Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[EricPH]

[

quote="Count Lucanor"
I take that response as your admission that it is possible for the universe to have existed always.
[/quote

Is it true that the universe always existed? I am not interested in possibilities, just the truth.

If you are saying the universe always existed by natural causes, then please show your evidence that this is the truth.

[Count Lucanor]

Says who? You? Pfff... I know you or anyone else cannot produce evidence of "God". That is not hope, but a firm conviction supported by logic, common sense and inductive inferences.

I read this kind of nonsense constantly. The reality: there is lots of evidence for the existance of God, including, but not limited to: 1) Eye witness accounts of Him appearing in burning bushes; 2) Eye witness accounts of His only begotten Son raising people from the dead; 3) Eye witness accounts of His crucified Son rising from the grave and walking the earth; 4) Personal testimonials from millions of people who have contacted Him 5) Angels singing His praises to a bunch of shepherds.

I could go on and on and on. There are pages and pages of evidence. Of course to atheists, the evidence is not "convincing evidence" or "persuasive evidence". Juries can doubt eye witnesses; they can suspect delusion; they can consider the motives of the witnesses. But the witnesses are not barred from "giving evidence".

My fellow atheists and agnostics would do well to stop making argments that are so blatanly and obvously incorrect.

There are tons of eye witness accounts of Superman flying over buildings and lifting aircrafts with his bare hands. There are eye witness accounts of the god Asclepius raising people from the dead and healing the blind. There are eye witness accounts of a kid named Harry Potter performing magic. I could go on and on, there are pages and pages of evidence. These are all "accounts", no less credible than the accounts from your book of preference.

[Count Lucanor]

[

quote="Count Lucanor"
I take that response as your admission that it is possible for the universe to have existed always.
[/quote

Is it true that the universe always existed? I am not interested in possibilities, just the truth.

It was you who started out with the assumption that the universe came into existence, and so I asked about the basis for that assumption that seems not to admit the possibility of the universe always existing. But OK, your statement makes also clear that you wouldn't be interested in the universe coming to existence as a mere possibility, only as an unobjectionable truth. I offered you a chance to explain yourself if that was the case, and since it is something you are indeed interested, I don't see why you would not respond. I repeat my statement: If it came into existence and was caused by something that existed prior to its existence, then how do you call that realm that existed prior to the universe? And secondly, why can that realm not be considered part of the universe?

If you are saying the universe always existed by natural causes, then please show your evidence that this is the truth.

I see you implying that things supposedly existing always (that is, having no beginning, not coming into existence) are caused. Are you sure you want to go with that?

There were, obviously, events naturally caused in the non-living world, as well as in the world after life appeared. So there is a natural world and natural causes that no one seems to object. Which takes us back to the first question: do you also admit "unnatural" causes within the universe?

This amount to an atheist type world view with no compelling evidence. If there were compelling evidence then all atheists would agree on how the universe and life happened.

You're dodging the question. And then you say there's no compelling evidence, as if objecting some or all my statements, but what exactly you are objecting to? For what there's no compelling evidence?:
1. That there were events naturally caused in the non-living world?
2. That there were events naturally caused in the world after life appeared?

[Tegularius]

Says who? You? Pfff... I know you or anyone else cannot produce evidence of "God". That is not hope, but a firm conviction supported by logic, common sense and inductive inferences.

I read this kind of nonsense constantly. The reality: there is lots of evidence for the existance of God, including, but not limited to: 1) Eye witness accounts of Him appearing in burning bushes; 2) Eye witness accounts of His only begotten Son raising people from the dead; 3) Eye witness accounts of His crucified Son rising from the grave and walking the earth; 4) Personal testimonials from millions of people who have contacted Him 5) Angels singing His praises to a bunch of shepherds.

I could go on and on and on. There are pages and pages of evidence. Of course to atheists, the evidence is not "convincing evidence" or "persuasive evidence". Juries can doubt eye witnesses; they can suspect delusion; they can consider the motives of the witnesses. But the witnesses are not barred from "giving evidence".

My fellow atheists and agnostics would do well to stop making argments that are so blatanly and obvously incorrect.

What you mention as evidence are all hearsay accounts which would be immediately dismissed in any court of law which still requires actual evidence to denote an event as factual. Eyewitness accounts from 2000 years ago when eyewitnesses to miracles were not in the least unusual and not likely to be stringently questioned can no-longer be ratified as evidence by any criteria currently applied.

