You can’t prove empirically that there is gratitious suffering and you can´t prove empirically that the number of prime numbers is infinite. My point is that empiricism (as you defined before) is too restrictive
I disagree. Empiricism is the only path to knowledge about how the word works.
You create problems for yourself when you use the word prove like that. Proof isn't the goal and isn't needed. Compelling (beyond reasonable doubt) evidence is. I am aware of gratuitous suffering's existence in the world empirically, experientially, observationally. Prime number theorems are irrelevant to what is true about nature. They're pure reason, and are decided without getting up from the chair to look out the window. I don't need to get up to know that there are no married bachelors.
Art work, really? Is that your example of empirical evidence?
Yes. And coins and other artifacts. The coin depicting Alexander makes his historicity more likely.
we have literally millions of paintings, coins, toys, sculptures ornaments etc. of Jesus performing miracles, .
Not analogous. They were not made by people claiming to have seen Jesus perform them. They commemorate a story believed by faith and are not evidence for a resurrection nor even of a historical Jesus.
If you count art work as empirical evidence, (which you shouldn’t) then there are tons of evidence for the resurrection.
Of course art is empirical evidence. It is apprehended through the senses then interpreted by reason, memory (Monet, 19th century, impressionism), and intuitions that tell us how we feel about that art (beautiful).
The evidence you offer for resurrection doesn't support that conclusion sufficiently to believe it. It would behoove you to take a moment and assimilate that rather than to keep presenting it. Nothing will change if you can't provide much more, and you can't, even if a resurrection actually occurred. You have no way to know that. The guesses of witnesses regarding what they saw wouldn't be enough even if these witnesses had actually existed, and we have good reason to believe that they were fabricated after the fact.
My ultimate point is that you can´t prove “empirically” most of the stuff in ancient history (nor mathematical truths, nor logic, nor moral truths nor events from your daily life etc). Empiricism is too restrictive, and as an empiricist you should reject almost all ancient history
I'm not looking for proof. I don't need to reject ancient history. I accept what I do provisionally, the degree varying with the evidence. Some ideas feel about 2/3 likely to be true, some 90%, some 99+%, and these can be adjusted upward or downward as new evidence dictates. So, what is the likelihood that a fundamentalist, itinerant Hebrew rabbi and a gang of disciples existed in the Levant about two millennia ago? Probably about 90%. That he was resurrected from the dead? Almost zero.
Why do you think [my standard for belief] is low? well why do you think my standards for accepting a historical event are low?
You believe things because they appear in the Bible. You shouldn't, but you do. This is not to say that nothing in the Bible is correct, just that the Bible isn't enough to establish that any of it occurred, and you believe the least likely parts of it. That's faith, not well-evidenced belief.
You would accept any event that is reported in 2 independent sources
Relative consensus in interobserver reports makes more likely the possibility that what they describe is what they actually saw, heard, felt, etc., but not necessarily the interpretation of that experience, as with your ghost example below. And you keep forgetting that you only have one source claiming that there were several witnesses. Whether saying that there was one witness or a hundred, the claim is still just one claim in one source.
If you claim to have seen a Ghost, I would not believe you. But if:
1 Multiple people saw the Gohst, you family, your neighbors, the pizza delivery guy etc. during multiple different occasions
2 you had to run away from your house, despite the fact that you lost your property and your money (you had no reason to lie)
3 your experience was clear an unambiguous, you didn’t saw a distant shadow, but an actual image, you talk to him, an interacted with him
That would meet my standards. What about your standards?
That's not relevant to the issue of deciding whether a resurrection occurred. Here you actually have access to the witnesses and knowledge of their characters and motives and an experience of your own. That would be a lot more compelling than if the story appeared in the Bible. Though now more likely after such an experience, it's still not enough yet to believe that it was a ghost that was experienced. You have to be willing to take a leap of faith to believe that, and that's not a path to truth.
