|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 14, 2017 1:07:26 GMT
Let's forget the notion of Biblical eye witnesses for a second. There's no detective and no court in the land that would take four contemporary eye-witnesses who claimed to have seen/experienced miracles seriously. This is even true if we knew for 100% certain those four people were present for whatever event they supposedly witnessed. A handful of people claiming they saw/experienced something is good evidence for common occurrences, but is terrible evidence for anything supernatural. The Bible is far removed from even THIS standard of evidence though. In that case we have alleged eye-witness accounts that were written decades after the supposed events by unknown authors with no way of checking the veracity of either the authors or the supposed witnesses. There are no independent corroborative sources. They are not testable in any scientific sense. Plus, the Gospels conflict/contradict each other numerous times.
Basically, even in the best case scenario, eye-witness evidence is pitifully weak evidence for the supernatural, and The Bible is far, far, far, far removed from a "best case scenario." That a "detective" came to believe them is no more substantial than scientists that come to believe them; all it means is that detectives/scientists have one set of standards they use in their day job that they dramatically lower (if not drop completely) when it comes to their faith.
|
|