If the bible were regarded as fiction written by many with a few facts interspersed, there is little reason to question its veracity; if conversely (or should I say perversely) considered as god-given fact contravening all definitions of what amounts to being factual, it becomes a miscellaneous mess of contradictions, non-sequiturs and ahistorical perspectives.

Nevertheless, people still see what they want to see presuming that to be evidence. We're not so different from the old-timers.

[Jacob10]

We were talking about the possibility or impossibility of God. Definitive proof one way or the other is a “Red Herring” on that score unless you want to put the burden of proof on yourself and provide it.All anyone has is hope.

You are evidently ignorant of philosophy and talking about things you don't know, such as what is the meaning of a "red herring". A "red herring" is an argument, an informal logical fallacy, a statement that diverts attention from the issue in discussion to another unrelated issue, as a smoke screen to avoid the challenge of the real issue. We are in a philosophy forum, in a topic about the proposition "God is an impossibility", which means arguments in favor or against that proposition are completely on topic, relevant to the discussion, and expected to gravitate around demonstrative statements. So when you say in this context that "proof " is a "red herring", you're completely lost. An attempt of proof in a debate cannot be considered a redirection away from the topic in contention, which is in contention precisely by means of demonstrative arguments, the proofs. Your "red herring" claim is utter nonsense!

Nature offers absolutes though.

The absolutes that nature offers is 0,0…0,1…1,0..1,1 so you can’t claim that 0=1 and 1=0.Well you can but nature disagrees because it has provided definitive proof that it’s 2 forces are different.

So all any one has is a hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God with the definitive proof that nature has full logic absolutes and not half logic absolutes and definitive proof that it’s 2 off forces are different.

Now, there you have it, a true "red herring" fallacy. Besides being a false and misleading statement, it provides no support to the claim that "all any one has is a hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God".

You are perfectly entitled to say you can prove that God is a possibility or an impossibility yes….but saying it and proving it definitively are two different things.

The fact is that you have denied yourself the possibility of proving me wrong. You admit that I'm entitled to have only hope that my statements on the issue are true, but you cannot say whether such statements are true or not.

Unbelief in the possibility of a God is a religious belief system.

That's ridiculous. Anyone can devise theoretically an entity, label it with some name and claim: "it exists". Memo The Flying Teapot or Gina the Dragon in My Garage. You don't believe they exist? Then you are a member of a religious cult. Sound philosophy.

The individual believes (belief system) that God is an impossibility in hope because they are unable to definitively prove that God is an impossibility.

Whatever "God" is said to be, it is still a theoretical entity, a concept. As such, it is a contingent idea, not a necessary one. We could have done well without it and actually many people did so. It was a novel idea once, a belief that required evidential support to become a justified true belief. Lack of such support is all that is needed to justify non-belief. Lack of justification from the believers side does not automatically compels non-believers to produce additional justification for their non-beliefs.

All I can do is hope that God is either a possibility or an impossibility.That is all you can do as well.

I win the debate because I highlight this point.

You cannot win a debate by not proving a point and merely projecting your self-admitted failures onto others. You cannot prove something yourself?, fine, that's your problem. And while you are somehow entitled to say that all I can do is hope that God is an impossibility, saying it and proving it definitely are two different things. You are now just saying it, that does not win a debate.

I’m not ignorant of philosophy at all.My philosophy is sound.I accept that no definitive proof is given for the possibility or impossibility of God.I accept that all I have is a hope in the possibility or impossibility of God.

The logic I offer is not a false or misleading statement.It is not a “red herring”.It is natures logic and does offer support for the claim that all anyone has is hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God.

Why would I want to prove you wrong? You hope what you want.That is your choice.

If you hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God then you have a belief system.

“Lack of support is enough to justify non belief”……Do you mean lack of definitive proof is enough to justify non belief?

How do you know that a God doesn’t offer support?

You can have a hope that God does or doesn’t exist without definitive proof,that’s all.

My philosophy is totally sound and I have proved a point very clearly.

[LuckyR]

We were talking about the possibility or impossibility of God. Definitive proof one way or the other is a “Red Herring” on that score unless you want to put the burden of proof on yourself and provide it.All anyone has is hope.

