Jason Burns' world class proper academic paper is here!

[Engelbert]

....the answer to the one and only challenge Jason was supposed to meet when he started this over half a year ago.

Back then I said there was no evidence that the beliefs of Christians -based on their interpretations of their collective fables in the Bible -were actually true. Jason said otherwise, and initially agreed to discuss whatever evidence he thought there was with me in this forum. Instead he immediately ran away and refused to engage in a proper intellectual analysis of his conclusions. This 'paper' (if one can call it that) is how he decided he would show that evidence. So has he done so?

.... If he has still failed to so, I win, and it's over. So has Jason Burns shown any actual evidence supporting Christian theology? If not that, has he at least shown any archaeological artifacts or extra-Biblical records corroborating the miraculous events claimed in the Bible? Or has he failed again on all points, the same as every other Christian has also, meaning that I was I right all along?

Jason has presented a little evidence here. There was some evidence a year ago. There is still some evidence now. There will still be some evidence tomorrow. There is some evidence for Christianity. Jason is right to say that there is some evidence for Christianity. He has not failed to provide evidence, although for the supernatural claims, there is very little evidence. He has failed to 'prove' that the resurrection occurred. There is a large difference there.

If the debate is over conclusive evidence for Christianity or proof for theologically significant parts of Christianity, then Jason has provided neither. If the debate is over the existence of any evidence 'whatsoever' as you have so often stated, then Jason has provided a small amount. He would be right to say that there is evidence for Christianity, because there is some. The quality of this evidence is the main problem. As far as proof goes, Christianity often admits that it does not have it. You were not right all along, since you have always claimed that there is no evidence whatsoever for Christianity. The technicality is that there is some evidence for Christianity, but there is no proof for the Core claims of Christian Theology. Insufficient evidence... rather than none.

 

[Inferno]

[T]here is evidence for Christianity, ... there is some.

Now I'm curious. What evidence is there?

 

[Engelbert]

[T]here is evidence for Christianity, ... there is some.

Now I'm curious. What evidence is there?

Scriptures... Biblical archaeology. ... perhaps arguments to draw some of it together... Non-canonical texts. - eg. Thomas could be older than some of the actual Gospels... or as old.


It's not good enough to prove anything about Christian Theology. ...it's just evidence. Not very persuasive evidence when it comes to extraordinary claims... but it is evidence.

 

[AronRa]

[T]here is evidence for Christianity, ... there is some.

Scriptures... Biblical archaeology. ... perhaps arguments to draw some of it together... Non-canonical texts. - eg. Thomas could be older than some of the actual Gospels... or as old.

It's not good enough to prove anything about Christian Theology. ...it's just evidence. Not very persuasive evidence when it comes to extraordinary claims... but it is evidence.

Apparently there is some confusion about what evidence is, and what that evidence was supposed to indicate. I think you should go back to the first thread created for this purpose and look at what was outlined therein.

At that time, I pointed out that Jason hadn't provided any evidence that Jesus ever lived to begin with, much less that he had any magic powers, nor that he had any divine guidance, because he hadn't produced any evidence that any god ever existed, much less his.

Remember that a fact is a point of data that is either undisputed or is indisputable in that it can be objectively verified, shown to be true. If 'truth' is whatever we can show to be true, then there is no truth at all in your whole belief system. So what can you show to be true?

Remember that 'evidence' is one or more facts which are exclusively indicative of, or concordant with, one available explanation over any other. So you can't have evidence until or unless you have an alignment of facts first. These facts must then positively imply your conclusion, and simultaneously contradict mine. When you've got that, then you've got evidence.

I have quite a long list of evolutionary facts and facts from other fields of study which are all exclusively consistent with and supportive of my position, and which creationism can neither account for nor even acknowledge. Your theology is in an even worse situation since there absolutely nothing you 'believe' which you can honestly claim to 'know' -because you don't have any facts or evidence to support any of your assertions.

if it doesn't show evidence in support of theism in general, then Christianity specifically, and the foundational assertions they assume, then you will have wasted all your efforts as well as my time.

Show me five facts in evidence for the existence of (1) souls, (2) deity, (3) magic, (4) the supernatural realm, and (5) any evidence to show that your compilation of fables is any more accurate than the scriptures of elder religions like Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Hellenism, or Egyptian polytheism.

I'm betting you ain't got squat in any of those five categories. I predict your total failure across the board.

