It seems to me that your argument has become a moving target. Let's try to clarify things. As far as I can tell, we've been in agreement on the following points:

(1) A single historical account does not by itself constitute scientific evidence, due to the possibility of bias, fiction, or misreporting. However, our confidence can be improved by the existence of multiple consistent independent accounts and/or physical evidence.

(2) In the case of the Bible, there is no known physical evidence to corroborate the reported miraculous events, nor any secondary independent historical account of the events. Moreover, no similar events have ever been scientifically observed.

(3) The implication of (1) and (2) is that the Bible is not admissible as scientific evidence. If it were, then scientists would have to also accept the written accounts of miraculous and supernatural events in other mythologies, including Greek, Roman, Hindu, and Norse. As far as I can tell, we are in agreement on this point - at least no argument against it has been offered.

Absolutely not, though this is about the 20th time you've made this claim.>

I apologise if I've misrepresented your position, but if I have it's because I'm finding your position to be confusing. I'm a bit gratified to see that <whatthefat> is coming to the same conclusion. I was going to use the word "slippery", but I also like his "moving target" description. ;-)

From where I sit, the topic of our debate has been the battle between religion (especially Christianity) and natural science. You are the one who brought the "field of history" into the discussion, with posts like this:

Apr03 - <OhioChessFan: You are defining the field of Science in such a way you are eliminating the field of History.>

When you say "defining the field of science", I take it that you are referring to my claims that:

(1) Science seeks only *natural* explanation, and thus rejects miraculous explanations.

(2) science does not depend on historical written accounts because such accounts can be unreliable for several reasons. And besides that, its a moot point because there are no eyewitnesses to testify about the issues of cosmology or evolution.

So then, can we take a moment to clarify your actual position? The possibilities I see are as follows:

[A] You DISAGREE with the way I define science. That is, you think that natural science really does consider miracles, or that natural science really does for consider written historical accounts.

[B] You AGREE with the way I define science, but you think science is wrong for rejecting miracles and written accounts.

[C] You AGREE with the way I define science and you think science is right to operate that way. HOWEVER, you are still miffed at science for some reason, and you still accuse the majority of scientists of being liars.

<This being the case, what exactly is the basis for your earlier charge that scientists are for the most part dishonest, and are part of a worldwide conspiracy to undermine the credibility of the Bible? If you have changed your mind on this point then that's fine, I just don't see how such an accusation is compatible with the above points.>

I'm not sure what you think is incorrect there. Do you have a counterexample to one of statements I made?

"there is no known physical evidence to corroborate the reported miraculous events, nor any secondary independent historical account of the events. Moreover, no similar events have ever been scientifically observed."

In any case, you agree on point 3: Biblical mythology should be treated by scientists in the same way they treat any other mythology.

<If you wish to call it in the realm of history or law or anything else, I affirm the Bible has some evidentiary value. It has some truth that need not be scientific truth. However, I believe the majority of scientists reject it out of hand, and I think in many cases have a reactionary agenda to the contents.>

I don't disagree with that.

<(2) science does not depend on historical written accounts because such accounts can be unreliable for several reasons.>

I guess then history should not depend on historical written accounts because such accounts can be unreliable for several reasons. The rule of law should not depend on historical written accounts because such accounts can be unreliable for several reasons. Do you really wish to toss out so much?

Of your 3 choices, I think B is closest to where I disagree with you.

<[B] You AGREE with the way I define science, but you think science is wrong for rejecting miracles and written accounts. >

I think they are wrong for rejecting the written accounts, and further, I think they are wrong in their reactionary response to the written accounts.

My question to you: If the CSI team concludes with 51% certainty that Suspect A commited a crime, while 100 eyewitnesses affirm Suspect B commited the crime, should Science conclude Suspect A committed the crime?

Regarding miracles, you are okay with this: <Science seeks only *natural* explanation, and thus rejects miraculous explanations.>

Regarding written accounts, you find fault: <I think they [scientists] are wrong for rejecting the written accounts>.

But please notice the inconsistency of your position:

(1) The written account that you think science is wrong for rejecting is the Biblical account of creation.

