Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[JesseB]

@SteveII  I'ma take a break from all this, get some food and play video games a while. Happy to continue later maybe tomorrow.

How funny ... I was just thinking about doing the same.

Cheese on toast and AoE2.

Whelp I was going to play a game, but now I'm stuck using up all the bandwith downloading a new game for the next few hours.... oh well.... when I'm done I'll be playing Nioh!

[JesseB]

Also @Bucky Ball This sound like a good way to put things?

Metaphysics is to physics as
Alchemy is to chemistry
Astrology is to Astronomy

[SteveII]

I looked back over the entire thread. I see a few places where I bristled at your reply and then that caused a spiral. I apologize for my part in this mess. I will try harder to address specifics rather than trying to make my big-picture metaphysics points--which is clearly not what you want to do. Now please, what do you want me to address or what do you want me to realize about your beliefs that you don't think I know?

Thank you that's appreciated.


I'll answer your question with a question (Bad form I know),
What do you want me to realize about your beliefs that you don't think I know?

I think the answer to this question would make clear what I've been trying to point out.

First, there is no way for me to know what you do not know. But...I will offer a preamble and an answer:

1) That my belief is based on evidence, experience (mine and others) and reasoned arguments --all of which I know you don't find compelling. The premises could be wrong, and the beliefs could be wrong. However, the belief is rational (rational does not mean true). Your beliefs from what I have seen are entirely rational--even if I don't agree with them.

ra·tion·al
/ˈraSH(ə)n(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

2) That there is no new objection to Classical Christianity in generations (if not centuries). Every objection there is has been answered a thousand times or more. No recent science, no recent philosophy, nothing new.

[JesseB]

I looked back over the entire thread. I see a few places where I bristled at your reply and then that caused a spiral. I apologize for my part in this mess. I will try harder to address specifics rather than trying to make my big-picture metaphysics points--which is clearly not what you want to do. Now please, what do you want me to address or what do you want me to realize about your beliefs that you don't think I know?

Thank you that's appreciated.


I'll answer your question with a question (Bad form I know),
What do you want me to realize about your beliefs that you don't think I know?

I think the answer to this question would make clear what I've been trying to point out.

First, there is no way for me to know what you do not know. But...I will offer a preamble and an answer:

1) That my belief is based on evidence, experience (mine and others) and reasoned arguments --all of which I know you don't find compelling. The premises could be wrong, and the beliefs could be wrong. However, the belief is rational (rational does not mean true).  Your beliefs from what I have seen are entirely rational--even if I don't agree with them.  

ra·tion·al
/ˈraSH(ə)n(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

2) That there is no new objection to Classical Christianity in generations (if not centuries). Every objection there is has been answered a thousand times or more. No recent science, no recent philosophy, nothing new.

Interesting. Whelp you're wrong. at least in part hehe....

I'm not going to pretend that all my beliefs are completely rational. While I strive for that, and I do my best, humans aren't exactly the most rational creatures. This is why if you said you thought my beliefs were irrational I wouldn't really be offended or bothered. Though I might ask your justification. 

But yes I do value logic and strive to hold rational beliefs. And I think you do the same, even if my personal opinion is that you've made some errors and thus hold an irrational belief. That said I could be wrong, or I could be right and you simply haven't realized. Either way no worries ya?

But to be clear, my actual point was simply that I would appreciate you asking, or at least acknowledging my position when I tell it to you. It goes a long way and makes me more willing to be interested in your position. Be clear earlier at times I was being a complete ass, intentionally so because I was standing my ground on this point. To this end I didn't represent your position as well as I understand it. It was rude. Again intentionally so. But now that we've come to an understanding I'm willing to try to represent your position better and work together to explore ideas. Within reason anyway. I'm somewhat pragmatic and like evie said, some of the stuff you're into I have no interest in. Just a fact.


Edit: as to your second point. I'm not sure if that's correct though it might be. I'm pretty sure the answer people came to was simply that there's no point in discussing things we can't know, so we moved on to things we can know. Thus the focus on modern science and philosophy and general abandonment of the old arguments. If that makes sense. At least that's what I think happened.

[Bucky Ball]

2) That there is no new objection to Classical Christianity in generations (if not centuries). Every objection there is has been answered a thousand times or more. No recent science, no recent philosophy, nothing new.

