The Nature Of The Claim

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1997/March-April:

by Farrell Till

Christian apologists argue that skeptics are unreasonably illogical when they reject biblical miracle claims. They disdainfully refer to this as an "anti-supernatural bias." In my debate on the resurrection with Michael Horner, he said in concluding his first speech, "One cannot rule out the resurrection because of a prior assumption that miracles are impossible," and went on to say, "As long as it's even possible that God exists, miracles are possible" (The Horner-Till Debate, Skepticism, Inc., 1995, p. 8). Of course, Horner himself was arguing from "a prior assumption," because he was assuming that if a god exists, it is a god who intervenes in human affairs to perform miracles. Such a view would be contrary to Deism, a religious philosophy that believes in a creator who made the world to operate according to the natural laws instituted at the time of creation, so if assumptions are not allowed skeptics, we have to wonder why Christians think that they should be entitled to argue from an assumption that a god does exist and that he/it is their particular god. There is an inconsistency here that they need to explain.

How Likely Is It? (1)

The following is a very thought-provoking post by the late Farrell Till (1933-2012) from the Errancy Discussion list from May 2, 1997. I will be posting a lot of the comments of Farrell Till from the Errancy Discussion list and elsewhere. Till was a former Church-of-Christ preacher; and being a former member of the Church of Christ myself, I appreciate his perspective on the errancy of the Bible. I hope to preserve many of his scholarly, insightful thoughts on this blog:
 
The postings I have been sending about absurdities in the stories of the

exodus and subsequent wilderness wanderings have not been intended to
establish contradiction but to show that the stories are so obviously
unreasonable that no rational person can believe that they actually
happened. Since ancient literature in particular is characterized by
widespread references to miraculous events, the only reasonable way to
assess the events is to critically examine each one in terms of how likely
it is that such events did indeed happen. When this principle is applied to
the conduct of the Israelites throughout the exodus and the wilderness
wanderings, rational people must conclude that it is not very likely that
most of these stories happened as recorded in the Bible.

A detailed analysis of Israelite behavior during and after the exodus may
take as many as two or three postings, but before I begin them, let's first
make a comparison that will help illustrate the problem. [Note: Please find 
under the label, *How Likely Is It?*, a 13-part series entitled *Tall Tales of 
Wilderness Wanderings*, kwh] On this list, we have seen that biblical 
inerrantists will cling to their belief in their god and the inerrancy of the 
Bible no matter how much compelling evidence to the contrary is presented. 
When confronted with glaring biblical inconsistencies or discrepancies, 
they will simply fabricate some how-it-could-have-been interpretations and 
stubbornly insist that biblical errancy has not been proven. Not a one of 
them has ever seen their god, talked to him, or seen him perform miracles 
like the parting of the Red Sea, bringing water from rocks, sending manna 
from heaven, and such like, yet despite the absence of such convincing 
evidence as this, they still maintain their belief that this god exists and that 
he verbally inspired the Bible.

Only very rarely is the faith of an inerrantist shaken badly enough to cause
him to reject his belief. On the other hand, we have the Israelites who had
their god going before them in a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night,
coming down and speaking to them, and performing all sorts of wondrous
miracles. Despite these amazing demonstrations of their god's presence
in their midst, they were constantly bellyaching and rebelling. My postings
that follow this one will be designed to show that it is not at all likely that reasonable people would have behaved as the Israelites did; hence,
it is not at all likely that these stories happened as they are recorded in
the Bible.

Farrell Till

Evaluating Historical Claims

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1995/May-June:

by Farrell Till

The biblical characters presented as emissaries of God were almost always miracle-workers. They parted the water of seas and rivers; they walked on water; they commanded the sun to stand still in the sky; they healed the blind and the deaf; they raised the dead. Nothing, it seems, was impossible for them to do.