You are evidently ignorant of philosophy and talking about things you don't know, such as what is the meaning of a "red herring". A "red herring" is an argument, an informal logical fallacy, a statement that diverts attention from the issue in discussion to another unrelated issue, as a smoke screen to avoid the challenge of the real issue. We are in a philosophy forum, in a topic about the proposition "God is an impossibility", which means arguments in favor or against that proposition are completely on topic, relevant to the discussion, and expected to gravitate around demonstrative statements. So when you say in this context that "proof " is a "red herring", you're completely lost. An attempt of proof in a debate cannot be considered a redirection away from the topic in contention, which is in contention precisely by means of demonstrative arguments, the proofs. Your "red herring" claim is utter nonsense!

Nature offers absolutes though.

The absolutes that nature offers is 0,0…0,1…1,0..1,1 so you can’t claim that 0=1 and 1=0.Well you can but nature disagrees because it has provided definitive proof that it’s 2 forces are different.

So all any one has is a hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God with the definitive proof that nature has full logic absolutes and not half logic absolutes and definitive proof that it’s 2 off forces are different.

Now, there you have it, a true "red herring" fallacy. Besides being a false and misleading statement, it provides no support to the claim that "all any one has is a hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God".

You are perfectly entitled to say you can prove that God is a possibility or an impossibility yes….but saying it and proving it definitively are two different things.

The fact is that you have denied yourself the possibility of proving me wrong. You admit that I'm entitled to have only hope that my statements on the issue are true, but you cannot say whether such statements are true or not.

Unbelief in the possibility of a God is a religious belief system.

That's ridiculous. Anyone can devise theoretically an entity, label it with some name and claim: "it exists". Memo The Flying Teapot or Gina the Dragon in My Garage. You don't believe they exist? Then you are a member of a religious cult. Sound philosophy.

The individual believes (belief system) that God is an impossibility in hope because they are unable to definitively prove that God is an impossibility.

Whatever "God" is said to be, it is still a theoretical entity, a concept. As such, it is a contingent idea, not a necessary one. We could have done well without it and actually many people did so. It was a novel idea once, a belief that required evidential support to become a justified true belief. Lack of such support is all that is needed to justify non-belief. Lack of justification from the believers side does not automatically compels non-believers to produce additional justification for their non-beliefs.

All I can do is hope that God is either a possibility or an impossibility.That is all you can do as well.

I win the debate because I highlight this point.

You cannot win a debate by not proving a point and merely projecting your self-admitted failures onto others. You cannot prove something yourself?, fine, that's your problem. And while you are somehow entitled to say that all I can do is hope that God is an impossibility, saying it and proving it definitely are two different things. You are now just saying it, that does not win a debate.

I’m not ignorant of philosophy at all.My philosophy is sound.I accept that no definitive proof is given for the possibility or impossibility of God.I accept that all I have is a hope in the possibility or impossibility of God.

The logic I offer is not a false or misleading statement.It is not a “red herring”.It is natures logic and does offer support for the claim that all anyone has is hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God.

Why would I want to prove you wrong? You hope what you want.That is your choice.

If you hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God then you have a belief system.

“Lack of support is enough to justify non belief”……Do you mean lack of definitive proof is enough to justify non belief?

How do you know that a God doesn’t offer support?

You can have a hope that God does or doesn’t exist without definitive proof,that’s all.

My philosophy is totally sound and I have proved a point very clearly.

Do you really mean "hope" or do you mean "belief"?

[Jacob10]

We were talking about the possibility or impossibility of God. Definitive proof one way or the other is a “Red Herring” on that score unless you want to put the burden of proof on yourself and provide it.All anyone has is hope.

You are evidently ignorant of philosophy and talking about things you don't know, such as what is the meaning of a "red herring". A "red herring" is an argument, an informal logical fallacy, a statement that diverts attention from the issue in discussion to another unrelated issue, as a smoke screen to avoid the challenge of the real issue. We are in a philosophy forum, in a topic about the proposition "God is an impossibility", which means arguments in favor or against that proposition are completely on topic, relevant to the discussion, and expected to gravitate around demonstrative statements. So when you say in this context that "proof " is a "red herring", you're completely lost. An attempt of proof in a debate cannot be considered a redirection away from the topic in contention, which is in contention precisely by means of demonstrative arguments, the proofs. Your "red herring" claim is utter nonsense!

Nature offers absolutes though.

