Burden of proof for god's existence in a legal setting?

Post Reply New Topic

Accept or lean toward: atheism 678 / 931 (72.8%)
Accept or lean toward: theism 136 / 931 (14.6%)
Other 117 / 931 (12.5%)

Bam!

Selective citation to make an apologetic argument for any point you please is not going to change the actual situation, and that situation is that atheism is dominant in philosophy to an overwhelming degree.

Bam! What? The it matters what arguments are being published and just about every major atheistic argument has been put through the ringer in the time since Plantinga earned his tenure. I am not claiming that atheism is not the predominant view in philosophy; its a moot point. All I am claiming is that Theistic philosophy has achieved a stunning series of successes in the past 30 years; on that part the record supports my view. Moreover your attempt to claim that this does not amount to much because theists did not have much to begin with is a massive understatement.

Darling, the existence of scribes in the past does not prove the existence of scribes following Jesus around and writing down everything he said, much less Roman scribes on Roman business.

Furthermore, surely even you recognize the problems with using the Bible to prove the authenticity of the Bible?

I thought we were speaking hypothetically on the subject of whether the writings of government employes during the course of their duties was sufficient evidence is a court of law, either by judge or by jury, no matter how old? (Assuming they could be verified to a given degree of certainty, where they were found, what depth, the discovery video taped, etc.)

You made the claim that multiple Roman scribes were following Jesus around writing down everything he said. I asked for evidence of that. You have failed to provide said evidence.
If you could hypothetically prove - that is, with appropriately dated, verified, unbiased sources (note that having been buried at some point is not sufficient evidence; the papers themselves would need to be carbon-dated, examined by multiple researchers, etc.) - that there were Roman scribes assigned to follow Jesus around writing down everything he said, then yes: that would hypothetically be significant evidence for the existence and words of Jesus. Not that Jesus was the 'son of God,' but that he existed and was a significant personage of his time.

You made the claim that multiple Roman scribes were following Jesus around writing down everything he said. I asked for evidence of that. You have failed to provide said evidence.
If you could hypothetically prove - that is, with appropriately dated, verified, unbiased sources (note that having been buried at some point is not sufficient evidence; the papers themselves would need to be carbon-dated, examined by multiple researchers, etc.) - that there were Roman scribes assigned to follow Jesus around writing down everything he said, then yes: that would hypothetically be significant evidence for the existence and words of Jesus. Not that Jesus was the 'son of God,' but that he existed and was a significant personage of his time.

As I understand it, the Roman scribes followed Jesus around hoping to catch him uttering something like "down with Herod" or "Caesar sucks" or some other act that he could be charged with. They weren't writing it down for posterity, just as a document of evidence in their accusations.

The Jewish scribes followed him for the same reasons, albeit hoping to catch him breaking Jewish laws.

I have only heard of or read of these documents through special interest shows or publications, something like: "Scholars believe after reviewing the documents left by the scribes that..." or something like that.

There are no such documents, nor would there be. Writing was expensive in those days as were people who could read and write. You wouldn't write down what you have a dozen witnesses to testify about anyway.

I disagree. They were used to convict Jesus.

Like I said before, I realize they didn't have reams of copy paper lying around....

As I understand it, the Roman scribes followed Jesus around hoping to catch him uttering something like "down with Herod" or "Caesar sucks" or some other act that he could be charged with. They weren't writing it down for posterity, just as a document of evidence in their accusations.

The Jewish scribes followed him for the same reasons, albeit hoping to catch him breaking Jewish laws.

I have only heard of or read of these documents through special interest shows or publications, something like: "Scholars believe after reviewing the documents left by the scribes that..." or something like that.

I don't think we need scribal evidence for the existence of Jesus. I mean, the existence of a particular person doesn't carry a very high standard of proof. For most people's existences, we are very willing to settle for a third-hand account, unless there is something overly spectacular involved (like they are the king of the universe), and for the mere existence of some cultic prophet in the 1st century, I don't think we really need a lot to just go with it. It explains some of the situation, and the notion that no such being existed just has too many problems.

As far as I am aware no such documents exist. There certainly is mention of them in the Biblical account but none of it survives. I personally am skeptical of the claim that we need non-biblical evidence for the historical Jesus; we can get a really good material from the accounts of the resurrection from Mark and Paul.

As to extra Biblical evidence here is a rundown;
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress ... ed-part-1/

Suppose that someone claimed “there’s no evidence – none at all – from early America that there even was a George Washington who crossed the river Delaware in the eighteenth century.” Apart from being mildly amused that anyone would say this, suppose that you decided to rebut the claim. Imagine that you responded by giving this person five written accounts of people who claimed to have been there at the time. They actually witnessed the crossing. They report seeing Washington on one side of the river, getting into the boat, the boat moving out across the river, and then the boat reaching the other side and Washington getting out of the boat.
That should count as pretty substantial evidence, right? But the denier is not moved. “I reject all of this evidence from the outset,” he says. “You see, these people are believers in Washington’s Delaware crossing. Given that they belong to the group of those who believe this story, you can’t include this in the evidence. Their belief makes them biased.” Would you find that acceptable? Would any historian find this acceptable? Now consider what is actually going on when someone says that there’s no historical evidence for the life of Jesus “outside the Bible.” Why outside the Bible? Because the claims in the Bible are… what, biased? And what makes them biased? They are accounts compiled and written by Christians. And why does that make them biased? Because they believe this Jesus stuff, so their perspective is skewed.

