Plagiarism In The Bible

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: StalkerSolent

No, it is actually the creation of matter ex nihilo. Throughout the cosmos, virtual particle pairs are constantly popping into existence and then mutually annihilating. When this occurs near a black hole event horizon, one member of the pair may be captured by the hole while the other goes free — a real particle. This is the origin of Hawking radiation.

There is a quote from Hawking himself, saying exactly the same thing, on the page I linked in my earlier post.

Astyanax,

Again, a vacuum ("empty space") is not "nothing." (I cannot stress this enough!) I believe it's been referred to as a "sea of quantum energy" or something along those lines. Check out this Scientific American article which says, well, exactly that. Particles *do* pop in and out of existence, but they're not coming from nothing: space-time is not "nothing" just because it is largely devoid of atoms.

Also, I'm not certain on the current status of Hawking radiation. I think that some of Hawking's own recent statements (see here and here have thrown previous thoughts on black holes and Hawking radiation into disarray, but we'll probably have to wait for a few years to see where the, uh, stardust settles.

Cheers!

a reply to: StalkerSolent

I'm aware that space is not nothing. However, it is not matter, either. And before you jump in to tell me it has energy (and therefore maybe 'is' energy), well, it isn't that either. These particles — photons, usually — do not exist as matter until they are formed, and quickly cease to exist. They are responsible for things like the Casimir effect — and Hawking radiation.

The SciAm article you linked to is saying the same thing I am. The other two articles have no implications with regard to the existence of Hawking radiation, which is generally accepted.

a reply to: Astyanax

Ah, OK, swell, we're on the same page; the confusion is completely *my* fault because I used the word "matter." Space-time isn't "matter" (unless you're me and being very colloquial) but it isn't "nothing," either. So what I *should* have said when referring to the creation of "matter" out of nothing is the creation of "something" out of nothing. I apologize, that was a mistake on my part: I was being extremely imprecise. However, space does have energy, of a sort.

As to the articles I linked you to having no regard to the existence to Hawking radiation, I'm not sure.

The theory of Hawking radiation also suggested that when a black hole dies, it takes everything inside with it, but that is a big quantum no-no. Quantum physics says that information about matter is never destroyed, even when it falls into a black hole. Other theorists suggested solving this "information paradox" by allowing information to escape from the black hole as it evaporated. Hawking disagreed – until 30 years later, when he showed how it might be possible and was forced to concede a seven-year-old wager with another physicist.

(Link)

This suggests, at least to me, that the theory will be undergoing some tinkering. Either way, however, Hawking radiation doesn't actually lead to creation ex nihilo because the space-time ain't nothing

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I realize I'm not the *most* qualified person to deal with this issue, but I don't think this is true; scientists have done a lot of work on the formation of the universe, to the point of exploring the idea that our universe might have split off of a larger one or might be one of many universes. They couldn't do this if they just threw up their hands and said "we have no idea how stuff works!" I understand that it's theoretical, for certain, but it *has* been looked into, and it's my understanding that scientists are making the assumptions that at least some of the laws of physics still hold true.

All theories start with a hypothesis. The breakdown occurs when people start repeating hypotheses as truths, which is something that scientists (at least the intellectually honest ones) always try not to do.

I'm sure that's *technically* true, but the fact that we've already done (admittedly speculative) research into possibilities of, say, the multiverse tells me that the probabilities probably are *not* infinite.

My point was that ideas are infinite. There is only one truth, but an infinite amount of wrong answers.

The belief that inductive reasoning (upon which science is based) works is an assumption that we don't have the evidence to corroborate. There's certainly evidence *for* God's existence, the question is: how compelling is it? I wouldn't argue that we can prove that God created the universe, but I do think your appeal to vaguely supernatural forces is consistent with what we would expect if there *was* a God that created the universe. I certainly do not believe this is the totality of the evidence for God.

The only evidence that I am aware of that is for god's existence is either concealing a confirmation bias or is subjective evidence. Subjective evidence, I'm sorry to say, just doesn't cut it scientifically, since it is by its very nature subjective.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The only evidence that I am aware of that is for god's existence is either concealing a confirmation bias or is subjective evidence. Subjective evidence, I'm sorry to say, just doesn't cut it scientifically, since it is by its very nature subjective.

You're right about people repeating hypothesis as truths (although I suppose there's a grey area: we're pretty sure gravity is "true," for example, but not sure about how it works.) And I'd agree that there is only one truth, speaking broadly.

But I think you might want to reconsider your approach to evidence. As far as I can tell, you are only considering scientific evidence, and ignoring other evidence (evidence based on rational arguments or human behavior, for example.) Now, I'm a big fan of science, but I think it's a terrible mistake to throw out other forms of evidence. This is *especially* true when one realizes that doing so undermines science itself, which rests on certain assumptions that cannot be proved scientifically.

In other words, if throw out all evidence *except* scientific ones, you must *also* throw out scientific evidence, since it rests on foundational philosophical assumptions!

If you don't believe me, try an experiment (for science, right? ) Find me a scientific proof for, say, the idea that past observations can make accurate conclusions about the future, (in other words, just because E = mc^2 yesterday that it will tomorrow, or something like that) that isn't itself concealing a confirmation bias or subjective evidence, or that involves using inductive reasoning to prove itself.

Also, I can't resist randomly posting my favorite science song of all time

a reply to: StalkerSolent

No, there is a clear and distinct reason why science doesn't use subjective evidence.