The absolutes that nature offers is 0,0…0,1…1,0..1,1 so you can’t claim that 0=1 and 1=0.Well you can but nature disagrees because it has provided definitive proof that it’s 2 forces are different.

So all any one has is a hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God with the definitive proof that nature has full logic absolutes and not half logic absolutes and definitive proof that it’s 2 off forces are different.

Now, there you have it, a true "red herring" fallacy. Besides being a false and misleading statement, it provides no support to the claim that "all any one has is a hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God".

You are perfectly entitled to say you can prove that God is a possibility or an impossibility yes….but saying it and proving it definitively are two different things.

The fact is that you have denied yourself the possibility of proving me wrong. You admit that I'm entitled to have only hope that my statements on the issue are true, but you cannot say whether such statements are true or not.

Unbelief in the possibility of a God is a religious belief system.

That's ridiculous. Anyone can devise theoretically an entity, label it with some name and claim: "it exists". Memo The Flying Teapot or Gina the Dragon in My Garage. You don't believe they exist? Then you are a member of a religious cult. Sound philosophy.

The individual believes (belief system) that God is an impossibility in hope because they are unable to definitively prove that God is an impossibility.

Whatever "God" is said to be, it is still a theoretical entity, a concept. As such, it is a contingent idea, not a necessary one. We could have done well without it and actually many people did so. It was a novel idea once, a belief that required evidential support to become a justified true belief. Lack of such support is all that is needed to justify non-belief. Lack of justification from the believers side does not automatically compels non-believers to produce additional justification for their non-beliefs.

All I can do is hope that God is either a possibility or an impossibility.That is all you can do as well.

I win the debate because I highlight this point.

You cannot win a debate by not proving a point and merely projecting your self-admitted failures onto others. You cannot prove something yourself?, fine, that's your problem. And while you are somehow entitled to say that all I can do is hope that God is an impossibility, saying it and proving it definitely are two different things. You are now just saying it, that does not win a debate.

I’m not ignorant of philosophy at all.My philosophy is sound.I accept that no definitive proof is given for the possibility or impossibility of God.I accept that all I have is a hope in the possibility or impossibility of God.

The logic I offer is not a false or misleading statement.It is not a “red herring”.It is natures logic and does offer support for the claim that all anyone has is hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God.

Why would I want to prove you wrong? You hope what you want.That is your choice.

If you hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God then you have a belief system.

“Lack of support is enough to justify non belief”……Do you mean lack of definitive proof is enough to justify non belief?

How do you know that a God doesn’t offer support?

You can have a hope that God does or doesn’t exist without definitive proof,that’s all.

My philosophy is totally sound and I have proved a point very clearly.

Do you really mean "hope" or do you mean "belief"?

I mean hope.

[LuckyR]

You are evidently ignorant of philosophy and talking about things you don't know, such as what is the meaning of a "red herring". A "red herring" is an argument, an informal logical fallacy, a statement that diverts attention from the issue in discussion to another unrelated issue, as a smoke screen to avoid the challenge of the real issue. We are in a philosophy forum, in a topic about the proposition "God is an impossibility", which means arguments in favor or against that proposition are completely on topic, relevant to the discussion, and expected to gravitate around demonstrative statements. So when you say in this context that "proof " is a "red herring", you're completely lost. An attempt of proof in a debate cannot be considered a redirection away from the topic in contention, which is in contention precisely by means of demonstrative arguments, the proofs. Your "red herring" claim is utter nonsense!


Now, there you have it, a true "red herring" fallacy. Besides being a false and misleading statement, it provides no support to the claim that "all any one has is a hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God".


The fact is that you have denied yourself the possibility of proving me wrong. You admit that I'm entitled to have only hope that my statements on the issue are true, but you cannot say whether such statements are true or not.

That's ridiculous. Anyone can devise theoretically an entity, label it with some name and claim: "it exists". Memo The Flying Teapot or Gina the Dragon in My Garage. You don't believe they exist? Then you are a member of a religious cult. Sound philosophy.

Whatever "God" is said to be, it is still a theoretical entity, a concept. As such, it is a contingent idea, not a necessary one. We could have done well without it and actually many people did so. It was a novel idea once, a belief that required evidential support to become a justified true belief. Lack of such support is all that is needed to justify non-belief. Lack of justification from the believers side does not automatically compels non-believers to produce additional justification for their non-beliefs.