The Bible is filled with tales of such fabulous deeds as these, and fundamentalist Christians believe that every one of these stories of miraculous achievements is literally true. If the Bible says that the prophet Elisha retrieved an iron axe head that had fallen into the Jordan River by making the axe head float ( 2 Kings 6:7), then fundamentalist Christians insist that this literally happened. If the Bible says that the body of a dead man whom a band of Moabite marauders cast into Elisha's tomb revived and stood upon its feet when it touched the bones of Elisha ( 2 Kings 13:20-21), then fundamentalist Christians insist that this literally happened. If the Bible says that a donkey conversed with its owner in a human voice ( Num. 22:28-30), then fundamentalist Christians insist that this literally happened. If the Bible says that an earthquake opened the graves in a cemetery after which the dead people in the opened graves revived and went into the city of Jerusalem ( Matt. 27:51-53), then fundamentalist Christians insist that this literally happened. If the Bible says... but why continue? We could fill this entire issue with examples of other events just as fabulous as these that the Bible presents as actual historical occurrences--all of which fundamentalist Christians believe literally happened exactly as recorded.

Evidence Problems

I don't believe that miracle claims can be proven by testimony, however, I would be a lot closer to belief in the miracle claims of the Bible if the testimony for these extraordinary claims had reliable, disinterested, independent, contemporary corroboration. But, alas, there is none to be had. From the Errancy Discussion list, May, 1998:

TILL
You're still missing the point entirely. Commonplace, ordinary events of the past were often corroborated by records left by various sources, but in the case of extraordinary or miraculous events, with which claims the Bible is filled, not a single disinterested, independent, contemporary source ever corroborated any of them. Biblicists rave about the fact that Luke knew geography, topography, social customs, historical persons, etc., etc., etc., all of which can be considered only commonplace information. Miracles, however, would have been so extraordinary that they would have received wide attention. In Acts 2:22, Luke had Peter saying to an audience that numbered into the thousands that "Jesus of Nazareth [was] a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know," so the claim was that such deeds as these were done in the open and were witnessed by many people. If that is so, then why is there no disinterested, independent corroboration of them? 

Miracle Claims

Farrell Till  discusses miracle claims with Theo, a Christian apologist. From the Errancy Discussion list, 7-25-99:

TILL
This shows how very little you know about historiography. Historians do not automatically assume that an ancient document is telling the truth unless there are reasons to suspect otherwise. The information in ancient documents is subjected to very rigorous methods of evaluation to try to determine if there are sufficient reasons to accept the information as historical fact. What serious historiography would accept as historical fact that the emperor Vespasian healed a blind man and a man with a withered hand, just because both Tacitus and Suetonius reported that he did in their historical writings? I'm afraid you have been reading too many Josh McDowellian apologetic works.

THEO
Mr. Till, in your debate against Norman Geisler, you seemed to insinuate that we were to evaluate the evidence in the NT by the laws of jurisprudence used in the courtroom. You claimed that since the NT testimonies of the Resurrection of Christ are not(sic) eyewitness testimonies, then we are to reject them as hearsay.

A Basic Logical Axiom

From the Errancy Discussion list, 7-26-99:

THEO
Then why does Till always complain that he shouldn't have 

to  prove that Jesus didn't rise from the dead?  If it is so easy, 

why does he not then do it?  Is it because he cannot?  

TILL
Theo, any rational person could show that it is so unlikely 

that fairies exist that the possibility that they do exist 

doesn't deserve even a measure of serious consideration, 

but,  of course, no one can prove absolutely and beyond all 

doubt that fairies do NOT exist.  The same can be shown 

about the resurrection of Jesus, but since I am not the one 

asserting that he rose from the dead, I really have no 

responsibility to prove that he did NOT rise from the dead.  

Do you feel any responsibility to prove that the angel Moroni 

did NOT appear to Joseph Smith? I don't think you do. 

You just can't seem to grasp the logical axiom that says he 

who asserts must prove, so when you issue demands that 

those who don't believe in your resurrected savior-god prove 

that  Jesus did NOT rise from the dead, to rational people, you 

come off looking as foolish as someone demanding that the 

nonexistence of fairies be proven.

Farrell Till

Absence Of Evidence

From the the Alt. Bible. Errancy discussion list, 4-22-03

DGM
Was it not Carl Sagan who said: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

LK
Absence of evidence means there is no evidence to believe it's true. I'll give you a simple test so you can prove this too yourself. File in court that Bill Gates owes you a million dollars. Go to court and when they ask for evidence tell them, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." see how quickly your case is dismissed.

