A Discussion I Had Regarding Proving the Existence of God

The original question:

PinGUY

Dec 21, 7:24am, 2006 1

No, this is not a joke. I am offering a reward of ten thousand dollars for conclusive evidence that God exists. Here are some questions I'll probably be asked, so I will briefly provide answers below. townofautumn.com/blog/2006/12/15/10000-reward-for-proof-god-exists/ [townofautumn.com] The following discussion/debate (it ends with the other side calling me names): tortdog Mar 19, 8:36am 29 Sounds l9ike a cheap God. >As 25 alluded to, testimonials are not science. Is it a demand for scientific proof or other proof? Courts rule every day on the basis of evidence which is not scientific. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 19, 10:51am 30 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law [wikipedia.org] tortdog Mar 19, 1:27pm 31 All hearsay is testimony. Not all testimony is hearsay. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 19, 6:21pm 32 And the court system works differently than the scientific method, but crime scene investigators use science to help prove guilt or innocence. tortdog Mar 20, 4:43am 33 My question was why personal testimony was whether personal testimony was being excluded as a means of proof, when it's accepted in courts of law. If only scientific testimony is permitted, then fine. That's the requester's perogative. But in so doing, one is ignoring means of proof accepted in carrying out our justice system. sponsor rivalarrival Mar 20, 5:08am 34 Testimony in a court of law is accepted as Evidence, not Proof. Personal testimony is much less reliable than other types of evidence, such as photographic or audio recordings. Also, the standard in court is "Beyond a reasonable doubt" which is a much lower standard than science permits. tortdog Mar 20, 8:56am 35 Scientific evidence is merely that - evidence. It too is not "proof." Rather, evidence exists to prove up the facts of a case. In a court, we have a judge who decides, based on the evidence at hand, whether it is sufficient to prove up a claim. Personal testimony, whether given live or by affidavit, is crucial in establishing evidence to prove up a claim. And scientific evidence, sometimes given by experts, is simply another type of evidence. I agree that recordings of actual events are certainly more reliable (providing the proper foundation has been laid), but even recordings can be hearsay. But the point remains that our justice system allows for the proving up of a case by means of personal testimony. I am merely asking why it should be disregarded, in favor of certain forms of evidence and not others. sponsor Ewtn2000 Mar 20, 8:57am 36 $1,000,000 for proof beyond a reasonable doubt that He doesn't exist. tortdog Mar 20, 9:20am 37 Other than first-hand witnesses, right? sponsor AlternaDad Mar 20, 9:56am 38 Yup. Testimony is unreliable because people lie, or have personal biases that cloud their judgment. Or perhaps what they think they witnessed isn't what really happened... uncontrolled variables and wot not. tortdog Mar 20, 10:58am 39 Well, with the God that I believe you will never have that until the second coming, because I believe that we must walk by faith. And if God provided a way for his existence to be proven via a scientific method (requiring independent verification and repetition), then it would make God subject to us (and obviously no faith). So there it is. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 20, 11:11am 40 Yup. There it is. A fine example of faith in God. tortdog Mar 20, 11:28am 41 While I have faith, that doesn't mean that I always will, or that others have sure knowledge. Your point is that you choose not to believe the testimonies of those who claim to have knowledge. Which is fine. But it's a choice. (And obviously one would be a fool to believe everyone with a tale to tell.) But one thing that you might not consider (though would likely discount) is a principle of the religion that teaches that: * if man does A, * then man will feel B. And that CAN be replicated. That certainly is evidence that the promise that the man would feel B by doing A is accurate. And it is a form of knowledge, but does not escape your view that it relies on feelings, i.e., words spoken to one's heart/soul. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 20, 11:33am 42 You assume too much. I never said that I don't believe the testimonials, but rather that testimonials do not prove anything. I have yet to share my beliefs or feelings about religion in this forum. tortdog Mar 20, 11:39am 43 That's incorrect. Witness testimony is evidence given to prove that God exists, and are just as relevant as scientific evidence offered to prove up a notion. You merely opine that you view testimonial as unpersuasive as proof because of the possibility of it being unreliable. That's your right. But it's certainly a far higher standard than that used in the law. And therefore I argue that your view is irrational. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 20, 11:44am 44 lol back and forth we go. Ok look, if the only evidence offered in a court of law was a testimonial, the case would be thrown out. A testimony in and of itself proves nothing. It's just somebody flappin their gums. "I say its true so it must be true! I saw it myself!" Doesn't fly. Sorry. Testimonials do not prove anything. tortdog Mar 20, 11:47am 45 >if the only evidence offered in a court of law was a testimonial, the case would be thrown out. Untrue. Before they had video (and still video is not required to convict), what do you think courts used as evidence to convict a person of shoplifting goods from a store? They have the testimony of a shopkeeper (or security guard) who witnessed the person stealing the goods. That's enough. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 20, 11:50am 46 No, it is not nearly enough. Not by todays standards anyway. According to your logic, if I accused you of murder, you would go to jail immediately and for the rest of your life. Hey, if I say so it must be true! I wouldn't lie. tortdog Mar 20, 12:36pm 47 No. The courts weigh the credibility of all evidence offered. Are you suggesting that unless a store has video evidence of shoplifting, that a person cannot be prosecuted for theft? That a person cannot be found guilty of theft where there are two to three witnesses (or even one) claiming under oath to have seen him steal? sponsor AlternaDad Mar 20, 12:46pm 48 Nope. I'm suggesting that the person is not guilty of shoplifting just because someone says he/she is. I'm also suggesting that it is illogical to compare the method the court system uses to evaluate evidence to the scientific method. Further, I suggest that the scientific method lacks the capability to prove or disprove the existence of god, as do personal testimonials. tortdog Mar 20, 12:47pm 49 Okay, absent video testimony (which a lot of cases lack) or eye witnesses (which almost all cases have), what evidence do you believe is used in court to convict shoplifters? sponsor AlternaDad Mar 20, 12:57pm 50 To be fair, I edited post 48 by adding that last line after you had already posted it seems. It was not intentional. That being said, I stand by my last post. Comparing the court system to the scientific method is apples and oranges, but I'll humor you anyway. What about the property the shoplifter ran away with? That is some pretty solid physical evidence, especially if there were fingerprints left on the goods. But, this thread is about a cash reward for proof that god exists. Just because people say so does not make it true. It doesn't make it untrue either. No one will ever collect that money. tortdog Mar 20, 1:09pm 51 We never fingerprint shoplifted goods to get a conviction. We rely on eyewitnesses. What I am pointing out is that you are dismissing as evidence that which courts rely on every single day. Witness testimony is crucial. And scientific evidence is ALSO useful, but not every case has it. Eyewitness testimony of God IS proof. It's just not good enough for some, because they believe the witness is not credible. That's fine. But let's not dismiss evidence merely because some choose not to find it credible - despite courts finding eyewitness evidence as persuasive. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 20, 1:09pm 52 ok now you edited yours after I posted mine.... gimme a sec to read yours and re-write mine. Ok - eyewitness testimony is not proof. proof /pruf/ -noun 1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. 2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have? 3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof. 4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration. 5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight. 6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind. 7. an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation. 8. Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion. Testimonials are evidence, not proof. Testimonials are NOT sufficient evidence to prove or disprove the existence of god. sponsor rivalarrival Mar 20, 1:22pm 53 51: Three witnesses to the alledged shoplifting crime. Witness A says "I saw him stuff it in his jacket" Witness B says "He stuffed it in his shirt" and the defendant says "I brought it from home so I could check the color in the store" Now, repeat the same situation, but this time, add video cameras. Which is more reliable, eyewitness testimony or scientific evidence? sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 20, 1:25pm 54 51. Eyewitness testimony of God IS proof. No it isn't, any more than eyewitness testimony of leprechauns is. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 20, 1:27pm 55 What, you don't believe in leprechauns? sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 20, 1:28pm 56 55. My belief doesn't matter. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 20, 1:29pm 57 True. Leprechauns exist weather you believe in them or not. Its in the Bible. sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 20, 1:31pm 58 Well see, then it must be true. That's how we know unicorns exist, the proof is in the bible as well. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 20, 1:32pm 59 Indeed. tortdog Mar 20, 2:01pm 60 You cite two definitions. -evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. Witness testimony is evidence in a court of law and can be used to convict one of a crime. It meets this definition. -2. anything serving as such evidence Again, witness testimony is evidence in a court of law. Why casually dismiss it here? Merely claiming witness testimony is not proof does not strike dowm the evidence rules used in all the state and federal courts. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 20, 2:05pm 61 What we are talking about is weather or not testimonial evidence is sufficient to prove or disprove the existence of god. It has been established that testimonial evidence my be enough to convict a shoplifter in a court of law, but not sufficient to prove that god exists. And, come to think of it, what of the wrongly accused, or the innocent people convicted of crimes they did not commit, perhaps based on testimonial evidence rather than science? sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 20, 2:30pm 62 60. Methinks "Miracle on 34th Street" is one of your favorite films. I mean the court ruled that Santa Claus exists, so obviously he does... what with all that eyewitness testimony and all. sponsor Ewtn2000 Mar 20, 2:38pm 63 Well let me just say that after reading all of Alternadad's post, I would say that Alternadad would not believe anything anyone said because they are all subject to telling lies. No court room would measure up to the proof of evidence, because any one of the witnessess may lie. Scientist, we shouldn't believe them either, because they also have their own agenda and may falsify their records... Ok, so can we really believe what you think you believe, because after all the mind does play tricks on you and you might be experiencing or not experiencing something that does exist. So you are in this world that only what you experience becomes reality. You have created a subjective reality out of an objective universe. sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 20, 2:41pm 64 Science is corroborative, falsifiable, self-correcting and testable. Eyewitness accounts of gods are none of that. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 20, 2:49pm 65 63 - Ummm what? "Ok, so can we really believe what you think you believe, because after all the mind does play tricks on you and you might be experiencing or not experiencing something that does exist. So you are in this world that only what you experience becomes reality." Sorry, I'm a little slow sometimes. I just don't understand what you are trying to say there. There is a difference between fact and faith, that is all I'm saying. sponsor rivalarrival Mar 20, 2:52pm 66 60: Eyewitness testimony alone is not enough to convict a person of shoplifting. You also need one critical thing: Something Stolen. Without that something, it doesn't matter what the eyewitnesses say. If there are rational explanations that cover both the event in question AND the perceptions of the eyewitnesses, in general, that explanation is closer to the truth than the eyewitness testimony. tortdog Mar 20, 3:35pm 67 The stolen item is presented merely to identify the object. But the key is proving that the object was solen. And that requires a witness, or some substitute evidence. But give me a credible witness and I win. -nd, come to think of it, what of the wrongly accused, or the innocent people convicted of crimes they did not commit, perhaps based on testimonial evidence rather than science? Often it is faulty science, and which better science later disproves, e.g., fingerprints trumped by DNA. And we had science "proving" OJ guilty - or not. But what if there had been just one eyewitness? OJ would be in prison. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 20, 3:40pm 68 Fine. You win. You have just proved the existence of god and OJ Simpson's guilt in one fell swoop. Congratulations. Now go collect your check. Let me know when you cash it so you can buy me lunch. tortdog Mar 20, 3:50pm 69 Cute, but I never offered any evidence of God. I merely argued that the view that eyewitness testimony is not evidence is irrational. And do you disagree that an eyewitness of OJ would have been crucial, while scientific evidence was not enough? sponsor AlternaDad Mar 20, 3:54pm 70 Again - eyewitness testimony IS evidence, but not proof. OJ was judged innocent because of human factors, not scientific ones... which again is a perfect example as to why you cannot equate the judicial system with proof of god. Proof of god is what this thread is about, not the American judicial system or OJ Simpson. sponsor rivalarrival Mar 20, 4:46pm 71 Without the object being stolen, the eyewitness testimony is crap. I can go around all day claiming that people are stealing from me, but if the theft doesn't actually occur, then my eyewitness testimony - even if I truly believe it - is fraudulent. You cannot legitimately convict a person of a crime that has not been committed, even if so-called "Witnesses" state that it happened, and believe that it happened. Without the actual evidence that the crime was committed, the testimony is worthless. I saw (or at least thought I saw) a man being dragged into a woodchipper, I saw bloody, shredded flesh fly into the back of a truck. Yet my eyewitness testimony of that account is dismissed becuase the "victim" was David Blaine. We run into the same problem with testimony of god's existence. Without corroborating evidence, that testimony is crap. sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 20, 6:46pm 72 71. Indeed. Without that hard corroborative evidence that there IS a god, the eyewitness testimony for seeing one can safely be put into the same category as the eyewitness testimony for seeing a leprechaun... both testimonials not being worth a plugged nickel. Yet my eyewitness testimony of that account is dismissed becuase the "victim" was David Blaine. Now why, oh why, can't there be some hard evidence that David Blaine was actually shredded!? At least the claims that he accomplishes feats of endurance over just stupid illusions would finally end. sponsor emortis9 Mar 20, 6:52pm 73 "I merely argued that the view that eyewitness testimony is not evidence is irrational." Maybe in a court room. Just not in peer reviewed science. sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 20, 8:20pm 74 Eyewitness testimony given during the Salem witch trials produced evidence of delusion. Sounds about the same for eyewitness testimony of gods. tortdog Mar 20, 8:47pm 75 >Just not in peer reviewed science. The question is not what is science. The question is what is proof. And in the real world, proof is based on presented evidence, and that does include eyewitness testimony. OJ beat the science. He was lucky there was not an eyewitness. Refute that. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 20, 8:48pm 76 No. This is getting silly, and off topic. We know what proof is, we know that testimony in and of itself does not equal proof... not within the scientific method nor in a court of law. sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 20, 8:50pm 77 76. Ditto. sponsor rivalarrival Mar 20, 9:05pm 78 76: Thirded. tortdog Mar 20, 10:10pm 79 And the scientific method in and of itself is nothing more than evidence as well. And that's the point. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 20, 10:15pm 80 Now you are just arguing nonsense to get the last word. The scientific method - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method [wikipedia.org] tortdog Mar 21, 7:00am 81 It's not nonsense. The point is that proof is shown by evidence, and that evidence includes: * scientific evidence; and * witness testimony. If a person claims to have seen a man kidnapped, that witness testimony is evidence of a kidnapping. You don't need a scientist to draft a theory and use the scientific method to prove that the kidnapping occurred. