What constitutes evidence?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, it's not that elements of independent myths are evidence that those things actually existed. It's that they point to a common tradition that got lost or distorted over time. Zeus et. al might have been based on actual people who were mighty rulers who achieved godlike status in the minds of people for their deeds. Either that, or those stories got around as a way of strengthening their hold on authority, more like propaganda. Even Roman emperors did this. Over time, the stories evolved to literally say these guys moved heaven and earth…and no matter which ones you piss off, do NOT piss off Hades.

There might very well have been a race of giants, and they were responsible for subsequent stories about Titans and so forth. Magic-based traditions held that supernatural forces (gods) could be manipulated through various rituals and incantations. I think a demonic influence might have given the illusion that magic spells worked, hence why it was frequently practiced in ancient times and expressly forbidden in the Bible…the one true God cannot be manipulated by men. I wouldn't be surprised if the Titans and their progeny had their origins in real people, though we have no idea where in mythology the real person ends and the legend begins.

Last edited by AngelRho on 07 May 2014, 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, not really. "God is responsible for everything" is the simplest explanation.

If I were to argue against, say, evolution and I were to pose a serious challenge to it, you'd offer an explanation in response. There's no difference if I hand wave your defense as ad hoc.

Also, ad hoc generally refers to unsupported ideas. A theology that is dependent on the Bible is not ad hoc if the Bible really supports it.

Velikovsky referenced comparative mythology in Worlds in Collision. I thought the issue was whether other cultures experienced long days. Apparently they did. Now I'm told "Velikovsky said it, therefore it is wrong." Aside from the fact that's fallacious reasoning to begin with, and it doesn't even have to do with his theories, it's goalpost moving.

Which is why I won't be bullied into wasting time on it.

So if Gromit is at least willing to go with the assumption that it doesn't appear in other cultures, I'm at least willing to meet him halfway with that assumption.

Gromit's original question to me was about why it was unknown to other cultures. Assuming this to be true, it is possible for an omnipotent God to produce the visual effect of the sun and moon standing still. Because we're dealing with the language of appearances, there's no need to conclude that a localized event is in conflict with the Biblical account.

Supposedly there was some NASA computer thing that "discovered" Joshua's day. The main issue is that NASA computers can only show where they think the stars/planets SHOULD have been, no where they stars/planets ACTUALLY WERE.

The problem with comparative mythology is that the stories don't necessarily match up with Joshua's day…supposedly a big discrepancy between the day during Emperor Yao's reign, which I think was, like, actually 10 days or some such and not just 1 or 2 depending on how you look at it, and supposedly the time of Emperor Yao did not overlap Joshua. There are a couple of Greek and Egyptian examples out there, though they share the same problem. My own opinion of this is that since the legends have had to survive for such a long time, it's more likely that we really have no idea when those events actually happened or how reliably they survived over the generations. 1 or 2 days might stretch into 10 days over the centuries. Could be accounts of the event that did survive were written by those who confused the time or occasion of the actual event with a different time or event.

If that confirms Joshua's day, GREAT. However, if it doesn't confirm Joshua's day, that's fine since it neither proves nor disproves it. There's another explanation. I have an open-enough mind for that.

The only thing I DON'T do is assume that it couldn't possibly have happened at all.

No, because it's not an explanation. You would also have to explain what God is and how you know it's an explanation for anything.

Why is it not an explanation? And why would I have to explain all that? And how is explaining what God is and how I know any different from anything else?

Because it's just a word until you say what it means.

Occam's razor doesn't work that way.


"Argue against" doesn't cut it, you would have to provide empirical evidence supporting a valid new theory that challenges evolution, which has to be repeatedly verified, then we can talk about wether some responses are ad hoc.


No, ad hoc generally refers to coming up with BS in order to prevent any idea from been falsified.

Hi AngelRho. Its been a long time since I posted here. I hope life is treating you well these days?

I think the combative commentators are suggesting that you haven't really provided an explanation in the sense that your posts haven't resolved anything, or suggested a path by which they may be resolved. Resolve as in "increase clarity" and not "bring to a conclusion". They enjoy the journey more than the arrival. They don't want answers but those that lead to more questions.

I'll give you an anecdote from my youth to illustrate how it sounds to me. One day in my teens, I was driving around with a couple friends, talking. Out of the blue, one of them offered this non sequitur: "Some people think the universe has no end, while others think it does." Then he shut up and waited for us to jump on the topic.

We weren't talking about the universe at that moment, but that is not the point. He was commentating on the nature of the universe without actually nailing down any details or even taking a defensible position. What were we to say in response? Yes? No? We settled on, "And?", to which he responded, "I'm just saying". Needless to say, he did not succeed in drawing up a new conversation.

"God is responsible for everything" is a reason why, not an explanation how. Your fellow argumentative conversationalists are looking for mechanisms, for details, not the identity of the agent, nor for coincidental corroborations.

