(July 12, 2016 at 10:35 pm)madog Wrote: You said as regards evolution you could show empirical evidence for the Gospels .... If you take out the claim that Jesus was the son of God the rest is just a story about a stone age preacher that did some tricks and got crucified
Are we now taking out any claims that are not directly empirical? Are they removed from consideration all together? I am following your lead on this, but I would caution against creating rules so strict, that little can hold up to them.I will hold you to it later. Under such conditions, I don't think that the fossil record will hold up as anything more than fancy rocks, and would be discounted as empirical evidence for evolution.
But back to the claim of the Gospel. So.... I agree, that there is not direct empirical evidence that Jesus was the Son of God (unless you count what was heard during His baptism). And that it is a circumstantial case, based on the empirical evidence, and His claims. So then what we are left with, is the evidence gathered through the senses for the miracles that where done, that He was crucified, and resurrected. You seem to keep leaving out that last part.... Why is that?
