The Burden of Proof

[McCulloch]

Certain atheists claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is anything other than a collection of myths and tales.

Certain Christians claim that there is no proof that the Bible is in error about anything that it contains.

The question for debate: Where does the burden of proof lie? Is it the responsibility of the doubters to disprove the Bible? Is it the responsibility of the believers to show that it is true, or is it enough for them to rely on the lack of any disproof?

[Flail]

The Bible is a book IMO and nothing more....I frankly have no interest in making anyone take upon the impossible task of proving any of it as literal or not...myth or not...but when people are indoctrinated into insisting that the words in a book are the infallible words of a particular God,a line is crossed akin to insanity....if you claim infalliblity...if you claim supernaturality....you have the burden of proof...particularly if you are using it to indoctrinate children or to judge those of other indoctrinations that they are unworthy of God(S)....

If there is a God...and if Jesus was a God...and based upon what I can read with common sense from the words attributed to Him, I think he might think that all of these theist claims are both silly and irrelevant.

[Jester]

dic⋅tion⋅ar⋅y [dik-shuh-ner-ee] [IPA:  /ˈdɪkʃəˌnɛri/ ]
–noun
1. alphabetical collection of arguments that are an appeal to authority.
2. ......

In a debate on the truth of a claim, popular opinion or authority should be completely thrown out as evidence. In discussing the arbitrary "meanings" of words, however, such are very relevant. Language has to communicate something, and must therefore be clear to the bulk of the population.

Pardon me if I tell you that your interpretation is wrong.

You are certainly allowed to do so. Feel free.

Richard Dawkins on the other hand is an example of someone who has never stated that there is no God. It isn't a matter of agnosticism but of probability.

I was wondering when someone would mention Richard Dawkins.
Yes, it is true that he maintains that God's existence is highly unlikely, rather than proved false. I would say, however, that this is due to the fact that Dawkins recognizes that no one belief is absolutely proved. He is making a specific claim, however, which is not simply that he doesn't actively believe in God, but that he generally considers God to not exist, and would be surprised if it turned out that God does exist. This is a belief (albiet, not an absolute belief) that God does not exist.
I suspect that the heart of the problem here is the assumption that all belief must be absolute. I doubt that people are ever absolute in their beliefs (in spite of what some say), but that is not to say that we don't have beliefs.

I have no belief in God but that is not why I disbelieve in God. I disbelieve in God because I am a materialist and so gods, along with loads of other crap just don't cut the ice.

Personally, I'd state this the other way around. You are a materialist because you actively believe there is no supernatural part of reality.
This belief can rightly be called atheism. I see nothing inconsistent about applying it, whereas I do see someting inconsistent about applying the term to someone who says "I make no claim about whether or not God exists; I don't specifically believe it, but wouldn't say that it's not true either. I don't really trust either side."

What I am clear on is that the question can be asked and answered and so not agnostic. I don't consider myself anti-theist nor anti-clerical. I consider the trustworthiness of apologetics like I would SPAM. I actually think all apologetics can be weighted like we do with SPAM using Bayesian networks but instead of SPAMiness it is how Fallacious. I also think of Churches as running Advanced Free Fraud - 419 - with "Heaven" being the reward that will be shared.

I'm hit and miss with regard to agreement here, but none of it seems to address my point.

But as I apply trust metrics to all things in life then I am not specifically against any one thing but against all things that cannot be trusted.

I'd say that everyone would claim to be against all things that cannot be trusted. The argument is over what can't be trusted.

You should remember this because I, as an atheist, see attempts to categorise me as an agnostic as a poor argument against on my methodical naturalism and materialism. My arguments here come from those positive beliefs not from my hobby in not collecting stamps.

Let's back that up a bit.
I did not, at any point, try to categorize you as an agnostic. I merely attempted to correct your definition of atheism. Once definitions are clear, you can declare yourself either one - or some other option (even inventing a new word if you'd like). The point of my comment was to clarify a definition, not lump you into a particular group.
Now, if you have a positive belief that no god exists, then this is your belief and I would call you an atheist. Tying that back to the topic question, I would then assert that you must provide evidence for your positive belief in debates, but will not begrudge you the right to hold it or refer to yourself as an atheist (as it would then be accurate).

[Zzyzx]

.

I do not speak for historians or anyone other than myself, but I do not reject the claim on the sole basis that it is a supernatural claim.

