Can we at least agree on this?

[notachance]

There is no empirical evidence in support of any supernatural claim in the Bible.

The only evidence is hearsay anecdotal evidence.

That hearsay evidence in support of supernatural claims in the Bible is miniscule when stacked up against the overwhelming empirical evidence AGAINST any supernatural claims in the Bible.

For example, the only piece of evidence for Genesis is an old book written by anonymous authors who could not POSSIBLY have been alive at the time the event allegedly happened.

To the contrary there is overwhelming empirical evidence against genesis: Accurate, testable, empirical, measurable evidence that allows us to make accurate predictions, and the validity of which is supported by the fact that the same data-acquiring-method (the scientific method) is also responsible for getting us to the moon, performing heart transplants, creating computers, doubling life expectancy, inventing antibiotics and millions of others things which are measurably and irrefutably valid.

So, can we at least agree that the evidence against the veracity of supernatural Bible claims is more solid than the evidence in favor of it?

[Mithrae]

Is the Bible accurate concerning the destruction of the walls of Jericho?

• It was not until a British archaeologist named Kathleen Kenyon reexcavated the site with modern methods in the 1950s that it was understood what these piles of bricks were. She determined that they were from the city wall which had collapsed when the city was destroyed!
  
  The story in the Bible goes on to say that when the walls collapsed, the Israelites stormed the city and set it on fire. Archaeologists found evidence for a massive destruction by fire just as the Bible relates. Kenyon wrote in her excavation report,
  
  • The destruction was complete. Walls and floors were blackened or reddened by fire, and every room was filled with fallen bricks, timbers, and household utensils; in most rooms the fallen debris was heavily burnt.
  What caused the strong walls of Jericho to collapse? The most likely explanation is an earthquake. But the nature of the earthquake was unusual. It struck in such a way as to allow a portion of the city wall on the north side of the site to remain standing, while everywhere else the wall fell.
  
  Rahab's house was evidently located on the north side of the city. She was the Canaanite prostitute who hid the Israelite spies who came to reconnoiter the city. The Bible states that her house was built against the city wall. Before returning to the Israelite camp, the spies told Rahab to bring her family into her house and they would be saved. According to the Bible, Rahab's house was miraculously spared while the rest of the city wall fell.
  
  This is exactly what archaeologists found. The preserved city wall on the north side of the city had houses built against it.

Edit: It's quite hard to prove a negative, and I commend the OP for putting limits on its negative claim; no empirical evidence for the supernatural in the bible. Even so, it might be better to say no conclusive empirical evidence, or no good evidence that I've seen.

Regarding the above, archaeologists and historians would surely argue back and forth about the suggested date of the archaeological finds compared with the suggested date of the conquest of Canaan. And of course philosophers and theologians might argue about whether an earthquake or the like could be considered 'supernatural' if it were a predicted and extremely fortuitous event.

But I think it can be both dismissive (or dishonest) to use the phrase 'no evidence' too carelessly, and isn't necessarily very meaningful in any case since it's a sword which can cut both ways.

I would agree that in most cases that I've looked at in any detail, the evidence for biblical supernatural claims is very weak.

[notachance]

Is the Bible accurate concerning the destruction of the walls of Jericho?

• It was not until a British archaeologist named Kathleen Kenyon reexcavated the site with modern methods in the 1950s that it was understood what these piles of bricks were. She determined that they were from the city wall which had collapsed when the city was destroyed!
  
  The story in the Bible goes on to say that when the walls collapsed, the Israelites stormed the city and set it on fire. Archaeologists found evidence for a massive destruction by fire just as the Bible relates. Kenyon wrote in her excavation report,
  
  • The destruction was complete. Walls and floors were blackened or reddened by fire, and every room was filled with fallen bricks, timbers, and household utensils; in most rooms the fallen debris was heavily burnt.
  What caused the strong walls of Jericho to collapse? The most likely explanation is an earthquake. But the nature of the earthquake was unusual. It struck in such a way as to allow a portion of the city wall on the north side of the site to remain standing, while everywhere else the wall fell.
  
  Rahab's house was evidently located on the north side of the city. She was the Canaanite prostitute who hid the Israelite spies who came to reconnoiter the city. The Bible states that her house was built against the city wall. Before returning to the Israelite camp, the spies told Rahab to bring her family into her house and they would be saved. According to the Bible, Rahab's house was miraculously spared while the rest of the city wall fell.
  
  This is exactly what archaeologists found. The preserved city wall on the north side of the city had houses built against it.