You cannot win a debate by not proving a point and merely projecting your self-admitted failures onto others. You cannot prove something yourself?, fine, that's your problem. And while you are somehow entitled to say that all I can do is hope that God is an impossibility, saying it and proving it definitely are two different things. You are now just saying it, that does not win a debate.

I’m not ignorant of philosophy at all.My philosophy is sound.I accept that no definitive proof is given for the possibility or impossibility of God.I accept that all I have is a hope in the possibility or impossibility of God.

The logic I offer is not a false or misleading statement.It is not a “red herring”.It is natures logic and does offer support for the claim that all anyone has is hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God.

Why would I want to prove you wrong? You hope what you want.That is your choice.

If you hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God then you have a belief system.

“Lack of support is enough to justify non belief”……Do you mean lack of definitive proof is enough to justify non belief?

How do you know that a God doesn’t offer support?

You can have a hope that God does or doesn’t exist without definitive proof,that’s all.

My philosophy is totally sound and I have proved a point very clearly.

Do you really mean "hope" or do you mean "belief"?

I mean hope.

That's fine, but the definition of a theist is not one who hopes for the presence of gods, it is one who believes in gods.

[Sy Borg]

Do you consider the writings of superstitious people centuries after the fact to be reliable?

I think you are missing the point about faith in God, he is in control. The Bible is written in the way that God intends it to be written. Billions of people still believe in God, there is a power in the written word because of that belief. Faith and trust in God will continue, we each have the freedom to believe as we wish.

In the past, billions believed that disease was caused by evil spirits. What billions believe does not matter. What matters is reality, well, to some anyway.

The fact is that the claims made in the Bible are no more credible than any other mythology, eg. Romulus and Remus. I do not understand why people would believe the preposterous literal interpretation of metaphorical writing. It's obviously ridiculous, degrading.

Kim does something similar in NK but with more intent. If he says he can fly, then the people must say they believe it. It is an old-school test of loyalty. The idea is to weed out those who would hesitate or baulk when told to affirm official absurdities. If one is not prepared to render oneself absurd for the cause, then one is considered disloyal. An apostate.

[Jacob10]

I’m not ignorant of philosophy at all.My philosophy is sound.I accept that no definitive proof is given for the possibility or impossibility of God.I accept that all I have is a hope in the possibility or impossibility of God.

The logic I offer is not a false or misleading statement.It is not a “red herring”.It is natures logic and does offer support for the claim that all anyone has is hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God.

Why would I want to prove you wrong? You hope what you want.That is your choice.

If you hope in the possibility or impossibility of a God then you have a belief system.

“Lack of support is enough to justify non belief”……Do you mean lack of definitive proof is enough to justify non belief?

How do you know that a God doesn’t offer support?

You can have a hope that God does or doesn’t exist without definitive proof,that’s all.

My philosophy is totally sound and I have proved a point very clearly.

Do you really mean "hope" or do you mean "belief"?

I mean hope.

That's fine, but the definition of a theist is not one who hopes for the presence of gods, it is one who believes in gods.

There is nothing wrong with believing a God exists or doesn’t exist.

[LuckyR]

Do you really mean "hope" or do you mean "belief"?

I mean hope.

That's fine, but the definition of a theist is not one who hopes for the presence of gods, it is one who believes in gods.

There is nothing wrong with believing a God exists or doesn’t exist.

Huh? Did someone say it was wrong?

[Jacob10]

I mean hope.

That's fine, but the definition of a theist is not one who hopes for the presence of gods, it is one who believes in gods.

There is nothing wrong with believing a God exists or doesn’t exist.

Huh? Did someone say it was wrong?

Ok …fair enough…

[Belindi]

Says who? You? Pfff... I know you or anyone else cannot produce evidence of "God". That is not hope, but a firm conviction supported by logic, common sense and inductive inferences.

I read this kind of nonsense constantly. The reality: there is lots of evidence for the existance of God, including, but not limited to: 1) Eye witness accounts of Him appearing in burning bushes; 2) Eye witness accounts of His only begotten Son raising people from the dead; 3) Eye witness accounts of His crucified Son rising from the grave and walking the earth; 4) Personal testimonials from millions of people who have contacted Him 5) Angels singing His praises to a bunch of shepherds.

I could go on and on and on. There are pages and pages of evidence. Of course to atheists, the evidence is not "convincing evidence" or "persuasive evidence". Juries can doubt eye witnesses; they can suspect delusion; they can consider the motives of the witnesses. But the witnesses are not barred from "giving evidence".

