anyone brave enough to answer this question?

[crazy-tiger]

Okay, let ME make the specification..

 

Kevin, I will accept as evidence only documents published by PhD level representatives of recognized educational institutes or world established archeological organizations established before the year 1960. References are required. Web pages must include their source to be equally established. The Bible itself stands as no evidence at all.

 

Would that be agreeable to both sides?

Nope... though it does remove a lot of his "lines" of evidence.

 

I require him to show himself to me personally just like he did for Moses, Abraham, etc.

If he did it then, why can't he do it now?

How about divinely stopping a hurricane or a tsunami before thousands of people are killed?

How about one of his true™ believers walking into a children's hospital and healing all the kids like the bible says they can?

That would be just about the only evidence I would accept.

 

Seriously, the only proof that would be accepted for the claim that the Bible is from God would be God turning up in front of me and confirming that the Bible is indeed from him/her/it...

[Ssel]

I require him to show himself to me personally just like he did for Moses, Abraham, etc.

If he did it then, why can't he do it now?

How about divinely stopping a hurricane or a tsunami before thousands of people are killed?

How about one of his true™ believers walking into a children's hospital and healing all the kids like the bible says they can?

That would require my personal involvement. I don't think I'm up for that.

 

I know that Kevin wouldn't agree to such a standard for the sake of a debate. He wasn't here to convert everyone, just support the argument with normal debate standards (or so I assume).

[Amethyst]

Kevin, I will accept as evidence only documents published by PhD level representatives of recognized educational institutes or world established archeological organizations established before the year 1960. References are required. Web pages must include their source to be equally established. The Bible itself stands as no evidence at all.

 

Would that be agreeable to both sides?

 

No, because even PhD types can be Christian and biased. Short of god himself appearing, I want archaeological evidence that cannot be debunked. And even then, archaeological evidence can only say that some things in the bible may have happened...it can't prove that Jesus was or is god.

[crazy-tiger]

I require him to show himself to me personally just like he did for Moses, Abraham, etc.

If he did it then, why can't he do it now?

How about divinely stopping a hurricane or a tsunami before thousands of people are killed?

How about one of his true™ believers walking into a children's hospital and healing all the kids like the bible says they can?

That would require my personal involvement. I don't think I'm up for that.

 

I know that Kevin wouldn't agree to such a standard for the sake of a debate. He wasn't here to convert everyone, just support the argument with normal debate standards (or so I assume).

I was refering to God... unless you're trying to say you are God?

[Ssel]

I was refering to God... unless you're trying to say you are God?

Never can tell..

 

[Mr. Neil]

Evidence is anything that supports a proposition. It's not a PhD paper. Even if you use a reference, you still have to provide some sort of demonstration that supports your proposition.

[Ssel]

No, because even PhD types can be Christian and biased. Short of god himself appearing, I want archaeological evidence that cannot be debunked. And even then, archaeological evidence can only say that some things in the bible may have happened...it can't prove that Jesus was or is god.

Your asking for more proof than anyone can provide concerning just about anything. The 2LoT doesn't have such proof at all, not even close, yet the public accepts it.

 

But. n/m such a debate can not take place.

 

 

Evidence is anything that supports a proposition. It's not a PhD paper. Even if you use a reference, you still have to provide some sort of demonstration that supports your proposition.

We were trying to settle on "debate" evidence, not scientific demostrations.

 

But, n/m

[Amethyst]

Your asking for more proof than anyone can provide concerning just about anything. The 2LoT doesn't have such proof at all, not even close, yet the public accepts it.

 

Not really. There's proof that gravity exists. There's proof that the earth exists. There's proof that I exist. There's more evidence for evolution than there is for Jesus's existence. Heck, there's more evidence for global warming than Jesus's existence.

 

But. n/m such a debate can not take place.

 

I will agree with you on that...the problem is that Kevin doesn't have enough proof to convince a skeptic who was once a believer. He has enough "proof" to convince a really gullible type, but not someone who recognizes Christianity for the lie that it is.

