Searching for GOD...

[ProfessorDavey]

A written claim of Christ's resurrection is a piece of information and therefore Data.

It is only data in the sense of information that someone has made that claim (as I have already indicated) - it isn't data in the sense that the claim has any credibility to it.

It is no more useful that indicating that someone made a claim that Icarus and Daedalus engineered mechanisms that allowed them to fly. Interesting if the information you are interested in is ancient myths, completely irrelevant if you are interested in man powered flight. Likewise for gospel claims.

But of course you like to muddy the water by inserting the word data next to your (completely unevidenced) assertions that the claimed resurrection actually happened. In the latter context there are no data in the gospels - merely mythical stories. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is only data in the sense of information that someone has made that claim

So it is Data!

there are no data in the gospels

So it isn't Data?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But of course you like to muddy the water by inserting the word data next to your (completely unevidenced) assertions

Since that is a piece of information, it is Data and so the word can be attached without being an attempt to muddy the waters

that the claimed resurrection actually happened. In the latter context there are no data in the gospels - merely mythical stories.

No it is mentioned in the Gospels and the epistles. That is evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

No it is mentioned in the Gospels and the epistles. That is evidence.

It is only evidence that someone has made a claim - it provides exactly zero evidence that the claim is true.

If I claim that the sun, planets and moon all orbit around the earth, does that provide one iota of evidence that the claim is true - no.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Since that is a piece of information, it is Data and so the word can be attached

Could you at least try to keep up here. Do you remember back in the day how after the national anthem the TV would close down, and there’d be fuzz on the screen? That was “data” only inasmuch as it verifiably existed, but it had no content. If you’d have tried that with your Bible reference – ie, “there exist some stories in a book” – you’d have been on safer ground. That’s not what you did though – what you did was to imply that the content of these stories were data too – ie, they had some epistemic value. That’s where you crashed and burned, and that’s where you will remain until and unless you can justify that claim rather than just assert it.         

No it is mentioned in the Gospels and the epistles. That is evidence.

It’s only evidence that it’s mentioned in the Gospels and the epistles though. It’s not evidence that any of it is also true.

Try to remember this.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is only evidence that someone has made a claim - it provides exactly zero evidence that the claim is true.

If I claim that the sun, planets and moon all orbit around the earth, does that provide one iota of evidence that the claim is true - no.

No, it is evidence from several documents that it happened and that the pool of witnesses still exist. There are corroborative details in the documents. If you do not accept the evidence preferring another narrative that is up to you but then we are entitled to ask you for such evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Could you at least try to keep up here. Do you remember back in the day how after the national anthem the TV would close down, and there’d be fuzz on the screen? That was “data” only inasmuch as it verifiably existed, but it had no content.

But the new testament has content, so why guff up about the echo from the big bang which seems to be a great load of evidence

If you’d have tried that with your Bible reference – ie, “there exist some stories in a book” – you’d have been on safer ground. That’s not what you did though – what you did was to imply that the content of these stories were data too – ie, they had some epistemic value.

Pieces of information are Data whether they have epistemic value is to be established by analysis of the Data.

That’s where you crashed and burned,

You can't crash and burn in a debate about the definition of the word Data by pointing out the bible is pieces of Data

         

It’s only evidence that it’s mentioned in the Gospels and the epistles though. It’s not evidence that any of it is also true.

Try to remember this.

Then you invalidate all of history since a lot of it comes to us in the same way.

Moderator: quoting tidied up.

[Gordon]

No, it is evidence from several documents that it happened and that the pool of witnesses still exist. There are corroborative details in the documents.

With regard to these documents how did you address the risks of mistakes, exaggeration and lies?

If you do not accept the evidence preferring another narrative that is up to you but then we are entitled to ask you for such evidence.

Shifting the burden of proof again, Vlad - tut tut. What is needed is for you to explain why we shouldn't be unduly concerned about the risks of mistakes, exaggeration and lies in the documents you are supporting as being evidence. 