So Engelbert, has Jason shown any actual evidence indicating any of these things?

He wasn't supposed to provide evidence that a religion called Christianity exists or that the Bible exists; we know that already. Instead he was supposed to show evidence that the claims made by Christians regarding their history and theology are true. I say he has shown neither. No one ever has. There is no archaeological evidence supporting anything in the Bible, nothing other than the names of famous people and places, just like any fictional story would have. And as far as the theology goes, there is nothing whatsoever to imply there is any truth to that, nor could there be, as there are only subjective assertions of the supernatural with no way to confirm or examine anything.

 

[Engelbert]

[T]here is evidence for Christianity, ... there is some.

Scriptures... Biblical archaeology. ... perhaps arguments to draw some of it together... Non-canonical texts. - eg. Thomas could be older than some of the actual Gospels... or as old.

It's not good enough to prove anything about Christian Theology. ...it's just evidence. Not very persuasive evidence when it comes to extraordinary claims... but it is evidence.

Apparently there is some confusion about what evidence is, and what that evidence was supposed to indicate. I think you should go back to the first thread created for this purpose and look at what was outlined therein.

At that time, I pointed out that Jason hadn't provided any evidence that Jesus ever lived to begin with, much less that he had any magic powers, nor that he had any divine guidance, because he hadn't produced any evidence that any god ever existed, much less his.

Remember that a fact is a point of data that is either undisputed or is indisputable in that it can be objectively verified, shown to be true. If 'truth' is whatever we can show to be true, then there is no truth at all in your whole belief system. So what can you show to be true?

Remember that 'evidence' is one or more facts which are exclusively indicative of, or concordant with, one available explanation over any other. So you can't have evidence until or unless you have an alignment of facts first. These facts must then positively imply your conclusion, and simultaneously contradict mine. When you've got that, then you've got evidence.

I have quite a long list of evolutionary facts and facts from other fields of study which are all exclusively consistent with and supportive of my position, and which creationism can neither account for nor even acknowledge. Your theology is in an even worse situation since there absolutely nothing you 'believe' which you can honestly claim to 'know' -because you don't have any facts or evidence to support any of your assertions.

if it doesn't show evidence in support of theism in general, then Christianity specifically, and the foundational assertions they assume, then you will have wasted all your efforts as well as my time.

Show me five facts in evidence for the existence of (1) souls, (2) deity, (3) magic, (4) the supernatural realm, and (5) any evidence to show that your compilation of fables is any more accurate than the scriptures of elder religions like Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Hellenism, or Egyptian polytheism.

I'm betting you ain't got squat in any of those five categories. I predict your total failure across the board.

So Engelbert, has Jason shown any actual evidence indicating any of these things?

He wasn't supposed to provide evidence that a religion called Christianity exists or that the Bible exists; we know that already. Instead he was supposed to show evidence that the claims made by Christians regarding their history and theology are true. I say he has shown neither. No one ever has. There is no archaeological evidence supporting anything in the Bible, nothing other than the names of famous people and places, just like any fictional story would have. And as far as the theology goes, there is nothing whatsoever to imply there is any truth to that, nor could there be, as there are only subjective assertions of the supernatural with no way to confirm or examine anything.

Deja vu....

You say, "Remember that 'evidence' is one or more facts which are exclusively indicative of, or concordant with, one available explanation over any other"
This is an incomplete definition of evidence. Evidence covers a wider spectrum. Testimony, for example, is considered evidence by people on a day to day basis. Testimony is considered evidence in court. Is testimony always factual or verifiably factual? Sometimes testimony can be faulty or imperfect, yet we still consider it evidence in lieu of better information. Do we have any testimony in the scriptures? Yes we do.

Hearsay, despite being incredibly weak, is also evidence of sorts. When we look at events of antiquity, sometimes hearsay is all we have. Hearsay won't fly in court, but court rooms are not the only places where evidence is examined. Hearsay is incredibly weak... but still evidence.

Jason can provide evidence that the claims made by Christians are true, but evidence is all that he can provide and in several places it is tentative at best. He cannot provide proof that these events happened, which is a different matter.

If what you want is evidence, then he can provide it and has it to hand. It might not be good enough, but it exists. If you want proof, then by and large he cannot provide this. These are different things. If you want evidence that provides proof, then you want proof... conclusive evidence, a preponderance of evidence - which is different to evidence by itself, which can be insufficient or inadequate.