[Mythra]

Kevin H made the claim that there was no contemporary evidence for Alexander the Great. I posted one.

 

That's the kind of evidence I need to prove Jesus was a man. Something from the early - or even mid - first century that references him. To me, that would prove Jesus had lived as a person. Certainly not a god, but at least a person who walked on the earth.

 

Kevin H or no one else can produce this, since no such evidence is in existence.

[Kevin H]

name='white_raven23' date='Dec 7 2005, 09:49 AM' post='115472']

Well sorry guys but I feel compelled to step into this.

 

In Kevin's defense, he has asked at least 3 times for what would be compelling evidence and has received no answer. He has presented initiating lines of argument so as to attempt to proceed. He can not proceed further, nor can any one else until the issue of what constitutes compelling evidence is answered.

 

It is a reasonable request. I was waiting for it to be answered myself. It would be pointless to present anything without an answer.

 

 

Are you serious?

 

You guys actually need to have "evidence" clarified?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

Specifically I draw your attention to the first section of this definition.

 

Any objectively demonstrable circumstance which tends to indicate or disprove a proposition. See scientific method and reality.

 

Aaaaand just to make sure no one is confused....

 

Scientific Method:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

Now, obviously I don't expect Kevin to go through the laborous process of re-creating experiments himself.....but any work he cites needs to have been able to prove it has evidence to sustain itself.

 

Reality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

 

What would be nice and pretty would be verifyable physical evidence corroberating the stories in the bible....but this is has yet to happen without such evidence (like the chariot wheels in the Red Sea) being proven to be the work of untrustworthy hucksters.

 

Yes, I put that section in BOLD so as to circumvent the attempt to re-use "evidence" that has been de-bunked repeatedly.

 

 

Is this clear enough? No? Okay.....evidence needs to have as it's primary source, something we can verify with our five senses.......likely limited to the visual as the internet does't convey the other four.

 

Hope this helps.

 

KH> Maybe we're getting somewhere. First, please don't refer me to Wikipedia. Second, while you said "primary" as to the source of evidence being the 5 senses, we'll need to clarify. I too hold to the basic reliability of sense perception (Common Sense Realism). But not everything that is real can be verified empirically. Watch. Proposition: "Only those things which can be empirically verified are real". Now, verify that proposition empirically! You cannot. This is why the Empirical Verificationist Principle was thrown out decades ago.

 

So, being that non-empirical, immaterial things exist (propositions, numbers, ideas, laws of logic) how do we verify them? Since God is allegedly immaterial how would we seek evidence for him? What sort of evidence do we examine? Obviously, not the same sort of evidence we would employ to verify a kitchen utensil or matter in the rings of Saturn. But I've been waiting for someone to give me some criteria. White Raven just tried but referred me to a spurious website and proposed the Empirical Verificationist Principle "primarily".

 

Further, what sort of evidence do we examine for historical events? What about historical events in the ancient world before videocams? (This is what Lloyd calls "commanding the discussion". I simply ask questions for clarification).

 

I have tried to find out what rational standards of evidence people here require so I can then try to meet them. Here are the three questions in this post:

 

1). Is something not real unless it can be empirically verified? (skip this, I've shown the answer).

 

2). What sort of evidence do we look for or examine for immaterial realities?

 

3). What sort of evidence do we examine for determining historical events from the ancient world?

 

Kevin H

[Kryten]

Just noticed this thread yesterday...

I think if Kevin wants a more formal debate, a thread should be started BY HIM in the Colosseum, which is designed for more-serious-but-not-too-formal debates. He should start it because he is the one who objects to getting piled-on in this forum. But the piling on is to his advantage in a way-- it allows him more opportunity to pick something he can address while having an excuse for ignoring the tougher questions.

 

He cannot survive a firefight with Mythra-- he's already lost his claim that "there is as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Alexander". He's chosen to ignore Willy, saying he's offended by his avatar, and when many others have asked good questions, made valid points or good counter arguments, Kevin changes the subject. How can we expect a serious debate?

[Vigile]

We were trying to settle on "debate" evidence, not scientific demostrations.

