2012, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Please, go to any court trial, ARGUMENTS are made For or Against the charge BASED on Evidence--NOT Absence of Evidence

That's not quite true.
If there's no evidence that the defendant was ever in the room the murder was committed in, they will base an argument upon that total lack of evidence.

If something did not happen, then the absence of evidence is exactly what we would expect. A number of courtroom arguments are based on the lack of evidence for whatever the prosecution or the plaintiff or the defendant claims...

Minimalist · 07-15-2012, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Absence of evidence of HJ is NOT evidence of Absence.

They deliberately misstate that, aa. Absence of evidence is most certainly evidence of absence. It is not "proof" of absence.

200 years of excavations in Egypt have failed to turn up any evidence of mass Hebrew slavery in the Old, Middle, or New Kingdoms. Is it possible that some day an Egyptologist may break into a tomb and find an inscription in which some king claims to have subjugated the "hebrews?" Sure, its possible.

And some day pigs may fly.

sotto voce · 07-15-2012, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

Absence of evidence of HJ is NOT evidence of Absence.

They deliberately misstate that, aa. Absence of evidence is most certainly evidence of absence. It is not "proof" of absence.

200 years of excavations in Egypt have failed to turn up any evidence of mass Hebrew slavery in the Old, Middle, or New Kingdoms. Is it possible that some day an Egyptologist may break into a tomb and find an inscription in which some king claims to have subjugated the "hebrews?" Sure, its possible.

Only if the contemporary priests had been exceedingly incompetent. All reference to the presence of Hebrews would have been totally 'wiped', had their exodus been anything like as recorded.

aa5874 · 07-15-2012, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Please, go to any court trial, ARGUMENTS are made For or Against the charge BASED on Evidence--NOT Absence of Evidence

That's not quite true.
If there's no evidence that the defendant was ever in the room the murder was committed in, they will base an argument upon that total lack of evidence.

If something did not happen, then the absence of evidence is exactly what we would expect. A number of courtroom arguments are based on the lack of evidence for whatever the prosecution or the plaintiff or the defendant claims...

No, No, No!!!

In a court trial, it is the ACTUAL evidence that is PRESENTED that is used to argue For or Against a Charge.

If NO evidence is presented then it should be obvious that there would be NO arguments in the first place.

There can NO HJ argument when the HJ Evidence is Absent.

Adam · 07-15-2012, 05:32 PM

Here in California, I see no evidence of a "Caribbean", nor have I ever. I know of no "aa5874". Absence of any evidence for an aa means absence of any aa. aa does not exist.

aa5874 · 07-15-2012, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Here in California, I see no evidence of a "Caribbean", nor have I ever. I know of no "aa5874". Absence of any evidence for an aa means absence of any aa. aa does not exist.

Please, tell us what exactly are you arguing??

Are you are arguing there is NO Caribbean???

You need to get a good map.

Are you arguing that there is no "aa5874"??

You need to get a good memory.

mountainman · 07-15-2012, 07:49 PM

Absence of Evidence

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Negative evidence

Negative evidence is sometimes used as an alternative to absence of evidence and is often meant to be synonymous with it. On the other hand, the term may also refer to evidence with a negative value, or null result equivalent to evidence of absence.

It may even refer to positive evidence about something of an unpleasant nature.

Things of an unpleasant nature may include forgeries and fabrications of evidence such as the "TF", the "Paul and Seneca letter exchange", Jesus letter to King Agbar and Helena's legend of the Cross (to name only a few). The evidence is in such a state that the pious forgery of the HJ is not a apossibility that can be ruled out.

It is most significant that you have pointed out that other texts furnished in Eusebius's thesis in ancient history, such as "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus, are in part forgeries. The question whether the gospels and acts and paul are 2nd century forgeries of 1st century pseudo-authors is also quite relevant as negative evidence against the HJ hypothesis.