Jason has provided some evidence which negates your premise. Besides what Jason has presented, there is some evidence for Christianity anyway.

This does not mean that Christian theology is true or plausible. Evidence for Christian theology is extremely weak, given that it needs to be extraordinary. However, it does exist in the pages of scripture. The point is that nothing is proven. To sum up, there is evidence, but no proof.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Scriptures... Biblical archaeology. ... perhaps arguments to draw some of it together... Non-canonical texts. - eg. Thomas could be older than some of the actual Gospels... or as old.

Really? Is the Harry Potter book series evidence for an actual school called Hogwarts that trains wizards? Is the planet Mars evidence for a man named John Carter spiritually visiting there and helping the native inhabitants? Is Stan Lee still being alive evidence for an actual superhero team called the Avengers?

That Christianity may include true facts says nothing about the actual religion. That Galilee exists is not evidence for the messiah being born there, unless you think any of the questions above could be answered by "yes." That some people wrote stories of similar themes that were then edited and voted into an anthology, nearly 270 years after the events supposedly happened is not evidence that the stories are true.

 

[Engelbert]

Harry Potter is written as fiction...

The Bible is a different type of text. Those things you quoted of me are evidence of or for Christianity.... It doesn't mean that they happened, or that Christianity is true. They are just evidence. They are not proof of Christianity or of events believed by Christians.

 

[AronRa]

You say, "Remember that 'evidence' is one or more facts which are exclusively indicative of, or concordant with, one available explanation over any other"
This is an incomplete definition of evidence. Evidence covers a wider spectrum. Testimony, for example, is considered evidence by people on a day to day basis. Testimony is considered evidence in court. Is testimony always factual or verifiably factual? Sometimes testimony can be faulty or imperfect, yet we still consider it evidence in lieu of better information. Do we have any testimony in the scriptures? Yes we do.

No we don't, since none of the scriptures was written by an eyewitness. But even they were, you're saying that your evidence that the testimony is true is ....the testimony. Sorry, but this circular argument does not meet the minimum criteria.

 

[Engelbert]

You say, "Remember that 'evidence' is one or more facts which are exclusively indicative of, or concordant with, one available explanation over any other"
This is an incomplete definition of evidence. Evidence covers a wider spectrum. Testimony, for example, is considered evidence by people on a day to day basis. Testimony is considered evidence in court. Is testimony always factual or verifiably factual? Sometimes testimony can be faulty or imperfect, yet we still consider it evidence in lieu of better information. Do we have any testimony in the scriptures? Yes we do.

No we don't, since none of the scriptures was written by an eyewitness. But even they were, you're saying that your evidence that the testimony is true is ....the testimony. Sorry, but this circular argument does not meet the minimum criteria.

We have the testimony of Paul... Paul tells us that he met with a relative of Jesus for example. This is (secondary source) evidence that a historical Jesus existed. It is not proof of a historical Jesus, but is evidence of a historical Jesus. This reference is from a letter agreed upon almost unanimously in the relevant field to be of Paul's authorship.

I'm not saying the evidence is good, I'm just saying that there is some.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Harry Potter is written as fiction...

The Bible is a different type of text. Those things you quoted of me are evidence of or for Christianity....

Fiction isn't based on intent. A Million Little Pieces was written as an autobiography of James Frey. It was later found out he lied, a lot, about events he recounted. So it has gone from an autobiography to a semi-fictional book. Much as the Bible is. That there are some true facts has no bearing on ALL the claims of the book (Jesus was born in a real world place is not evidence of him being resurrected after death, raising another man from the tomb, and turned a handful of loaves and fishes into a feast that fed hundreds). Christianity is not the mundane claims of the bible. If it were, Christianity would be a society of historians. In case you need to be told, Christianity is a religion with religious beliefs, based on un-evidenced claims from the bible.

No Christian cares that Herod The Great was the Client King of Judea. They care that he sent the three magi to see the virgin of the Messiah though. There is a difference between evidence of the history of Christianity and the evidence of the Religion of Christianity.

 

[Hamster]

so Aron, do you find fishing gear, water jugs, towers and stairs to be compelling evidence that Jesus lived , rose from the tomb and was Gods divine son and savior of all mankind ? :lol:

I didnt think so either.

yes we know that Harry Potter, Harry Dresden and Anita Blake are all fictional. What will be the position in 500 years if those books are dug out of the rubble of a library. Will the people then be able to determine whats fiction and what is history ?