[ProfessorDavey]

No, it is evidence from several documents that it happened and that the pool of witnesses still exist. There are corroborative details in the documents. If you do not accept the evidence preferring another narrative that is up to you but then we are entitled to ask you for such evidence.

Complete non-sense - the claims in the gospels/epistles are about as weak as they come in terms on any credible evidence that the claims are true. So we can ask (and answer) the following questions in relation to the 'evidence'.

1. Is the claim fundamentally plausible. NO - your understanding of physiology tells us that people who are actually dead for three days cannot come alive.

2. Do the claims come from people who were actually eye witnesses (noting that even if they did people regularly mis-remember or misinterpret things they witness. NO - there is no evidence that any of the people making the claims were actually there and plenty of evidence to indicate that they weren't.

3. Was the claim made at the time of the event, or very close thereafter. NO - all the claims are in documents who earliest date is decades after the claimed event.

4. Do we know the relationship/links between those making the claim and those who might have actually been eye witnesses. NO - actually in the case of the gospels were aren't even clear who the authors are.

5. Is there any non-partial corroborative evidence, e.g. from authorities around at the time. NO - the nearest is from decades/centuries later, merely indicating what christians believed not actually corroborating the claim.

6. Are we sure that the claim as read is the same as the original claim by the author of the gospel/epistle - NO - our earliest actual versions are typically from centuries after they were claimed to have been written and we know beyond any doubt that there were almost countless changes in preceding versions from about 150AD-350AD. We can presume that similar changes occurred from 50-80AD to 150AD. So we cannot be certain that the claims actually existed in the earliest versions.

7. Are there multiple, independent sources for the claim - NO - effectively all the claims link back to the same place. That they may have appeared in different gospels is pretty well irrelevant if they based themselves on the same source mythology.

I could go on, but I can't be bothered.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So that’s a yes – you have given up entirely now with the quotes boxes?

But the new testament has content, so why guff up about the echo from the big bang which seems to be a great load of evidence

Oh dear. The part you’re still struggling with is the difference between form and content. You could take screen shots equally of the TV fuzz and of a page from the NT and in each case all you’d have is evidence for the fact that each exists. If you wanted to derive meaning, truth etc from either of them though you’d have to find some means to justify your claims – you know, the part you always miss out.   
 

Pieces of information are Data whether they have epistemic value is to be established by analysis of the Data.

Are you just not reading the explanation for where you’re going wrong here? The TV fuzz screen is a “piece of data” only inasmuch as it exists. If I wanted to claim that it contained hidden messages from Alpha Centauri though, then there’s no data to that effect until and unless I can justify my claim. Shot version: it’s data only of something (it exists), but it’s not data for something (meaning).

Gee whizz…   

You can't crash and burn in a debate about the definition of the word Data by pointing out the bible is pieces of Data

But you can when you conflate form with content remember?

Then you invalidate all of history since a lot of it comes to us in the same way.

No I don’t because no it doesn’t. The tests for historicity are much more rigorous than those you apply to the faith claims that happen to take your fancy. That’s why claims of a resurrection are taught in RE classes but not in history classes.

Again, try to remember this.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

With regard to these documents how did you address the risks of mistakes, exaggeration and lies?

Mistakes? These accounts are not slips of the pen The epistles are documents covering the eastern mediterranean and roman christian communities. We are talking a lot of conspirators concerning exaggeration and lies. I think we have talked about conspiracies before so I am going to offer the same research into conspiracy survival times. Accessible through this link https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35411684

Shifting the burden of proof again, Vlad - tut tut.

I would have only suggested he has a burden if he made a positive assertion which as you know carries a burden[/quote] What is needed is for you to explain why we shouldn't be unduly concerned about the risks of mistakes, exaggeration and lies in the documents you are supporting as being evidence.
[/quote]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35411684

[Gordon]

Mistakes? These accounts are not slips of the pen The epistles are documents covering the eastern mediterranean and roman christian communities. We are talking a lot of conspirators concerning exaggeration and lies. I think we have talked about conspiracies before so I am going to offer the same research into conspiracy survival times. Accessible through this link https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35411684

Super - but I'll ask again: as regards the documents you are advancing how have you assessed the content for  mistakes, exaggeration and lies?

