Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[RoadRunner79]

---

It seems that you have a couple of double standards here, which I don't think that you can justify.  ... The second one, is that you keep referencing the time in the past that this occurred.  If the claim was made in the present, would you track down, and gain this information.   My guess is that you probably wouldn't have to meet a scientist or the people making the claim.   I don't think that it is reasonable for them to have to meet everyone who is going to believe the claim

I can agree, that you need multiple independent corroboration, of evidence, in order to rule out mistakes or fraud. And different parts of evidence can be verification for each other. There may be evidence against to consider as well.  And I think that it makes a difference if the claim was public, or happened somewhere, where even the people of the time, could not verify. 

I don't want to step on your conversation here, but it appears that one of the reasons for concentrating on the era during which such testimony occurred is that we have reason to push the probability that the testimony is unreliable given the period in question.  It's well know that magic and miraculous heros were not simply a fringe belief held by a few at the time of the bible testimony, but that such accounts were widely believed and skepticism towards them largely absent.  That affects the credibility of such accounts in a way that similar modern accounts are not likewise impugned.  In this era we have tales of Vespasian healing people and statues of Aesclepius doing likewise, and so on.  If we are going to assign a high degree of credibility to the testimony in the bible then, in order to be consistent, we have to assign a high degree of credibility to these other accounts as well.  Otherwise you've accepted that the testimonies in the bible don't have high credibility.  So the alternative is to justify treating the testimony in the bible as highly credible while at the same time claiming that similar reports outside the bible are not highly credible.  In my experience, people typically do this by resorting to special pleading or other illegitimate means.  If you have a counter-argument for why we should hold the testimony in the bible as likely credible when our evidence from the period is that such testimony, in general, is not highly credible, I'd like to hear it.

---

Your thoughtful input is welcome. I'm going to disagree somewhat however. I don't think that the biases of the time play that big of a role in looking at the evidence (any more, than our bias's do; we are just less aware of them). That's because I'm going to make a distinction between the claim, and the evidence. The evidence is what is observed or otherwise experienced, they are the facts of the case. The claim is the interpretation and conclusions from that evidence. Sometimes in the account, these may be mixed, and we need to separate the facts (observations) from the opinions. I had a customer the one time, called me up, because their servo motor control was broken, they replaced it and it still did the same thing. After far too much time, for me to get them to give an account of why they thought the servo motor was broken (what the seen or heard), rather than the conclusion that the servo motor was broken. I was looking for the evidence that lead to the conclusion, not the conclusion. (For anyone who is interested, it wasn't the servo).

As to the claim, that I am using double standards when involving other things, I think that is a false assumption. Mainly that you are assuming that I am using the same bad reasoning (or rather bias and lack of reasoning) to dismiss them. Often though, I don't find that they have similar evidence and corroboration within history. Also, I don't have the a priori hang ups that you do, so I'm perfectly willing to admit, that they can be true. But once again, I think that you have to have a good philosophy (reasoning) in place, and then move to the application of it.