Unfortunately for this arrogant ignoramus, that is 110% totally false. 
Since he's basically an amateur - self taught type of ignorant fundy, one would expect nothing better from him, but in fact is like child's-play to prove that load of shit wrong. 

Ever since Jean Astruc started started questioning the content of scripture, in the 1800's, scholars have been showing the Bible is wrong. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Astruc

First they questioned Moses, then eventually they questioned EVERYTHING. Today, virtually ALL of the historicity of the OT and many of the parts of the NT has been shown to be wrong, (by the SCIENCE of Archaeology), textual criticism and form criticism, AND the best most conservative Christian scholars actually agree with me. Thereby the foundations of ALL of his "salvation" history is jeopardized. In the NT, Stephen actually repeated the entire history as true, and it's been debunked. Josephus also repeated the entire, now debunked OT history. But since Stevie actually knows virtually nothing except his Sunday School level, of course he would say something THAT stupid. Then the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, and they affirmed the fact that the Jewish "pesherim" were being interpreted differently, and it AGAIN called into question the entire notion of all the "prophesy" literature. Stevie has no clue what that even means.

There is no such thing as "Christianity" .. if there were, there would be no need for 33,000 sects and such a history of schism and division. 
In fact Stevie HIMSELF said he would not even talk about Catholicism. Woopsie. 
Yeah ... Stevie Weavie best take off his rose-colored glasses, as NO ONE buys his horse shit, and OLD, childish so-called arguments, all based on the UN-CHRISTIAN notion that faith is founded somehow on logic. Paul said it was not.

Oh, and BTW, ... to the yapping bitch, it's not about "the Bible". It never was. Those texts are a TINY fraction of ancient Near Eastern literature.
It's about HISTORY and the cultural environment in which the HISTORY and ancient literature arose, and how the cultures influenced the literature that was produced in these cultures, and PHILOSOPHIES that were reflected in the ancient literature, and where those ideas originated.

Also I asked ONE specific question. It was, "in light of the fact that Christian contemplative mysticism, (as demonstrated in the works of St. John of the Cross, and Teresa of Avila, Thomas Merton, and Medieval "Cloud of Unknowing, Chinese Tao mysticism, (obviously NONE of which I would imagine ANYONE here has even read ... well maybe 1 or 2) and agnostic atheism PRACTICALLY end up in the SAME place, morally, it makes no difference morally where one is, in those traditions. I asked for ONE example of a moral choice that would be different based on the above. NONE was offered. NONE has STILL been offered, despite all the sound and fury.

[JesseB]

2) That there is no new objection to Classical Christianity in generations (if not centuries). Every objection there is has been answered a thousand times or more. No recent science, no recent philosophy, nothing new.

Unfortunately for this arrogant ignoramus, that is 110% totally false. 
Since he's basically an amateur - self taught type of ignorant fundy, one would expect nothing better from him, but in fact is like child's-play to prove that load of shit wrong. 

Ever since Jean Astruc started started questioning the content of scripture, in the 1800's, scholars have been showing the Bible is wrong. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Astruc

First they questioned Moses, then eventually they questioned EVERYTHING. Today, virtually ALL of the historicity of the OT and many of the parts of the NT has been shown to be wrong, (by the SCIENCE of Archaeology), textual criticism and form criticism, AND the best most conservative Christian scholars actually agree with me. Thereby the foundations of ALL of his "salvation" history is jeopardized. In the NT, Stephen actually repeated the entire history as true, and it's been debunked. Josephus also repeated the entire, now debunked OT history. But since Stevie actually knows virtually nothing except his Sunday School level, of course he would say something THAT stupid. 

There is no such thing as "Christianity" .. if there were, there would be no need for 33,000 sects and such a history of schism and division. 
In fact Stevie HIMSELF said he would not even talk about Catholicism. Woopsie. 
Yeah ... Stevie the Weavie best take of his rose-colored glasses, as NO ONE buys his horse shit.

I'ma read up on them. Thanks for the link

[EvieTheAvocado]

Also @Bucky Ball  This sound like a good way to put things?

