Years you've been trying to debate and you still haven't figured out that just because a book said a thing doesn't mean it's true? I do not think you are an honest thinker.
No but a book claiming to be a historical document is usually decent evidence that something is true. It's a more complex debate than how you're characterising it.
@@jacobsandys6265 you don't believe what you just said. So you think every religious text is decent evidence of their gods and magic claims? Does the belief in Zeus suddenly gain weight because it's written down? This is poor epistemology.
@@49perfectss Yes it’s evidence??? E is evidence iff (H|E) > (H). That’s the definition. It is more likely that Zeus exists if we have reports and stories about him than if nobody had ever come up with the idea. The problem is that it’s weak evidence that is outweighed by evidence against Zeus’s existence. Not all evidence has to be conclusive. Likewise, people writing down what look like historical accounts of the life of Jesus is EVIDENCE that Jesus existed. The debate is over how strong this evidence is and whether it outweighs any countervailing evidence.
@@49perfectss Actually, yes! Zeus’s existence is more likely given the written reports about him than if we had literally no record of Zeus’s existence at all. This doesn’t overcome the low prior probability of Zeus’s existence and it isn’t very strong evidence because the stories are clearly fictional, but it’s still evidence.
@@jacobsandys6265 congrats that's completely illogical. You should go tell this to a philosophy or science teacher. When they finish laughing they will tell you exactly why you are wrong and fallacious. I am now writing down that there are no gods. According to you that's evidence. According to me that's a claim that needs support. I'll stick with my logic thanks.
Years you've been trying to debate and you still haven't figured out that just because a book said a thing doesn't mean it's true? I do not think you are an honest thinker.
No but a book claiming to be a historical document is usually decent evidence that something is true. It's a more complex debate than how you're characterising it.
@@jacobsandys6265 you don't believe what you just said. So you think every religious text is decent evidence of their gods and magic claims? Does the belief in Zeus suddenly gain weight because it's written down? This is poor epistemology.
@@49perfectss Yes it’s evidence??? E is evidence iff (H|E) > (H). That’s the definition.
It is more likely that Zeus exists if we have reports and stories about him than if nobody had ever come up with the idea. The problem is that it’s weak evidence that is outweighed by evidence against Zeus’s existence. Not all evidence has to be conclusive.
Likewise, people writing down what look like historical accounts of the life of Jesus is EVIDENCE that Jesus existed. The debate is over how strong this evidence is and whether it outweighs any countervailing evidence.
@@49perfectss Actually, yes! Zeus’s existence is more likely given the written reports about him than if we had literally no record of Zeus’s existence at all.
This doesn’t overcome the low prior probability of Zeus’s existence and it isn’t very strong evidence because the stories are clearly fictional, but it’s still evidence.
@@jacobsandys6265 congrats that's completely illogical. You should go tell this to a philosophy or science teacher. When they finish laughing they will tell you exactly why you are wrong and fallacious.
I am now writing down that there are no gods. According to you that's evidence. According to me that's a claim that needs support. I'll stick with my logic thanks.