P.S. Could you pay more attention to your quoting please - I've already had to untangle one of your posts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So that’s a yes – you have given up entirely now with the quotes boxes?

Oh dear. The part you’re still struggling with is the difference between form and content. You could take screen shots equally of the TV fuzz and of a page from the NT and in each case all you’d have is evidence for the fact that each exists. If you wanted to derive meaning, truth etc from either of them though you’d have to find some means to justify your claims – you know, the part you always miss out.   
 
Are you just not reading the explanation for where you’re going wrong here? The TV fuzz screen is a “piece of data” only inasmuch as it exists.

I don't think that's true I think it contains information about the big bang.

If I wanted to claim that it contained hidden messages from Alpha Centauri though, then there’s no data to that effect until and unless I can justify my claim. Shot version: it’s data only of something (it exists), but it’s not data for something (meaning).

It is information about the big Bang.

No I don’t because no it doesn’t. The tests for historicity are much more rigorous than those you apply to the faith claims that happen to take your fancy. That’s why claims of a resurrection are taught in RE classes but not in history classes.

Again, try to remember this.

No you undercut the very foundations of historical study by removing the validity of all ancient documents as sources of History. If you start saying this one is ok because it conforms to my weltbild but this one isn't ok because it doesn't a) that is not historical b) it's special pleadingstudy.
Secondly a history lesson could very well say that this is what people believed happened, or an event was wrongly interpretated through mass hysteria yet established Christianity as a world wide movement.

But of course, your mission is to erase religion

[ProfessorDavey]

Mistakes? These accounts ...

They aren't accounts - they are claims, and unevidenced ones at that.

... are not slips of the pen

How do you know Vlad. Since I gather that the earliest extant versions of the epistles are from the 3rdC how on earth do you know how those documents were altered between the point they were supposed to have been written and the earliest actual versions we have.

The epistles are documents covering the eastern mediterranean and roman christian communities.

So what - that doesn't make the claims in them true. No doubt there are many documents circulating around the mediterranean for centuries that made claims about the sun going around the earth - doesn't make it true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They aren't accounts - they are claims, and unevidenced ones at that.
How do you know Vlad. Since I gather that the earliest extant versions of the epistles are from the 3rdC how on earth do you know how those documents were altered between the point they were supposed to have been written and the earliest actual versions we have.
So what - that doesn't make what it in them true. No doubt there are many documents circulating around the mediterranean for centuries that made claims about the sun going around the earth - doesn't make it true.

I wonder if the Christian communities were a lot more widespread in the third century then and there is archeological evidence. Of course in your thinking for all we know they could have sprung up spontaneously in that century
The changing and altering of all historical documents to the same degree would, I'm sure you agree, have happened. Or are you special pleading here?

[ProfessorDavey]

The changing and altering of all historical documents to the same degree would, I'm sure you agree, have happened. Or are you special pleading here?

Nope I'm not special pleading and I've made this point several times.

That's why you need to look for other evidence to corroborate any claims - for example archeological evidence, or independent (and ideally contemporary and non-partial) corroboration. And there isn't any.

The gospel and other NT documents do have particular issues in terms of alterations though, in that they seem to have been copied many times, that they were largely written on papyrus which has a very short life in most cases, there doesn't appear to be any 'reference' text to go back to and also copyists weren't professionals. Couple that with the known 'power battle' raging at the heart of the early christian church (anyone for heretics) and we have a scenario ripe for inadvertent and deliberate alteration.

There are other early documents which were maintained in a single place for centuries and so even if we have a copy from 500 years later it is likely to only be a first or second generation copy. By contrast the earliest versions of the NT we have may be 10th (or more) generation copies.