(2) The Biblical account of creation IS a miraculous explanation, and certainly not a natural explanation.

I guess then history should not depend on historical written accounts because such accounts can be unreliable for several reasons. The rule of law should not depend on historical written accounts because such accounts can be unreliable for several reasons. Do you really wish to toss out so much?>

This is your response to my statement #2, and I will give you my opinion:

History certainly will take any historical written accounts into consideration. However, historians do not necessarily depend on them to be *truthful*. The same applies to the rules of law.

It's not a matter of "tossing out" written accounts, it's a matter of recognizing that the truthfulness of those accounts might not be reliable. In fact, a written account that can be proven false is still valuable in understanding history, or rendering a just verdict. Thus, it is always desirable to obtain independent confirmation of written accounts.

However, the the fields of history and law are beside the point. Your objective is to pull the issue of written accounts into the field of natural science. You omitted the rest of my statement #2, which continued: <... And besides that, its a moot point because there are no eyewitnesses to testify about the issues of cosmology or evolution.>

I'll assume that when you speak about "the CSI team", you are referring only to the scientific evidence gathered. I'll also assume that the 100 eyewitnesses are independent and that we have no reason to believe that a conspiracy is afoot.

If these assumptions are true, then I would say that the unanimous testimony of the 100 eyewitnesses should be enough to convict Suspect B -- even if the jury happens to consist of 12 scientists. The "51% certainty" (which is barely better than a coin toss) is immaterial.

<whatthefat: I'm not sure what you think is incorrect there. Do you have a counterexample to one of statements I made?>

Various historians kept a record of various events recorded in what we call the Bible. Just because those have been labelled "the Bible" or "the Scriptures" does not mean with a wave of the hand, you can dismiss the fact that there are multiple records by multiple people. If we didn't call the collected works of a number of first century witnesses "The Bible", I could affirm that <"The first century Jew Peter was a witness of the resurrection of Jesus the Christ. He was joined by a number of first century witnesses including the tax collector Matthew, the Gentile physician Luke, the convert to Christianity Paul, the Jewish fisherman John, the half brothers of Jesus James and Jude, and a claimed 500 other witnesses."> Just as a trial record may include 100 eyewitnesses testifying to the guilt of a defendant, which shows 100 times over that somebody is convinced they are guilty, so too are the multiple records of the Bible. It won't do to suggest that is just one record, and dismiss it on that basis. It is just as much a canard to for a defense lawyer to say "There is no eyewitness testimony outside the trial record" (that one record of many witnesses) as it is to say there is no "secondary independent historical account of the events." (that one record of many witnesses). I keep going back to the resurrection, for I strongly believe if that event is reliably recorded, the rest of what the Bible records might as well be accepted in toto.

<"there is no known physical evidence to corroborate the reported miraculous events, nor any secondary independent historical account of the events. Moreover, no similar events have ever been scientifically observed.">

What exactly would you suggest a God capable of miraculous intervention into the affairs of man give us in terms of physical evidence to prove the miraculous intervention? If you can't answer that, that is a tacit admission you have a prioried out the possibility of having proven to you that those miraculous events occurred.

<whatthefat: In any case, you agree on point 3: Biblical mythology should be treated by scientists in the same way they treat any other mythology.>

First off, since you keep harking back to this courtroom 'analogy', let's bust it once and for all. Any scientist reviewing that evidence would conclude that B is the most likely suspect, so long as there was no reason to believe that the eye witnesses would all be lying. Let's suppose now that it comes to light that the 100 eye witnesses all happened to belong to a cult led by Suspect A, and worshipped him as God. Well, now we have serious reason to question the objectivity the reports, and on the weight of the evidence it would be impossible to come to any conclusion.

<Various historians kept a record of various events recorded in what we call the Bible.>

Well, I wouldn't call them historians to start with.

<I keep going back to the resurrection, for I strongly believe if that event is reliably recorded, the rest of what the Bible records might as well be accepted in toto.>

But the resurrection is a perfect example of how any literal interpretation of the Bible is doomed to contradiction. The accounts fail to agree on the most salient details - details that one could not possibly get wrong if one were really an eye witness to the event. For instance, the authors of the Bible do not even agree on when Jesus was killed (not the time, nor even the day).