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 21, 9:30am 82 But you do need to prove that the accused actually committed the crime. I'm tired of this argument, its going in circles. Bottom line - testimonials do not prove or disprove the existence of god. Accusations alone are not enough to convict shoplifters OR kidnappers of crimes. You also need 1) something stolen and 2) someone who was kidnapped. I'm done here. tortdog Mar 21, 9:51am 83 And so you rest on a conviction that a man may not be convicted of shoplifting within nothing more than witness testimony? How do you scientifically prove that a man was kidnapped? sponsor AlternaDad Mar 21, 9:52am 84 :P tortdog Mar 21, 10:03am 85 shrugs Good thing that you aren't a judge or a prosecutor. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 21, 10:20am 86 83 - Ok, you have successfully goaded me into a response, but this will be my last comment on the subject. "And so you rest on a conviction that a man may not be convicted of shoplifting within nothing more than witness testimony?" No, that has been YOUR conviction all along. You also need more evidence, such as SOMETHING STOLEN! I'm so tired of repeating myself. "How do you scientifically prove that a man was kidnapped?" There are many ways... forensic evidence for example. That should be obvious to you, or anyone who has ever seen CSI. THATS IT! Thats all I can stands and I can't stands no more. Say what you will from here on out. Go ahead and keep on repeating yourself and making idiotic circular arguments. I'm bowing out of this conversation. tortdog Mar 21, 10:56am 87 Forensic evidence cannot establish that a person was taken against his will - at best it's circumstantial. Prove me wrong. And the property doesn't not have a mouth or a voice to scream out, "I was stolen!" Again, you have to rely on someone seeing the person take the property. That's either witness testimony or video testimony. Beer cans don't talk. sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 21, 10:59am 88 87. Your argument is getting loopy beyond belief. tortdog Mar 21, 11:17am 89 You are calling me loopy, and yet you seeming are unable to understand the basics in prosecuting a person for a crime, and are touting an image of Star Trek. Hmmm... sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 21, 11:25am 90 I'm calling your argument loopy. And WTF does an avi of ST have to do with anything? I understand the basics in prosecuting a person for a crime... but it must be established that a crime has even been committed! That's where your silly argument fails. The god has not been established to exist, just like the leprechaun hasn't been established to exist. Is eyewitness testimony of seeing a leprechaun proof the leprechaun exists? Start over. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 21, 11:30am 91 tortdog Mar 21, 11:35am 92 I don't think that you do understand the basics. Kidnapping = * unlawfully removes another from his place of residence or business, or a substantial distance from the vicinity where he is found, OR * unlawfully confines another for a substantial period PLUS having a purpose to: * facilitate commission of any crime or flight thereafter; * to inflict bodily injury on or to terrorize the victim or another; or * to interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function. So let's say that John claims Bob kidnapped him from his car. Nothing is wrong with the car; it's parked on the street. John claims that Bob held a gun to his head, and ordered him out of the car. There were no other people around, except for Bob and John. John obeyed and followed Bob. Let's skip the rest of the facts (and the other elements) focusing only on the requirement of the use of force. For the state to prove that Bob kidnapped John, it needs some evidence that Bob took John by force. And you are the judge, so you exclude John's witness testimony (finding witness testimony not to be probative). How do one prove that Bob took John by force if you exclude all witness testimony? sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 21, 11:48am 93 92. So leprechauns exist then? Or do you not yet see the problem with your reasoning? 91. At least we have photographs of leprechauns and leprechaun toys, but we have no photographs of jehovah nor any jehovah toys, so I'd say we have more evidence for the existence leprechauns than we have for jehovah. tortdog Mar 21, 11:56am 94 You chose to ignore my question. But answering yours, I ask who the witness is? Whether or not a witness or his testimony credible is something to be judged (just as scientific evidence is also judged). Merely because you have a witness who claims to have seen something does not prove that it's true. I said that from the start. What I strongly dispute is any notion that witness testimony is not evidence that may be used to prove a claim. That notion is absurd, and clearly rejected by our courts. In courts, whether or not a witness testimony is credible is based on: * the witness's prior relationship with the accused; * the witness's opportunity to observe the offender and the offense; * the length of time between the offense and the identification; * the accuracy of the witness's description of the offender prior to the identification procedure in light of the defendant's actual appearance; * any prior identification or failure to identify the defendant; * any identification of a person other than the defendant as the culprit prior to the suggestive procedure; * the nature of the offense and characteristics of the witness; and * idiosyncratic features of the defendant. sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 21, 12:00pm 95 94. What I strongly dispute is any notion that witness testimony is not evidence that may be used to prove a claim. And we never use a court of the law to prove god claims, now do we? Now ask yourself why. Oh, I see you already did: That notion is absurd, and clearly rejected by our courts. tortdog Mar 21, 12:03pm 96 The courts routinely rely on eyewitness testimony, and have done so for centuries. You are seeking to exclude eyewitness testimony as a means to prove whether God exists. That is irrational. sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 21, 12:10pm 97 "The courts routinely rely on eyewitness testimony, and have done so for centuries. You are seeking to exclude eyewitness testimony as a means to prove whether Invisible Purple Penguins Flapping Their Gums Beyond Uranus exist." "That is irrational." Gawd... do you hear yourself? Start over. tortdog Mar 21, 12:16pm 98 I am not the one denying that eyewitness testimony has probative value. sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 21, 12:20pm 99 Do leprechauns exist? tortdog Mar 21, 12:25pm 100 I don't think so. And I have yet to meet anyone (or read a non-fictional account of a person) who has seen one. Have you? Why is it you don't answer my questions? Is this supposed to be a one-way street? sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 21, 12:48pm 101 100. So you think Sarah Good, Sarah Osburne, Tituba, Martha Corey, Rebecca Nurse, Dorothy Good, Rachel Clinton, Sarah Cloyce, Elizabeth Proctor, John Proctor, Giles Corey, Abigail Hobbs, Bridget Bishop, Mary Warren, Deliverance Hobbs, Sarah Wilds, William Hobbs, Nehemiah Abbott Jr., Mary Esty, Edward Bishop Jr., Sarah Bishop, Mary English, the Reverend George Burroughs, Lydia Dustin, Susannah Martin, Dorcas Hoar, Sarah Morey and Philip English were all witches? Your argument is stupid beyond reason. tortdog Mar 21, 12:52pm 102 If my argument that eyewitness testimony is evidence having probative value is "stupid beyond reason," then why have the courts permitted it for centuries for the purpose of determining the truth? >So you think Sarah Good, ... were all witches? I have never taken that position. And if you believe anything that I have said suggests that, then you are grossly misinterpreting. I have answered each and every question you have posited. Why do you choose to not answer my questions to you? sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 21, 1:01pm 103 102. You're arguing for eyewitness testimony as PROOF for the existence of intangible beings. These obviously include leprechauns, fairies, angels, demons, flying spaghetti monsters, bug-eyed space aliens, flying teapots, invisible purple penguins, unicorns, headless horses, succubi, incubi, hydras... oh, and gods. It amazes me how you don't see how silly your argument has become. Why do you choose to not answer my questions to you? Not pertinent. tortdog Mar 21, 1:08pm 104 >You're arguing for eyewitness testimony as evidence for the existence of intangible beings. These obviously include leprechauns, fairies, angels, demons, flying spaghetti monsters, bug-eyed space aliens, flying teapots, invisible purple penguins, unicorns, headless horses, succubi, incubi, hydras... oh, and gods I am not make a differentiation on whether