Gemli explains...

[I Have Questions]

Here’s an idea, answer the question and provide your determination as to what “evidence” means.

Sure.

To try and avoid fallacies of equivocation and special pleading, my own thinking starts with defining "evidence" and applying it to "stories" in general. In my view, the question "Is X evidence of Y" is a gatekeeping function that says nothing about the quality or weight of the evidence. If X makes the existence of Y more probable, even if the "more probable" is very, very small, X is evidence of Y. And by evidence, I don't mean "sufficient evidence" or "persuasive evidence." It just means "worth considering" in trying to decide if Y exists. It's intentionally a very loose screen, as I think at the initial screening point, my main concern is arbitrarily refusing to consider something as evidence. If the evidence is very weak, I address that in the process of weighing the evidence.

Next, stories. As you've seen, I have a very broad definition of "story." That's intentional -- it helps me to try to be consistent. So, I have to think about whether there are some stories that should qualify as evidence and some that shouldn't. When it comes to modern stories, I think there are categories that can be reasonably excluded: those that do not purport to be describing things that exist. A work of fiction does not purport to claim that it's characters exist. So, I think it's reasonable to say that Stephen King's "It" is not evidence for the existence of Pennywise.

The categorical exclusion of "fiction" as evidence of existence is easy today. It gets harder as we go back in time because it gets harder and harder to divine the intent of the storyteller. As drumdude pointed out, our modern concept of "factual history" doesn't have an equivalent in ancient cultures. The best I can do is listen to historians like Kish to help me identify, as best I can, whether a writing purports to describe a real thing or entity. In the absence of a principled reason to believe that the author of an ancient story was or wasn't purporting to describe things that exist, all I have is the text of the document itself. That is where I personally struggle with whether a given story should be treated as evidence of the existence of things referred to in the document.

I cannot find a principled basis that isn't either circular or based on special pleading for categorically excluding "fantastic" or "religious" stories from evidence or requiring something extra (like confirmatory physical evidence) from qualifying as "evidence" as I have defined it. That doesn't mean there isn't one. Maybe you or someone else can persuade me that one exists. Absent that, if all I have is, for example, an ancient document that purports to be describing real events, people and things, I think I should consider it as evidence that what is mentioned in the document exists. If you tell me a story about your brother that purports to be a recitation of real events, I think the content of the story is more consistent with your brother existing than not existing.

To me, being potentially over inclusive is much less of a problem than being under inclusive at this gatekeeping stage. Treating something as evidence says absolutely nothing about the strength or weight of any given piece of evidence. If 30 members of your family then tell me that your story is completely made up, I may end up concluding that your story is extremely weak evidence that is completely outweighed by the story told by the other 30 witnesses. But determining the actual significance of a piece of evidence is a different question than whether to treat something as evidence at all.

So, my honest answer to your question is that it's ridiculously over simplistic. Demanding a yes or no answer is a rhetorical gimmick as opposed to a serious attempt to take a principled, consistent position on what should be considered as evidence and what should not. Give me a specific story that purports to describe actual events, entities, and things. Tell me what you mean by God -- a term that is so vague that I have no idea what you actually mean. Provide the clarification that I need in order to be able to give you an honest, principled answer. Otherwise, we're just flinging around personal biases.

Lol! SO many words to avoid answering a very simple question. Hilarious.

[I Have Questions]

So Res. You quoted my post and (presumably incorrectly) posted it as a reply in your capacity as a poster. You then used your mod powers to remove it completely from the thread. Are you allowed to do that?

[huckelberry]

Marcus, But of course stories are evidence of God.

They qualify as "testimony," not necessarily "evidence."

By themselves weak but most believers look at the nature of the universe as reflecting God so there is a great deal of physical evidence.

Believers looking at something a certain way doesn't automatically transform that thing into "evidence."

Paul and Stephen saw Jesus raised from the dead and in some way reflecting divine glory. Their story is about a real event, . . .

No, their story is just that: A story. We have no way of knowing if it was a real event or not.

Have you entirely missed the point of this thread?

Shades, I have found enough of interest in this thread to feel I understand it just fine. I tend to agree more with Physics Guy and Res Ipsa comments than with Gemli though Gemli can make some good observations. I am not claiming that either Physics Guy or Res Ipsa are seeing the same way I do. Obviously I believe in God and Res Ipsa does not. I think we agree on what evidence is and how we must struggle with the ambiguity and uncertainty of evidence. There is evidence for God existing and evidence that God is only fiction. Not everybody is going to agree on how those work out together.

Historians can look at different source information and make a judgement about the Paul conversion story. Details may be embroidered but most historians hold the view, based upon evidence, that a real person did have a real experience and wrote letters about his understanding of it. A person like Bart Ehrman who does not believe in God sees the story as a real event but one of internal psychology. Perhaps you can say the story lacks completing evidence proving a real resurrected Jesus was there. I can recognize sense in that observation.

[Res Ipsa]

So Res. You quoted my post and (presumably incorrectly) posted it as a reply in your capacity as a poster. You then used your mod powers to remove it completely from the thread. Are you allowed to do that?

Yes. Would you like to see it before I soft delete it again?

[I Have Questions]

Shades, I have found enough of interest in this thread to feel I understand it just fine. I tend to agree more with Physics Guy and Res Ipsa comments than with Gemli though Gemli can make some good observations. I am not claiming that either Physics Guy or Res Ipsa are seeing the same way I do. Obviously I believe in God and Res Ipsa does not. I think we agree on what evidence is and how we must struggle with the ambiguity and uncertainty of evidence. There is evidence for God existing and evidence that God is only fiction. Not everybody is going to agree on how those work out together.

Historians can look at different source information and make a judgement about the Paul conversion story. Details may be embroidered but most historians hold the view,based upon evidence, that a real person did have a real experience and wrote letters about his understanding of it. A person like Bart Ehrman who does not believe in God sees the story as a real event but one of internal psychology. Perhaps you can say the story lacks completing evidence proving a real resurrected Jesus was there. I can recognize sense in that observation.

Excluding “stories” what is some of the “evidence” for God’s existence?

[I Have Questions]

So Res. You quoted my post and (presumably incorrectly) posted it as a reply in your capacity as a poster. You then used your mod powers to remove it completely from the thread. Are you allowed to do that?

Yes. Would you like to see it before I soft delete it again?

No. But I’d be interested in knowing how often you do it.

[Res Ipsa]

Yes. Would you like to see it before I soft delete it again?

No. But I’d be interested in knowing how often you do it.

I'll take that as a "no." Let me know if you change your mind.

[Rivendale]

Straight from Sic et Non today and keeping with the theme of this thread we seem to go straight back to stories.

For example, I think that the witnesses are our strongest point of offense. I simply see no way around the implications of their testimony, though some have tried to get around it.

[I Have Questions]

Straight from Sic et Non today and keeping with the theme of this thread we seem to go straight back to stories.

For example, I think that the witnesses are our strongest point of offense. I simply see no way around the implications of their testimony, though some have tried to get around it.

Not only that, Peterson is saying that “stories” is the best they’ve got.

[Rivendale]

Straight from Sic et Non today and keeping with the theme of this thread we seem to go straight back to stories.

Not only that, Peterson is saying that “stories” is the best they’ve got.

Here is something that puzzles me. Why do believers shy away from the things God commands? Mormon god commands to kill. Mormon god commands marriage to children. Mormon god commands gifts of money. Mormon god commands homophobia. For the average believer this commandment usually comes from local leaders and the stories their leaders tell them. But when pressed to defend some of these commandments they bend their normal humanity to construct a different story.