TILL
Depending on the claim, however, absence of evidence can be compelling evidence against the claim. If, for example, someone should claim that an asteroid struck Sikeston, Missouri, last week, the absence of any evidence of such an impact would be compelling evidence that this did not happen. In the same way, absence of evidence of extraordinary claims in the Bible, such as the midday darkness during the crucifixion, is evidence that this event did not happen.

Biblicists like to talk about archaeological discoveries that confirm the accuracy of the Bible, and there have been some discoveries that corroborate SOME of the information in the Bible. However, the discoveries have confirmed only ordinary events. I have never heard of an archaeological discovery that corroborated any of the numerous miraculous claims in the Bible, yet if all of these events happened, surely there would have been some evidence left of their occurrence.

Farrell Till

Archaeology And Biblical Accuracy

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1998 / March-April:

by Farrell Till
Has archaeology proven the historical accuracy of the Bible? If you listened only to biblical inerrantists, you would certainly think so. Amateur apologists have spread this claim all over the internet, and in a letter published in this issue, Everett Hatcher even asserted that archaeology supports that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent.

Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.

Jesus: History Or Myth?

The following is from *Losing Faith In Faith*, by Dan Barker:

Jesus supposedly lived sometime between 4 BC and 30 AD, but there is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, not during his entire lifetime. This does not disprove his existence, but it certainly casts great doubt on the historicity of a man who was supposedly widely known to have made a great impact on the world. Someone should have noticed.

One of the writers who was alive during the time of Jesus was Philo-Judaeus. John E. Remsburg, in The Christ, writes:

"Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ [ca. 15 BC-50 AD, kwh]. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place—when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not."

There was a historian named Justus of Tiberius who was a native of Galilee, the homeland of Jesus. He wrote a history covering the time when Christ supposedly lived. This history is now lost, but a ninth-century Christian scholar named Photius had read it and wrote: "He [Justus] makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did." (Photius' Bibliotheca, code 33)

The Absence Of Positive Evidence

What does the absence of positive evidence for an
extraordinary claim mean? Farrell Till answers this
important question. From the Errancy Discussion 
list, 2-15-99:

You just can't seem to understand this principle, can you? The absence of positive evidence that the virgin birth of Jesus happened does not constitute proof that it did NOT happen; however, given the extraordinary nature of the claim, the absence of positive evidence that it happened does constitute legitimate reasons not to believe that it happened. If you can't see the difference, then you need more help than I can give you, Matt.

Let's take the Muslim claim that Muhammad divided the moon into two parts. The absence of positive evidence that this event happened does not constitute negative evidence, i.e., evidence that it did NOT happen. However, given the extraordinary nature of the claim, the absence of positive evidence that it happened constitutes very legitimate reasons not to believe that it happened.

Disinterested Testimony

The following is from the Errancy Discussion list from

1-13-98. Farrell Till explains the term, "disinterested". 

Till convincingly argues that this is the type of 

testimony that is needed in order to give us sufficient 

reason to believe that the apostles and Jesus Christ 

actually existed. But, sadly, this type of testimony 

is conspicuously missing (please excuse the transcription 

quality):

Sayeedul Islam wrote:

I wanted to know exactly what you meant by 

"disinterested source"? I don't really know 

if you mean a source that has no inclination 

towards either side of a discussion or if 

you mean something else. I personally don't 

believe there is any historical writing that 

has ever been written without some sort of a 

bias or perspective. Please clarify. 

TILL
In English the word "disinterested" means "free of 

bias and self-interest, impartial, or indifferent."  

You are undoubtedly right when you say that probably 

no historical writing has ever been written without 

some sort of a bias or perspective, but relatively 

speaking, one can evaluate records to determine if 

they are fundamentally free of bias.  Let's take, 

for example,the testimony of the 11 Mormon witnesses, 

who signed affidavits swearing that they either 

saw the angel Moroni deliver golden plates to Joseph 

Smith or else saw and handled the plates.  However, 

these witnesses were known to be leaders and adherents 

of the newly proclaimed Mormon faith.  Even when we

look at their names, we can immediately see reasons 

to be suspicious of their testimony. Five of the eleven, 

for example, had the surname Whitmer, an indication 

that they were probably all related to David Whitmer, 

another one of the witnesses and a leader in the 

Mormon movement. Three of them had the surname Smith, 

one of whom was Joseph Smith, Sr., the father of the 

man who allegedly received the special revelation 

from God. These facts about the witnesses exclude 

them from all possibility of being considered 

disinterested witnesses.