What is your method for determining if a historical claim is true or not then? You've had well over a year to come up with one. Any progress yet?

Correction: I have had almost seventy years of experience in the real world.

Had I wished to become an historian I would have pursued study in that field. Instead, I chose a scientific field.

I do NOT purport to make historical analysis – instead, I examine CLAIMS made about events – such as dead bodies coming back to life, donkeys and snakes conversing with humans, a star "going before them and stopping", the Earth stopping rotation ("the sun stood still") – and evaluate the CLAIMS in light of what we know of the real world.

When a bible promoter CLAIMS that dead bodies come back to life after days, for instance, I cite forensic evidence that clearly indicates that dead bodies DECOMPOSE.

Those who wish to dispute the forensic evidence have offered only TALES that dead bodies came back to life "once upon a time". They offer no evidence that such things actually occur in the real world.

As you have demonstrated, trying to defend the "resurrection" pleads for special consideration for biblical characters – they are supposedly "different". Special pleas may be accepted in Holy Huddle.

Instead, I refuse to accept the story of Achilles because there is no evidence that it is true. There are stories, and perhaps testimonials, and claims – but not evidence.

The Zzyzx Contradiction

Nice dodge. Do you accept the tale of Achilles as truthful? If not, why not?

Perhaps you are unaware that there has been an addition to "Guidelines for C&A Subforum" http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 28bfcaed27

Number 4 clearly states "Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book."

Try to keep in mind that in this sub-forum "quotations from the bible cannot be regarded as any more authoritative than those of any other book" -- including tales of Peter Pan or Goldilocks. Does that require further clarification?

Those who base their arguments on an "authoritative bible" or try to "prove" bible accounts using the bible as authority are encouraged to do so in Holy Huddle or TD&D sub-forums

Exactly the same is true of "miracle" tales told in bible stories. I have seen NO evidence that donkeys or snakes conversed with humans (only stories), that dead bodies come back to life (only unsubstantiated claims), that a star "went before them and stopped over a birthplace" (only convoluted, unsupported "explanations" offered by those who wish to believe the tales).

The Zzyzx Contradiction

Nice dodge.

See Forum Guidelines #4 THEN address the tales about talking donkeys and snakes, dead bodies coming back to life, stars stopping – WITHOUT attempting to use the bible tales as authoritative.

Do you accept ALL unverified supernatural tales?

How would you determine if it was a tale or not? What is your objective method?

Nice dodge.

A tale, according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary definition I use, is "a series of events or facts told or presented: account: or a report of a private or confidential matter".

I KNOW that if someone tells or writes an account, that IS a tale as per the definition.

Do YOU assume that "tale" specifically means an untrue account or story? If so, you are DEAD WRONG.

If not, which ones are REJECTED and why?

I'll ask you the same thing. What is your objective method?

Nice dodge. – or is that a "goose step"?

Try to answer the question. Readers are watching.

Are tales about competing supernatural "gods" rejected on the sole basis that they are supernatural claims?

Are claims about gods rejected on the sole basis they are about gods? If not, what is your objective method?

Nice dodge.

I do not reject or accept tales of "competing gods"; HOWEVER, Christian dogma declares that "other gods" are "false gods".

THAT is the rejection to which I refer.

Do YOU, as a Christian, ACCEPT tales of other (competing) "gods" as being truthful? If not, WHY not – based on what "method", criteria or evidence?

If I remember correctly, the bible contains several or many tales of "resurrections". Are they all literally true as claimed?

You tell me. What is the method we should use for determining the answer to your question?

Nice dodge.

I do not pretend to know how others should formulate their answers or their arguments.

However, I would suggest that someone who wished to defend the bible examine the "resurrection" tales of the bible and determine exactly what NON-biblical evidence can be offered to substantiate a claim of literal truth.

If that examination indicates that there is NO extra-biblical evidence (nothing more than testimonials, hearsay, conjecture and more unsubstantiated tales – the usual apologetic offerings), I would suggest acknowledging the TRUTH – that the tales of "resurrection" cannot be shown to be true and accurate representation of events that literally happened in the real world.

Of course, bible literalists cannot acknowledge that there is no reason to believe the "resurrection" tale other than emotion (hope, fear and "faith") because that would undermine basic Christian dogma and doctrine – and call into question (even more) the veracity of bible stories.