 

[Engelbert]

Fortunately since Jason retreated from our one-on-one discussion, I am no longer obliged to read his 'paper', at least not before others have evaluated it first. I believe in the peer review process as a means of eliminating or at least minimizing the effect of personal biases, in this case, my own. So I would appreciate it if everyone who has read Jason's submission would report to me the answer to the one and only challenge Jason was supposed to meet when he started this over half a year ago.

Back then I said there was no evidence that the beliefs of Christians -based on their interpretations of their collective fables in the Bible -were actually true. Jason said otherwise, and initially agreed to discuss whatever evidence he thought there was with me in this forum. Instead he immediately ran away and refused to engage in a proper intellectual analysis of his conclusions. This 'paper' (if one can call it that) is how he decided he would show that evidence. So has he done so?

As the burden of proof was entirely on Jason this whole time, then there is no need for he and I to debate. As I said months ago, I don't even need to weigh in on the matter. If in the opinion of my peers, he has met that burden, he wins, and I will be there when he accepts his Nobel prize. If he has still failed to so, I win, and it's over. So has Jason Burns shown any actual evidence supporting Christian theology? If not that, has he at least shown any archaeological artifacts or extra-Biblical records corroborating the miraculous events claimed in the Bible? Or has he failed again on all points, the same as every other Christian has also, meaning that I was I right all along?

Since you mentioned peer review and biases, I would like to enter to the thread, the thoughts of an actual peer in a relevant field on the matter of or relating to Jason’s paper to give his perspective. The question at hand is broadly, if there is any evidence for Christianity. Jason has taken that matter more specifically to the issue of the resurrection in his paper, however the question in a wider sense regarding Christianity as a whole was the matter discussed originally.

Since heated discussion over this question took place at length earlier in the year, I have spoken to a variety of people about evidence for Christianity, given my involvement and the responses made to my posts at the time. I thought that the best people to ask, would be academics in the relevant fields, so I sent a few email enquiries to university professors. Unfortunately, I only received one reply from 4 or 5 sent, but the response of one academic is still of good value here and carries some weight. I posted his email response to me on this site earlier in the year, but will post it again here. Hopefully this will be of some value as a response to Jay's paper and the issues here.

If the question asked is, “Is Christian Theology True or proven?” then our answers might be similar. The most repeated contention however was, “There is no evidence for Christianity”. I understand what is meant by this, but in a technical sense this is a false statement. When I raised this technical issue, there was little, if any agreement or sympathy. So, since peer review is being spoken of here, evidence is being discussed and people are contending with this paper in a technical sense I will post the words of an academic. This email was from a senior lecturer in philosophy at a British University, who specialises in the philosophy of religion.

Thanks for your mail. I don't envy your engagement with online discussions! Anyway, as for the issue of evidence for Christianity, it seems to me that there clearly is some and it is to be found in the New Testament and associated writings. Now whether this constitutes good evidence, or sufficient evidence for Christianity is another matter entirely, but it is still evidence nevertheless. In debates, and even in debates featuring philosophers of religion, it is sometimes thought that any evidence for the supernatural or for God is also evidence for Christianity. But this surely does not follow. The evidence for that religion (as with many others) is revelation.

This answer seems so obvious to me that I fear I may have misunderstood the nature of the debate, or overlooked some subtlety of it, so if my answer seems out of place then by all means please ignore it.

All the best

My comprehension of this is not that there is good evidence for Christianity, but that there is at least some. This does not mean that Christianity is true or that Christian theology is likely to be true or not. It simply means that the statement, “There is no evidence for Christianity” is a false statement, if we are to be precise. So, Jason has not been in the wrong to assert that there is evidence for Christianity. It is the quality of said evidence that is in question, rather than its existence. How good is the available evidence? Not, does it exist?

 

[AronRa]

We have the testimony of Paul... Paul tells us that he met with a relative of Jesus for example. This is (secondary source) evidence that a historical Jesus existed.

So your evidence that the scripture is correct is ...the scripture. That's it, a circular argument, and nothing else, nothing that would actually count as evidence of any kind.

"The fable says X."
"How can we know whether the fable is true?"
"Because the fable says X".