When we examine religious literature as a whole, we

see very little indication that these writings were 

produced by disinterested parties. The writers of 

the NT, for example, were obviously adherents of the 

Christian faith, and their intention in writing was 

not to produce accurate historical records of  what 

they wrote about. They wanted to further the cause of

Christianity, and the writer of John's gospel came 

right out and admitted that this was his purpose: 

"Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence 

of his disciples, which are not written in this book, 

but these are written that you may believe that Jesus 

is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you 

may have life in his name" (20:30-31). Such writings as

this cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered 

"disinterested testimony."

Goodguy has sarcastically compared my questioning the 

historicity of the apostles to questioning the 

historicity of Napoleon, but the two are not comparable. 

There are disinterested records of Napoleon. If documents 

produced in a country that was hostile to Napoleon 

referred to him, then it would be safe to assume that 

the authors of the documents were not trying to further 

any of Napoleon's political causes. Hence, we can 

consider this disinterested testimony to Napoleon's 

existence.  In calling disinterested testimony basically 

reliable, I am not establishing any standards that I 

am not willing to apply to the Bible.  The Babylonian 

Chronicle refers independently of the Bible to 

Nebuchadnezzar and details some events that are 

recorded in the books of Kings and Chronicles about 

this Babylonian king; hence, it becomes reasonable 

to accept the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar because 

independent confirmation of the biblical record is 

known to exist.  The Bible tells the story of Jehu, 

a king of Israel, in 2 Kings 9-10 and 2 

Chronicles 22. Jehu's historical existence can be 

reasonably accepted, because the archaeological 

discovery of the Black Obelisk of Assyria provides 

independent confirmation of Jehu's reign.  The

Obelisk pictures a king bearing tribute to 

Shalmaneser III, and an inscription says that this 

was "the tribute of Jehu, son of Omri." The Bible 

mentions King Mesha of Moab in 2 Kings 3, and the 

discovery of the Moabite Stone revealed a narrative 

attributed to King Mesha; hence, this would 

constitute confirmation independent of the Bible record.  

There are other examples that I could cite, but these 

should be sufficent to show the difference between

disinterested, independent confirmation of biblical

records and just the blind acceptance of anything the 

Bible says simply because it is in the Bible. This is 

the problem that confronts Goodguy in the present 

controversy over the apostles. He has no disinterested 

confirmation of his claim that the apostles died for 

their belief in the resurrection. All that he can do 

is cite what is said in biased records left by avowed 

Christian writers and highly improbable traditions.

Farrell Till

Exceptional Claims Require Exceptional Evidence

A short discussion between Farrell Till and a Christian, Brian, on 

the necessity of exceptional evidence for the exceptional claims of 

religionists--which never seem to materialize for some reason. From 

Alt. Bible Errancy discussion list, Jan. 2, 1999:

TILL
Please explain to us what is "monotonous" and "unscholarly 
cynical" about asking for reasonable evidence that exceptional 
claims are true. Muslims make exceptional claims about their 
religion. Hindus make exceptional claims about their religion. 
Mormons make exceptional claims about their religion. Is it
your position that such claims should be accepted without 
question? If not, then please explain to us why you think 
that your exceptional claims about the Bible should be accepted 
without question. In other words, what makes your exceptional 
claims so exceptional that they should be made exceptions to 
the widely recognized rule of evidence that says that exceptional 
claims require exceptional evidence? Would you do us a favor 
and actually try to answer an argument for a change?

BRIAN

Again, the SUBJECT of the discussion is religious war in the

name of GOd. Why don't you stop begging the question and 
answer it?

TILL
Your statement begs the very question of the existence of a 
god in whose name the religious war can be fought. At any
rate, although this may have been the subject of discussion, 
your comments on the subject constantly beg questions that 
you should try to prove before presenting them as assertions
apparently intended to prove your case. Therefore, it is 
appropriate to point out to you this logical fallacy that you
constantly resort to. The fact is that you can hardly write a 
sentence without resorting to question begging.

