DramaQ

I don't know why you're attributing a quote by me to Amaleq13. Do all atheists look alike to you?

But what's worse is that you went on to say:

It's bad enough that you misread, misunderstand, and misconstrue my comments when responding to me. Now you presume to explain MY points (incorrectly) to someone ELSE?

My point was NOT that “someone should have written about biblical miracles�. Not even close! If you can’t figure out what I’m saying, don’t presume to quote me back to someone else and then “refute� that misrepresentation.

Meanwhile, I suggest you go back and re-read what I DID say. This time try to catch all the words. Then if you still don’t understand it, take it up with ME.

dq

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
Failed prophecies, Biblical contradictions, historical errors, the falsehood of the Genesis creation account. All off-topic for this thread, except that I think it's important to note that they exist, and they form the basis for our conviction that the Bible as a whole is not to be relied upon.

...though, even if the Bible did NOT contain verifiable falsehoods, that still wouldn't mean that it should simply be assumed correct.
Evoution is one of the most solidly supported of all scientific theories. It isn't "hotly contested and debated": it's just that fundies don't like it, because it contradicts the Bible. We could dicuss this further in the relevant forum if you like.
I've listed several categories of disproof. But are you still claiming that skeptics do not personally believe that any part of the Bible has been disproved?
Yes, for certain types of event (those that should have left conspicuous evidence). But only some Biblical events fall into that category.

Jack the Bodiless

If we go ahead with this, then I suggest you check out the most recent previous occasion where I created an evolution offshoot from threads posted in another forum:

Evolution split from "Craig Winn" threads

If you're claiming "no evidence for evolution", then presumably you'll be denying the existence of "transitional fossils" (a strategy roughy analogous to denying the existence of all Christian Bibles and Christian churches). Some of the material presented on that thread could prevent the need for unnecessary repetition.

...Or you could just continue that thread, as the creationist protagonist appears to have fled.

bfniii

so lack of evidence is not a form of evidence, correct? does that mean that the failure of josephus and philo to mention biblical events does not undermine believability of the events?

perhaps you could point that out to me because i certainly don't recall doing that.

there was an anti christian sentiment. i do not deny that. what i ask is why we see anti christian writings, but no direct refutation of biblical events, especially the miraculous ones. celsus makes religious and social attacks on christianity which mirror jewish slander against the aforementioned. but he doesn't, nor do the jews, refute what the bible claims is historical fact. besides, you have said the presence of such a refutation would not elicit any truth one way or another but would merely be vilification.

what refutation is there regarding the eyewitness testimony?

that's not what you said. "Earlier I also pointed out that this “silence� on the part of any early skeptics could just as easily be because no one ever heard the claims to begin with." your statements immediately above claim that there were skeptics from the beginning thus implying they were familiar enough with the claims to mount an attack. which is it? i pointed out to amaleq that even enlightened people such as origen and justin martyr were christians. the claims of christianity were known in the first and second centuries by all types of peoples.

i guess you consider eyewitness testimony to be "nothing substantial". why are other first century authors considered reliable eyewitnesses of events, but not authors that ended up getting preserved in the bible?

there were? you know a first century or early second century author who outright denied that a miraculous biblical claim was true?

i was referring to myths such as paul bunyan or robin hood.

i'm sorry you feel that way. many people are very impressed that the prophecies recorded in the bible all came true.

i wasn't referring to the number of believers. i was referring to the fact that most everyone considers robin hood or paul bunyan to be fictional, a priori. people are combing ruins in the middle east because they either think the bible is factual or they are trying to find out to what degree the bible is factual. that is a distinction between myths and christianity.

first, the more specific a prophecy is, the easier it is to forge fulfillment. the "vague" nature of the prophecy is what makes likelihood of realization remote and the prophecy more meaningful. second, to claim (conveniently after the fact) that the writers tailored their stories to events is without basis or support. what proof do you have? the prophecy existed long before gospel authors wrote meaning they were unable to tailor it to fit the event. they were not able to stage the events that happened, either. it is unlikely that the quantity of prophecies about Jesus, at least 44, were all known to the apostles most of whom were uneducated.

so lack of evidence is not a form of evidence, right?

doubting them is completely different than proving they didn't happen. i understand they are difficult to believe. that's by design. if it were ordinary, it wouldn't be worth believing.