 

But, n/m

 

This is just another rabbit trail. If he has logical proofs, let him present them. If he has papers written by PhDs, let him present them. Whatever he has will be dealt with accordingly and with due scrutiny. So far I don't see what he has offered other than one fallacious proof that was easily destroyed. He made some mighty big claims including that scripture is reliable. He then tried to back this up with a claim that there are moral absolutes and other like easily rebutted tripe.

 

Mythra just provided a reasonable requirement for contemporary evidence the likes of what he provided in regards to Alexander. Such evidence might be able to convince me that there was a man named Jesus or a variation of that name who stories were attributed to, but even that would not convince me that he performed miracles, rose from the dead, or even preached any specific sermon. Why? Some of which I would need extraordinary proof for, such as a scientifically verifiable demonstration of the dead being raised. I would need corroborative evidence to entertain the idea that some of the words attributed to christ were actually his words.

[white_raven23]

 

KH> Maybe we're getting somewhere. First, please don't refer me to Wikipedia.

 

 

What is wrong with Wikipedia? And even if you don't like Wikipedia, Amethyst followed right behind me with Merriam, which gives pretty much the same definition (or close enough).

 

White Raven just tried but referred me to a spurious website and proposed the Empirical Verificationist Principle "primarily".

 

What?

I did no such thing!

 

I made a reference to the five primary senses....in case you aren't aware, there are people who belive the existence of 6th and 7th senses. Because there isn't sufficent evidence for most people about these "other" senses, I referred only to the 5 PRIMARY senses.

 

I didn't say a single thing about the Empirical Verificationist Principle!

 

If you prefer, I'll refer to them as the 5 proven senses instead of using the word primary (since you don't like the word for some reason).

 

Does this seem kooky to anyone else? Or do I need coffee? It's early for me yet.

[JeffXL]

1). Is something not real unless it can be empirically verified? (skip this, I've shown the answer).

 

2). What sort of evidence do we look for or examine for immaterial realities?

 

3). What sort of evidence do we examine for determining historical events from the ancient world?

 

Kevin H

 

1. Yup.

 

2. "Immaterial realities"? You mean the world of make-believe. No evidence needed there. All religionists need to do is make things up. And they do!

 

3. Excellent question. Contemporary accounts are probably the best thing to go on. Problems do arise when, say, a Sumerian king says that Marduk aided him in his conquests, we'll have to dismiss that. We only have accounts of people doing the work, never evidence for a god doing same.

 

Damn I hope I made sense.

[Ssel]

I didn't say a single thing about the Empirical Verificationist Principle!

That's what the 5 senses ARE

 

Kevin, do you have a proposal, in debate vernacular, that represents something on the subject that you feel you can support with the type of evidence I specified earlier?

[Kevin H]

[

quote name='white_raven23' date='Dec 7 2005, 11:09 AM' post='115527]

 

KH> Maybe we're getting somewhere. First, please don't refer me to Wikipedia.

 

 

What is wrong with Wikipedia? And even if you don't like Wikipedia, Amethyst followed right behind me with Merriam, which gives pretty much the same definition (or close enough).

 

White Raven just tried but referred me to a spurious website and proposed the Empirical Verificationist Principle "primarily".

 

What?

I did no such thing!

 

I made a reference to the five primary senses....in case you aren't aware, there are people who belive the existence of 6th and 7th senses. Because there isn't sufficent evidence for most people about these "other" senses, I referred only to the 5 PRIMARY senses.

 

I didn't say a single thing about the Empirical Verificationist Principle!

 

If you prefer, I'll refer to them as the 5 proven senses instead of using the word primary (since you don't like the word for some reason).

 

Does this seem kooky to anyone else? Or do I need coffee? It's early for me yet.

 

 

KH> Sorry. You don't get out of this one. You clearly said you required evidence only available to the 5 senses. That is the Empirical Verificationist Principle. Now, please emprically verify the Emperical Verificationist Principle for me. Or, if you'd like to clarify or re-state your position go ahead.