My fellow atheists and agnostics would do well to stop making argments that are so blatanly and obvously incorrect.

There are tons of eye witness accounts of Superman flying over buildings and lifting aircrafts with his bare hands. There are eye witness accounts of the god Asclepius raising people from the dead and healing the blind. There are eye witness accounts of a kid named Harry Potter performing magic. I could go on and on, there are pages and pages of evidence. These are all "accounts", no less credible than the accounts from your book of preference.

The Bible is literature whatever else some people think it may be.
Sort stories into comedies and tragedies.
Harry Potter and Superman are winners in life due to magical gifts and sheer good luck so their stories are comedies. Jesus and Socrates were not magical or lucky and their stories are tragedies.

Comedy entertains and amuses whereas tragedy tells it like it is.

Life of Brian is comedy at its best because it shows how the Jesus of myth is ridiculous.

Father Ted is comedy at its best because it shows how some Roman Catholic behaviours are ridiculous.

[Ecurb]

What you mention as evidence are all hearsay accounts which would be immediately dismissed in any court of law which still requires actual evidence to denote an event as factual. Eyewitness accounts from 2000 years ago when eyewitnesses to miracles were not in the least unusual and not likely to be stringently questioned can no-longer be ratified as evidence by any criteria currently applied.

If the bible were regarded as fiction written by many with a few facts interspersed, there is little reason to question its veracity; if conversely (or should I say perversely) considered as god-given fact contravening all definitions of what amounts to being factual, it becomes a miscellaneous mess of contradictions, non-sequiturs and ahistorical perspectives.

Nevertheless, people still see what they want to see presuming that to be evidence. We're not so different from the old-timers.

Alrighty, then. By this standard, we should toss all the history books out the window. For all we know, Alexander the Great was never at the battles of Issus or Guagamela. The reports that he was are mere "hearsay"!

Hearsay evidence is often accepted in court. The main reaon it is not accepted is that better evidence is available: the sworn testimony of the person who made the original statement. If that person is dead (as is the case for most histories, including the Bible) what he told someone else is often accepted. Suppose a dying Jacob, riddled with .38 caliber bullets, told the police, "It was Count Lucanor who shot me! He couldn't abide losing a debate. He pulled out his pearl-handled pistol, and shot me 4 times." Then Jacob died. His accusation would be admitted in court, as well it should be.

Some of the Bible is "written as fiction". The story of Jonah (2 pages long and well worth reading, just because it's so funny) is clearly a "fable". The psalms are written as poems. Much of the rest of the bible purports to be history. That doesn't mean we must believe it (most of us don't), but it's still "evidence". As I said earlier, there's modern evidence that Sasquatches roam the hills of my home state of Oregon. There are footprints; there are photographs and movies; there are eye witness accounts. I still don't believe it -- but I would not claim there is "no evidence".

Did Julius Caesar say, "Et to, Brute!" when he was supposedly assassinated in the Senate. I don't know and you don't know. But there's evidence (whether convincing or not) that he did. There's also evidence that Jesus said, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth (albeit not in that language)." IN fact the evidence for the Sermon on the Mount is practically identical to the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Both are recounted in the Gospels (I'm no Biblical scholar, so the chain of authority on which the gospels were written is hazy to me). Is it fair to believe one and not the other? Of course. We may require better evidence before believing supernatural or incredible events than we do for mundane events. Nonetheless, the "evidence" for both of them is identical.

[Ecurb]

There are tons of eye witness accounts of Superman flying over buildings and lifting aircrafts with his bare hands. There are eye witness accounts of the god Asclepius raising people from the dead and healing the blind. There are eye witness accounts of a kid named Harry Potter performing magic. I could go on and on, there are pages and pages of evidence. These are all "accounts", no less credible than the accounts from your book of preference.

If there were eye witnesses to Superman, their accounts would constitute "evidence" (I've never heard of such witnesses). YOu seem to be confused. "Evidence" is not "proof". We need not believe all things for which there is some "evidence". Asclepius had the same advantages as Jesus: his father was a God (Apollo). I'd say there is probably some evidence that Asclepius raised people from the dead (i.e. the Greek stories about him doing so), but that it is even weaker than the evidence of Jesus doing the same. It remains "evidence", however unconvincing.