as i have said, a reasonable case can be made for the eyewitness testimony. there is no equal but opposite testimony. continuing to be skeptical borders on dogmatic. relying on an argument from silence is unscholarly. personal experience does tell us that these things don't happen normally. however, that is not proof that they didn't happen.

i'm sorry if you have had bad experiences with christians in this regard. it is outside the mandate of christianity to do so. christians are not perfect and make mistakes.

commenting on christianity is either to support it or to deny it. to be neutral would be silence.

nothing wrong with that.

there is an element of mystery to christianity, but no more so than the mystery of the existence of the universe without a supernatural creator.

i feel the same way. after studying objections to christianity from many different worldviews for hundreds of hours, i haven't found any proof that the bible is untrue or any good reasons to not be a christian.

you don't consider that to be an oversimplification?

i believe that God is capable of walking on water, yes. i also have no reason to believe this story is untrue. do you know of a reason why i should doubt this story other than the fact that it is difficult to believe?

no known precedent does not equal false.

now that's not true. what are these discrepancies with known history?

how is that simpler? i agree it's more convenient to just make unsupported assertions. please provide an explanation as to how people, much less one person, could get away with "making all that up"? as skeptics are so fond of saying, the burden of proof lies on the author of the assertion. the fact that there is no proof that the bible is untrue makes it much more simpler to just believe it happened the way it says it happened. to contrive a bunch of reasons why it didn't, without proof i might add, is much more complex.

i would agree if that were the only thing we knew about christianity.

now that is definitely an oversimplification. there are plenty of scholars and scientists who find ample evidence for believing in the claims of the bible.

what type of concrete event would you need?

we have the testimony of first century eyewitnesses. there's your publication.

just as reasonable as the possibilities you provide is that it's the truth. what proof is there that they are incorrect or joking or whatever? as you have stated, the argument from silence isn't sufficient by itself. what other reasons are there?

even if there were extrabiblical documentation one way or another, what would that prove?

it has been conceded more than once in this thread that the bible "got some things right" in reference to archaeological discoveries.

is there a difference between that and all other works from antiquity?

it's understood. there's plenty of evidence of that.

sure they did. where do you think they got the idea? it was known that the basis for christianity was the events surrounding the ministry of Jesus. how did anyone hear about that? from eyewitnesses?

what is the objection based on?

the basis of the growth of christianity is that eyewitnesses went out and spread the word. do you know of a first or second century refutation of the long held belief?

other than skeptics just positing that it is so, is there a reason to believe that? "could have" isn't convincing.

they put into canon what was already known to be true.

and who would they be?

i don't disagree. until i could prove it one way or the other, i would just dismiss it. i guess what i was getting at is the bible is treated differently than other texts from the same period. authorship of josephus' works is not in question. why not? some jewish scribe could have come along and changed the name later on. josehus could be lying about most of what he wrote. indeed how would we know anything from antiquity?

i don't disagree. what i disagree with is making assertions that the bible is untrue or even not reasonably believable or going to the forums at infidels and arguing that the bible isn't reliable without proof.

i hope you're not insinuating that ratio is indicative of what has been verified to be true in the bible?

i must have missed that part. let's review.
1. bible treated differently than other works of antiquity. for example, apostolic authorship is doubted without proof of such. authorship of other contemporaneous works is not doubted even though there isn't proof of such confidence.
2. josephus is reliable in that he doesn't mention the infanticide of a miniscule rural town but is unreliable when mentioning Jesus. sorry, but if one part can be interpolated or redacted, all of it can.
3. when the gospels share information they're guilty of copying and subterfuge. where they differ, they are unreliable. that is special pleading.
4. although archaeology hasn't provided proof of some things believed to be true (from antiquity and earlier), this standard clearly does not apply to the bible. if archaeology has yet to provide evidence of the flood or the exodus, then it's considered untrue.

i would hope your interactions with me show these statements to not be indicative of all christians. i have examined the historical record and find no reason to doubt the veracity of the bible. there is some faith involved, but no more than the faith of the skeptic to believe their claims are true.

sure. the former requires proof. are you supporting the former or the latter? not claiming an event to be true does not mean the event is false.

i guess we disagree.

or comes to the realization of it.

can't argue there.

superior is not what christianity is about.