 

Kevin H

[Mr. Neil]

We were trying to settle on "debate" evidence, not scientific demostrations.

But the nature of evidence is that it has to be demonstratable. Even if you provide a reference, you are making a demonstration.

 

Again, I have to say that the question is nonsensical. "What kind/type of evidence would you accept?" There's only one kind of evidence.

 

It's also kind of like asking, "What would it take for me to convince you that A is not A?" It's not possible, because the proposition is nonsensical. Unfortunately, the Bible teaches that A is not A. It say that 3=1. It says that the Messiah has to be the decendant of David from a line of male progenators, but the Messiah it gives is one that is born from a virgin.

 

If the Bible's true, then it's also false.

[Vigile]

I didn't say a single thing about the Empirical Verificationist Principle!

That's what the 5 senses ARE

 

Kevin, do you have a proposal, in debate vernacular, that represents something on the subject that you feel you can support with the type of evidence I specified earlier?

 

 

Does anyone else see Ssel's constant quibling about a debate format is just a distraction from the debate at hand? I swear to god the guy is going to take a Clintonian leap and debate the definition of "is." This is the reason I stopped reading his formal debate with Bruce.

[Amethyst]

What is wrong with Wikipedia? And even if you don't like Wikipedia, Amethyst followed right behind me with Merriam, which gives pretty much the same definition (or close enough).

 

Only because I had a feeling he would use the "Wikipedia isn't a good source because it allows human beings to edit its content" excuse, which is what other dictionaries do, except that those dictionaries actually pay them. And there has been some stuff on the news lately about Wiki tightening up its restrictions due to some slanderous content.

 

It's also kind of like asking, "What would it take for me to convince you that A is not A?"

 

Or likewise, it's saying prove that apples are not apples, which is impossible, because apples are apples and not anything else. In fact, the Bible says that apples are not apples, it says that they lead to evil, which is insane.

[Ssel]

I swear to god the guy is going to take a Clintonian leap and debate the definition of "is." This is the reason I stopped reading his formal debate with Bruce.

Yeah well, next time actually READ it. I wasn't the one picking out the word "equate" and trying to skew it into a vague metaphysical Identity theory. Your friend Bruce took that option instead of staying on subject.

[Kevin H]

We were trying to settle on "debate" evidence, not scientific demostrations.

But the nature of evidence is that it has to be demonstratable. Even if you provide a reference, you are making a demonstration.

 

Again, I have to say that the question is nonsensical. "What kind/type of evidence would you accept?" There's only one kind of evidence.

 

It's also kind of like asking, "What would it take for me to convince you that A is not A?" It's not possible, because the proposition is nonsensical. Unfortunately, the Bible teaches that A is not A. It say that 3=1. It says that the Messiah has to be the decendant of David from a line of male progenators, but the Messiah it gives is one that is born from a virgin.

 

If the Bible's true, then it's also false.

 

 

KH> But there are different categories of evidence. There is forensic evidence, historical evidence, scientific evidence, empirical evidence, textual evidence, etc. Distinguishing these helps us see the difference between Harry Potter and the Bible, metaphor from literal, Hercules from Christ, etc.

 

Quick answers to your other contentions. The Trinity is Three Persons in one Essence (or nature), which is not contradictory. Jesus is linked to David legally (through Joseph) and physically (through Mary). Many scholars think this is a plausible explanation for the two genealogies.

 

 

Kevin H

[NotBlinded]

Well sorry guys but I feel compelled to step into this.

 

In Kevin's defense, he has asked at least 3 times for what would be compelling evidence and has received no answer. He has presented initiating lines of argument so as to attempt to proceed. He can not proceed further, nor can any one else until the issue of what constitutes compelling evidence is answered.

 

It is a reasonable request. I was waiting for it to be answered myself. It would be pointless to present anything without an answer.

 

 

Are you serious?

 

You guys actually need to have "evidence" clarified?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

Specifically I draw your attention to the first section of this definition.

 

Any objectively demonstrable circumstance which tends to indicate or disprove a proposition. See scientific method and reality.

 

Aaaaand just to make sure no one is confused....