the object being proved is intangible or not. How do you know that God is intangible? Drawing such a distinction is absurd, and premature. I merely posit that eyewitness testimony can have probative value. I also submit that not all eyewitness testimony has equal probative value (in fact, some would be prejudicial). SECOND REQUEST FOR A RESPONSE: I have answered each and every question you have posited. Why do you choose to not answer my questions to you? sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 21, 1:18pm 105 104. I merely posit that eyewitness testimony can have probative value. I also submit that not all eyewitness testimony has equal probative value (in fact, some would be prejudicial). IOW: "Eyewitness testimony in the case of my god has higher probative value than eyewitness testimony in the case of your unicorn." Bleh. Your argument is stupid. tortdog Mar 21, 1:25pm 106 Still unwilling to answer my questions? sponsor AlternaDad Mar 21, 1:28pm 107 "How do one prove that Bob took John by force if you exclude all witness testimony?" Fine - to answer your question, witness testimony must be corroborated with some sort of physical evidence. It cannot stand alone, then it is only an accusation. Testimonials are not considered scientific evidence, they do not prove or disprove the existence of god. There. For the last time. tortdog Mar 21, 1:37pm 108 What physical evidence can exist to show force, when the only force used was a person holding a gun? Just showing a gun doesn't prove anything, since the ownership of a gun doesn't prove that you used it. The existence of a gun doesn't prove that it was ever held. The only evidence that exists in that example is an eyewitness who claims he was threatened by the use of a gun. Haven't you ever wondered why we have judges/juries? They exist to be able to weigh the evidence offered. Even scientific evidence is judged. Have you ever been to a court of law and seen the production of evidence and how it is introduced, used, and judged? sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 21, 1:37pm 109 107. There. For the last time. The jack-in-the-box always pops up again when the crank is turned. :) 108. At least we know the gun exists. Your god still won't show itself. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 21, 1:41pm 110 "Officer - this man kidnapped me at gunpoint." "Did he hurt you?" "No." "What are you doing here if you were kidnapped?" "I escaped." "Do you have any evidence to corroborate your story." "No." "Please feel free to file a report downtown... blah blah blah" --- 109 - One of my all time favorite toys:) tortdog Mar 21, 1:44pm 111 >Your god still won't show itself. The God that I believe in has shown himself several times. But that's not the issue, because unless eyewitness testimony is probative then it's irrelevant. Thus the issue is whether eyewitness testimony can have probative value. The law says, "Yes." I say, "Yes." You two say, "No." 110: This post ignores that there will be other elements of the crime which must be proven (a point that I made in the example). But the element of force in the example I gave can only be proven with eyewitness testimony. The judge/jury weighs that testimony after examination and determines if it is credible. What is NOT done is that the judge keeps the eyewitness evidence out because it is not probative. That's your position. And it's irrational. How about the other question? How do you reconcile that the law defines eyewitness evidence as probative, while you claim that it is not? sponsor rivalarrival Mar 21, 1:49pm 112 We're getting nowhere. Tortdog: Do you HAVE eyewitness testimony to submit as proof of God's existence, or is this entire line of reasoning just intellectual masturbation? You've recognized in 94 that any evidence or testimony submitted will be judged. It's time to either crap or get off the pot. Put up, or shut up. sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 21, 1:50pm 113 111. The law says yes. The law says no in the case of gods. WHY do you think that is? And stop being so fucking obtuse. The law says no because there is NO tangible evidence of the said god outside of the head of the person making the claim. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 21, 1:51pm 114 *big sigh* Testimony is evidence, but it does not, in and of itself, prove or disprove the existence of god. I should go back and count how many times I have said that. That is my position, and it has yet to be refuted. tortdog Mar 21, 1:52pm 115 It's pointless to offer eyewitness testimony unless it is agreed that it might have probative value. >The law says no in the case of gods. Where does the law state that? Just the other day, I was presented with scientific evidence to document a claim. During deposition, we were able to impugn the credibility of the expert, such that the entire report has been withdrawn from evidence. Thus while it was scientific evidence offered up to prove a matter asserted, as a result of examination it was withdrawn. The same holds true for eyewitness testimony. Scientific evidence is just that - evidence. It's not the proof. sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 21, 1:54pm 116 114. Testimony is evidence, but it does not, in and of itself, prove or disprove the existence of god. "Testimony of invisible green leprechauns is evidence, but it does not, in and of itself, prove or disprove the existence of god." Evidence of a belief is not evidence of a being. tortdog Mar 21, 1:56pm 117 That's absurd. One believes that he was forced at gun point. One may or may not have been forced at gun point. Your point is irrelevant. The question is not whether the belief is true. It's whether the thing BELIEVED IN is true. sponsor rivalarrival Mar 21, 1:57pm 118 Tortdog: FOR THE SECOND TIME Since we're obviously getting nowhere, do you have eyewitness testimony to be judged, per your suggestion in 94 that it must be judged. Put up, or shut up. sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 21, 2:04pm 119 117. So... eyewitness testimony of a nine-headed hydra can be used as evidence to prove that nine-headed hydras exist? Your argument is so full of holes it's pathetic. tortdog Mar 21, 2:05pm 120 Sec, Rival. >So... eyewitness testimony of a nine-headed hydra can be used as evidence to prove that nine-headed hydras exist? Yes. Why wouldn't it? And if one had videoed or photographed the hydra, so much the better (as it allows for more examination). There are some species that at one point in time were thought to be extinct. Then, decades later people discovered that that species had survived by spotting one in the wild. Why would you discount that person's word merely because his eyewitness testimony goes against the current thought? sponsor AlternaDad Mar 21, 2:07pm 121 SHOW ME how testimonial evidence can prove or disprove the existence of god. There is 10 grand in it for you if you can do it. Put up or shut up indeed. I'm tired of running around in pseudo legal and pseudo scientific illogical circles. sponsor rivalarrival Mar 21, 2:08pm 122 120: Third time: Put up, or shut up. (Edit: Guess it was the 4th time) tortdog Mar 21, 2:08pm 123 Alterna. Is there any person in the world whom you would believe without question? Rival. For the second time, I asked you to be patient. I am addressing two arguments thrown at me that I believe need to be dealt with prior to any introduction of evidence. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 21, 2:09pm 124 I don't wanna hear any more about shoplifters, kidnappers, lawyers, beer cans, leprechauns, hydras or unicorns. Give me testimonial evidence that proves beyond doubt that god exists. 123 - I question even myself. sponsor rivalarrival Mar 21, 2:09pm 125 124: I'll settle for beyond a "reasonable" doubt. 123: Quit stalling, counselor. Get on with it. tortdog Mar 21, 2:12pm 126 Maybe I'm going about this wrong. But my thought is that unless a person is able to trust another, and believe his word is truthful, that any eyewitness testimony would be worthless. Because that person insists that he experience it himself, and is unable to rely on the testimony of others. Which is fine, it's just a higher threshold than that used in law. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 21, 2:12pm 127 ROFL - That's it. We all just need to trust each other. Hey, who needs the judicial system if we are just going to believe what everyone says to be true. Sorry - I do know people I trust completely. Very few, but there are some. That doesn't mean that I'm going to follow their religion as if it were my own. sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 21, 2:14pm 128 126. Just present the eyewitness testimony that proves a god exists please. sponsor rivalarrival Mar 21, 2:15pm 129 126: You can't have it both ways. You've repeatedly claimed that testimony should be weighed on its merits, well, present the testimony. Call your witness. tortdog Mar 21, 2:16pm 130 Let's say the resurrection. * Christ claimed that he would bring himself back to life after dying. * Various witnesses have claimed that Christ raised others from the dead. * 10 witnesses claimed to have seen Christ after he was killed. * Those same 10 witnesses claimed to have seen Christ eat food after he was killed. * One woman claimed to have seen and talked to Christ at the tomb after he was dead. * Two witnesses claimed to have talked with Christ while walking on a road after Christ had been killed. * One male witness claimed to have seen Christ long after he was killed while traveling. That's quite a few witnesses who have claimed to have seen Christ alive after he had been killed. Not persuasive? If not, what would make it more persuasive? >Hey, who needs the judicial system if we are just going to believe what everyone says to be true. The legal system is not based on trust. It's based on the adversarial system, where each side examines the evidence of the other. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 21, 2:16pm 131 126 - "Because that person insists that he experience it himself, and is unable to rely on the testimony of others." Now you are getting it. If you experience god, then you may well be convinced that god exists. Great! But your testimony of that experience does not make god real. 130 - Too many variables to contend with, one of the biggest is proving historically that these events even happened. That story could well be a work of fiction written to be believed as the truth. There is no way to tell. WOULD you agree that testimony, in and of itself, cannot prove or disprove the existence of god? Please, yes or no answers. tortdog Mar 21, 2:18pm 132 >But your testimony of that experience does not make god real. We disagree. When I see a flag waving outside, I know that the wind is blowing. Whether or not you see the flag waving does not change the fact that it is happening, and that the wind is real. And just because I lack an instrument to measure the wind, does not mean that the wind is not blowing. Trees that fall in a forest without anyone near still make noise. sponsor rivalarrival Mar 21, 2:19pm 133 130: Quantity means nothing without quality. Who is testifying here? tortdog Mar 21, 2:20pm 134 Most of those witnesses were people who followed Christ. One witness was a man who did not believe that Christ would rise from the dead. One witness was a man who believed that Christ was a fraud. That man was also trusted by government authorities who similarly believed that Christ was a fraud. sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 21, 2:21pm 135 130. Not persuasive? Not even a little bit! All those "claims" are in a book of which has not been established as even being true. The author stated the "claims". There is no evidence the claims were made by the subjects in the book. Did Hercules really slay a hydra? It says it in the book, ya know. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 21, 2:21pm 136 132 - illogical - anyone can measure the wind. It has been scientifically proven to exist. We know why it exists and where it comes from. God is different. WOULD you agree that testimony, in and of itself, cannot prove or disprove the existence of god? Please, yes or no answers. tortdog Mar 21, 2:21pm 137 If the testimonies had been executed under oath, would you believe them? Alterna. You completely miss my point. When I can see the wind blow but you can't (because you aren't here), that doesn't mean that the wind isn't blowing. My first hand knowledge is probative. >WOULD you agree that testimony, in and of itself, cannot prove or disprove the existence of god? Please, yes or no answers. Yes, it can. If I see God, I know that God exists. Others may or may not believe me, but I know. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 21, 2:22pm 138 WOULD you agree that testimony, in and of itself, cannot prove or disprove the existence of god? Please, yes or no answers. "Yes, it can. If I see God, I know that God exists. Others may or may not believe me, but I know." That is personal experience NOT testimony. WOULD you agree that testimony, in and of itself, cannot prove or disprove the existence of god? Please, yes or no answers. sponsor rivalarrival Mar 21, 2:23pm 139 134: Hold on a second - You appear to be referencing a book written years after the facts. Demonstrate that these "witnesses" were present at the time of these events, we need to establish their credibilitiy. tortdog Mar 21, 2:23pm 140 First hand knowledge of anything can prove/disprove the existence of anything. >Demonstrate that these "witnesses" were present at the time of these events, we need to establish their credibilitiy. The author of the books claimed that they were there. There are multiple authors who have made the same claim. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 21, 2:23pm 141 That is personal experience NOT testimony. WOULD you agree that testimony, in and of itself, cannot prove or disprove the existence of god? Please, yes or no answers. tortdog Mar 21, 2:25pm 142 Personal experience IS testimony. That was one reason I went through the legal system. Your saying that it's not does not make it so. And if you do NOT believe that personal experience is testimony, then you are irrational. In fact, scientific data is the result of personal experience. sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 21, 2:25pm 143 137. Do you have the actual testimonials from the people referenced in your #130? The words written in a book that may or may not be true are only the author's, of whom the authorship is even in dispute. That evidence is here-say. Proceed with actual evidence, counselor. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 21, 2:26pm 144 142 - Experience becomes testimony only when verbalized to another. Please answer the question. WOULD you agree that testimony, in and of itself, cannot prove or disprove the existence of god? Please, yes or no answers. 143 - good point. tortdog Mar 21, 2:27pm 145 It's not hearsay, because evidence from ancient documents are excluded from the hearsay rule. Nice try. >WOULD you agree that testimony, in and of itself, cannot prove or disprove the existence of god? Please, yes or no answers. I've answered it in post 137, to wit: >Yes, it can. If I see God, I know that God exists. Others may or may not believe me, but I know. sponsor rivalarrival Mar 21, 2:27pm 146 140: So are we getting eyewitness testimony, or the testimony of the authors? tortdog Mar 21, 2:28pm 147 We are getting accounts written down of what others have said they had seen. Ever read a newspaper? sponsor AlternaDad Mar 21, 2:29pm 148 Please answer the question. WOULD you agree that testimony, in and of itself, cannot prove or disprove the existence of god? Please, yes or no answers. sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 21, 2:30pm 149 145. Well?? Are we going to get actual eyewitness testimony? Or just what some writer (of unknown authorship) put in a book? 147. We are not discussing newspapers. Where is the evidence that the people in your #137 actually made testimonials? tortdog Mar 21, 2:30pm 150 There are three questioners, and one person answering all. Perhaps that explains why you, Alterna, are not seeing the answers to your questions. But I will not repeat myself again when I have answered your question two times already. sponsor rivalarrival Mar 21, 2:32pm 151 147: Whether I've read a newspaper or not is irrelevant. I want to be able to judge the credibility of the testimony, and to do that, I first need to know who is testifying. So, we're getting testimony from someone (the author, and our witness)who says that they witnessed someone else (the eyewitness) who witnessed someone else (Jesus) being god, is that a fair statement? edit: I'm sorry, I messed up the atributations... They've been revised tortdog Mar 21, 2:34pm 152 No. You have reports written by multiple people who report on what others have said they saw. In essence, you have four to five newspaper articles. The articles all report on the stories in a similar fashion. The articles do not contradict each other. When I read in four newspapers that report on an earthquake in Indonesia, I generally accept it as true. I don't insist on seeing the seismic reports myself. sponsor rivalarrival Mar 21, 2:35pm 153 Ok. So the witnesses present are, to continue the analogy, newspaper reporters. Please continue. tortdog Mar 21, 2:36pm 154 What is there to continue? That's what we have in that regard. There is also the account of two men in the 1800s who have claimed to have seen Jesus Christ in the flesh. That is actually a first-hand report (as opposed to newspaper articles). sponsor AlternaDad Mar 21, 2:38pm 155 Feel free to carry on with Rival and Vortex and get to my question when you can. I asked - WOULD you agree that testimony, in and of itself, cannot prove or disprove the existence of god? Please, yes or no answers. You said- "Yes, it can. If I see God, I know that God exists. Others may or may not believe me, but I know." That is not a testimonial, but first had experience. Your experience