even jews have told me their religion is incomplete. that doesn't make it inferior.

no christian should justify power over others.

i never said christians were perfect or perfectly observed christian doctrine.

i don't recall being corrected. the quote you provided pointed out implications made by skeptics in this thread. is the quote i made untrue of non-christians?

what is it indicative of then? again, it has been implied that their silence means that biblical events are unsupportable.

i don't say this. the christian wouldn't even bring it up if it weren't first brought up by the skeptic.

and you don't find this disconcerting? what do you base your sliding scale on? convince me why i should believe anything josephus wrote.

i have read through the josephus threads and the best argument i saw from skeptics was literary in nature (examining the internal evidence and language patterns) which is weak. it does absolutely nothing to address the double standard. it assumes that someone can assign truth values to certain passages but not others which is smuggled-in authority. it doesn't address that his works could have been later interpolated or redacted.

i hope you, or anyone, can convince me otherwise.

i find that "hmmm" isn't proof of a christian interpolation.

how interesting. they why would we expect him to mention the risen saints? if he did, skeptics would consider that a christian addition because it's so out of character.

[QUOTE=DramaQ]your response really doesn't address my point. i wasn't referring to miraculous claims. my point is that just because a few passages aren't liked by skeptics, the bible is unreliable and not believable. mythological. however, there is a passage in the antiquities that skeptics don't like but josephus is still reliable except for that one part. this is clearly a sliding scale.

do you believe that to claim something didn't happen without proof is supportable?

first, it does matter that they weren't influential early on. that meant that whatever opposition that existed (celsus, porphyry, etc) propagated. by the time constantine comes along, there's no way to wipe out the existence or the memories of the existence of the opposition.

second, the opposition from the first and second century does live on today so clearly christians being in power was not sufficient to do so. if christians wanted all traces of unfavorable literature to disappear, they shouldn't have allowed eusebius, justin martyr or origen to alliterate attacks on christianity.

humble but not obscure. jerusalem wasn't unknown to the romans or the countries that surrounded judea. the reason i make that observation is because people did hear about it and had even opportunity to refute the claims unlike the skeptic position that christianity was too obscure to be known about. that's simply not true. even tacitus acknowledges their existence in ad ~64. you make the statement that "Those who did hear of it and refuted it have largely vanished from history because the winners were in charge of the records." clearly even you believe that the word got out. this is corroborated by your admission that there were skeptics from the beginning. there is no way we could have that knowledge if christians wiped out the evidence of opposition.

but that one alligator can only eat so many water buffalo. it can't eat them all.

but catholicism didn't disapper like you say christian opposition did disappear when christianity came into power.

i'm saying if they change their doctrine because it's been shown to be untrue, that's an indictment on the veracity of the religion (such as jehova's witnesses). wouldn't you agree?

Jack the Bodiless

The failure of Josephus and Philo to mention SOME Biblical events DOES undermine believability of those events.

Examples: the crucifixion "darkness" and the zombie incursion.
Are you suggesting that some people were opposed to Christianity despite believing that the miracle claims were genuine?

Of course, most of the miracle claims are inherently un-refutable. Who saw Jesus NOT walk on the water?

For other claims: maybe they WERE refuted, and the Christians had no answer to the refutation, so they didn't mention that problem? Plenty of modern Christian apologists fail to mention problems with Christianity...
...WHAT eyewitness testimony?

If there WAS no eyewitness testimony: there wouldn't BE a Christian refutation!
I'm rather certain that NONE of the non-Christian ones believed that ANY miraculous Biblical claim was true... or they'd be Christians, right?
...Except that they didn't.
Matthew more-or-less admits that he did this. He has Jesus do various things "that it may be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets...".

Also, please prove that the unknown authors of the gospels were "uneducated".
Plenty of people know otherwise, especially those who have studied science, history and/or the Bible itself much more than you have. Yours is a very small minority view among scientists, archaeologists, historians and Bible scholars.
I would say yes. I'd also add quite a few that have been proven false.
Scholars accept that they were originally anonymous. This is not true of historical sources in general.
Josephus was a JEW who supposedly referred to Jesus as "the Christ".

Name one CHRISTIAN who referred to Mohammed as "God's Prophet".
They share the same phrases, not just "information".
Archaeology has provided proof that the Flood is false, and there's a very suspicious hole where the evidence for the Exodus should be.