And by the way, even if we were 100% convinced that a document we are looking at is identical to the original this doesn't mean the claims in it are true, it merely means that we can be confident what those original claims were.

[ProfessorDavey]

I wonder if the Christian communities were a lot more widespread in the third century then and there is archeological evidence.

The archeological evidence we'd need to corroborate the claims isn't evidence of 3rdC christian communities - we know they existed. No it would need to be archeolgical evidence from about 30AD-ish to support the claim itself, i.e. archeological evidence of an alive-dead-alive person. There isn't any, of course.

[Dicky Underpants]

I wonder if the Christian communities were a lot more widespread in the third century then and there is archeological evidence. Of course in your thinking for all we know they could have sprung up spontaneously in that century
The changing and altering of all historical documents to the same degree would, I'm sure you agree, have happened. Or are you special pleading here?

Arian Christianity* was flourishing around that time, until wiped out by the dominant Trinitarian Church after the council of Nicea. The archaeological evidence for that form of Christianity has certainly been wiped out (apart from one church in north Italy).

*The quite reasonable belief that Christ was not the full Godhead.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think we have talked about conspiracies before so I am going to offer the same research into conspiracy survival times. Accessible through this link https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35411684

I'm struggling to see why this is relevant.

It seems to involve conspiracies where the originator/originators fessed up some time later, but clearly within their lifetimes. That is obviously time limited - once the people around at the time are dead and gone the conspiracy takes a whole new life of its own as there cannot be (by definition) anyone to come clean and say 'hey, I made it up all along'.

And I don't think we are talking about overt conspiracy theories here, where there is a deliberate attempt to deceive - rather we are taking about misrepresentation and exaggeration in the retelling of stories as they are transferred from person to person. I suspect there is a degree of deliberate exaggeration - people who believe something making they claim seem as compelling as possible as they try to persuade others. But I don't doubt that these people believed the claims, recognising this would be a world where superstition and fantastic claims would be commonplace. However, that they believed the claims, regardless of how vociforously they believe the claims, tells us nothing about whether the claims are true.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't think that's true I think it contains information about the big bang.

It is information about the big Bang.

Yes, but not about tap-dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri. That’s the point – your assertion was that stories in a book are objectively true, apparently on the sole ground that they are in a book. That’s not data for the stories being true though. The only data you have at this point is that these stories exist.   

Similarly with the fuzz on the screen, that wasn’t data about the Big Bang either until someone established a bridge from noise to signal. Just now, all you have to justify your claims of biblical truths is effectively noise.     

No you undercut the very foundations of historical study by removing the validity of all ancient documents as sources of History.

Why have you just lied about that? Most “sources of history” start with documents. For historical veracity though various other tests have to be applied because there are more robust criteria for historicity than “because they’re in a document”.

Try to remember this.     

If you start saying this one is ok…

I don’t.

…because it conforms to my weltbild but this one isn't ok because it doesn't a) that is not historical b) it's special pleadingstudy.

And c) yet another of your straw men.

Secondly a history lesson could very well say that this is what people believed happened, or an event was wrongly interpretated through mass hysteria yet established Christianity as a world wide movement.

So was flat-earthism at one time. So is Islam now. Apart from an argumentum ad populum fallacy, what point do you think you’re making here? 

But of course, your mission is to erase religion

As I’ve called you out on this lie several times already, perhaps we should elevate it to “Vlad’s big fucking lie” status now?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope I'm not special pleading and I've made this point several times.

That's why you need to look for other evidence to corroborate any claims - for example archeological evidence, or independent (and ideally contemporary and non-partial) corroboration. And there isn't any.

But you are giving the impression of history by archeology alone. But there is precious little written evidence extant from the time for anything. How non partial were the roman or jewish authorities and roman and Jewish historians to their activities, I wonder?