Do we even have verifiable, same-time 3rd hand evidence for Jesus' existence? IIrc the earliest known documents that mention him are from decades after his death. If my parents told me, 'when I was a kid, I had a friend who had a friend who could walk on water,' I would take it with a pretty significant dose of proverbial salt.

Why is the discussion about the existence of Jesus, when the title is about the existence of god?

Why is the discussion about the existence of Jesus, when the title is about the existence of god?

AD 75 to 100
Most contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source used by Luke (see Markan Priority).[65] If it is true that Mark was written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70,[66] they theorize that Luke would not have been written before 70. Some who take this view believe that Luke's prediction of the destruction of the temple could not be a result of Jesus predicting the future but with the benefit of hindsight regarding specific details. They believe that the discussion in Luke 21:5-30 is specific enough (more specific than Mark's or Matthew's) that a date after 70 seems necessary, if disputed.[67][68] These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100. Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. Differences of chronology, "style", and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts was not familiar with Paul's distinctive theology but instead was writing a decade or more after his death, by which point significant harmonization between different traditions within Early Christianity had occurred.[69] Furthermore, Luke-Acts has views on Jesus' divine nature, the end times, and salvation that are similar to the those found in Pastoral epistles, which are often seen as pseudonymous and of a later date than the undisputed Pauline Epistles.[70]

Some scholars from the Jesus Seminar argue that the birth narratives of Luke and Matthew are a late development in gospel writing about Jesus.[33] In this view, Luke might have originally started at 3:1,[33] with John the Baptist.

The terminus ad quem, or latest possible date, for Luke is bound by the earliest papyri manuscripts that contains portions of Luke (late 2nd/early 3rd century)[71] and the mid to late 2nd century writings that quote or reference Luke. The work is reflected in the Didache, the Gnostic writings of Basilides and Valentinus, the apologetics of the Church Father Justin Martyr, and was used by Marcion.[72] Christian scholar Donald Guthrie claims that the Gospel was likely widely known before the end of the 1st century, and was fully recognized by the early part of the second,[73] while Helmut Koester states that aside from Marcion, "there is no certain evidence for its usage," prior to ca. 150.[74] In the middle of the 2nd century, an edited version of the Gospel of Luke was the only gospel accepted by Marcion, a heretic who rejected Christianity's connection to Jewish scripture.[75]
[edit] Before AD 70

A minority argument for a date between AD 37 and AD 61 for the Gospel[76] typically suggests that Luke's address to "Most Excellent Theophilus," may be a reference to the Roman-imposed High Priest of Israel between AD 37 and AD 41, Theophilus ben Ananus.

The book of Acts has been most commonly dated to the second half of the 1st century. Norman Geisler dates it as early as between 60-62.[17] Donald Guthrie, who dates the book between 62-64,[18] notes that the absence of any mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 would be unlikely if the book were written afterward. He also suggested that since the book does not mention the death of Paul, a central character in the final chapters, it was likely penned before his death.[19] Guthrie also saw traces of Acts in Polycarp's letter to the Philippians (written between 110-140) and one letter by Ignatius († about 117)[20] and thought that Acts probably was current in Antioch and Smyrna not later than c. 115, and perhaps in Rome as early as c. 96.[21]

A small indicator about the earliest possible date may be in Acts 6:9 which mentions the Province of Cilicia. The Roman province by that name had been on hiatus from 27 BC and re-established by Emperor Vespasian only in 72 AD.[22] However, since Paul was from Cilicia and refers to himself using this name (see Acts 21:39, 22:3), it seems very natural that the name Cilicia would have continued to be in colloquial use among its residents despite its hiatus in official Roman nomenclature.

Parallels between Acts and Josephus' The Wars of the Jews (written in 75-80) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94) have long been argued.[23] Several scholars have argued that Acts used material from both of Josephus' works, rather than the other way around, which would indicate that Acts was written around the year 100 or later.[24][25] Three points of contact with Josephus in particular are cited: (1) The circumstances attending the death of Agrippa I in 44. Here Acts 12:21-23 is largely parallel to Antiquities 19.8.2; (2) the cause of the Egyptian pseudo-prophet in Acts 21:37f and in Josephus (War 2.13.5; Antiquities 20.8.6); (3) the curious resemblance as to the order in which Theudas and Judas of Galilee are referred to in both (Acts 5:36f; Antiquities 20.5.1).[citation needed]

According to John T. Townsend, "it is not before the last decades of the second century that one finds undisputed traces of the work."[26] Townsend, turning to the sources behind the pseudo-Clementine writings, argues that the middle of the 2nd century is the terminus ad quem for the final composition. According to Richard I. Pervo, "Townsend's methodologically adventurous but ultimately cautious essay is another valuable lesson in the danger of establishing the date of Acts–or any work–by arguing for the earliest possible time of origin."[27]