So no evidence at all then. No archaeological artifacts corroborrating the miracles claimed in the Bible, and no contemporary extra-Biblical articles documenting any reference to Jesus' by any of the alleged heads of state he reportedly met with. And even if there was evidence of that, (which there isn't) that still wouldn't provide evidence of Jesus' magic powers, nor of the deity they come from, nor of the supernatural realm where such things allegedly reside, nothing whatsoever except the insane ravings of imaginative story-teller named Paul.

 

[Noth]

To be a kind of fair devil's advocate, the bible wasn't written as a complete book, so in some occasions it is possible to derive some measure of "evidence" by some standards of that term from one piece in its 'completed form' (i.e. the final form that was, over the course of hundreds of years, more or less established) for a claim made in another piece of that 'completed' body. The fact that mutiple authors (wittingly or not) contributed pieces to the whole, as it were, underscores that.

Of course, none of that proves anything, but I can see how it can be presented as a form (mind you: just a form) of evidence, however flimsy. The disconnect lies with where those pieces of evidence are presented as being more than they are. The weight of the existing 'evidence' is so little it is inconsequential in proportion to the grandiose claims that are made.

 

[AronRa]

To be a kind of fair devil's advocate, the bible wasn't written as a complete book, so in some occasions it is possible to derive some measure of "evidence" by some standards of that term from one piece in its 'completed form' (i.e. the final form that was, over the course of hundreds of years, more or less established) for a claim made in another piece of that 'completed' body. The fact that mutiple authors (wittingly or not) contributed pieces to the whole, as it were, underscores that.

Of course, none of that proves anything, but I can see how it can be presented as a form (mind you: just a form) of evidence, however flimsy. The disconnect lies with where those pieces of evidence are presented as being more than they are. The weight of the existing 'evidence' is so little it is inconsequential in proportion to the grandiose claims that are made.

Not only that, but the Bhagavad Gita and the Adi Granth both count as 'evidence' of the same type but for mutually exclusive conclusions. Consequently none of the lot counts as evidence of any kind at all.

 

[x J Baby x]

We have the testimony of Paul... Paul tells us that he met with a relative of Jesus for example. This is (secondary source) evidence that a historical Jesus existed.

So your evidence that the scripture is correct is ...the scripture. That's it, a circular argument, and nothing else, nothing that would actually count as evidence of any kind.

"The fable says X."
"How can we know whether the fable is true?"
"Because the fable says X".

So no evidence at all then. No archaeological artifacts corroborrating the miracles claimed in the Bible, and no contemporary extra-Biblical articles documenting any reference to Jesus' by any of the alleged heads of state he reportedly met with. And even if there was evidence of that, (which there isn't) that still wouldn't provide evidence of Jesus' magic powers, nor of the deity they come from, nor of the supernatural realm where such things allegedly reside, nothing whatsoever except the insane ravings of imaginative story-teller named Paul.

Using scripture as evidence of not scripture, but of Jesus. I think it would be helpful to be specific. It isn't independently corroborated but surely the relatively wide, although potentially fallacious, coverage of Jesus' existence in the Bible is enough to at least count as some form of evidence, weak as it may be.

Most Biblical historians agree that Jesus did exist in some form. That he is magic, may be another story.

 

[Hamster]

How do you assess the value of the bits of the bible that were thrown out ? what we seem to have is a collection of material, authors unknown, original source mostly unknown, some of it with questionable origin (edits and additions) with some bits thrown out (Book of Enoch) .
If quantity of material is a criteria then I offer JD Robb, a dozen books on the life of Eve Dallas, New York police detective. Any series with a lot of books. The Destroyer series, Reom and Chiun, Masters of Sinanju was up to 40+ books.

If using the Bible (inspired word of God) can you explain why Judas died in two different ways ? surely as important a role as he served would entitle him to have his death correctly written down.

as a side note Jason has started a series of videos. It appears to be his long lecture broken down into short bits. If anyone can stand to watch them is it Jason - try 2 or has it improved. note Comments disabled.

 

[AronRa]

Most Biblical historians agree that Jesus did exist in some form. That he is magic, may be another story.

I personally know a few scholarly historians who doubt there was ever an historical Jesus. But it wouldn't matter if there was. The claims of Christians are no different than the claims of Sikhs or Hindus or Zoroastrians, all are based on fables as their sole source. The fable is the claim, and there is no evidence to support any of them. The fact that the Bhagavad Gita exists is not evidence that it is true, just the existence of the Avestas isn't evidence that they're true either. If we regard them both as testimonies, they cancel each other out, because they contradict one another. They contradict the Bible too, and the Bible contradicts itself. That's why the existence of the Fable cannot be evidence that the fable is true.