<What exactly would you suggest a God capable of miraculous intervention into the affairs of man give us in terms of physical evidence to prove the miraculous intervention? If you can't answer that, that is a tacit admission you have a prioried out the possibility of having proven to you that those miraculous events occurred.>

This shows a colossal misunderstanding of what science is about. The purpose of any scientific theory is to confer some explanatory value. The concept of God yields no additional insight into the laws of nature.

<I agree they should treat the historical record of the Bible in the same way they treat any other historical record.>

This is a point you seem to have been rather reticent about addressing, so I'm glad you have now acknowledged that scientists have as much reason to believe other mythologies as Biblical mythology.

<The predictive nature of the Bible is a unique indicator of its veracity.>

What % of professional scientists do you think have reviewed the evidence found in the Bible? If by review you meant, read it cover to cover, I'd affirm far less than 1%. If by review, you meant spent more than 45 hours reading any of it, which would qualify for Bible Reading 101 in a one semester, 3 hour class, I'd affirm maybe 1%.

<Let's suppose now that it comes to light that the 100 eye witnesses all happened to belong to a cult led by Suspect A, and worshipped him as God. Well, now we have serious reason to question the objectivity the reports, and on the weight of the evidence it would be impossible to come to any conclusion.>

<whatthefat: This shows a colossal misunderstanding of what science is about. The purpose of any scientific theory is to confer some explanatory value. The concept of God yields no additional insight into the laws of nature.>

I'm sure that's very interesting, but the question I asked was <What exactly would you suggest a God capable of miraculous intervention into the affairs of man give us in terms of physical evidence to prove the miraculous intervention?> If you wish to concede you've created an a priori objection to believing in miracles based on a lack of physical evidence, that's fine.

<OCF: I agree they should treat the historical record of the Bible in the same way they treat any other historical record.>

<whatthefat: This is a point you seem to have been rather reticent about addressing, so I'm glad you have now acknowledged that scientists have as much reason to believe other mythologies as Biblical mythology.>

Reticent? I have agreed with the point historical, biblical, etc records should be examined and considered as purveyors of truth all along. I have been doing handstands to make that clear. I'm off to do my taxes but if the mood strikes me when I get back, I'll show 20 of my statements that allude to that point

<OCF: The predictive nature of the Bible is a unique indicator of its veracity.>

<whatthefat: Give me one example of a Biblical prediction that has come to pass since it was written.>

Isaiah 45:1 Thus says Jehovah to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and I will loose the loins of kings; to open the doors before him, and the gates shall not be shut.

I honestly don't know. I'm not even sure that many Christians would have read the Bible cover to cover. I can tell you that there is certainly no shortage of Christian scientists. But I'm not sure what the point is. I doubt many scientists have read the Qu'ran, Theogony, or Tipitaka either.

<I think the accounts are in perfect harmony. This is a decidedly different topic, but I would be happy to address it.>

Perfect harmony? You're kidding, surely? John makes it clear that the last supper and crucifixion was the day before the passover - see John 13:1, 13:29, 18:28, and 19:14. The others (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) say these events were on the first day of passover. It's a clear contradiction. You're not actually intending to defend the position that there are no contradictions in the Bible are you?

< If you wish to concede you've created an a priori objection to believing in miracles based on a lack of physical evidence, that's fine.>

You've missed the boat - it's nothing to do with belief. Science is a matter of building theories that explain the phenomena observed in nature. Miracles provide no additional explanatory value, hence they cannot even be considered a subject of scientific interest. <YouRang> has already explained this in painstaking detail.

<I have been doing handstands to make that clear. I'm off to do my taxes but if the mood strikes me when I get back, I'll show 20 of my statements that allude to that point>

Until now, you've not directly addressed the fact that other mythologies are of as much scientific relevance as Christianity.

<Isaiah 45:1 Thus says Jehovah to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and I will loose the loins of kings; to open the doors before him, and the gates shall not be shut.

That was 200 years before Cyrus was born.>