Negative Evidence

Quote:

Negative Evidence - Richard Levin
Studies in Philology; Vol. 92, No. 4 (Autumn, 1995) (pp. 383-410)

p.383
"The first point is that we cannot hope to prove any proposition unless we look for negative evidence that might contradict it, and the second point is that many of us ignore the first point, because of the tendancy of our minds (not, of course, of "human nature") to look only for positive evidence that confirms a proposition we want to prove. This tendancy explains the remarkable tenacity of superstitions ... and of prejudices ....

p.389

The third basic point ... We must recognise, not only that we cannot hope to prove any proposition unless we look for negative evidence that might contradict it and that we have a tendency to look only for positive evidence, but also that we cannot hope to prove any proposition unless this negative evidence could exist. The principle is well known to scientists and philosophers of science, who call it disconfirmability. They insist that if a proposition does not invite disconfirmation, if there is no conceivable evidence the existence of which would contradict it, then is cannot be tested and so cannot be taken seriously. If it is not disprovable, it is not provable.

p.409

When combatants encounter an argument, they do not ask about the evidence for or against it; they just ask if the argument is for or against their side, since they believe ... that "the only real question ... is: Which side are you on".

... we not only tend to overlook or forget negative evidence that contradicts our beliefs, but when others point such evidence out to us, instead of thanking them for this chance to correct our beliefs, we tend to get angry with them, and this anger increases in direct proportion to our commitment to the beliefs

Juststeve · 07-16-2012, 06:23 AM

I don't know of any people who support the HJ thesis who would agree with the proposition that there is an absence of evidence of the HJ. To the contrary they point to evidence which the mythers reject. That's a very different thing.

It really isn't possible to have a discussion about the weight of the evidence with someone who dogmatically insists there is no evidence.

Steve

aa5874 · 07-16-2012, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

I don't know of any people who support the HJ thesis who would agree with the proposition that there is an absence of evidence of the HJ. To the contrary they point to evidence which the mythers reject. That's a very different thing.

It really isn't possible to have a discussion about the weight of the evidence with someone who dogmatically insists there is no evidence.

Steve

Please, state the actual recovered dated evidence. Please, I am NOT asking for Presumptions or imagination. I am asking you for ACTUAL RECOVERED DATED evidence for an HJ.

You will NOT be able to present any ACTUAL RECOVERED DATED evidence for an HJ.

Your Presumptions and Assumptions are Worthless.

Have a nice day.

07-15-2012, 11:33 AM	#1
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	What Does Absence of Evidence of HJ Mean? For years HJers keep repeating the same thing--Absence of evidence of HJ is NOT evidence of Absence. Well, HJers do not really know what Absence of Evidence means. Please, if there is NO evidence that my great, great....grandfather was Jesus Christ then I cannot make such an argument. Please, if there is NO evidence that my great, great.........grandmother was Mary then I cannot pursue such an argument. Please, if there is NO EVIDENCE of HJ of Nazareth then NO argument can be made for HJ. Please, go to any court trial, ARGUMENTS are made For or Against the charge BASED on Evidence--NOT Absence of Evidence Absence of Evidence MEANS NO argument can be made. It cannot be argued that the Pauline writings are early when the Evidence is ABSENT. It cannot be argued that the Jesus story was written in the 1st century when the Evidence is ABSENT. It cannot be argued there was an HJ when the Evidence is ABSENT. Absence of Evidence MEANS NO Argument. An HJ cannot be argued.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-15-2012, 05:32 PM	#6
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	Here in California, I see no evidence of a "Caribbean", nor have I ever. I know of no "aa5874". Absence of any evidence for an aa means absence of any aa. aa does not exist.

07-16-2012, 06:23 AM	#9
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	I don't know of any people who support the HJ thesis who would agree with the proposition that there is an absence of evidence of the HJ. To the contrary they point to evidence which the mythers reject. That's a very different thing. It really isn't possible to have a discussion about the weight of the evidence with someone who dogmatically insists there is no evidence. Steve

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.