Gemli explains...

[huckelberry]

Marcus, But of course stories are evidence of God.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. That does not escape the interpretive puzzles or uncertainties of course.

Paul and Stephen saw Jesus raised from the dead and in some way reflecting divine glory. Their story is about a real event, those individuals experience. Now that does not mean that there is only one way to interpret the story or event. It is possible to say their seeing was in the realm of imagination ,hope or enthusiasm . Just because evidence exists does not mean we have the truth safely in hand. I think Res Ipsa's observations about trials are relevant because they are about evaluating evidence.In trials evaluating evidence is taken seriously, and for me trials can also illustrate how knowing the truth can remain painfully out of reach.

I remember several scholars pointing out that the modern conception of history is a very recent phenomenon. The idea that someone recounts a story exactly as it happened, to preserve a real historical record, is a modern thing. Many ancient people would have recounted stories with embellishment, or made up stories, regardless of if they were true or not.

As recently as the Joseph Smith story you can see Joseph’s account of the first vision morphing over time, and you see the witnesses stating that they saw things with “spiritual eyes.” They weren’t really trying to make a historical record like we might today.

drumdude,

I find myself remembering a bit of Mark Twain discussing the role of stretchers in good story telling. I would have to stretch to imagine the details of what I read decades ago. I understand that the discipline of writing history has expanded the demand, expectation, of accuracy. However I think the role of stretching a story and people deciding whether they want to enjoy the stretch or reject in in favor of accuracy existed in ancient times as now. People a couple of thousand years ago had plenty of circumstances where the difference between what really happened and a bad report could be very important. How is the wheat crop? what is my neighbors army doing? what happened to the shipment of copper? Did so and so join up with this other so and so? (armies? business? saturday night party plan?) people want the real story, at least sometimes.

[I Have Questions]

I understand your point.

I repeat a question I asked earlier. Are stories about God, evidence of God’s existence?

Cool. Now we have to get into the nitty and the gritty. First, what does it mean for X to be evidence for the existence of Y? I usually use something like this: X is evidence for the existence of Y if and only if X increases the probability that Y exists, regardless of the magnitude of the increase. Does that work for you?

Or you could just simply and directly answer the question I asked. Are stories about God evidence of God’s existence? Yes or No?

[Dr. Shades]

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?

[Res Ipsa]

Cool. Now we have to get into the nitty and the gritty. First, what does it mean for X to be evidence for the existence of Y? I usually use something like this: X is evidence for the existence of Y if and only if X increases the probability that Y exists, regardless of the magnitude of the increase. Does that work for you?

Or you could just simply and directly answer the question I asked. Are stories about God evidence of God’s existence? Yes or No?

OK. Get back to me when and if you're willing to do something as simple as making sure we're on the same page when it comes to the meaning of words that are critical to your question. You've asked me several questions, which I've answered as best I can. I'm happy to continue to do so, but not on the condition that you get to dictate the form of my answer.

[I Have Questions]

Or you could just simply and directly answer the question I asked. Are stories about God evidence of God’s existence? Yes or No?

OK. Get back to me when and if you're willing to do something as simple as making sure we're on the same page when it comes to the meaning of words that are critical to your question. You've asked me several questions, which I've answered as best I can. I'm happy to continue to do so, but not on the condition that you get to dictate the form of my answer.

Ok, get back to me when and if you’re willing to answer the very simple and straightforward question that I originally posed to you (and others). Are stories of God evidence of God’s existence?

To help, I’ll answer it myself.

Are stories of God, evidence of God’s existence? No.

[Res Ipsa]

OK. Get back to me when and if you're willing to do something as simple as making sure we're on the same page when it comes to the meaning of words that are critical to your question. You've asked me several questions, which I've answered as best I can. I'm happy to continue to do so, but not on the condition that you get to dictate the form of my answer.

Ok, get back to me when and if you’re willing to answer the very simple and straightforward question that I originally posed to you (and others). Are stories of God evidence of God’s existence?

To help, I’ll answer it myself.

Are stories of God evidence of God’s existence? No.

See how easy that was?

If you want to play the easy question game, are stories ever evidence of the existence of things or entities mentioned in the stories?

[I Have Questions]

Ok, get back to me when and if you’re willing to answer the very simple and straightforward question that I originally posed to you (and others). Are stories of God evidence of God’s existence?

To help, I’ll answer it myself.

Are stories of God evidence of God’s existence? No

See how easy that was?

If you want to play the easy question game, are stories ever evidence of the existence of things or entities mentioned in the stories?

Still not answering? Why is this so difficult for you?

[Res Ipsa]

If you want to play the easy question game, are stories ever evidence of the existence of things or entities mentioned in the stories?

Still not answering? Why is this so difficult for you?

Because, if one is interested in taking a principled, consistent approach to the question of "when is X evidence of the existence of why?" The question is not simple or direct. Of course, if one is interested primarily in scoring cheap rhetorical points, everything is simple. Refusing to even go through the process of checking to make sure you and I mean the same thing when we use the term "evidence" indicates the latter as opposed to the former.

Why aren't you willing to test yourself to see if the basis of your answer is principled and consistent, as opposed to special pleading or circular reasoning?

[I Have Questions]

Still not answering? Why is this so difficult for you?

Because, if one is interested in taking a principled, consistent approach to the question of "when is X evidence of the existence of why?" The question is not simple or direct. Of course, if one is interested primarily in scoring cheap rhetorical points, everything is simple. Refusing to even go through the process of checking to make sure you and I mean the same thing when we use the term "evidence" indicates the latter as opposed to the former.

Why aren't you willing to test yourself to see if the basis of your answer is principled and consistent, as opposed to special pleading or circular reasoning?

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

[Res Ipsa]

Because, if one is interested in taking a principled, consistent approach to the question of "when is X evidence of the existence of why?" The question is not simple or direct. Of course, if one is interested primarily in scoring cheap rhetorical points, everything is simple. Refusing to even go through the process of checking to make sure you and I mean the same thing when we use the term "evidence" indicates the latter as opposed to the former.

Why aren't you willing to test yourself to see if the basis of your answer is principled and consistent, as opposed to special pleading or circular reasoning?

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.