It is okay to start with a wild premise(even as wild as silly old Velikovsky), but these opprobrious forumites expect details on claims, and if you provide those they'll want details on those too, and so on, et cetera, ad nauseam. For the rest of your life. Long after you are satisfied with "God caused it", they'll still want more details, and if your source material runs low on details, you'll need to either speculate wildly(which they wont like), or do some falsifiable research, which you understandably probably don't have the time to do.

While my proclivities align with the Dent camp, I didn't log in to join the battle lines. Rather, I'm surprised that years later, you are still rehashing the same basic stuff with the same people. But my words aren't just critical of you; the others are still here too, still hammering at the same unresolvable points, talking past each other. While it has been years since I have been a regular participant at WP, so little has changed it is as if I posted just yesterday.

I left WP when I applied some theory of mind; the idea that my resolve was merely the equal of everyone else's here. I don't like how stubborn I can be, so I assumed that everyone else here would be equally truculent. I could endure an argument against myself. But I'd be crazy to do it. I gave WP the boot, and I am happier for it.

Leaving meant that even if I hadn't talked some sense into anyone else, I had finally claimed some of my own.

Though I left WP(mostly I guess), I kept a couple friends from here, such as Dent, who occasionally tries to drag me back in. But I've moved on, and the world will continue to spin regardless of whether I am right or wrong.

I'd rather find more friends than score internet points by being a jerk. Want to be friends? I'm sure there is a million things we could talk about other than science and religion. I think I recall you like playing music/performing, and I have a little something you might find interesting.

Thanks for pointing all that out, and I'm already aware! I kinda thought that was the point of this particular thread, too, and each subsequent post just proves my original intended point--that, as you put it, these issues are unresolvable. At this point, I'm mainly bored and just curious to see how far down the rabbit hole goes.

Hey, friends are good. I don't even consider Dent a "bad guy."

Musically, though, I'd be delighted to give anything a listen! I'm going through a total serialism phase at the moment and focusing on painfully slow rhythms and tempi. I'm also working on a couple of albums, which conflicts with my more "artsy" ambitions. The last piece I worked on had a fatal error and will have to be completely rewritten, so I'm shelving that project until I can refocus. I seem to be stuck programming drum loops at the moment, so maybe in a month or two I'll actually have a track that will be worth something!

Most of my work tends to be in church music--because…well, that's where I work. There's been a sharp decrease in how much room my church has for any original work or creativity on my part, which is demotivating, and life circumstances have kept my handbell partner away. So I'm back to working almost completely alone, which is fine, and I try to get away from my church as often as I can so I'm able to perform my own work in public. It hasn't been easy, but I figured fortune favors the prepared. I'm trying to wean myself off a lot of technology, another change I've made in the last year--not because technology is bad, but because I've become excessively dependent on it. I'll actually take manuscript paper out to the park while my youngest plays and hand write melodies and maybe even some harmonic ideas if I have any. I can hammer out half a large-scale work in about an hour and a half like that. I don't mind admitting that MOST of that is not something I'd be proud to perform in public, but I figured out that by focusing on quantity over quality sooner or later I'd eventually churn out something worth hearing, and a melody I thought sucked one day might be slightly reworked another day to make something substantial. I can make a square fit in a circle any time. The problem is exactly how much trouble is it worth to do that musically? Sometimes it's worth it. But not always. In the past, I'd get hung up on that. Now, I'm, like, ok, if it sucks, it just plain sucks. The value in writing it in the first place is simply in the fact that I bothered to write at all. I gave it a chance. It failed. Maybe I'll look at it again tomorrow. Maybe I won't. But at least I have something to work with, which is more than I could say for yesterday!

Welcome back to WP.

So you haven't even read Velikovsky's account? You expect me to accept that there are accounts in other cultures, with times matching well enough that we can be confident that the same event is being described, based on you reading elsewhere that Velikovsky (who has a reputation for being intensely relaxed about the quality of argument and evidence) had some reference?


You are not interested in discredited theories, or you don't care whether or not a theory is discredited?


Haven't yet seen any evidence. "I read that some bloke with no credibility had a reference" is a bit too tenuous. If I hear that someone with an uncertain grip on reality read somewhere that Elvis is still alive, would you accept that as evidence that the King is alive and well?


Given time to read books, I'd have to be pretty desperate to pick up Velikovsky. Your second-hand account that Velikovsky might have a reference worth following up is not enough to make me invest the time. Even you don't know what Velikovsky might have. You just hope he has something.


So your approach is that you assume the account to be accurate, and whatever supports the account must be what happened? I think that is known as the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Evidence is something that can change your mind, at least if you follow the rules of statistical inference. What you have offered me is not good enough to change anyone's mind. On the other hand, assuming the truth of a conclusion, and then accepting as evidence whatever supports that "truth" is a fundamental error. It is an example of an ad hoc argument.

