The Deceptive Mechanisms

[Undeceived]

When you're checking his eyes, your checking the validity of the source--the man. When you're checking the weather report, you're checking another source--a document submitted by human beings. In each case, finding the truth is entirely dependent on people. How can the event speak for itself when the event has already passed? The event merely leaves traces. We interpret those traces with our reason. There are natural traces (as Darkstar explained) and testimonial traces. I brought this up because FallentoReason implied that the gospel events have no evidence:

Faith is essential. With it, the believer is capable of short-circuiting the brain and skipping the step of asking if something is sensible in the face of no evidence being present.

There is no evidence if and only if your definition of evidence is "information which is scientifically testable". Testability, in the strictly scientific sense, relies on repeatable processes. An event in the past is not repeatable. Therefore, no events have evidence. Of course, we could reform the definition of evidence to include the "trace" kind. Traces range from places and objects to written accounts. All could be manipulated, but all exist physically as clues. If we are reasonable and admit that events should have some evidence, we will find that the gospel events are in fact supported by traces. There are remnants of the cities described in the text, objects such as boats and clay pots, and writings. We must make sure we are fair regarding this evidence. For example, we cannot expect to find Jesus' cross or robe with his name inscribed on it. But we can expect to find the towns he passed through, and the sorts of objects he came in contact with. Personal accounts should be judged with the same care. If you don't call these evidence, then no historical event has evidence and the accusation that the gospels have no evidence is a deceptive one. If you do call these evidence, go to the next step and evaluate it. And evaluate it fairly, as in a neutral court of law. When several billion people believe in a person's life, and there is evidence, he is not "false until proven true by repeatable experiments."

So which is it? Is evidence that which is testable (repeatable) or that which has the capacity for human error?