Summations Only

Feel free to elaborate on your, "Nuh uh." I didn't say it was. The same way that we infer that there is no Bigfoot without evidence of Bigfoot. I didn't say we do. But we don't infer that it's false without evidence that it's false. When a will is presented in court, it isn't up to the executor to prove that it's the most up-to-date version. It's up to any contesting parties to prove it isn't.

"We have met the enemy and he is us." We are tools of ourselves.

This one does.

So if there is no evidence that something/somebody exists, it is not possible to make the inference/conclusion that it does exist. No. I am suggesting that without any evidence that John existed we can not draw the conclusion/inference that he did exist. It's the same issue. A person presenting a will in court has to show that his version is authentic and more up-to-date. Who said we did?

We have no reason to conclude that the purported author is the real author because we have no evidence that the purported author existed. Hence the reference to Jim Hawkins. What do you think my position is? Presumption of innocence doen't come from the goodness of our hearts nor is it some arbitrary starting place. It is based on the logical conclusion that if there is no evidence in support of a position, we should not be acting on that position. For example, if there is no evidence that the bridge exists, we should not be trying to cross it - or if there is no evidence that the accused is guilty, we should not be punishing him. You could make up some convoluted story about why the evidence is missing but that would be the superfluous entity to which Mr. Occam objects. Yes. And what do you think I said to the contrary?

If you try to make sense, I'll be glad to clarify and/or elaborate.

Feel free to repeat yourself instead of being evasive.Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.

Let's recap: If there is no evidence that John existed, we can not reasonably conclude that he wrote the books attributed to him. Even if there is evidence that John existed, we would still need independent evidence that he wrote the books attributed to him. In the absence of adequate reliable evidence, Mr. Occam suggests that we should not speculate about what other evidence "might" exist; rather we should err on the side of caution and conclude that the documents are not authentic (innocent of authenticity until proven guilty).

Or you could just tell us what you're talking about - y'know, kinda like a discussion.

Again, feel free to tell us what you're talking about. Empty accusations don't add anything.My "position" has not changed. If you want to honestly discuss the issue, tell us what the hell your objections are and I'll try to clear up your misunderstanding.

it seems clear that you're running away from the false accusations that you made.

I thought I said the opposite: It's innocent of authenticity until proven authentic. I agree that the Gospel of John is not evidence for the authenticity of the Gospel of John. As I said, we would need independent evidence. On the other hand, internal inconsistencies, if any, could suggest that it is not authentic.

The same way a Trekkie could doubt the existence of Spock.

I think you're trying too hard to find inconsistencies, just like the fundamentalists try too hard to avoid them. Instead of taking an extreme position at either end of the spectrum, you should take the Bible for what it is, a book (or a set of books).

Well, it's your problem. You don't have to try very hard to find ugly people either, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder and your list isn't likely to impress anybody but yourself.