If a person claims to fly by simply flapping their arms, do you accept the tale without asking for verification?

How do you know it is a "tale" before looking at the evidence?

Nice dodge.

Again, I use the word "tale" to mean "a series of events or facts told or presented: account: or a report of a private or confidential matter" as defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary. .

If an account is given of a series of events, I regard that as a tale – as per definition. I could use the word "story" interchangeably for my purposes, but choose to use "tale" (which allows the unaware and overly zealous to stumble over the term when trying to defend bible tales).

I KNOW that if an account of a person flying by flapping is offered, it IS a tale -- "a series of events or facts told or presented: account: or a report of a private or confidential matter" – it is a STORY or TALE of someone "flying by flapping".

When the TALE is offered, I compare what is CLAIMED to what is known of the real world. I realize that no accounts of "flying by flapping" have been verified – and if no evidence is presented (nothing other than conjectures, testimonials, hearsay, rumors and promotional literature) that such a thing happened, I do not accept the tale as true.

Exactly the same applies to bible stories – tales of incredible magical events that are not known to occur in the real world. When those tales are promoted as being true, I ask for evidence of truth. When no evidence is presented that such things happened (nothing other than conjectures, testimonials, hearsay, rumors and promotional literature), I do not accept the tales as being true.

My refusal to accept unverified tales as truthful seems to offend or upset promoters and defenders of literal bible interpretation – as though they cannot accept that others may not believe their tales of supernatural "gods".

If a person is claimed to have levitated into the sky, do you accept the claim? Is that true if the "person" is proposed to be a "god or godman"? If it is a "god or godman" OTHER than the Christian favorite, do you still believe the claims?

You tell me. What historical method should I use to determine if the claim is true or not?

Nice dodge. DO you accept tales of non-biblical persons or "gods" levitating into the sky?

I am NOT asking about historical issues – but about current issues.

Thousands of "gods" are worshiped or feared by humans.

I asked specifically if you accept as true tales about THOSE proposed "gods" -- other than the Christian "gods". If you do not accept those tales, on what basis (by what method or criteria) do you decide to NOT accept them but TO accept bible stories?

I prophesy that the claim will be accepted if it is made for Jesus and rejected if made for other "gods". Am I right? If so, on what intelligent basis is that distinction made?

I prophesy you still do not have any objective method for determining if a claim from ancient history is true or false. Am I right?

As I have said consistently, I make no claim to be an historian or to be qualified to set forth criteria for evaluation of historical information.

Instead, I evaluate CLAIMS made regarding supposed historical characters in relation to real world conditions.

I do not accept tales of supernaturalism that cannot be substantiated – PRESENT or PAST. Claims that supernatural events happened "long ago and far away" or "once upon a time" or "in the bible" do NOT constitute evidence that such things happened.

As you are well aware, with respect to claims that a "resurrection" occurred, I present forensic evidence concerning what happens to a body after death. Those who claim to know of an exception to that forensic evidence are EXPECTED to show reason why their exception is valid – something other than tales in a storybook.

As you are further aware, there is NO evidence outside bible tales that Jesus "came back from the dead".

ALL you put forth are bible tales and a "Special Plea" that "goddidit" – magically, long ago and far away.

Readers are watching – some perhaps deciding whether bible tales should be considered as truthful. What can you offer them other than emotional appeals, unverified tales, claims that "goddidit", and quotations from the bible (used to "verify itself" with a monumental blunder in logic)?

Oh yes, you can offer threats and promises for "after you die" in relation to whether a person will "believe on faith alone" the incredible bible tales. AND, you can demonstrate fancy footwork in dodging and weaving – to avoid answering questions.

I am not nearly so creative – and offer only a suggestion that people make decisions based upon what they can learn about the real world they inhabit and upon verifiable information and evidence they can collect. I have no tales to sell (or tell), no invisible friends, no promises of an "afterlife".

[Goose]

I do not speak for historians or anyone other than myself, but I do not reject the claim on the sole basis that it is a supernatural claim.

What is your method for determining if a historical claim is true or not then? You've had well over a year to come up with one. Any progress yet?

Correction: I have had almost seventy years of experience in the real world.

OK. With almost seventy years of real world experience why don't you have an objective method for determining the truth of a historical claim yet? If you are having difficulty coming up with one feel free to use mine.

