Julian

No, I'm afraid not, much as I would wish it were so. All that absence of evidence does is give us a measure of probability. If I say that I have a tree in my backyard yet provide no evidence, this isn't evidence that I don't and most people would rightfully accept my claim despite that absence because the assertion is quite reasonable. If I say that I have a tree in my backyard that floats one meter off the ground and sings the national anthem in falsetto keeping me up nights and yet I provide no evidence then you can claim that in the absence of evidence you are justified to disbelieve me. Despite all this, you cannot say that it isn't factual. You can, however, say that based on your knowledge and on current scientific understanding of the universe you think I am full of shit and that I will have to provide proper evidence to convince you. You are well within your rights to do so and most sane people would agree with you. Of course, all I need to do is to convince people that the tree can save their souls and that faith without evidence is an admirable trait, and I will have you beat. Sad but true...

Don't get me wrong here, you and I are on the same side and agree on the facts. However, I apply the same strict standards to my views as I do onto theirs. And yours.

Julian

Solitary Man

:rolling:

With that quote, how could anyone "get you wrong"?

JayW

That doesn't exctly define the debate. The point was claiming evidence that something does not exist. If you told me you have a tree in your yard and I said " I have never seen any evidence of a tree in your yard", would that prove you don't have a tree.? Most people would accept your claim because it's your yard. If you said someone across town that you've never seen has a tree, there would be room for doubt. If said that your wrong that person does not have a tree, wouldn't you expect me to know how I know that?

JayW

How so?

Julian

Wrong. Read the bible again.
Yet not global like the bible claims.
You deal.

Julian

DaMan121

Yeah, I see what JayW is trying to do:

You can never prove there wasn't a little flood somewhere and a guy in a dingy carrying a cow floated to safety.

You can never prove a dozen slaves escaped and wandered the desert for a few weeks and hallucinated some crazy shit.

JayW

Nothing to deal with. I've always been saying the flood was not global. I have never clamed that it was global,only that there was one. I have also been saying for days now, apparantly to no avail, that some of the details being wrong does not discount the event.
If that were true, most of the history books would be false. I understand the Bible uses earh and world which has been interpreted to mean globe, but it's ridiculous to believe that the ancient Semites had any concept of any part of the world they had never seen.
The interpretation is something fundamental Christans came up with. The Hebrews knew no more about the world outside there domain than the people of any other nation did.

deadman_932

Uh, the Bible does claim it was global and covered all the high mountains...AND it had to destroy all men that were flawed and wicked. So you think this only means "some" men, somewhere? The Bible writers certainly knew about Egypt...was that covered by a flood? NO. They knew about the Hittites...was Anatolia (modern Turkey) covered? NO...did even ALL the Mesopotamian region get flooded at the relevant time? NO. All of the Levant (region bordering the east mediterranean)? No.

Even if you argue it was local, there are areas where men existed that the Bible writers knew of...that didn't and DON'T show any sign of a flood at the relevant time period. Either way, you're wrong.

MarkA

We may be arguing from different starting points rather than being in disagreement.

I understand what you are saying. But evidence can be negative in law. An absence of evidence that something occured is just as valid, depending on the circumstances, as evidence that something did occur.

But to take your own example of the tree and use it as a symbol of say the architecture of a city that is claimed to be the work of David. Everybody has access to the tree and it can be examined and tested and your claims about arboreal miracles can be verified - or not. Similarly, the building exists and it can be examined to verify - or not - the claim that it was built by King David.

So in the cases I have in mind that are archaeological sites, the evidence, as in the actual physical structure or remains or pottery remains etc, can be tested and any absence of evidence for a particular claim can be tested. In other words, the actual site is evidence and the claims attached to them can be tested and in the absence of verification of those claims, can be refuted.

Julian

You never claimed a global flood, fine. The topic is "There has never been any evidence that discounts any Biblical event" which is my point. The biblical flood is obviously global and described as such. The fact that you think it wasn't is not topical. The bible claims a global flood and that has never happen, as shown by direct contrary evidence. Case closed. If your point is that flooding has happened, then every single Norse mythology story, for example, is as true and well supported as anything in the bible. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Julian