(November 19, 2017 at 10:46 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(November 19, 2017 at 10:33 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: My personal position on this particular subject is that if god is penetrating the natural world with physical events such as floods, Jesus, and miracles, etc., there should be some physical evidence left behind.

That's fair. That's what biblical archeology is for. For example, we have a pretty good idea of where the pool of Bethesda was. At the same time, we do not require any physical proof of Socrates or Alexander the Great.

Caught out again, lying for Christ
Caught out yet again, lying for Christ

(November 19, 2017 at 10:46 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(November 19, 2017 at 10:33 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: My personal position on this particular subject is that if god is penetrating the natural world with physical events such as floods, Jesus, and miracles, etc., there should be some physical evidence left behind.

That's fair. That's what biblical archeology is for. For example, we have a pretty good idea of where the pool of Bethesda was. At the same time, we do not require any physical proof of Socrates or Alexander the Great.

Well you needn't require physical evidence for anything in the bible either.  We all set our own standards.  I'm sure I won't be the only one unconvinced of supernatural intervention on the basis of natural remnants or testimony.  Nothing but the thing itself will convince me otherwise.  Why try?  Surely the opinion of skeptically inclined people can't mean all that much to you once you've made up your mind.

(November 19, 2017 at 11:22 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(November 19, 2017 at 11:20 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: In the court of public opinion, I would agree. In a legal court of law, I don't believe it satisfies the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Personally, I think the guy is as guilty as the sky is blue. That doesn't mean I'd be ready to vote to convict him on the charges with the current level of evidence, were I on the jury.

Agreed.  I'm assuming the statute of limitations has run out for the women in Moore's case?

It most likely has. Typically the statute of limitations is 4 years, with some exceptions for crimes like murder. I'd have to look at the statutes in the relevant jurisdictions to be certain, but I wouldn't expect to be surprised by the results.

Biblical archaeology can't really back  the bibles claims.

(November 19, 2017 at 11:23 pm)Fireball Wrote:

(November 19, 2017 at 10:46 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: That's fair. That's what biblical archeology is for. For example, we have a pretty good idea of where the pool of Bethesda was. At the same time, we do not require any physical proof of Socrates or Alexander the Great.

[/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_Alexander_the_Great]Caught out again, lying for Christ
Caught out yet again, lying for Christ

I am flabbergasted that such detailed information can be found for an individual -even Socrates- from so long ago.  However my intelligence isn't insulted to suppose every word could be true, as it would be if it were eye witness testimony from the distant past regarding a magic genie which were in question.

(November 19, 2017 at 10:46 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(November 19, 2017 at 10:33 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: My personal position on this particular subject is that if god is penetrating the natural world with physical events such as floods, Jesus, and miracles, etc., there should be some physical evidence left behind.

That's fair. That's what biblical archeology is for. For example, we have a pretty good idea of where the pool of Bethesda was. At the same time, we do not require any physical proof of Socrates or Alexander the Great.

Discovering a location where a miracle allegedly took place goes no further towards proving the miracle than London's existence does in proving wizardry.

(November 19, 2017 at 10:51 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved."

~Benjamin Franklin

This is true. The practical application of this, though, is that it will be virtually impossible to charge a man for rape or sexual assault. Even if semen is found inside a woman's body, he says, "Well, she said yes," and then it's 1:1 hearsay.

There's another case: that of political corruption. When the powers that be deliberately work to cover up evidence, then what is to be done when the occasional whistle-blower has something to say about the conduct of, say, Trump?

Neo once again pushes the argument from Spartacus

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924

You can't compare Jesus to ancient persons . It's NOT the category he belongs in 

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7862

(November 19, 2017 at 11:37 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Neo once again pushes the argument from Spartacus

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924

You can't compare Jesus to ancient persons . It's NOT the category he belongs in 

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7862

I get people elsewhere bidding Bart Ehrman. I raise them with one Richard Carrier, and they fold.

(November 19, 2017 at 11:36 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(November 19, 2017 at 10:51 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved."

~Benjamin Franklin

This is true.  The practical application of this, though, is that it will be virtually impossible to charge a man for rape or sexual assault.  Even if semen is found inside a woman's body, he says, "Well, she said yes," and then it's 1:1 hearsay.

There's another case: that of political corruption.  When the powers that be deliberately work to cover up evidence, then what is to be done when the occasional whistle-blower has something to say about the conduct of, say, Trump?

What you say has merit, but I'd far rather reach for the higher goal and fall short than start locking people up based on nothing more than "the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act" (the minimum of evidence for treason where no admission of guilt is obtained as established by the constitution).