Had I wished to become an historian I would have pursued study in that field. Instead, I chose a scientific field.

In scientific fields objective methodologies are used. Why don't you have one for history? You being a scientist should value objective methods, yes? Without an objective method one is merely pontificating opinions. They mean nothing.

Get an objective historical method and you and I will have a rational discussion.

[Zzyzx]

.
Goose,

Why are you not pursuing the "tale" issue? Did you realize that you had made a classic blunder?

Why do you ignore:

As you are well aware, with respect to claims that a "resurrection" occurred, I present forensic evidence concerning what happens to a body after death. Those who claim to know of an exception to that forensic evidence are EXPECTED to show reason why their exception is valid – something other than tales in a storybook.

As you are further aware, there is NO evidence outside bible tales that Jesus "came back from the dead".

ALL you put forth are bible tales and a "Special Plea" that "goddidit" – magically, long ago and far away.

Do you realize that you have NO evidence to present since the bible cannot be considered authoritative?

Correction: I have had almost seventy years of experience in the real world.

OK. With almost seventy years of real world experience why don't you have an objective method for determining the truth of a historical claim yet?

Do you have trouble comprehending that I clearly stated that I chose to be involved with sciences rather than history? Perhaps you could find someone to explain that in simpler terms.

Instead of speculating about history or fairytales, I deal with the real world.

When bible promoters make CLAIMS about their tales, I examine those claims in relation to the real world. When they claim that donkeys and snakes converse with humans, that dead bodies come back to life after days, that people walk on water or calm seas with a command, that the Earth stops rotating, that there is a high mountain from which "all kingdoms of the world" can be seen, etc, etc., I CHALLENGE those claims.

As you have discovered, you cannot provide evidence that you speak truth – all you can cite are testimonials, opinions, conjecture, and tales by ancient storytellers -- NONE of which can be shown to be true.

If you are having difficulty coming up with one feel free to use mine.

Thanks anyway. Yours doesn't seem to work very well since it does not provide reasoned answers to simple questions.

Had I wished to become an historian I would have pursued study in that field. Instead, I chose a scientific field.

In scientific fields objective methodologies are used. Why don't you have one for history?

Do you not comprehend that I am not an historian? WHY would I claim to possess methodology for a field in which I have not studied and make no claim of expertise?

You being a scientist should value objective methods, yes?

I do value objective methods of analysis. I do NOT claim knowledge that I do not possess.

What objective evidence do you feel qualified to discuss?

Without an objective method one is merely pontificating opinions. They mean nothing.

What objective evidence do you offer to claims that biblical "miracles" actually occur or occurred? Or, are you "merely pontificating" without any objective evidence?

Get an objective historical method and you and I will have a rational discussion.

If you were capable of a rational discussion you would have answered the questions I asked in post #43.

Notice that you have made no attempt to answer the questions – just dodging. I'm confident that READERS notice.

Instead, I refuse to accept the story of Achilles because there is no evidence that it is true. There are stories, and perhaps testimonials, and claims – but not evidence.

The Zzyzx Contradiction

Nice dodge. Do you accept the tale of Achilles as truthful? If not, why not?

Exactly the same is true of "miracle" tales told in bible stories. I have seen NO evidence that donkeys or snakes conversed with humans (only stories), that dead bodies come back to life (only unsubstantiated claims), that a star "went before them and stopped over a birthplace" (only convoluted, unsupported "explanations" offered by those who wish to believe the tales).

The Zzyzx Contradiction

Nice dodge.

See Forum Guidelines #4 THEN address the tales about talking donkeys and snakes, dead bodies coming back to life, stars stopping – WITHOUT attempting to use the bible tales as authoritative.

Do you accept ALL unverified supernatural tales?

How would you determine if it was a tale or not? What is your objective method?

Nice dodge.

If not, which ones are REJECTED and why?

I'll ask you the same thing. What is your objective method?

Nice dodge. – or is that a "goose step"?

Try to answer the question. Readers are watching.

Are tales about competing supernatural "gods" rejected on the sole basis that they are supernatural claims?

Are claims about gods rejected on the sole basis they are about gods? If not, what is your objective method?

Nice dodge.

Do YOU, as a Christian, ACCEPT tales of other (competing) "gods" as being truthful? If not, WHY not – based on what "method", criteria or evidence?