Sparrow

I just found this thread so sorry if I’m late to the party.

Whether or not we believe the claims made in a document, regardless of its age, depends on how well its claims fit in with what we already know. Current documents might have many ways to authenticate the claims made that older documents do not. If there was a 3000 year old inventory list in which a shopkeeper claimed to have 2 jars of grain, one rug, a camel and 6 blankets, we would be less skeptical as none of these claims are particularly remarkable. If the document claims that the rug is a flying carpet, not only might we be skeptical of the claim related to the carpet, we night also rightly discount the other claims. Since carpets are not known to fly ordinarily, we are justified in requesting additional verification before believing.

Bfnii, if you were to approach this document in the same way you approach the Christian bible, you would assume the carpet could fly, simply because no one has disproved it. I cannot take such an approach, either to this imaginary document, the Christian bible or any other document, religious or not. Your ‘innocent until proven guilty’ slogan makes a lot of sense to US residents (other countries do not necessarily agree) with regards to people (not documents) when accused of a crime. It makes no sense when referring to documents. There your slogan should be changed to ‘True until proven false’. No competent scholar would agree with such a statement.

A few years ago, a science fiction writer wrote a story set both in my hometown and in the future. My greatest delight in reading it was identifying the real places in an otherwise fictional story. Noted fiction author Orson Scott Card created an entire series of an alternate history of the United States. Some of the places existed and people in the story were actual historical figures, but the entire story is not factual. Someone approaching these works must approach them with a questioning eye.

You do this when you approach a religious text other than your own bible. You do not accept its claims without extraordinary evidence. I do this to your bible also. That it identifies Jerusalem or the Sea of Galilee is an ordinary and unremarkable claim. Each of these locations can be verified today. That someone could walk across the Sea of Galilee or wander through Jerusalem after their death requires a bit more evidence. I’m not aware of any, so I doubt those claims are true.

You seem to believe that there is lots of eyewitness testimony to the events surrounding the death of Jesus. My understanding is that the fragments we can find of New Testament documents reasonably dated before 200 CE, there are only parts of 7 verses. That’s not 7 books, nor 7 chapters, nor even 7 whole verses. (There is a recent thread that details what papyri still exist and what they contain.) We do not know for sure what these documents actually said or who wrote them. There is nothing to reliably connect them to the time of the crucifixion. Knowing that eyewitness testimony today is not very reliable, even to events that just happened, weakens your case further.

If we are to believe the gospel tradition, a virgin was caused to give birth to the son of God. The actual birth event was marked in location and time by portable stars, enough that many, including three wise men, visited the lowly setting of the new Christ child to bring gifts. Then everyone promptly forgot about the whole incident and wrote nothing about the childhood years of the son of God. Apparently, no one paid any attention whatsoever to the son of God for nearly 30 years. Does that sound about right? Then he began his ministry, healing people of blindness, leprosy and other diseases, walking on water, multiplying loaves and fishes, raising the dead, etc. I’ll bet there were many people that wished he had started that ministry a little earlier. All that sounds pretty fantastic to me, but I sure can’t understand why no one at all mentioned any of it anywhere. Well actually I can, if it never happened.

I don’t know if Jesus existed. It seems possible that he did not even though there is a popular religion built around the stories of him. Perhaps there was a Jesus, but he didn’t perform miracles and was not the son of God (any more so than I am, and I’m pretty sure most of you would agree that I’m not). Perhaps the stories are 100% accurate and God wants me to believe them. If so, he knows exactly what evidence would convince me and where to find me should he choose to present it.

For me, as you can see, absence of evidence, where one could reasonably expect it to exist, is a valid form of evidence. Perhaps not conclusive, but clearly of value.