Metaphysics is to physics as
Alchemy is to chemistry
Astrology is to Astronomy

No lol. It's not just that there would be no physics without metaphysics ... it's that physics is still completely meaningless and useless even today without metaphysics. It's simply that physicists who aren't interested in philosophy already have metaphysical presuppositions built in without realizing it. They're ignorant of the metaphysics that they're already applying. That's all. (Well, the non-philosophically inclined ones are ignorant of their philosophical presuppositions, at least).  Scientists are empiricists ... empiricism is an epistemology within philosophy as a means to know reality ... and metaphysics is about what the "reality" being studied is. Scientists presuppose an objective world when they study reality ... which means that they believe in an objective world that is there to be studied (if they didn't they would fail to be able to do science) ... which means that they already have a metaphysical viewpoint.

Specifically, Scientists tend to presuppose Metaphysical Realism a metaphysical view that is required for most scientists who do science. It's not the only one though. Phenomenology, I think, is a superior way of doing metaphysics because it allows you to do science in a non-subjective way while remaining neutral on whether there's a reality beyond our perceptions or not ... after all ... what science ultimately requires ... is consistently reliable data coming from perceptions ... regardless of whether there's anything beyond those perceptions. And it's not as if there is (or can be) evidence of anything beyond perception, anyway, (evidence is evident to perceptions).

It amuses me that most people who criticize metaphysics not only don't realize that science wouldn't work without it ... but they don't seem to even know what "metaphysical" actually means.

[JesseB]

Also @Bucky Ball  This sound like a good way to put things?

Metaphysics is to physics as
Alchemy is to chemistry
Astrology is to Astronomy

No lol. It's not just that there would be no physics without metaphysics ... it's that physics is still completely meaningless and useless even today without metaphysics. It's simply that physicists who aren't interested in philosophy already have metaphysical presuppositions built in without realizing it. They're ignorant of the metaphysics that they're already applying. That's all. (well, the non-philosophically inclined ones are ignorant of their philosophical presuppositions, at least).  Scientists are empiricists ... empiricism is an epistemology within philosophy as a means to know reality ... and metaphysics is about what the "reality" being studied is. Scientists presuppose an objective world when they study reality ... which means that they believe in an objective world that is there to be studied (if they didn't they would fail to be able to do science) ... which means that they already have a metaphysical viewpoint.

Specifically, Scientists tend to presuppose Metaphysical Realism a metaphysical view that is required for most scientists who do science. It's not the only one though. Phenomenology, I think, is a superior way of doing metaphysics because it allows you to do science in a non-subjective way while remaining neutral on whether there's a reality beyond our perceptions or not ... after all ... what science ultimately requires ... is consistently reliable data coming from perceptions ... regardless of whether there's anything beyond those perceptions. And it's not as if there is (or can be) evidence of anything beyond perception, anyway, (evidence is evident to perceptions).

It amuses me that most people who criticize metaphysics not only don't realize that science wouldn't work without it ... but they don't seem to even know what "metaphysical" actually means.

Partially because most of the metaphysics I'm exposed to is used as a justification for woo, which I have no time or inclination to entertain without some form of reasonable justification for. I have some awareness of what you're saying, however functionally I don't see much point in concerning myself with metaphysics. Remember I'm somewhat pragmatic.


Aka if you're going to start talking about Ancient Aliens yea of course I'm gonna tune out. Unless you present some damn compelling evidence.


Edit: and @EvieTheAvocado you really should read that Carl Sagan book I told you too, it does deal with this exact thing. At least to an extent. You really need to consider reading it. He'll I'll buy it for you even and I"m fucking poor so that should tell you exactly how serious I am about this.

[EvieTheAvocado]

Metaphysics used as justification of woo is just bad metaphysics ... just like pseudo-science is just bad science.

I would even argue that science is based on good metaphysics and pseudo-science is based on bad metaphysics.

[EvieTheAvocado]

Edit: and @EvieTheAvocado  you really should read that Carl Sagan book I told you too, it does deal with this exact thing. At least to an extent. You really need to consider reading it. He'll I'll buy it for you even and I"m fucking poor so that should tell you exactly how serious I am about this.

Ever read this?



This is pretty good too.

Check this out:

[JesseB]

Edit: and @EvieTheAvocado  you really should read that Carl Sagan book I told you too, it does deal with this exact thing. At least to an extent. You really need to consider reading it. He'll I'll buy it for you even and I"m fucking poor so that should tell you exactly how serious I am about this.

Ever read this?



This is pretty good too.

Check this out:

I would love to, I don't get to buy books very often unfortunately so I have not yet.

