Debate with a Christian

[Esquilax]

I am not at all against using empirical evidence to determine the veracity of a truth claim where empirical evidence is expected to be present.

I do not expect empirical evidence to exist for historical accounts of anything that happened 2,000 years ago because what happened 2,000 years ago is beyond the scope of observation and experimentation.

I do not throw my hands up and say, "My goodness! I cannot know anything about what happened 2,000 years ago because I cannot verify any historical claims or accounts empirically!"

If historians thought like you do, then historiography would be impossible Esquilax. Any endeavor to provide an account about what happened in the past would be rendered futile a priori.

Wrong again: we do have empirical evidence for historical events. We have writings and accounts from that time, which exist empirically. We have as much of their culture and the remnants of their civilization as exists today. We have their effects on the landscape, even. Granted, those might not be the sure fire, smoking guns you want, when compared to stuff that we can demonstrate today, but that is all empirical evidence.

It's really funny that you think there's no empirical evidence for what happened two thousand years ago, given that we can find empirical evidence for things that happened millions of years ago in the form of fossils and so on. Methinks this is just another way to veil your unverifiable claims in history, so as not to be called on how ridiculous they are.

You can't just toss aside empirical evidence when it comes to historical claims, because if you do then there's nothing to stop me from making a claim about a pretend emperor that ruled ninety percent of the planet; that claim passes your minimum barrier of evidence- none- if you're intent on never needing to empirically verify historical claims.

The fact is, you do have empirical evidence you're attempting to use here, in Tacitus and so on, and frankly, I'm fine with the idea that Jesus existed, if you're dead set on that. I find it curious and strange that the level of evidence for his existence is markedly lesser than for other figures of equivalent reputation, but fine, whatever. What you don't have is evidence for any of his miracle claims, and that's why you're attempting to devalue such claims now.

Do you understand?

Oh, and just by the way: as to your "Ooh, nobody will debate me!" nonsense, I offered you a debate topic back on page three, and so far you're ignored it completely in favor of spinning silly, condescending stories. Who is avoiding who, here?