Hi Mithrae, maybe you might have missed it, so I'll write it in big red letters for you. This is what the OP asks:

Can we agree that the evidence against the veracity of supernatural Bible claims is more solid than the evidence in favor of it?

Notice how I emphasized the word supernatural ?I'll write it again, so never again for the duration of this conversation will there be any confusion whatsoever: I am talking about evidence for the SUPERNATURAL in the Bible! Do you get it?

Not the natural, such as an earthquake. But the supernatural, such as a house being miraculously spared.

Now, there is solid empirical evidence that a natural event happened (an earthquake).

But only evidence you have provided for the supernatural is your claim that "According to the Bible, Rahab's house was miraculously spared while the rest of the city wall fell".

The evidence for the miraculous aspect of it, is anecdotal hearsay evidence from an unknown and unreliable source.

Are you saying that because some bronze age barbarian scribbles on sheep skin that a house didn't fall during an earthquake because of a miracle, therefore we should abandon millions of empirical measurements and tangible evidence in favor of the fact that EARTHQUAKES ARE NATURAL EVENTS THAT SOMETIMES HAPPEN, and HOUSES SOMETIMES DON'T COLLAPSE DURING EARTHQUAKES?

What kind of knowledge of the nature of miracles, earthquakes, statistical inevitability and workings of the physical universe do you allege that this bronze age pillaging barbarian simpleton had, that we should take his ramblings about magic seriously?



Please pick a miracle claim in the Bible, list all the evidence in favor of it, and then I'll list all the evidence against it, and we can take it from there.

Please don't say absurdities such as "The Bible was correct in describing an earthquake, therefore it's correct in claiming miracles happen". That's like saying "Marvel Comics is correct in describing New York City, therefore it's correct in stating that Spiderman exists".

[notachance]

Is the Bible accurate concerning the destruction of the walls of Jericho?

• It was not until a British archaeologist named Kathleen Kenyon reexcavated the site with modern methods in the 1950s that it was understood what these piles of bricks were. She determined that they were from the city wall which had collapsed when the city was destroyed!
  
  The story in the Bible goes on to say that when the walls collapsed, the Israelites stormed the city and set it on fire. Archaeologists found evidence for a massive destruction by fire just as the Bible relates. Kenyon wrote in her excavation report,
  
  • The destruction was complete. Walls and floors were blackened or reddened by fire, and every room was filled with fallen bricks, timbers, and household utensils; in most rooms the fallen debris was heavily burnt.
  What caused the strong walls of Jericho to collapse? The most likely explanation is an earthquake. But the nature of the earthquake was unusual. It struck in such a way as to allow a portion of the city wall on the north side of the site to remain standing, while everywhere else the wall fell.
  
  Rahab's house was evidently located on the north side of the city. She was the Canaanite prostitute who hid the Israelite spies who came to reconnoiter the city. The Bible states that her house was built against the city wall. Before returning to the Israelite camp, the spies told Rahab to bring her family into her house and they would be saved. According to the Bible, Rahab's house was miraculously spared while the rest of the city wall fell.
  
  This is exactly what archaeologists found. The preserved city wall on the north side of the city had houses built against it.

Hi Mithrae, maybe you might have missed it, so I'll write it in big red letters for you. This is what the OP asks:

Can we agree that the evidence against the veracity of supernatural Bible claims is more solid than the evidence in favor of it?

Notice how I emphasized the word supernatural ?I'll write it again, so never again for the duration of this conversation will there be any confusion whatsoever: I am talking about evidence for the SUPERNATURAL in the Bible! Do you get it?

Not the natural, such as an earthquake. But the supernatural, such as a house being miraculously spared.

Now, there is solid empirical evidence that a natural event happened (an earthquake).

But only evidence you have provided for the supernatural is your claim that "According to the Bible, Rahab's house was miraculously spared while the rest of the city wall fell".

The evidence for the miraculous aspect of it, is anecdotal hearsay evidence from an unknown and unreliable source.

Are you saying that because some bronze age barbarian scribbles on sheep skin that a house didn't fall during an earthquake because of a miracle, therefore we should abandon millions of empirical measurements and tangible evidence in favor of the fact that EARTHQUAKES ARE NATURAL EVENTS THAT SOMETIMES HAPPEN, and HOUSES SOMETIMES DON'T COLLAPSE DURING EARTHQUAKES?

What kind of knowledge of the nature of miracles, earthquakes, statistical inevitability and workings of the physical universe do you allege that this bronze age pillaging barbarian simpleton had, that we should take his ramblings about magic seriously?



Please pick a miracle claim in the Bible, list all the evidence in favor of it, and then I'll list all the evidence against it, and we can take it from there.

Please don't say absurdities such as "The Bible was correct in describing an earthquake, therefore it's correct in claiming miracles happen". That's like saying "Marvel Comics is correct in describing New York City, therefore it's correct in stating that Spiderman exists".

[Mithrae]

Just to re-post my edit from above...

Edit: It's quite hard to prove a negative, and I commend the OP for putting limits on its negative claim; no empirical evidence for the supernatural in the bible. Even so, it might be better to say no conclusive empirical evidence, or no good evidence that I've seen.

Regarding the above, archaeologists and historians would surely argue back and forth about the suggested date of the archaeological finds compared with the suggested date of the conquest of Canaan. And of course philosophers and theologians might argue about whether an earthquake or the like could be considered 'supernatural' if it were a predicted and extremely fortuitous event.

But I think it can be both dismissive (or dishonest) to use the phrase 'no evidence' too carelessly, and isn't necessarily very meaningful in any case since it's a sword which can cut both ways.

I would agree that in most cases that I've looked at in any detail, the evidence for biblical supernatural claims is very weak.

Not the natural, such as an earthquake. But the supernatural, such as a house being miraculously spared.

Now, there is solid empirical evidence that a natural event happened (an earthquake).

But only evidence you have provided for the supernatural is your claim that "According to the Bible, Rahab's house was miraculously spared while the rest of the city wall fell".

The evidence for the miraculous aspect of it, is anecdotal hearsay evidence from an unknown and unreliable source.

Are you saying that because some bronze age barbarian scribbles on sheep skin that a house didn't fall during an earthquake because of a miracle, therefore we should abandon millions of empirical measurements and tangible evidence in favor of the fact that EARTHQUAKES ARE NATURAL EVENTS THAT SOMETIMES HAPPEN, and HOUSES SOMETIMES DON'T COLLAPSE DURING EARTHQUAKES?

What kind of knowledge of the nature of miracles, earthquakes, statistical inevitability and workings of the physical universe do you allege that this bronze age pillaging barbarian simpleton had, that we should take his ramblings about magic seriously?


Please pick a miracle claim in the Bible, list all the evidence in favor of it, and then I'll list all the evidence against it, and we can take it from there.

Please don't say absurdities such as "The Bible was correct in describing an earthquake, therefore it's correct in claiming miracles happen". That's like saying "Marvel Comics is correct in describing New York City, therefore it's correct in stating that Spiderman exists".

The OP stated that "There is no empirical evidence in support of any supernatural claim in the Bible."

You also asked "can we at least agree that the evidence against the veracity of supernatural Bible claims is more solid than the evidence in favor of it?"

I disagree with the first claim, and have provided some empirical evidence supporting one of the bible's supernatural stories. And I wouldn't agree with the second question in all cases. One example we've discussed previously are the predictions in Hebrew Daniel; there is no strong evidence that they were first written in the second century century BCE (or later), and there is good evidence that they were first written considerably earlier. In that discussion you did not list any evidence against my position, you simply resorted to the assumption that editing of the texts by later scribes was a more likely explanation. Which was not unreasonable in the context of that discussion, I admit.

I posted simply to highlight a potential exception to your generalisation which sprang to mind. But if you want to discuss the predictions in Hebrew Daniel (and provide actual evidence that they were first written after the events), we can certainly do so.

[100%atheist]

There is no empirical evidence in support of any supernatural claim .[strike] in the Bible.[/strike]

You are too wordy I think.
Agreed.

[notachance]

The OP stated that "There is no empirical evidence in support of any supernatural claim in the Bible."

I disagree with the first claim, and have provided some empirical evidence supporting one of the bible's supernatural stories.

Ok Mithrae, lets do this very very slowly, ok?

One thing at a time. Easy does it.

Please point to the portion of your post in which you provide empirical evidence for one of the Bible's supernatural stories.

Please repost that specific portion of your comment which provides empirical evidence of the SUPERNATURAL.

If you repost that specific portion of your thread as asked, without going on a meaningless tangent, I will send you $5 by paypal. I am not joking.


Also, I have two simple yes or no questions for you. I will send you an additional $5 by paypal if you answer both of them with a simple yes or no. Again, I am not joking.

Question 1: Do you agree that there is empirical evidence for the existence of New York City? Yes or no. (If you answer anything other than yes or no, you will not receive your $5)

Question 2: Does the fact that there is empirical evidence for NYC, combined with the fact that Marvel Comics mentions NYC, constitute empirical evidence that Spiderman is real? Yes or no. (If you answer anything other than yes or no, you will not receive your $5)


So here it is. Your chance to make $10, by just cutting and pasting a portion of something you've already written, and writing yes or no twice. Easiest money ever.

[Mithrae]

The OP stated that "There is no empirical evidence in support of any supernatural claim in the Bible."

I disagree with the first claim, and have provided some empirical evidence supporting one of the bible's supernatural stories.

Ok Mithrae, lets do this very very slowly, ok?

One thing at a time. Easy does it.

Please point to the portion of your post in which you provide empirical evidence for one of the Bible's supernatural stories.

Please repost that specific portion of your comment which provides empirical evidence of the SUPERNATURAL.

Thankyou for the offer, but I can do without $10. You're an intelligent fellow Notachance, but I think your debating style would actually improve if you were less focused on trying to prove your points or 'win' the argument.

Please note that your initial claim regarded "no empirical evidence in support of any supernatural claim in the Bible," and I responded with "empirical evidence supporting one of the bible's supernatural stories." Before you ask for C&P responses, it's probably a good idea to first look at the actual words you and others have been using.

If archaeologists and historians can provide good evidence that Jericho's walls collapsed, aside from one section, and that the city itself was destroyed and burned around the time of a major Semitic migration from Egypt, it's empirical evidence supporting one of the bible's supernatural stories. The details of the story - that a Canaanite traitor lived in those walls and that the Israelites marched around Jericho for seven days in anticipation of the walls' remarkable collapse - are not explicitly confirmed by the archaeological evidence.

As I've said, I posted an example which sprang to mind to highlight potential problems with generalisations such as yours. Shifting your goalposts or clarifying your initial generalisation doesn't invalidate that point, though the latter is certainly worth remembering in the future.

[notachance]

If archaeologists and historians can provide good evidence that Jericho's walls collapsed, aside from one section, and that the city itself was destroyed and burned around the time of a major Semitic migration from Egypt, it's empirical evidence supporting one of the bible's supernatural stories.

No it's NOT

It's evidence in support of NATURAL claims in the Bible.

Walls falling, cities burning and people migrating are NOT supernatural events.

Archeological evidence of an earthquake is no more evidence for supernatural Bible claims, than photographic evidence of New York is evidence of the existence of Spiderman.

Stop it dude!

[Mithrae]

If archaeologists and historians can provide good evidence that Jericho's walls collapsed, aside from one section, and that the city itself was destroyed and burned around the time of a major Semitic migration from Egypt, it's empirical evidence supporting one of the bible's supernatural stories.

No it's NOT

It's evidence in support of NATURAL claims in the Bible.

Walls falling, cities burning and people migrating are NOT supernatural events.

Archeological evidence of an earthquake is no more evidence for supernatural Bible claims, than photographic evidence of New York is evidence of the existence of Spiderman.

Stop it dude!

We could certainly make a distinction between the natural claims (that the Israelites walked around Jericho's walls for seven days in anticipation before their eventual, remarkably fortuitous collapse, and that a section survived in which a Canaanite traitor lived who'd been promised her life) and the supernatural claim that God is responsible for these things. But it's still a supernatural story overall, to which archaeological evidence may give some support.

And again as I've previously said, "philosophers and theologians might argue about whether an earthquake or the like could be considered 'supernatural' if it were a predicted and extremely fortuitous event." You haven't actually provided any clarification on what you mean by 'supernatural' in your OP, but since it's been touched on in a couple of threads lately I figured I'd leave that alone for now. You yourself now seem to be raising the question in your assertion that evidence for the collapse of Jericho's walls is not evidence of the supernatural because an earthquake might provide a natural explanation.

There's a theory that the plagues on Egypt and perhaps even the parting of the Red Sea can be related to effects of the eruption on the island of Thera in the Agean Sea in the 16th century BCE. While it's not in the same league as archaeological evidence regarding Jericho, if it were the case that Moses had gone to Pharoah threatening plagues and had his expectations met, would this naturalistic explanation leave it all unremarkable and the claim 'God did it' entirely without evidence?

In general I don't particularly disagree with the points you've made in your OP. But as is usually the case, I think there's a lot more subjectivity in each individual's analysis, weighing and interpretation of the available evidence - and there's always available evidence, even if it's just tenth-generation anecdotal evidence - than many folk (religious and not) might be inclined to suggest.