And here's why I don't spend any more time on it than I do. I point to a source that references comparative mythology, but because the guy had some hokey theories you won't even CONSIDER that he mentions references to long days from other cultures? That's faulty reasoning.

At this point it doesn't matter who or what I reference. You either won't accept ANY evidence or you'll move the goalpost.

Like I said, I'm willing to meet you halfway and go back to the assumption that NO culture EVER mentions a long day.

But if you want to talk about question-begging, why assume that it DIDN'T happen? Look! No evidence from other cultures or mythologies! No possible way it could happen!

Here's the thing: I have yet to see proof that it DIDN'T happen. I don't believe that it could NOT have happened. So unless there's definitive evidence that it did NOT happen, I see no reason that I should suspend disbelief.

It's rather common that the faithful have no idea what constitutes reliable evidence. Mythology that has commonalities with other mythology might be cause for further investigation, but it's hardly reliable.

Reliable according to who? Do non-believers have a monopoly on what is considered "reliable"?

Greek myth is not the same as greek religion. They are intended to teach lessons or illustrate some moral or philosophical point. What is interesting about commonalities is the possibility of an actual common tradition that diverged at some point. I suspect there might be some parallels between the Hebrew nephilim and the Greek titans. The tradition that became the greek tradition may have preserved specific tales, whereas those same tales would have held no theological significance for the Hebrews. Indeed, the Greek gods never struck me as very nice guys/gals. I think perhaps over time whatever little was left of the factual basis for the titans and their progeny was lost and the more imaginative stories remained.

I don't claim that greek deities necessarily WERE nephilim or their descendants. I just think it would make sense if they were.

No, its faulty reasoning to suggest that although you havent read it you have been told that this bloke wrote about it, and we should accept that as evidence. This is the point of the thread "what constitutes evidence" no-one is moving any goal posts, you simply do not understand, what is and is not accepted as evidence in either a philosophical nor an empirical sense.



Firstly you have suspended disbelief, more importantly your line of reasoning is exactly what Bertrand Russel so succintly described in his T-pot analogy

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time

And J.B. Bury

Some people speak as if we were not justified in rejecting a theological doctrine unless we can prove it false. But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter. ... If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed? Some minds would be prepared to accept it, if it were reiterated often enough, through the potent force of suggestion.

Outside of pure mathematics there is very little that can be definitively, absolutely proven, what we have instead is weight of evidence and probability, and from this we draw conclusions. This is the cornerstone of the scientific method.

To quote Professor Brian Cox
Difficult as it may sometimes seem, science at its heart is not a complicated discipline. One might venture to say that it is an attempt at removing our innate prejudices in order to observe the world as objectively as possible. It may be more or less successful in that goal but few can doubt its success in teaching us how the universe “works.” The really difficult thing is to learn not to trust what we might like to think of as common sense. By teaching us to accept nature for what it is, and not for what our prejudice may suggest that it should be, the scientific method has delivered the modern technological world. In short, it works.

It may be that God stopped the sun, but is it likely? is there any evidence for it other than the scribing of oral tradition 600 hundred years after the events? The the answer to these questions is an emphatic NO. If you want to posit that the tale is true, it is up to you to provide evidence, and on the basis of that evidence show that the probability of the tale being true is high. It is not up to us to prove/disprove your unsubstantiated musings.

Reliable according to accepted standards of evidence in science. There are scientists who are also believers, but I don't believe they apply the same standards to their belief.

So you are comparing one mythical creature to another. I don't think that even merits analysis.

I most certainly have not suspended disbelief. I still disbelieve that Joshua's long day is impossible.


Incorrect, for two reasons. #1, I don't believe that it is Russel's "intolerable presumption…to doubt it." Doubts are just fine by me. We just happen to maintain doubts about completely different things.

#2, I'm not attempting to prove that Joshua's long day actually happened. I was asked if the day is never mentioned anywhere outside the Bible, how would that not disprove the Bible? I gave a couple of ideas about possible mechanisms that might have resulted in the appearance of celestial bodies standing still over the earth. And before anyone screams "ad hoc," I should point out that a speculation on how it MIGHT have happened is nothing more than that--a guess--and by no means an avoidance of falsification. Ask a question and I'll do my best to answer it.

I'll even throw in a bonus #3: Read my previous statement about suspending disbelief. I didn't say that it DID happen. I said that I DO NOT BELIEVE that it couldn't have possibly have happened. In other words, I lack belief in its absolute impossibility. Since I'm not arguing that it DID happen, I have nothing to prove. If you want me to suspend disbelief, you're going to have to do a LOT better than throwing around imaginary teapots.

Also, I've always found the teapot analogy silly. You're comparing an entirely physical object to something spiritual by nature. An orbiting teapot could POSSIBLY be detected given the right state of technology. That's like saying apples can't possibly exist because we can't smell the color taupe. You're only going to find what you're looking for if you're using the right tools.