DESTROY NOAH'S ARK

[Jacob(smooth)]

That's a good start, but to truly reflect Huggy's argument here, we wouldn't just be disputing someone who believed your wife was innocent, but who believed that pirate gremlins came and caved in your skull. Because apparently, not knowing the answer to a question means that we can't identify blatantly impossible answers, or answers for which there is no evidence that agents within that argument even exist.

If you don't know the answer to a thing, you simply can't dispute the existence of pirate gremlins!

Not accurate. It would actually be a choice between pirate gremlins (religious version), or the skull spontaneously caving in by itself (scientific version).

I was referring to the fact that just because something is not impossible does not make it plausible or acceptable as an explanation.

To make that metaphor fit, the police would simply turn up and find me with a caved in skull. The police say, "we don't know yet what happened". You say "well, the choices are that the skull spontaneously caved in itself, or pirate gremlins. Since skulls caving in by themselves is unlikely, therefore pirate gremlins".

One last time. Just because we may not KNOW what happened does not mean one must pluck a hypothesis out of the air. We have some clues. Redshift, the expanding universe etc. Enough to tantalize us with an answer but not yet enough to form a solid theory. But just because we don't know the full answer to something does not raise the pirate gremlin theory from not impossible to remotely likely.

---

So explain the bible dove-tailing together so perfectly, not being evidence.

The various authors had access to the rest of the books right? If the correlations between what was written of Jesus had been written WITHOUT SIGHT of the prophecies he was purported to fulfill, you might have a point. But they weren't! They were penning a Book for a new religion, of COURSE they're going to tie up the story arcs.

How else can I put this.

Lets say there is an OT prophecy that the second coming would have green hair, 11 fingers and a wart on his nose. Knowing about this, I write a book which says MY GRANDAD (now deceased) had green hair, 11 fingers and a wart on his nose.

Would you consider this book evidence that my grandad was the second coming? Of course not, you'd assume that I'd read the prophecies, and written up a character to fit them. Perhaps to make money off book sales. Would you consider my book to be evidence that my grandad fulfilled that prophecy? I doubt it.

You remember the council of nicea? Its easy to make the accounts dovetail when you have a huge raft of source material to choose from and you get to drop the ones which DON'T fit. You used the analogy of a puzzle, the people who collated the bible had access to a huge number of pieces which the authors had made to try to fit the gaps, most of which they discarded.