 

Scientific Method:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

Now, obviously I don't expect Kevin to go through the laborous process of re-creating experiments himself.....but any work he cites needs to have been able to prove it has evidence to sustain itself.

 

Reality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

 

What would be nice and pretty would be verifyable physical evidence corroberating the stories in the bible....but this is has yet to happen without such evidence (like the chariot wheels in the Red Sea) being proven to be the work of untrustworthy hucksters.

 

Yes, I put that section in BOLD so as to circumvent the attempt to re-use "evidence" that has been de-bunked repeatedly.

 

 

Is this clear enough? No? Okay.....evidence needs to have as it's primary source, something we can verify with our five senses.......likely limited to the visual as the internet does't convey the other four.

 

Hope this helps.

Maybe I'm confused here, but wouldn't this evidence only show that things happened and a story was attached to those things happening? If the charriot wheels were genuine, that would only show there were old chariot wheels underwater. I know it's been said many times that the historical aspect of the bible does not make the claims in them true and it's also been said that extraordinary claims requires extraordianry evidence. I happen to disagree with the latter. I think it shoud be worded that extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof. So, I think the only thing that could show that the bible is what fundamentalist christians claim it to be would be nothing short of seeing these miraculous occurances ourselves.

 

Oh, nevermind...others have already addressed this. (This happens when I comment before I read the entire thread!)

[Kevin H]

What is wrong with Wikipedia? And even if you don't like Wikipedia, Amethyst followed right behind me with Merriam, which gives pretty much the same definition (or close enough).

 

Only because I had a feeling he would use the "Wikipedia isn't a good source because it allows human beings to edit its content" excuse, which is what other dictionaries do, except that those dictionaries actually pay them. And there has been some stuff on the news lately about Wiki tightening up its restrictions due to some slanderous content.

 

It's also kind of like asking, "What would it take for me to convince you that A is not A?"

 

Or likewise, it's saying prove that apples are not apples, which is impossible, because apples are apples and not anything else. In fact, the Bible says that apples are not apples, it says that they lead to evil, which is insane.

 

 

KH> Show me the verse in the Bible where apples lead to evil.

 

Kevin H

[Kevin H]

I didn't say a single thing about the Empirical Verificationist Principle!

That's what the 5 senses ARE

 

Kevin, do you have a proposal, in debate vernacular, that represents something on the subject that you feel you can support with the type of evidence I specified earlier?

 

 

KH> Well, aside from a specific proposal that I would work hard to be precise on, I'm trying, as you are, to get everyone to see that when examining the very basics of a view one should not require unreasonable standards, i.e. we should use the same criteria for the New Testament or the person of Christ that we accept for other ancient writings and persons. Once we get a handle on that, we can examine what the data tells us about further aspects of the view (Jesus existed but was he divine?).

 

I have noticed an objection to this on this thread along the lines of "Alexander and Plato didn't claim to be God or divine, etc." IOW, if something is of great import, then we should require unreasonable standards of proof for it. I reject that.

 

Kevin H

[Mr. Neil]

KH> But there are different categories of evidence. There is forensic evidence, historical evidence, scientific evidence, empirical evidence, textual evidence, etc. Distinguishing these helps us see the difference between Harry Potter and the Bible, metaphor from literal, Hercules from Christ, etc.

These labels are superficial. Forensic evidence describes evidence that is used in a court of law, for example. All of these are scientific forms of evidence, and they're all support a proposition the same way.

 

Quick answers to your other contentions. The Trinity is Three Persons in one Essence (or nature), which is not contradictory. Jesus is linked to David legally (through Joseph) and physically (through Mary). Many scholars think this is a plausible explanation for the two genealogies.

WRONG!

 

According the trinity docrine, all three parts are of the equally God. This violates logical composition and is thus impossible.

 

I'm afraid that the scriptural evidence that I provided earlier also trumps your assertion about Jesus' link to David. I provided two passages that distinctly define tribal status as something that is gained from blood through the father's side.

 

And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.

 

Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days.

He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.

Mother's don't count in.