[Dancefortwo]

The purpose of this inductive exercise it to explain my reasons to believe.

  You're not using inductive reasoning. You're not looking for the truth because  you have a presumed conclusion from the get-go.   If you were looking for the truth you'd be open to all possibities and question everything,  but you're not.  Your predetermined  bias dominates every sentence you write, that's not how one goes about finding the truth. 

You also haven't responded to my question in post #403.

[Paleophyte]

2. Since there are thousands of data points in the NT alone (not to mention the other areas of inquiry) "in support of an assertion", when someone repeatedly claims that there is no evidence for  God you have to make a decision: a) is the person just stupid, or b) they are confusing the word 'evidence' with 'proof'. I have consistently chosen the latter. Was I wrong?

Proof is for mathematicians and alcoholics.

The Bible is not historical evidence. At best it is hearsay, written by indeterminate authors at uncertain dates for unknown reasons. It contains accounts of events that the authors could not have been present for, is internally inconsistent, fails to agree with accepted history on more points than you can shake a stick at, and has been deliberately modified by political and religious leaders throughout history.

That the Bible cannot be relied upon as evidence is most clearly demonstrated by the first question that must be asked in any such discussion. Which Bible?

It is entirely unsurprising that the Age of Miracles ends when the Age of Record-Keeping begins. It was not scientists that killed God, it was historians.

[Dancefortwo]

2. Since there are thousands of data points in the NT alone (not to mention the other areas of inquiry) "in support of an assertion", when someone repeatedly claims that there is no evidence for  God you have to make a decision: a) is the person just stupid, or b) they are confusing the word 'evidence' with 'proof'. I have consistently chosen the latter. Was I wrong?

Proof is for mathematicians and alcoholics.

The Bible is not historical evidence. At best it is hearsay, written by indeterminate authors at uncertain dates for unknown reasons. It contains accounts of events that the authors could not have been present for, is internally inconsistent, fails to agree with accepted history on more points than you can shake a stick at, and has been deliberately modified by political and religious leaders throughout history.

That the Bible cannot be relied upon as evidence is most clearly demonstrated by the first question that must be asked in any such discussion. Which Bible?

It is entirely unsurprising that the Age of Miracles ends when the Age of Record-Keeping begins. It was not scientists that killed God, it was historians.

Exactly.  The bible is a book of claims.  It claims a god exists.  It isn't evidence nor proof a god exists.  At best it's revisionist history with ancient god myths interwoven into the stories.  There can be  no fucking "data points" in a book of claims, especially when one of the main events  wasn't written by eyewitnesses nor by anyone who even  knew Jesus.  If god and/or his son is actually walking around on this planet why the hell did it take people 40 years to write about it.    

I noticed Stevie still hasn't gotten back to me on his non-falsifiable god.  He just skipped past that whole discussion.

[JesseB]

2. Since there are thousands of data points in the NT alone (not to mention the other areas of inquiry) "in support of an assertion", when someone repeatedly claims that there is no evidence for  God you have to make a decision: a) is the person just stupid, or b) they are confusing the word 'evidence' with 'proof'. I have consistently chosen the latter. Was I wrong?

Proof is for mathematicians and alcoholics.

The Bible is not historical evidence. At best it is hearsay, written by indeterminate authors at uncertain dates for unknown reasons. It contains accounts of events that the authors could not have been present for, is internally inconsistent, fails to agree with accepted history on more points than you can shake a stick at, and has been deliberately modified by political and religious leaders throughout history.

That the Bible cannot be relied upon as evidence is most clearly demonstrated by the first question that must be asked in any such discussion. Which Bible?

It is entirely unsurprising that the Age of Miracles ends when the Age of Record-Keeping begins. It was not scientists that killed God, it was historians.

Exactly.  The bible is a book of claims.  It claims a god exists.  It isn't evidence nor proof a god exists.  At best it's revisionist history with ancient god myths interwoven into the stories.  There can be  no fucking "data points" in a book of claims, especially when one of the main events  wasn't written by eyewitnesses nor by anyone who even  knew Jesus.  If god and/or his son is actually walking around on this planet why the hell did it take people 40 years to write about it.    

I noticed Stevie still hasn't gotten back to me on his non-falsifiable god.  He just skipped past that whole discussion.