Sven

Folks, may I suggest to split your posts in some new threads, discussing different subject separately?
The discussions here are interesting, but reading those exceptionally long posts is really tiresome.

bfniii

i agree that these people are archaeologists. listing names does not make them mainstream. nor does the fact that they specialize in middle eastern history make them mainstream. as i have said, the only way to truly know what is "mainstream" is to interview each and every one and record where they stand on any specific issue. i also agree that right now, it's not very popular to claim the bible is inerrant which is probably what is meant by the opposite of mainstream.

just because a particular archaeologist states that the bible has errors does not make it so. the record, as with macroevolution, is incomplete. if that is the case, it is presumptuous to make such a statement no matter what that person's name is or how many hours they have spent at digs or how many people agree with them.

i don't disagree that the picture has changed. i do disagree that the bible has been shown to be in error.

in cases like this, the problem usually lies with the interpretation of where the event was supposed to take place, "digging in the wrong place". another issue is finding evidence in a rather large desert which requires many resources and much time.

what's interesting here is that instead of considering that the reconstructions are not yet accurate, the bible is somehow incorrect.

that sounds a little tabloid-ish. i would be interested in knowing where you get this idea from.

as of now, it hasn't been pinpointed. fortunately, there's no time limit on finding it.

DramaQ

You’re right. And I apologize for my participation in that.

To that end, I will restrict (most of) my subsequent comments to the topic at hand: “Is Lack of Evidence a form of Evidence?�

Incorrect. Had you written “lack of evidence is not ALWAYS a form of evidence� I would have said “True�.

Silence is meaningful under certain circumstances. Not ALL. This has been stated so many times I am now convinced that you refuse to understand it.

Incorrect. In this case it’s excellent evidence of the fact that I am not interested in disproving Santa Claus. Hopefully neither are you.

Really?? Then I guess silence is evidence of neutrality.

What proof would you consider sufficient? If I could take you back in time and fly you to the exact location that you believed these miracles occurred and saw absolutely nothing happen, I suspect you STILL wouldn’t consider this “proof that it didn’t happen�. If we covered ever moment of time 10 years before and after and ever square inch within 1,000 miles, I suspect you STILL wouldn’t consider this “proof that it didn’t happen�.

So you tell me: what IS sufficient proof that something DIDN’T happen?

“it’s understood�. You’re underwhelming me with your endorsements again.

Nice try at dodging the question. If it will make you feel better, I’ll ask it this way: If I wrote 1,000 claims right now, and 991 of them were proven true, would that automatically make all 1,000 of them true?

Read up on it. I’m not doing your research for you. And may I suggest you start with a dictionary?

“stone cold fact� does not equal “indicative of�.

Are you serious?? Or just being arbitrarily argumentative?

IF dead people got up and walked around, we’d expect Josephus to mention it. It would have been a tad unusual enough to do so. The fact that he didn’t is “indicative of� (as opposed to “stone cold fact� of) these events never having happened.

I’m dropping the rest of the rant, unless someone splits it off.

Cheers,
DQ

Amaleq13

I gave my opinion to Sven via PM but I probably should have posted something as well.

I think a lot of what has been posted is actually on topic in that it considers specific examples of "absent evidence". I also think that any discussion of the general OP is bound to involve discussion of specific examples.

As you and many others have stated, whether an absence of evidence can be considered evidence against a claim largely depends on the nature of the claim. This is especially relevant with regard to claims made in the Bible. Is the claim extraordinary or mundane? The former is, by definition, unlikely to occur so supporting evidence is clearly a reasonable expectation and the absence of such just as clearly justifies refusing to accept that the claim is true. Given that an inherently unlikely claim is, also by definition, more likely untrue than true, it is entirely reasonable to go beyond agnosticism and conclude the claim to be false. I would also suggest that the most reasonable position is to acknowledge the conclusion to be conditional in that it is subject to change given new evidence.

For the mundane or, at least, less-than-extraordinary claims, I think there is more subjective judgment involved. One has to judge how reasonable the expectation is of something other than silence in the evidence and one has to judge whether that absence is sufficient to deny or only to remain agnostic.

Unless I am mistaken, I get the impression that bfniii is starting with the conclusion (ie the Bible is reliable/inerrant) and requiring evidence to refute it. As has been explained already, this is the opposite of the standards suggested by logic/reason where the evidence is expected to lead to the conclusion. Virtually any conclusion can be retained if one relies on such an approach and that, alone, should be sufficient to establish that it is inherently unreliable. That doesn't mean the conclusion is necessarily wrong but it does mean this is not a reliable way to establish its truth.

In addition, he has clearly shown that this conclusion is ultimately based on faith since he admits that he cannot produce evidence to support miraculous biblical claims. Absent faith, you cannot assert that the Bible is inerrant/entirely reliable unless you can show that each and every claim it makes should be considered true.