becomes testimony when you verbalize it in an attempt to sway another person to believe that what you experience was really god. So again I ask - Would you agree that testimony, in and of itself, cannot prove or disprove the existence of god? sponsor rivalarrival Mar 21, 2:39pm 156 154: Fair enough. Where is your legal precedent for allowing newpaper accounts of the (crime/tort) as evidence in the trial of that (crime/tort) (Forgive me, I have no formal legal training, I'm not sure if I'm using certain terms correctly) We'll get to the accounts of the men in the 1800s later. tortdog Mar 21, 2:40pm 157 I don't understand your question. Testimony can be of first hand experience. Yet you claim they cannot be the same. >Fair enough. Where is your legal precedent for allowing newpaper accounts of the (crime/tort) as evidence in the trial of that (crime/tort I'm not trying to play legal games with you. I merely brought it up because people claimed that eyewitness testimony cannot be probative (which I believe is an absurd and irrational notion). Newspaper reports would not be permitted in court, ordinarily. Rather, you would bring in the reporters. They WOULD be permitted if the reporter was not available (under an exception), or if the newspaper were an ancient document. But that's not really what you want to hear. The question is whether the probative value of these ancient reports is enough to prove the claim. That's going to be in the eye of the beholder. In my view, it's not enough, which is why I believe one must have faith as well. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 21, 2:41pm 158 You cannot testify to yourself. Well, I guess you can, we can do anything, but it's silly. Why not just "recall" the memory rather than swearing on its validity to yourself. sponsor rivalarrival Mar 21, 2:41pm 159 157: (would it be too much to ask that you attribute your responses to the post in question by using the post number before your comment? I would greatly appreciate it) 157: (post edit) Fair enough. Obviously, these reporters are not available for comment, so their articles will have to suffice in their absence. n my view, it's not enough, which is why I believe one must have faith as well. Are you the one testifying now, and should we consider you an expert? tortdog Mar 21, 2:44pm 160 159: I'll try to remember that. One other thing. I said: >In my view, it's not enough, which is why I believe one must have faith as well. There is one other thing on that. It's been promised that if we do certain things, the truth will be confirmed by certain feelings that happen. And that if it is not true, we won't have those feelings. The fact that this works is evidence to me that there are things out there that we do not ordinarily see. 155:WOULD you agree that testimony, in and of itself, cannot prove or disprove the existence of god? Disagree. Another person's testimony can offer proof, which is why we accept testimony in court rooms. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 21, 2:45pm 161 157 - "'m not trying to play legal games with you. I merely brought it up because people claimed that eyewitness testimony cannot be probative (which I believe is an absurd and irrational notion)." Again, I've said this before, MANY TIMES NOW - Testimony is evidence, but in and of itself does not prove or disprove the existence of god. tortdog Mar 21, 2:47pm 162 161:Testimony is evidence, but in and of itself does not prove or disprove the existence of god. Untrue. You aren't seeing the connection. It is possible to secure a conviction of a person for a crime based on a person's eyewitness testimony. It happens all the time with speeding tickets or a person who runs a stop sign. If it works in the court room, I posit that it works elsewhere as well. It goes to the credibility of the eyewitness (and courts generally believe the peace officer over the accused driver). And, no, not all speeding tickets use radar guns. And most stopping violations do not have any physical evidence at all. 159:Are you the one testifying now, and should we consider you an expert? I have not been asked to testify. I am merely giving evidence of Christ having been resurrected. sponsor rivalarrival Mar 21, 2:51pm 163 I edited my 159 in response to your edits in 157. sponsor AlternaDad Mar 21, 2:52pm 164 162 - We are talking about god. Or at least we were. I can't stand this any longer. Philosophy, science and religion do not work like the American judicial system does, and one is ignorant to think that they do. tortdog Mar 21, 2:52pm 165 I have to get to work, but I'll certainly revisit this. This manner of discussion is far more pleasing, and I feel like the games have stopped and that we are communicating. 165:Philosophy, science and religion do not work like the American judicial system does, and one is ignorant to think that they do. But religion does not work on science either. So this whole thread is absurd, based on that logic. And I disagree that the law is not relevant, because the legal system is based on logic and rational thought through the ages. Thus I point to it as a means to help determine the truth. Science can be bad. The legal system helps to ferret out bad science, as well as bad eyewitness testimony, etc. So you and I will disagree on your view. sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 21, 2:54pm 166 162. Do you have actual eyewitness testimony from anyone in your #137? tortdog Mar 21, 2:56pm 167 Not sure how 137 references eyewitnesses. I mentioned the two men, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, who claimed to have personally seen Jesus Christ alive on April 3, 1836. But someone said they didn't want to get into that now (which is appropriate as we were discussing the probative value of the ancient texts). But I'll have to visit again later. Money to earn. sponsor Vortexfugue Mar 21, 3:04pm 168 167. My mistake, I meant your #130: * Christ claimed that he would bring himself back to life after dying. * Various witnesses have claimed that Christ raised others from the dead. * 10 witnesses claimed to have seen Christ after he was killed. * Those same 10 witnesses claimed to have seen Christ eat food after he was killed. * One woman claimed to have seen and talked to Christ at the tomb after he was dead. * Two witnesses claimed to have talked with Christ while walking on a road after Christ had been killed. * One male witness claimed to have seen Christ long after he was killed while traveling. Do you have actual eyewitness testimony from any of these people? Unless you do, we'll have to accept that they are only claims of witness testimony by an author who is in dispute. sponsor rivalarrival Mar 21, 3:06pm 169 167: Yeah, we'll hear from them later. We haven't even gotten to the testimony of the authors yet. We'll also need to elaborate on the statement "...I believe one must have faith as well." sponsor emortis9 Mar 21, 7:29pm 170 Hey Tort...what about eyewitness accounts in other religions. Islam for example. Do you take those as truth? Or would you say that when someone has an eyewitness account, they could be wrong? Why believe one account as proof and not the other one? tortdog 7:17am 171 168:Do you have actual eyewitness testimony from any of these people? Unless you do, we'll have to accept that they are only claims of witness testimony by an author who is in dispute. This has been explained, that the accounts we have are of those who wrote about what happened. While the authorship of the various accounts is in dispute, in the first centuries it was widely acknowledged that the authors were those named by each account, e.g., Matthew. Thus if those people were right centuries ago, they are first person accounts. But others claim the authorship of others, though I believe it's Mark's account that is believed to have been first hand, i.e., authored by Mark himself who was one of the witnesses. Even so, I don't doubt that's your view (that they are claims of witness testimony by an author in dispute). And that's one reason why courts like first hand testimony, as opposed to documented evidence. But like it or not, we can't examine today those who witnessed events of centuries past, and we rely on ancient writings. 