If I remember correctly, the bible contains several or many tales of "resurrections". Are they all literally true as claimed?

You tell me. What is the method we should use for determining the answer to your question?

Nice dodge.

If a person claims to fly by simply flapping their arms, do you accept the tale without asking for verification?

How do you know it is a "tale" before looking at the evidence?

Nice dodge.

If a person is claimed to have levitated into the sky, do you accept the claim? Is that true if the "person" is proposed to be a "god or godman"? If it is a "god or godman" OTHER than the Christian favorite, do you still believe the claims?

You tell me. What historical method should I use to determine if the claim is true or not?

Nice dodge. DO you accept tales of non-biblical persons or "gods" levitating into the sky?

It might be interesting if you were to actually attempt to defend any of the bible "miracle" tales based upon evidence WITHOUT attempting to use the bible as authoritative (as per the present Guidelines).

[Goose]

In scientific fields objective methodologies are used. Why don't you have one for history?

Do you not comprehend that I am not an historian?

Yes. It's painfully obvious.

WHY would I claim to possess methodology for a field in which I have not studied and make no claim of expertise?

Then borrow a methodolgy from a professional historian. Just get one.

You being a scientist should value objective methods, yes?

I do value objective methods of analysis. I do NOT claim knowledge that I do not possess.

If you value objective methods why on earth haven't you taken the time to get one for establishing history?

[Cathar1950]

The idea that Christianity rises and falls on some notion of the resurrection is historically wrong. This is Pauline apologetic rhetoric; some simply saw Jesus as having been placed at God’s right hand and little need for a body to be resurrected. Some simply saw Jesus vindicated by being placed at God’s right hand and his adopted son as in the royal ideology of priests and prophets. The Gospels are largely based on Mark and even John seems to share the passion narrative. The simple explanation is that using Mark and other traditions the resurrections stories were embellished and based on some literal interpretation of Paul’s visions interpreted as stories. People see visions all the time and it shouldn’t surprise us that some of the followers of Jesus may have saw visions, we know from Paul’s own accounts that he had visions. Should it surprised us that a generation later unknown authors using Mark wrote of visions as story.. Even the women at the tomb reads like older tales of dieing gods or heroes being mourned and searching for their master. Yet we here apologies that claim the lowly women there are just proof that it was real because they wouldn’t use women to authenticated the claim, missing the function of the women in Mark’s story and its similarity to other stories. Mathew and Luke used Mark probably because it was the best they had and was fairly accepted somewhere, maybe. Most likely the gospels were used to teach or for worship rites and gatherings. If we make a special case of the resurrection of Jesus then there is no reason we shouldn’t make the same case for every report and story of resurrection we hear.

[Zzyzx]

.

If you value objective methods why on earth haven't you taken the time to get one for establishing history?

Thank you for the concern and advice. However, it does not appear as though you are in any position to advise or criticize anyone.

The bible is NOT a history book. It is a STORY book of tales by promoters of religion. There is no extra-biblical verification that principle characters (such as Mary, Joseph, Apostles) existed or that events reported actually occurred.

I challenge CLAIMS made in the tales that conflict with what is known of the real world. Dead bodies do not come back to life days later, donkeys and snakes do not converse with humans, stars do not lead and stop, the Earth does not stop rotating. None of those things are known to happen in the real world.

NONE of that has anything to do with history. They are CLAIMS made in stories.

Remember, in this sub-forum quotations from the bible are not considered any more authoritative than quotes from any other book. Thus, the bible is NOT regarded as an authoritative history book.

Those who claim that their stories about supernatural beings and events are asked to substantiate the claim. If that cannot be done, they are expected to ethically withdraw the claim from debate.

Making excuses for absence of evidence is not acceptable. That is all that has been offered – excuses for absence of evidence.

I do not care WHY you have no evidence – only THAT you have no evidence.

I SUGGEST that the reason you have no evidence is because the tales are myths, legends, fables and fiction – and therefore leave no evidence.

Ducking questions and issues may seem like a "winning strategy" but readers realize that it is indication that answers are not available or are unfavorable to the person ducking and dancing – no matter how artistic or creative the dance.

Is there a "miracle tale" that you feel qualified to defend as really, literally happening in the real world – WITHOUT attempting to use the bible as authoritative AND without attempting to use the bible to verify its tales?

Unanswered questions from the previous post (now numbered 1 to 12 for emphasis):

1) What objective evidence do you feel qualified to discuss?

Without an objective method one is merely pontificating opinions. They mean nothing.

2) What objective evidence do you offer to claims that biblical "miracles" actually occur or occurred? Or, are you "merely pontificating" without any objective evidence?

Get an objective historical method and you and I will have a rational discussion.

If you were capable of a rational discussion you would have answered the questions I asked in post #43.

Notice that you have made no attempt to answer the questions – just dodging. I'm confident that READERS notice.

Instead, I refuse to accept the story of Achilles because there is no evidence that it is true. There are stories, and perhaps testimonials, and claims – but not evidence.

The Zzyzx Contradiction

Nice dodge. 3) Do you accept the tale of Achilles as truthful? If not, why not?

Exactly the same is true of "miracle" tales told in bible stories. I have seen NO evidence that donkeys or snakes conversed with humans (only stories), that dead bodies come back to life (only unsubstantiated claims), that a star "went before them and stopped over a birthplace" (only convoluted, unsupported "explanations" offered by those who wish to believe the tales).

The Zzyzx Contradiction

Nice dodge.

4) See Forum Guidelines #4 THEN address the tales about talking donkeys and snakes, dead bodies coming back to life, stars stopping – WITHOUT attempting to use the bible tales as authoritative.

5) Do you accept ALL unverified supernatural tales?

How would you determine if it was a tale or not? What is your objective method?

Nice dodge.

6) If not, which ones are REJECTED and why?

I'll ask you the same thing. What is your objective method?

Nice dodge. – or is that a "goose step"?

Try to answer the question. Readers are watching.

7) Are tales about competing supernatural "gods" rejected on the sole basis that they are supernatural claims?

Are claims about gods rejected on the sole basis they are about gods? If not, what is your objective method?

Nice dodge.

8) Do YOU, as a Christian, ACCEPT tales of other (competing) "gods" as being truthful? If not, WHY not – based on what "method", criteria or evidence?

If I remember correctly, the bible contains several or many tales of "resurrections". 9) Are they all literally true as claimed?

You tell me. What is the method we should use for determining the answer to your question?

Nice dodge.

10) If a person claims to fly by simply flapping their arms, do you accept the tale without asking for verification?

How do you know it is a "tale" before looking at the evidence?

Nice dodge.

11) If a person is claimed to have levitated into the sky, do you accept the claim? Is that true if the "person" is proposed to be a "god or godman"? If it is a "god or godman" OTHER than the Christian favorite, do you still believe the claims?

You tell me. What historical method should I use to determine if the claim is true or not?

Nice dodge. 12) DO you accept tales of non-biblical persons or "gods" levitating into the sky?

It might be interesting if you were to actually attempt to defend any of the bible "miracle" tales based upon evidence WITHOUT attempting to use the bible as authoritative (as per the present Guidelines).

[Goose]

.The bible is NOT a history book.

How could someone that is not a historian and/or has no objective method for determining what is and is not historical make such a claim? Prove your claim with an objective historical method or withdraw it.

.I do not care WHY you have no evidence – only THAT you have no evidence.

The Zzyzx Contradiction Again!

.Unanswered questions from the previous post (now numbered 1 to 12 for emphasis):

Yeah you've asked a lot of questions. Bravo! I just want you to answer one question then we can rationally address some of yours. What is your objective method for determing history?

Or if that is too difficult, how do we objectively determine what is and is not historical?

[Goat]

.The bible is NOT a history book.

How could someone that is not a historian and/or has no objective method for determining what is and is not historical make such a claim? Prove your claim with an objective historical method or withdraw it.

.I do not care WHY you have no evidence – only THAT you have no evidence.

The Zzyzx Contradiction Again!

NO, it is not a contradiction. It is pointing out that you have no evidence except for
tales you beleive because of 'faith'.

.Unanswered questions from the previous post (now numbered 1 to 12 for emphasis):

Yeah you've asked a lot of questions. Bravo! I just want you to answer one question then we can rationally address some of yours. What is your objective method for determing history?

Or if that is too difficult, how do we objectively determine what is and is not historical?

This is known as 'building a straw man'. Zz doesn't make claims of history, he making claims of things being physically possible and pointing out that the miraculous claims appear to be nothing but tall tales. Your attempt to try to misrepresent his point of view is noted though.