 

[HogTieChamp]

...
as a side note Jason has started a series of videos. It appears to be his long lecture broken down into short bits. If anyone can stand to watch them is it Jason - try 2 or has it improved. note Comments disabled.

I'm on Part 2, after having glanced / skimmed over the paper and listened to the first "lecture" while on the highway.

This new series is essentially Jason reading his paper aloud, interspersed with his standard observations along the lines of "Dawkins has poor scholarship," and "Sam Harris is a poo-poo head!" It really hasn't gotten any better.

It seems a general trend with Christian apologists and with Jason in particular: They seem to think that they "prove" an assertion (eg, creationism, Christianity) by simply arguing that the skeptical position is wrong for some vague reason. They seem incapable of recognize the need to provide and assess affirmative, confirming evidence rather than merely stating that they think the skeptics are misguided in some way.

Sure, there is some value is providing criticism of the processes used to land at a skeptical conclusion, but they (especially Jay) fail at doing even this simple thing.

For example, Jay criticizes (by way of reading aloud someone else's published criticism) Richard Carrier's use of Bayes' Theorem (which he amusingly calls "The Bayes' Theorem"). In a nutshell, Jay is saying, "I'm reading out loud an opinion of someone who agrees with me saying that Carrier shouldn't use The Bayes' Theorem, and even though I don't understand anything about The Bayes' Theorem, the fact that I found a paper that criticizes The Bayes' Theorem PROOVES that you shouldn't use The Bayes' Theorem in 'hist-tree-og-raffy' and therefore God is real and evolution is false and being a homo is a sin.... (but I don't hate homos!)..."

It's same ol', same ol'....

Oh... There is one big improvement in this "new" series: So far, he has actually stayed on topic as he reads aloud his own paper (/ book / Ph.D. / Broadway musical).

This is in stark contrast with the 2-hour lecture, wherein he spent the first 15 minutes telling ridiculous lies about how Dan Courtney is the nasty, evil character who tried to trick Jay.... trick Jay into... umm.... conversation... or something. Even in Jason's venomous criticism of Dan Courtney's personal character, it is unclear as to what Dan had done wrong, even if only in Jay's mind. Still, it was worth 15 minutes of Jason's "world changing" lecture on the Resurrection.

And as expected, we have been treated each day with an unwatchable number of unwatchable videos on how AronRa schemed to "hide" Jason's ground-breaking, earth shattering paper, by -- now get this -- posting the paper in it's entirety, save for the droning recitation of references, few of which are referred to in the paper. Worst of all, Aron (so we're told) is so amazingly evil and so amazingly clever that Aron devised a plan to bury this paper by including a URL exactly as it appeared in Jason's paper in exactly the same place, knowing full-well that people would click on the link in an effort to view the paper (you know... the paper they're already reading), only to find a cheap, out-of-the-can website for a ministry run by Jason and his auntie / landlady / maker of eggs and toast soldiers.

I'll post again as soon as I get to the part of the series where Jason provides even one whit of evidence that uniquely supports the view that the Resurrection is true (and / or is somehow meaningful, if true). While you're waiting, you should go outside and play -- I don't expect it to happen in the next 5 or 10 minutes.

(Oh?? They drank water? They kept water in bottles??? That changes everything!!)

--HTC

 

[Visaki]

I personally know a few scholarly historians who doubt there was ever an historical Jesus. But it wouldn't matter if there was. The claims of Christians are no different than the claims of Sikhs or Hindus or Zoroastrians, all are based on fables as their sole source. The fable is the claim, and there is no evidence to support any of them. The fact that the Bhagavad Gita exists is not evidence that it is true, just the existence of the Avestas isn't evidence that they're true either. If we regard them both as testimonies, they cancel each other out, because they contradict one another. They contradict the Bible too, and the Bible contradicts itself. That's why the existence of the Fable cannot be evidence that the fable is true.

I wonder if you'd consider the Quran as evidence of the existence of Muhammad (not the legend, but the man).

So, has anyone actually read Jason's paper through? And if someone has, have they plucked out their eyes and given their soul to Cthulu yet?