I think I was referring to the Biblical evidence
The Bible is filled with claims, rather than evidence. Evidence for Biblical claims would need to come from somewhere outside the Bible.
If you think it's obvious that something has occurred a particular way, then it should be easy to demonstrate that. You don't just get to say it's obvious and then it's just magically true. It's clearly not obvious to everyone that the particular God you worship created the universe, given that there are people who believe in all kinds of other Gods and some who don't believe in any Gods.
Of course I see the problem and the reason that science (as a discipline) does not accept any one of these various writings.
The thing is that the reason that science does not use any evidence like this is not reason that individuals cannot use it for their particular view of the world.
You can base your own worldview on whatever you like.
If you want everyone else to believe it, you'll have to demonstrate that it's what you say it is.
"Science" cannot say one way or the other about the existence of God and there is reason for that.
Science deals with falsifiable claims. The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim.
But again, the burden of proof is on those making the claim.
If someone claims that Bigfoot exists, it's not on anybody else to disprove it. Rather, the burden of proof is on person saying that there is a Bigfoot.
However sceptics seem to love this idea that science cannot use holy books as evidence and so they have done the same thing and condemn themselves to a life of not knowing or believing in the existence of God.
Done the same thing? What do you mean?
Just as I said. And even when I say that the supernatural in the Bible is testable in the prophecies there is always reason to say the prophecies are wrong or not acceptable.
Then get out there and test it and demonstrate it's veracity.
A prophecy supposedly coming true doesn't prove that it came from any God(s). You'd still have to demonstrate that. There are a bunch of people who think that Nostradamus made some pretty accurate prophecies as well. Was he sent from God too?
The problem with these "prophecies" is that they're vague and require a great amount of mental and mathematical gymnastics in order to try and make them fit, long after they've been written down. Not to mention that the people who wrote the stories that fulfilled such prophecies had access to the writings where said prophecies were written down.
There is more and more evidence being gathered all the times and it seems to be suppressed by people who do not want the Bible to be seen as true.
I've asked you for several pages now to provide this evidence. Why haven't you yet?
Who is suppressing this evidence that you still haven't provided?
But of course lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
It's not evidence in favour of your claim either.
At best (being very generous), it's inconclusive.
If you keep up with new discoveries in archaeology it should be clear that the historicity of the Bible is being shown to be true but just not accepted by most scholars. So a majority vote is the determining factor.
You've mentioned this before, but ignore the fact that there are a ton of fictional books that mention places and people that actually exist, but that doesn't automatically make the story true, right?
Like, if I read a Spiderman comic, I'll see references to New York City and the Empire State Building, and the President of the United States, etc. but that doesn't mean Spiderman is real too, right?
If most scholars don't agree with you, I'd say that's something to at least think about. After all, they're the experts in their field(s).
However when I spoke of circular reasoning I was referring to the naturalistic methodology in history and anthropology which end up relegating the writing of the Bible to a long time after the books and other history suggests and then the late dates of authorship are used to show that the supernatural (prophecies) are not real.
How is that circular reasoning?
No that is not verification, that is just presuming that Bible authors plagiarised and ignoring the idea that both the earlier and later authors knew of the same events (eg the flood).
We can tell what has been plagiarized, in some cases. There are also common themes that human beings have told and written about for as long as we've existed on earth, apparently.
That doesn't mean there is a God or that a worldwide flood occurred for which there is no scientific evidence.