I think part of the problem with the evidence, is... If I'm correct he thinks the documents of the NT confirm each other as they sorta count as multiple authors therefor multiple witnesses, however there's more than a few problems with this. Also he takes claims of "500" people seeing something happen (which was written by one guy) as evidence that 500 people actually saw it. (this was in fact in one of his premise) and to be fair I'm pretty sure he doesn't care if it's weak evidence, that anything at all exists to make the claim he seems to equate it to evidence. Now this is my impression based on what he has said. I could be wrong however, but if you read back you'll see everything I'm talking about in his posts, regardless if I'm interpreting it the way he meant it, what led me to this is there.

Of course you instantly know the litany of problems with this, however I don't think he really cares. He did after all say something to the effect of the logic is sound therefor he's justified in his position, and that there has been no refutations to the "classical" arguments. Now I'm pretty sure he's dead wrong, however I'm not well equipped to fight this particular claim. I think @Bucky Ball would be able to pull up all sorts of stuff on this topic however. He seems better informed in the history of the churches, and apologetics at large, than I. As you've said he seems to not really be interested in having his arguments challenged, just asserts they can't be beaten. He wants his arguments understood instead. So I think you're summery that his position is un falsifiable is justified. And I think it is intentional. And what can you really do with a position like that? Why even try to understand his position if he's basically elected himself the god of logic and truth and declared universally that no counter is deserving of consideration? I really don't know. If I'm wrong on this (and I hope I am), maybe he'll explain exactly what it is he's looking for. As of yet no one has accepted the premises of his argument, thus his argument is invalid. So I'm at a loss.

His position is certainly valid in that it is his position, but that really tells us nothing as to the validity of his position. And it certainly seems he's unwilling to entertain any criticisms of his position. He's also conflated his beliefs with the argument he presented, almost as if attacking the argument is attacking the belief. Now If this is a result of him basing all of his belief on this one argument I could understand. It would also go a long way into explaining why he seems uninterested in having his argument challenged in any way. But if that's the case I think none of us should talk to him, if we managed to peck away at that argument to the point even he started to see the cracks he'd be a suicide risk and none of us wants that. I don't think this is the case, but he certainly implied it when he said I was challenging his belief, when in fact I was only challenging his argument. It could have been a miscomunication though so. hrug: 

Now what I think he wants is some metaphyscial argument (preferably weaker than his) to be presented so he can slap it down in a game of intellectual checkers. I say checkers not chess, because the problem with much of these metaphsical arguments as far as I have seen, is they can't demonstrate a damn thing in the end and you can make up arguments to the cows come home and have effectively learned nothing. Now evie would just say that's bad metaphysics but seeing as I've never seen good metaphysics, or anything sound enough to establish a law, just some rational for the application of physics etc at best, I just can't see what the point is, but maybe I'm just a retard. After all there are plenty of contradictory metaphysical arguments out there that can't both be true but also can't be falsified, so you're left to make an arbitrary choice between the two. So in short as far as I can tell, this is the game he wants to play. To be fair though much of what evie and stev call metaphysics I call philosophy. So what do I know eh?

[SYZ]

The purpose of this inductive exercise it to explain my reasons to believe.

You're not using inductive reasoning....

Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller says: "In science, there's a constant interplay between inductive inference—based on
observations—and deductive inference—based on theory.  As a theist, you're limited to deductive reasoning,
as it's (obviously) impossible for you to cite any of your observations.  You're simply constructing an indeterminate
theory based on ancient, questionable third-party hearsay. 

You also haven't responded to my question in post #403.

Nor has Steve addressed my earlier question: "Can you please list some of those pieces of information that
constitute  evidence, and which would prove your claim of miracles? If you have, please point me there."

Like a lot of theists, when he's backed into a corner, he simply avoids answering any direct, specific questions. Pathetic.

[SYZ]

I think part of the problem with the evidence, is...  If I'm correct he thinks the documents of the NT confirm each other as they sorta count as multiple authors therefor multiple witnesses, however there's more than a few problems with this. Also he takes claims of "500" people seeing something happen (which was written by one guy) as evidence that 500 people actually saw it...

There's an excellent debunking of the absurd "resurrection" and the purported 500 people who allegedly witnessed it HERE.

That Steve believes in the resurrection of some bloke apparently called Jesus—in a literal sense—is embarrassing for any
educated person living in a scientifically-enlightened 21st century.

