Objective evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ?

[DeistPaladin]

But that information which convinces the experts is available on request. That's the point. 

When defending evolution, biologists don't say "shut up, we're the experts and we say so". They bring evidence to the table to show why they are convinced. 

That's what historians do and you just hand wave it away because the evidence isn't ideal. Reliability of evidence isn't all or nothing, even propaganda like the Bible and liars can tell us something about the past figures. That's just the way of the real world. You are not going to get 100% reliable sources. No one is claiming that we have to swallow every claim made without asking questions and doubting. To use your isolated island thought experiment: If Fox News said Obama is the presidentof USA, I wouldn't say I guess Obama doesn't exist. 

The point I was making is that saying "all the scholars say..." is not an argument. Furthermore, if you make a point of relying heavily upon it in a debate, it indirectly shows a weakness in your position. 


Just consider how we debate evolution with a Creationist. Do we say, "you know, Mr. Creationist, all the biology scholars agree that evolution best explains how the diversity of life came into existence." and keep hammering that point home? No. You technically could if you wanted to but it wouldn't be a good argument. Maybe that point might be mentioned briefly but any skeptic or science advocate who keeps coming back to it over and over the way Historists do on The Historical Jesus is not debating very effectively. 

A better approach to supporting evolution in a debate, and one I've seen used every time I can recall, is "Here's some evidence for evolution. And here's some more evidence. And here's some more evidence. And here's why your objections are crap. And here's some more reasons why your objections are crap." 


In debates on Global Warming, I have seen appeals to scholarly concensus but only as the conclusion and not the body of the case. As in, "Here's some evidence for global warming. And here's some more evidence for global warming. And here's some more evidence. And here's why the so-called skeptics are wrong about this and that. And this is why the majority of climatologists are convinced that global warming is real." 

In debates on whether or not homosexuality is innate, you could keep hammering the bigots on the consensus of psychologists but this is not a good argument by itself. A better approach is to present the evidence and case studies and then, same with global warming, use that as the conclusion. "...and this is why psychologists agree that homosexuality is an innate trait." 

Yes, we rely on experts to tell us what is what because we don't have the time or energy to research everything for ourselves. However, in a debate on a topic, evidence needs to be brought to the table and examined. If one side has only, "All the scholars agree with me. Case closed. *walks away* " that's a pitiful excuse for an argument and it should rightly be called out as a fallacy.