170:what about eyewitness accounts in other religions. Islam for example. Do you take those as truth? Or would you say that when someone has an eyewitness account, they could be wrong? Why believe one account as proof and not the other one? I believe that any serious inquirer of religion should investigate claims of appearances of God to people. And why believe one over the other? I've listed why courts will give more credibility to a witness than others. I'd suggest that we do likewise. And if there are not multiple witnesses of the same events, the level of credibility falls, i.e., it's more credible to have 10 witnesses of an event than just one. So, yes, we should investigate such claims. I suggest we do that by study of the accounts, comparison to other "encounters" with God, and look for similarities and differences. If one person states that God has four legs and six eyes, while the other says that God has no legs and looks like green Jello, then either: * one (or both) are wrong or * both are right but that God is a shape shifter (who either shape shifts for the joy of confusing people or just can't help it). sponsor Vortexfugue 8:39am 172 171. is in dispute widely acknowledged Thus if those people But others claim the authorship of others though I believe Looks like a lot of ifs to me. Hardly makes for a proof. authored by Mark himself who was one of the witnesses. Do you have irrefutable evidence that Mark wrote Mark? And, more importantly, do you have irrefutable evidence that he was one of the witnesses? Looks like you're just speculating. Why were so many of the books left out of the apocrypha? I'm thinking it's because there were far too more inconsistencies between them then there are now, which are still many. So the early church fathers figured the ones they picked would be the less damaging to the cause when they dreamed up their religion. it's more credible to have 10 witnesses of an event than just one. And so far we don't have irrefutable evidence of ANY witnesses to the supposed resurrection event. tortdog 8:53am 173 172: Those accounts are evidence. And that people discount the evidence, or have varying opinions on the evidence, does not mean the evidence is incorrect. Some people do not believe the evidence that man has been on the moon. But we have. >Do you have irrefutable evidence that Mark wrote Mark? And, more importantly, do you have irrefutable evidence that he was one of the witnesses? Looks like you're just speculating. The earliest text has his name on it. And Mark has been widely reported as being one of the witnesses. There is similar evidence of John, who was one of the witnesses. At one time, there was no question on the authorship. After centuries had passed, some began to question if the document's authorship was accurate. But because there is no means to determine without any doubt as to the author (due to the lack of fingerprints or other corroborating evidence), we rely on what we have. But that's often the case with ancient text. Can you prove that Aristotle is the author of the writings attributed to him? Can you prove that Shakespeare wrote his plays? >And so far we don't have irrefutable evidence of ANY witnesses to the supposed resurrection event You could say that about every event in which the passage of time has surpassed hundreds of years. Thus perhaps all of human history is a fiction. But what we do have are four separate accounts that corroborate various events. And those accounts are ancient. And during the time those accounts were written, the accounts were tested and either believed or not. It rests on the credibility of those who have seen the witness testify. And apparently there were many in that age who did believe the witnesses to be telling the truth. And their accounts have been recorded. sponsor Vortexfugue 9:11am 174 The accounts of most mythologies have been recorded. I don't see any real difference between the Greek, Norse and judeochristian myths. Within their frames they all corroborate their own writings. Let's consult the outside sources. Got any? Can you prove that Aristotle is the author of the writings attributed to him? Can you prove that Shakespeare wrote his plays? So... does that mean you're withdrawing your assertion that there can be a proof for your god? tortdog 9:14am 175 The witnesses of these accounts were historical figures. They were not mythological figures. They may be lunatics, liars, and outright frauds, but the people were very real. >So... does that mean you're withdrawing your assertion that there can be a proof for your god? I see you didn't answer the question. I will make it easier. I am trying to find out which ancient people who have written articles you believe to be true (and for which purportedly you believe there to be "proof"). My reason for doing this is your criteria for "proving" or (more accurately) "judging" whether a person existed, did or said something may make it impossible to prove/judge it if it was at least one hundred years ago. * Do you believe that Aristotle was a real person? sponsor Vortexfugue 9:53am 176 175. The witnesses of these accounts were historical figures. They were not mythological figures. They may be lunatics, liars, and outright frauds, but the people were very real. Prove it. I'll ask again: Within their frames they all corroborate their own writings. Let's consult the outside sources. Got any? So... does that mean you're withdrawing your assertion that there can be a proof for your god? Do you believe that Aristotle was a real person? Of course, there is a plethora of outside (not within his frame) corroborative evidence that he existed and we also have his writings, his images, his birth and death dates, a full historical record. We have exactly none of that for the Jesus. tortdog 10:04am 177 176: Prove it. Papias wrote not later than 130 A.D. that Mark authored the report with Mark's name. Irenæus wrote, "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing what was preached by Peter." Clement of Alexandria informed others that people who heard Peter preach had also witnessed Mark present, and that Peter had asked Mark to document Peter's testimony. So people back in Mark's era were familiar with a person who called himself Mark and who claimed to have written this record. >Of course, there is a plethora of outside (not within his frame) corroborative evidence that he existed and we also have his writings, his images, his birth and death dates, a full historical record. We have exactly none of that for the Jesus. What writings? And how do you know that Aristotle was the author? sponsor Vortexfugue 10:10am 178 177. What writings? All of these listed here. And how do you know that Aristotle was the author? See #176. But we're discussing your proof for god, not Aristotle or George Washington, so I'll ask again: Re: Can you prove that Aristotle is the author of the writings attributed to him? Can you prove that Shakespeare wrote his plays? So... does that mean you're withdrawing your assertion that there can be a proof for your god? Edit: Papias wrote not later than 130 A.D. that Mark authored the report with Mark's name. Irenæus wrote, "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing what was preached by Peter." Clement of Alexandria informed others that people who heard Peter preach had also witnessed Mark present, and that Peter had asked Mark to document Peter's testimony. Here is what I was referring to: * Christ claimed that he would bring himself back to life after dying. * Various witnesses have claimed that Christ raised others from the dead. * 10 witnesses claimed to have seen Christ after he was killed. * Those same 10 witnesses claimed to have seen Christ eat food after he was killed. * One woman claimed to have seen and talked to Christ at the tomb after he was dead. * Two witnesses claimed to have talked with Christ while walking on a road after Christ had been killed. * One male witness claimed to have seen Christ long after he was killed while traveling. But no matter. Again, you are giving me a tight frame (no outside sources) of third parties claiming Mark existed at least a hundred years after the "event". Where is the evidence Mark ever existed outside of church documents? But first, how about the evidence that those witnesses actually existed? tortdog 10:14am 179 176: Prove it. Papias wrote not later than 130 A.D. that Mark authored the report with Mark's name. Irenæus wrote, "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing what was preached by Peter." Clement of Alexandria informed others that people who heard Peter preach had also witnessed Mark present, and that Peter had asked Mark to document Peter's testimony. So people back in Mark's era were familiar with a person who called himself Mark and who claimed to have written this record. >Of course, there is a plethora of outside (not within his frame) corroborative evidence that he existed and we also have his writings, his images, his birth and death dates, a full historical record. We have exactly none of that for the Jesus. 