BRIAN

Because man is a liar and perverts God's truth through his sins,

does that make God a liar?

TILL
This statement confirms what I just said above. It begs the 
questions of (1) the existence of "God's truth," (2) the reality 
of sin, and (3) the existence of God.

Farrell Till

The Absence Of Evidence (2)

From *The Skeptical Review*, March/April 2002:

By Farrell Till 

A favorite saying of apologists who have no evidence to support their positions is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, they mean that just because they cannot find evidence that a biblical event happened or a biblical character or place existed is not evidence that what the Bible says did not happen or did not exist. We saw Everette Hatcher pursuing this line of reasoning when he was unable to cite extrabiblical evidence to corroborate the claim in Daniel that "Darius the Mede" was an actual historical character. In defense of the absence of any extrabiblical references to "Darius the Mede," Hatcher took a familiar track and argued that because such references to Darius the Mede had not yet been found did not mean that they would never be found. He quoted a comment that Dr. Wayne Bindle, a professor at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, had made to him in a personal e-mail. It seems that professor Bindle thinks that I haven't learned very much from the archaeological discoveries in the past 200 years of biblical names that had previously been unknown in extrabiblical records (TSR, March/April 2001, p. 3). The professor didn't cite any examples, so I have no way of knowing what specific names he was talking about. His argument, however, was obvious: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In this case, Bindle was carrying the argument a step further and suggesting that although no such records of Darius the Mede have yet been found, they will very likely be discovered someday.

Hatcher has joined the Errancy internet list to continue our debate on the authorship and inerrancy of the book of Daniel, and he continues to rely on the absence-of-evidence argument as a catch-all explanation to any lack of real evidence to support his claims. On January 1, 2002, he said the following in defense of his position that "Darius the Mede" was an actual historical person.

Archaeology is silent on the point of who Darius the Mede was, and if Till wants to base his argument on this kind of silent evidence he needs to remember how fast theories against the Bible like this have disappeared in the past when the spade of the archaeologist has turned up new information about ancient civilizations. The Hittites are just one example from the last century.

This is actually an argument that assumes biblical inerrancy, because the person who so reasons is really saying that if evidence to corroborate biblical claims hasn't yet been discovered, it probably will be found someday, since everything the Bible says is true. I'm sure that Hatcher or any other biblical inerrantist wouldn't be at all impressed if a Mormon used the same argument in support of archaeological silence about pre-Columbian civilizations mentioned in the book of Mormon, because he would recognize that it is probable that archaeology is silent about claims in the book of Mormon for the simple reason that the places, people, and events in those claims were not real.

A Discussion On The Believability Of Alleged Bible Miracles

The following is a discussion between Farrell Till and a Christian on the believability of miracles. I have not used the Christian's actual name rather I've used "CHRISTIAN" as the designation for this person. The Christian's irrational logic is amazing--I doubt this person uses such logic in other areas of their life:

       CHRISTIAN 
     Your reasoning is circular.

theist - there are examples of miracles in both biblical and nonbiblical historical accounts - and here are some specific examples.  The presumption in reading historical accounts must be first in favor of the accounts. 

Till - miracles are unbelievable.

theist - why is that? 

Till -   I don't accept proof for miracles. 

theist - why is that? 

Till - because the credibility of any proof is impeached by the claim itself. 

theist - why is that? 

Till - because miracles are unbelievable

TILL

No, no, you are misrepresenting my position, so I will have to rewrite your little script.

CHRISTIAN  

No, I think I got it right.

TILL
Yes, we know you think you are **** on a stick.  (That's a saying from the 1940s that you may not understand, but it isn't a compliment.)

Till: Miracles are unbelievable. 

Theist: Why is that? 

Till: Because no verifiable miracle has ever been demonstrated.

CHRISTIAN
First, you must define what you mean by "verifiable."

Introducing A Christian To Rational Thought

Farrell Till introduces a Christian to rational thought. From the Errancy Discussion List, 8-9-99:

TILL
Well, okay, Eric, let me revise the answer that I gave to your question, because I can now see that your answer is much better than mine.  In order for me to believe that the Bible is the word of God, God himself would have to tell me that it is. So all he has to do is appear in a POOF here in my office, and then he'll have me on your side. When can I expect this to happen?