It is acceptable that 500 people claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected. It's acceptable that 500 people believed  that they
saw Jesus resurrected. It's acceptable that 500 people were tricked into believing they'd seen Jesus resurrected. It's also
acceptable that 500 people actually saw someone who impersonated Jesus.

[SteveII]

My argument has a list of evidence and reasons why I believe God exists.

Once again, you're just confirming what you already believe. You have it ass-backwards. That's not how you prove something is true.    The gold standard in science is "falsifiability".  Scientists make every effort to prove a hypothesis  is false, not true.  It's only after  rigorous testing  and deliberate attempts to falsify a hypothesis, to knock it down, often for decades or hundreds of years, wiil it be accepted as a theory.   The deliberate attempt to prove something is false is called "falsifibility".  (Go learn what this is.)

So how do you test your god hypothesis to falsify it.  First you need to define it so it's testable. How do you go about that? Give it a try and we'll see what you come up with. 

Falsification is the test to determine whether something is scientific. Statements and theories that are not falsifiable are simply not scientific statements. The very definition of God (as supernatural) makes it clear that this is not a scientific statement.

 

Are you really going to go with personal experience is not evidence?

YUP! Personal experience is NOT evidence.  Far from it!  Thousands of people claim they were taken aboard alien spacecrafts and given medical exams then returned home.  They swear it happened.  Do you believe them?  Personal experience is the least reliable of any evidence.  Hindus claim they've seen Vishnu.  Buddhists claim they've had conversations with Buddha.   I have a Native American sister-in-law who experienced  the "Spirit God of the Trees" talking  to her.  Personal experience is about the worst kind of evidence you can bring to the table.

I don't know how you're not throwing up with all the circular reasoning  spinning you around. Geesh! 

(Oh, where is EvolutionKills when you need him.  He was so much better at this than I am)

You actually contradicted yourself within one paragraph. You start with "Personal experience is NOT evidence" and then go on to explain why its not good evidence. But even that is wrong. Testimony is a statement of what you experienced. We rely on testimony in EVERY facet of our world EVERY day in serious matters:

Criminal Court
Civil Court
Family Court
All levels of government meetings
All levels of business meetings
News reporting
Etc...

So, it would seem you are engaging in special pleading--testimony is not evidence only when religion is the subject.

[Phaedrus]

That last argument might have worked had your court appeal not been biblical. After all, outside of the biblical sense, is there any testimony worth deliberation?

[unfogged]

Falsification is the test to determine whether something is scientific. Statements and theories that are not falsifiable are simply not scientific statements. The very definition of God (as supernatural) makes it clear that this is not a scientific statement.

And, as has been said and contrary to your claims, whether or not something actually exists is a scientific question. To claim that something exists when you can give no evidence for that specific thing is not rational.

You actually contradicted yourself within one paragraph. You start with "Personal experience is NOT evidence" and then go on to explain why its not good evidence. But even that is wrong. Testimony is a statement of what you experienced. We rely on testimony in EVERY facet of our world EVERY day in serious matters:

We accept testimony for mundane claims because we have reason to believe those things are possible and we have experience evaluating the probability of those claims and ways to falsify them and even then it is still one of the lowest forms of evidence. Claiming you have a dog is not in the same category as claiming that you are in communication with a supernatural entity.

Do you accept claims of alien abductions or seeing ghosts or NDEs or Out-of-body experiences? Do you think Catholics are visited by Mary or Muslims by Mohammed? If so, you are more gullible than I thought. If not, why are they different? If you think they experienced something but misinterpreted it then that is special pleading because they can say the same about your beliefs and neither of you can support your position to a neutral third party.

My guess is that you do not actually believe every bit of testimony you hear regardless of the sincerity behind it unless it conforms to your preconceptions and that's where your whole argument falls apart. Your evidence is not specific to your beliefs the way you think it is.

Testimony about extraordinary events may be enough to spark investigation. It can never be enough to believe that the explanation being offered is correct.

[SteveII]

2. Since there are thousands of data points in the NT alone (not to mention the other areas of inquiry) "in support of an assertion", when someone repeatedly claims that there is no evidence for  God you have to make a decision: a) is the person just stupid, or b) they are confusing the word 'evidence' with 'proof'. I have consistently chosen the latter. Was I wrong?

Proof is for mathematicians and alcoholics.