178:All of these listed here. You are citing a Wikipedia entry. It claims Aristotle wrote those books, but what proof is offered up? >See #176. The article does not show proof. As opposed to suggesting that I "see" the article you cite, why not state for me the proof that you cite. Just saying that Wikipedia says it is so isn't proof, is it? I've given you some details of people who lived at the time of Mark and witnessed who he was and what he wrote. How about giving me some witnesses who claimed to have seen Aristotle write the works that you cite? Here's is Wikipedia's entry for Mark: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_the_Evangelist [wikipedia.org] sponsor Vortexfugue 10:23am 180 179. You're being ridiculous. Where did I claim proof? You're a dishonest theist, just like I expected. And like most theists, you wouldn't understand corroborative evidence from outside sources if it bit you in the ass. That bullshit theist "Prove George Washington Existed" argument is as tired as shit and bogus as hell. Goodbye! tortdog 10:28am 181 Look, I asked you to prove that Aristotle was a real person, and proof that he authored his alleged writings. In response, you cited to works mentioned in a Wiki entry. Now you say that you never claimed proof. Fine. So if you can't prove that Aristotle was real and wrote the many works cited in the Wiki entry you mentioned, how are we going to satisfy you that Mark was a real person and that he wrote the account we are discussing? In essence, you have set up a test that cannot be passed. Which was why I brought Aristotle into the question. Everyone knows Aristotle was real, but using your own methods we can't prove it. (It's also why I spent so much effort on establishing that eyewitness testimony is evidence, similar to scientific evidence, that can be used to prove a fact. For if you reject all eyewitness testimony, there's no point in bringing it up as evidence.) So what's the point in trying to prove anyone else who lived hundreds of years ago to you (let alone God)? sponsor Vortexfugue 10:32am 182 You're a liar. Here is the friggin exchange: Do you believe that Aristotle was a real person? Of course, there is a plethora of outside (not within his frame) corroborative evidence that he existed and we also have his writings, his images, his birth and death dates, a full historical record. We have exactly none of that for the Jesus. You are dishonest and not worth my time. In essence, you have set up a test that cannot be passed. See #180 about corroboration. For if you reject all eyewitness testimony, So far we have exactly none with reference to the supposed resurrection event. tortdog 10:34am 183 I do not lie. Ever. >Of course, there is a plethora of outside (not within his frame) corroborative evidence that he existed and we also have his writings, his images, his birth and death dates, a full historical record. Ah...corroborative evidence. No scientific evidence - just "corroboration." But we have that for Jesus Christ, with many people writing what he said. We have accounts of healings. We have an account of a trial by the government and the Jewish leaders. Apparently you like SOME corroborative evidence better than others. Agenda? sponsor AlternaDad 10:34am 184 183 - Thats a lie. tortdog 10:35am 185 Heh. Not. But you made me smile. sponsor Vortexfugue 10:39am 186 183. I do not lie. Ever. Liar. But we have that for Jesus Christ, with many people writing what he said. We have accounts of healings. We have an account of a trial by the government and the Jewish leaders. Try to understand what corroboration from outside sources (not within a prejudicial frame) means. Why are rabid christians so dishonest? tortdog 10:41am 187 What "outside source" do you have to cite for Aristotle? You used Wiki. Is that what you mean? sponsor Vortexfugue 10:42am 188 You are laughable and nonsensical, you are being deliberately obtuse because you no longer have an argument. Pew. SerialSinner's Hypothesis confirmed yet again. tortdog 10:45am 189 Wow. Pretty strong. First you call me a liar. You claim I am an "evil" theist or "dishonest," something along those lines. Then you continue to attack my character. You have quite a few insults to throw around, don't you. I can almost picture you sitting at a table and throwing things against a wall. Would have been nice if you had just offered up some of this "corroborative evidence" that is laying around for Aristotle. I'd like to see what you have, before I offer up additional "corroborative evidence" for Jesus Christ having been a real person. You see, I need to know FIRST what you accept so that I can then bring it to you. Otherwise, I have the feeling that you will come up with reasons to reject what I bring after the fact. Always nice to know the rules and the standard of proof that we are dealing with. Consistency is nice. Otherwise, it's all just a game. And I'm not into games of this sort. sponsor Vortexfugue 10:49am 190 189. First you call me a liar. You lied, so of course you're a liar. I never responded to your call for proof about Aristotle. I responded to THIS question: Do you believe that Aristotle was a real person? That is all. You are dishonest. I refuse to argue with anyone who is dishonest. Your profession suits you. tortdog 10:56am 191 I am still unsure of what your position, or your standard for the admission of evidence to prove the historical existence of a person, is. What proof do you have that I have ever lied? To lie is to knowingly mislead someone, or make a statement with the intent to deceive. How on Earth can you know my intent, or what I am knowledgeable about as opposed to mistaken on? As an aside, have you ever taken an oath to be honest before your fellowman? sponsor Vortexfugue 11:07am 192 Stop being so fucking dishonest: Look, I asked you to prove that Aristotle was a real person, and proof that he authored his alleged writings. In response, you cited to works mentioned in a Wiki entry. 1. I never responded to your demand for proof that he was a real person. 2. I never responded to your demand for proof that he authored his writings. 3. My citing of his works was not in reference to a demand for proof about anything. Here is to what I responded: Do you believe that Aristotle was a real person? With this: Of course, there is a plethora of outside (not within his frame) corroborative evidence that he existed and we also have his writings, his images, his birth and death dates, a full historical record. We have exactly none of that for the Jesus. And then this: What writings? All of these listed here. (Wiki entry) You are dishonest as all hell. tortdog 11:16am 193 So maybe that's the confusion. I ask you questions in a discussion, and you take the liberty of selectively responding to only the questions that you want to answer. Why do you do that? You just don't like hard questions? What is it? >We have exactly none of that for the Jesus. Are you so sure? Try your fav source, Wiki. You might be surprised. Of course, I'd rather understand what your rules/standards are for admission of evidence. They seem to fluctuate depending on what is being proved (or who is offering up the evidence). Odd that. sponsor Vortexfugue 11:21am 194 You don't even have the integrity of admitting to your dishonesty. I answer questions that are relevant to the discussion, I don't answer those that are an intentional trap. And for the record, counselor, go back and look at how many of mine (very pertinent to the discussion btw) that you selectively bypass! Those are the honest questions that you deliberately ignore. Edit: "We have exactly none of that for the Jesus." Are you so sure? Try your fav source, Wiki. You might be surprised. There you go again, you dishonest creep. This is what was actually said: Do you believe that Aristotle was a real person? Of course, there is a plethora of outside (not within his frame) corroborative evidence that he existed and we also have his writings, his images, his birth and death dates, a full historical record. We have exactly none of that for the Jesus. What a dishonest bastard you are. So to answer again, no, we don't have any of Jesus' writings, we have no images of him (a blond-haired and blue-eyed European doesn't count), we don't have his birth and death dates, we have no full historical record of him. And they aren't in Wiki. Gawd, you are so dishonest, parsing out just a tiny snippet of what I really said (in bold above) to pretend I said something I didn't. You disgust me. tortdog 11:41am 195 You answer questions that YOU choose to believe are relevant. But I am only asking questions that I believe to be relevant. How about if you believe a question I ask to be irrelevant, you state your case as opposed to selectively answering. Fair enough? >What a dishonest bastard you are. Are you really 50 years old? sponsor Vortexfugue 11:42am 196 Just come clean, counselor. tortdog 11:44am 197 You didn't answer this question: >How about if you believe a question I ask to be irrelevant, you state your case as opposed to selectively answering. Fair enough? Was that question I asked also irrelevant? Curious. What did you get your college degree in? sponsor Vortexfugue 11:45am 198 Just come clean, counselor. tortdog 11:45am 199 Do you believe that 9/11 was a cover up, and that the buildings were actually blown up with explosives? As a note to anyone else, if you want to discuss this issue in a logical and well-thought out manner, I would love the opportunity. I had hopes for the current discussion, but with the name-calling and accusations of the present company, not so much ... sponsor Vortexfugue 11:48am 200 As a note to anyone else, if you want to discuss this issue in a logical and well-thought out manner, I would love the opportunity. LMAO. In a dishonest manner you mean. I'm sure everyone will jump right on board. Just come clean, counselor.