SteveII Wrote:1. First, 'good' as it applies to standards of proof is subjective, so that sentence is your opinion. Second, what type of evidence for first century miracles, supernatural, God claims would be 'good' evidence? If this 'good' evidence is not possible, then you are just question begging: miracles can't happen so the NT can't be evidence of miracles.
If miracles were real and uncommon enough to be remarkable, ancient texts without independent corroboration would still be claims of particular miracles, not evidence of particular miracles. They'd just be more plausible claims because we'd know miracles are possible. The Bayesian analysis would be a little different, the claim less improbable, but still not evidence of the truth of the claim.
The story of Archimedes destroying enemy ships attacking Syracuse with arrays of mirrors doesn't involve supernatural intervention and, while improbable, is not completely impossible under ideal conditions. But with only Lucian's account, one shouldn't consider the destruction of ships with an ancient heat ray anything but 'unconfirmed' at best. A possible alternative explanation is that mirrors were used to dazzle and blind people on the ships, and the story got exaggerated; or maybe one or more of the ships caught fire for other reasons, not that uncommon.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
