Ofcourse i see a problem, you made a dishonest strawman.
Again , I was told to support 4 alleged historical facts
And I support them on the bases of having multiple independent documents corroborating those facts
This is standard methodology that historians use to stablish facts from Ancient history. And you do accept all historical facts that have this level of support, you are just making an arbitrary exception with things that contradict your own personal philosophical assumptions.
You don't have multiple independent sources. You have several Biblical sources. That's it. Your facts are not "supported" just because of some claims in an old book. Are you seriously suggesting that the supernatural aspects of Bible stories are confirmed because it says so more than once in the Bible? Please tell me you're not. There are no contemporary reports that corroborate any of the fantastical aspects of any Biblical story.
This speaks to my point that you refuse to address and try to label as a "straw man." That if we use your methodology and logic here, then we basically have to accept every supernatural claim everybody has ever made, so long as at least a couple of different people are claiming it. This is not how historians operate. Or logic. I mean seriously, do you think when they found the city of Troy that meant that all of the supernatural claims about what occurred there in ancient times were also confirmed? Probably not, right? Or if two different people tell a story about being abducted by aliens that we now have to believe that aliens exist and spend their time abducting humans?
That is "flatt earth logic" that sounds like "NASA has an agenda wich is why they are lying about the shape of the earth"
It's actually just a fact of reality. Are you not aware of the Council of Nicea? You really, seriously think that the people who decided what stories would be included or excluded in the Bible
didn't have an agenda?
Your comment is not even relevant, the fact is that we have these independent documents (Paul and the Gospels)...... weather if they made it to the cannon or not is irrelevant
Tell me, when did Paul meet Jesus, again? You didn't answer me the last time.
You don't seem to realize that the very reason you have these "independent documents" is because they made it in to the cannon in the first place, while others were rejected. If they hadn't, you wouldn't even know about them and they would have disappeared into the dustbin of history with the rest of the rejects.
And the evidence that I propose is the fact that we have multiple independent historical documents reporting these 4 events
So, to be clear here, your evidence for the supernatural are claims and stories in an old book that can never be verified by the modern reader? Wow, that's some powerful stuff.
Okay. I assert that Apollo is real and flies the sun across the sky every day in his chariot. Why do I believe this? Well, it's verified by two independent sources - Homer and Hesiod. That's my evidence for the supernatural. You believe in Apollo now, right? Or do you see the problem
now?|
Yes Ofcourse, if multiple people report indendently having seen the same goht in the same place and the descriptions match, I would considered strong evidence.
Wow. Well that just speaks for itself, doesn't it. Your standard of evidence is incredibly poor, I'm sorry to say.
I care about believing in as many true things as possible, and not believing in as many false things as possible. It doesn't appear that you do, and instead will believe most any claim, as long as more than one person makes it? That's not a pathway to believing true things.
You keep ignoring my argument, my argument is not that my 4 alleged facts are true because somebody claimed..... my argument is that multiple independent sources report the same events
Dude, those are the same thing. The stories in the Bible are claims, not evidence.
Lets say that
1 I report a ghost that appeared in my room , it is the "spirit" of a white fat man with a brown beard who claimed to have died in 1912.
2 the pizza delivery guy, who was delivering a pizza to my neighbor also saw the ghost, and also described the gohst accurately. Including the 1912 date.
3 my neighbor also saw the gohst through his window , and also made an accurate description
.....
Obviously something like this would count as strong evidence for the existence of that particular gohst.
It provides no evidence for the existence of ghosts. It provides no explanatory power, it provides nothing in the way of measurable, repeatable, testable anything. It's just 3 untestable claims.
And it assumes that ghosts exist in the first place. What is a ghost, exactly anyway? To me, it's just a thing people use to describe experiences they don't have explanations for.
Obviously a single testimony is just a claim (could be true, could be a lie, could be a hallucination)
But multiple independent testimonials corroborate an event because it would have been unlikely for different people to have had invented the same lie or to have had hallucinated the same thing.
[
Honestly, at this point, it appears to me that you don't understand the nature of evidence versus claims.