The gospel and other NT documents do have particular issues in terms of alterations though, in that they seem to have been copied many times,

I'm sure that is true for most documents of the time after all there were zero printing presses

that they were largely written on papyrus which has a very short life in most cases

Again most documents for distribution and use would need to be copied in large quantity and would have been done on papyrus,

there doesn't appear to be any 'reference' text to go back to

The reference text itself would be copied wouldn't it? That would be true of any document that needed a reference text. There is reference to old testament texts in the NT surely the text here would be an indication of mutation

and also copyists weren't professionals

Now I would be interested in where you get that from since all documentation that needed multiple copies needed to be copied

. Couple that with the known 'power battle' raging at the heart of the early christian church

Davey, the whole of history is very much a power battle and in any case how do you know about the power battle? It seems you are believing selected parts of the narrative which suit you and reject those that don't.

and we have a scenario ripe for inadvertent and deliberate alteration.

Again power battle effects could effect any history or account or are you conveniently forgetting politics?

There are other early documents which were maintained in a single place for centuries and so even if we have a copy from 500 years later it is likely to only be a first or second generation copy. By contrast the earliest versions of the NT we have may be 10th (or more) generation copies.

what first generation documents are you thinking of?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes, but not about tap-dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri. That’s the point 

Bonkers, the only one mentioning those is you.

Will you have the honesty now to admit that you were wrong about the Data we have from TV static is more than ''this is TVstatic''? and apologise in public here and in Saffron Walden Town Square?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


So was flat-earthism at one time. So is Islam now. Apart from an argumentum ad populum fallacy, what point do you think you’re making here? 

No I was talking about how the events in the bible were believed by Christians, gave rise to a mass movement and that is why it is historically relevant. That could be taught as history.

You seem befuddled and aggressive.

[ProfessorDavey]

But you are giving the impression of history by archeology alone. But there is precious little written evidence extant from the time for anything. How non partial were the roman or jewish authorities and roman and Jewish historians to their activities, I wonder?

Nope history isn't just about archeology, but that is a very important element of evidence. Historians look for as much evidence as they can and also assess the strength and/or weaknesses of the evidence they have. In historical terms the historicity within the gospels is very weak.

On whether accounts are partial or not, well of course the Romans writing about some aspect of Roman history is likely to have a clear pro-Roman spin on it. So it will be partial. Hence the need to look for corroborative evidence from the 'other side' - i.e. non partial, or differently partial. But this needs to be both contemporary and genuinely independent. So if a Roman document tells of a bid battle which was a great victory for the Romans we'd perhaps look to see if the opposing side of that battle, firstly also says there was a battle. If so that helps provide evidence that a battle took place. Were the non Roman account to talk of an epic defeat then that would provide greater evidence of a great Roman victory. But of course the non Roman source may also claim victory, or indicate marginal defeat. If so we'd begin to take the partial Roman claim with a pinch of salt.

And then, of course, archeological evidence would be helpful. Do we find evidence of a battle? Do we find bodies? Can we determine whether the bodies were predominantly Roman or the other side etc.

That's how history works. But for the claims on the gospels we have none of that. Merely non independent partial, non contemporaneous claims, with no corroboration whatsoever and no archeological evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

Again most documents for distribution and use would need to be copied in large quantity and would have been done on papyrus,

Not true.

Where documents were being written by powerful regimes, e.g. Roman they'd have the wealth and skills to use parchment nor papyrus. Parchment last a long time, papyrus doesn't.

Also an established regime or organisation will have a 'base' - so a temple or library in which the 'reference' copy of an important document can be held, kept safe, preserved etc. So if they want copies they can make fresh copies from the original time and time again. As the early christians were in effect a disorganised nomadic diaspora with no set base, they couldn't do this. So all the evidence suggests that they made copies or copies of copies etc etc. So multigenerational copies rather than always copying from an original document. It is the multiple generation copying which lends itself to errors, interpolations (where deliberate or by accident). This is a particular issue for the gospels and other NT documents, although not exclusively.