(DAVE 8/7)
Does this mean that for you to accept that anything exists it must appear in your office? (POOF). With that kind of criteria you: (a) don't accept that very much exists or (b) you have faith in an awful lot.

TILL
What a stupidly false analogy. I have never seen Tokyo, Japan, but I have seen countless cities and towns, and I have known people who have been to Tokyo and tell me that it is there. Hence, there is nothing irrational about thinking that Tokyo is a real city.

(DAVE 8/8)
You rely on eyewitness accounts for your beliefs and except them as fact (as well as accepting the reliability of the witnesses). Does this mean that you accept everything you are told just because you have seen a similar occurrence or phenomenon?

TILL
Certainly not. There are some people I wouldn't believe if they told me the sun rises in the east. You're simply setting up a straw man with another false analogy in which you are trying to compare the acceptance of testimony to the commonplace and ordinary with the acceptance of testimony to the extraordinary. Try to get this through your thick skull, Dave. There is a difference in accepting the report that John Doe died and in accepting the claim that he later returned from the dead. When a claim is entirely contrary to reality as one knows it to be from his lifetime of experiences, then he is being entirely reasonable to reject the claim. That is entirely different from believing Jane Doe when she tells me that she saw a car wreck on her way to Peoria this morning. I have also seen car wrecks on the way to Peoria, so it is reasonable to accept her claim as truth. If she is lying about it, so what? That wouldn't be the first time that I believed a lie that could easily have been the truth. If, however, I believe my former student, whom I think I have mentioned on this list, who claims that she is routinely visited by alien beings and has an alien living inside her body to guide and direct her in her crusade to enlighten the public about alien visitations to earth, then I will deserve every bit of ridicule that is heaped onto me for being so gullible.

Empiricism

From the II Errancy Discussion List, 1-1-07:

This is like the ivory-billed woodpecker example that I gave in an earlier reply to McDonald. If I were claiming that the ivory-billed woodpecker is extinct and McDonald knew that specimens of this species had been discovered in Arkansas, he wouldn't hesitate to counter my claim by producing an ivory-billed woodpecker or at least pictures of the discovery. The easiest way to prove the existence of gods or angels or miracles, then, would be to produce one.

You just can't beat empiricism for reliability. It beats all to heck holy books, visions, and such like.
-Farrell Till

When You Lack Evidence...

Just common sense, really. Something biblical inerrantists are woefully lacking in: 

When you lack evidence, the only way to decide whether or not to believe something is to ask: Is it likely? If you tell me a bird flew past my window, I will probably believe you, even though I did not see it myself and I have no evidence. That is because such a thing is likely. I have seen it happen before. It is more likely that a bird flew past my window, than that you are deceiving me. But if you tell me a pig flew past my window, I will not believe you, because my past experience tells me that such things do not happen, and so I presume that what you reported is false. Thus, where there is no evidence we have to rely on our own past experience of the sort of things that really happen ( Carl Lofmark from What Is The Bible, pp. 41-42).

A Critical Principle Widely Applied to Ancient Documents

From the Errancy discussion list:

If [the] documents assert that which is ordinary and within the realm of empirical experiences, then we tend to give the documents the benefit of the doubt and accept the claims at face value; however, if the documents assert that which is extraordinary and completely beyond the realm of empirical experiences, then we feel justified in rejecting the claims. Even biblicists will apply this principle to all ancient documents except for those that have been selected for inclusion in the Bible.

Farrell Till

Reflections On The Story Of Job

Galen Rose of ExChristian.net presents a very good critical examination of the Book of Job, link:

Miracles And Testimony

The following is an excerpt from Thomas Paine's, The Age of Reason, Part First, Section 14:

Suppose I were to say, that when I sat down to write this book, a hand presented itself in the air, took up the pen, and wrote every word that is herein written; would anybody believe me? Certainly they would not. Would they believe me a whit the more if the thing had been a fact? Certainly they would not. Since, then, a real miracle, were it to happen, would be subject to the same fate as the falsehood, the inconsistency becomes the greater of supposing the Almighty would make use of means that would not answer the purpose for which they were intended, even if they were real.

If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it, and we see an account given of such miracle by the person who said he saw it, it raises a question in the mind very easily decided, which is, is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie .