DavidLeon wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 4:57 amIf I told you that my ancestors in a specific time and place had slaves would that be evidence that they had slaves? If I showed you a wall with painting on it that told the story of my ancestors in this specific time and place were at a feast and were assisted home by their slaves would that be evidence to that effect? If there was a written recording of the same event I could show you from another place and people that corroborated the claim would that be evidence? If there were physical evidence of the event discovered from the time and place the event took place that were given in both the painting and the written record of said event would that be evidence to support it?
I need for you to tell me why the Bible isn't evidence that an extraterrestrial, highly intelligent sentient being created the universe.
The claim that your ancestors owned human slaves is reasonable to believe because it describes something that has an "implicit" empirical basis. There is empirical evidence for the existence of people and empirical evidence for the capability of someone to own other people as property. This empirical evidence does not directly prove that your ancestors owned slaves but at least demonstrates the possibility. The painting, written record, corroboration by external sources, and archaeological artifacts could potentially increase the claim's plausibility given the fact that its possibility has already been established by the implicit empirical evidence.
Alternatively, had you claimed that your ancestors were a race of magical wizards with the power to fly without the aid of technology, there would be no reasonable justification for anyone to believe such a story because it lacks an implicit empirical basis. There is no empirical evidence demonstrating the existence of magic or people with the ability to fly without the aid of technology. The existence of paintings, written records, corroboration by external sources, or archaeological artifacts from the geographic area where the historical claim originated would do nothing to increase the plausibility of the story because its possibility must first be demonstrated. This isn't to suggest the story is completely false but to acknowledge where there is no reasonable justification to affirm a positive belief in the extraordinary claim. In fact, the additional supporting evidence could potentially increase the plausibility of the claim's less extraordinary components that do have an implicit empirical basis. For instance, archaeological artifacts might lend support for the claim that the geographic area described in the story historically existed.
So, for the Bible to be considered evidence that an extraterrestrial and highly intelligent sentient being created the universe, someone must first demonstrate the claim has an "implicit" empirical basis. To my knowledge, this necessary objective has not yet been accomplished. Therefore, at best, the Bible may only be considered as evidence in support of less extraordinary claims that have an implicit empirical basis for us to know they are at least possible. For example, the Bible may reasonably be considered evidence for the historical claim that an apocalyptic Jewish preacher named Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem during the 1st century. However, we have no reasonable justification to believe the supernatural claims in the Biblical narratives because they have no implicit empirical basis for us to know such things are even possible. Now, if someone could demonstrate the existence of a supernatural creator god, that empirical evidence would provide the necessary implicit empirical basis from which we could know the extraordinary claims in the Bible are at least possible. As previously clarified, this isn't to suggest these extraordinary claims cannot be possible but to acknowledge where there is no reasonable justification to affirm a positive belief in them given the lack of an implicit empirical basis.