The Bible is not historical evidence. At best it is hearsay, written by indeterminate authors at uncertain dates for unknown reasons. It contains accounts of events that the authors could not have been present for, is internally inconsistent, fails to agree with accepted history on more points than you can shake a stick at, and has been deliberately modified by political and religious leaders throughout history.

That the Bible cannot be relied upon as evidence is most clearly demonstrated by the first question that must be asked in any such discussion. Which Bible?

It is entirely unsurprising that the Age of Miracles ends when the Age of Record-Keeping begins. It was not scientists that killed God, it was historians.

Your statement about the Bible is far to broad to address. Which of the 66 books written over a 1000 years by 40 different authors are you referring to?

As a general note that applies to several posts, thanks to methods of textual criticism, our versions of the NT are more accurate TODAY than they have been in 1500 years. We know all the textual variations. There is little to no disagreement among scholars who are textual critics that we have pretty good knowledge of what was originally written--at least there are no actual reasons to think we don't have pretty much what the authors intended. I am unaware of any textual variants that cause even a minor doctrinal problem.

[Phaedrus]

Studies of fiction writing doesn't make the writing less fictional.

[Dancefortwo]

You actually contradicted yourself within one paragraph. You start with "Personal experience is NOT evidence" and then go on to explain why its not good evidence. But even that is wrong. Testimony is a statement of what you experienced. We rely on testimony in EVERY facet of our world EVERY day in serious matters:

Criminal Court
Civil Court
Family Court
All levels of government meetings
All levels of business meetings
News reporting
Etc...

So, it would seem you are engaging in special pleading--testimony is not evidence only when religion is the subject.

Criminal,  civil courts, family courts, toss out personal experiences that are NOT verified by several other sources or lack physical evidence to back up the claim. All lawyers are aware of this.  News reporters are legally required to  use the word "alleged" when  referring to a serious  crime that took place,  that is until the person in question is convicted in a court of law.  After that they don't use the word "alleged".  If the report is about a cat stuck up in a tree,  Girl Scout cookies or some other fluffy topic, nobody cares.

Government meetings heavily revolve around documents and laws, not personal experience.  Business meetings  revolve around documented money.....how much money is gong out, how much is returning, what's the profit margin, not personal experience.

[Dancefortwo]

The very definition of God (as supernatural) makes it clear that this is not a scientific statement.

Exactly.  Your supernatural god is as unprovable and as untestable as  a Magical Invisible Cupcake that orbits the universe. There is the same probability that the Cupcake exists as your god,  so you may as well worship the Cupcake or any of the 4000 deities that people believe in.  They all have the same probibility of existing.  You've been making statements, one after another, that your god is a real entity and you have proof of this deity but  there is no  possible way you can provide any evidence that this invisible being exists. The bible certainly isn't evidence because people 2000 years ago believed in the same non-falsifiable, invisible deity that you do today.

[airportkid]

Direct personal experience is evidence only that a nervous system had a sequence of electrical signals pass thru.  That's all.  To answer why that particular nervous system had that particular sequence of electrical signals pass thru at that time requires further corroborating evidence and a broad bank of knowledge the nervous system itself most likely doesn't have.

You have a stomach ache.  That's direct personal experience.  By itself it signifies only that pain signals from a region of the body are in process.  To go beyond that to a determination of whether it's indigestion or appendicitis or the edge of a piece of furniture poking you requires additional evidence and a competent synthesis of corroborating evidence and knowledge.

Here's a length of 2x4 lumber.  You've got it in your hands.  How long is it to the nearest 16th of an inch?  You can't say until you obtain additional evidence from using a tape measure.  Your immediate direct personal experience holding the 2x4 in your hands is inadequate by itself to make any claims about its length accurate to within a 16th of an inch.  Unless you're educated in the various species of wood your direct personal experience is also inadequate to identify whether the 2x4 is Douglas Fir, Pine, Redwood, Oak, Beech or polyester.

Was it sawn and planed to size, or sanded to size?  Is it old growth or farm grown?  How many pounds of compressive force can it withstand before crushing?  There are an infinite number of questions that 2x4 raises about itself that mere direct personal experience with it cannot begin to answer.

Because we're able to form an opinion about something gives us the illusion our opinion has merit.  That's our most difficult illusion to overcome:  that being able to imagine an answer gives that imagined answer any veracity.