Subjective vs. Objective Evidence

Evidence can be of two types: Subjective and Objective. Subjective evidence is the testimony of what happened based on the statements of a witness, or Subject. The quality of the subjective evidence depends upon the honesty of the witness, and their ability to perceive reality. Unfortunately, subjective views are often inconsistent and biased. People may see what they want to see, or what they expect to see. Often, witnesses of the same traffic accident will report contradictory stories. People also may lie.

Subjective evidence should only be used to elaborate upon Objective evidence. "Subjective evidence" is not evidence at all, and can never stand alone, without Objective evidence. "Subjective evidence" is a contradiction of terms, which has somehow become part of our vocabulary. It is only the report of what some person or Subject has allegedly seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. It is relying on someone else's senses, and truthfulness in reporting what was sensed.. The judge and jury is totally dependent upon the reliability of the Subject, in the absence of any Object of perception in the Court room.

Objective evidence is truly deserving of the word "evidence." Objective evidence does not lie. The interpretation of Objective evidence may vary, and that is the purpose of a court room discussion - What can we infer from the objects. Objects are the objects of perception, things that can be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. They include videos, pictures, fingerprints, DNA, foot prints, tire tracks, tape recordings, phone calls, physical objects, liquids, and gases. Recently, objective evidence can include electronic information, such as emails or files on a computer.

Objective evidence does not change, as long as it is not tampered with. It is what it is. It is unbiased. It has no motives. It has no feelings. It does not care what the outcome of the court trial is. It simply speaks the truth.

I stand by the remarks in this article. The problem with subjective evidence is that it is up to the person's interpretation, and that allows for confirmation biases.

If you don't believe me, try an experiment (for science, right? ) Find me a scientific proof for, say, the idea that past observations can make accurate conclusions about the future, (in other words, just because E = mc^2 yesterday that it will tomorrow, or something like that) that isn't itself concealing a confirmation bias or subjective evidence, or that involves using inductive reasoning to prove itself.

I'd say that all past theories/laws of science that haven't been invalidated because time has passed is more than enough evidence to say that that reasoning is sound. Find me an example where the passage of time alone DID change physical laws or theories.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StalkerSolent

No, there is a clear and distinct reason why science doesn't use subjective evidence.

I don't remember speaking of subjective evidence...

I'd say that all past theories/laws of science that haven't been invalidated because time has passed is more than enough evidence to say that that reasoning is sound. Find me an example where the passage of time alone DID change physical laws or theories.

You're missing my point here, but I'll try to use this as an example.

In your statement, your only evidence is based on reason and not science.

You *reason* that the reasoning is sound, but it is your opinion based, not on scientific evidence, but on your own reasoning that just because something happened (a lot) in the past, it will also happened in the future. This is the primary assumption that science rests on, but it cannot be proven scientifically; the only evidence for it is abstract reasoning and subjective experience (at least, that's the only reasons that come to mind at the moment.)

My main point here is that evidence based on reason is still evidence, despite the fact that it's not derived from science.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I don't remember speaking of subjective evidence...

There are only two forms of evidence, subjective and objective. So if you are talking about evidence that science doesn't accept, then it is subjective. So you may not have mentioned it by name, but that is what you are referring to when you refer to evidence for god's existence. There is zero objective evidence for its existence.

You're missing my point here, but I'll try to use this as an example.

In your statement, your only evidence is based on reason and not science.

You *reason* that the reasoning is sound, but it is your opinion based, not on scientific evidence, but on your own reasoning that just because something happened (a lot) in the past, it will also happened in the future. This is the primary assumption that science rests on, but it cannot be proven scientifically; the only evidence for it is abstract reasoning and subjective experience (at least, that's the only reasons that come to mind at the moment.)

My main point here is that evidence based on reason is still evidence, despite the fact that it's not derived from science.

I don't reason anything here. The fact that not a single theory or law has been invalidated by time's passage is direct evidence that proves the hypothesis that observations of the past will hold true in the future. I don't need to give you a formal proof of it, the evidence is there and presents the conclusion that laws and theories remain constant with the passage of time. Sure there may be a bit of assumption in that we don't know what the future entails, but there is zero evidence to suggest that the opposite is true. So just like all science, the conclusion presented by the evidence that I presented is valid until shown otherwise.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I don't reason anything here. The fact that not a single theory or law has been invalidated by time's passage is direct evidence that proves the hypothesis that observations of the past will hold true in the future.

Actually, you are reasoning... Your argument, that because something held true in the past, it will hold true in the future, only works if you hold as a premise "because something held true in the past, it will hold true in the future." (At least, it seems like that to me, but I've been mistaken before. Feel free to break your argument down into a logical syllogism and show me I'm incorrect!)

I don't need to give you a formal proof of it, the evidence is there and presents the conclusion that laws and theories remain constant with the passage of time. Sure there may be a bit of assumption in that we don't know what the future entails, but there is zero evidence to suggest that the opposite is true. So just like all science, the conclusion presented by the evidence that I presented is valid until shown otherwise.

There is actually zero scientific evidence either way unless one makes a logical assumption that what held true in the past holds true in the future. (Which is a good assumption, but a logical one derived from human reasoning, not a scientific one.) Strike this *assumption* and we are left with science merely describing the past. Science assumes, for the sake of our sanity, many things, including that past observations will hold true in the future.

I'm getting into philosophy here, which isn't exactly my forte either, (Jack of all trades, master of none...) but I don't think you'll grasp what I'm saying until you take a step out of your "science" box and examine its underlying assumptions. What assumptions do you think science rests on?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: StalkerSolent

I'm aware that space is not nothing. However, it is not matter, either. And before you jump in to tell me it has energy (and therefore maybe 'is' energy), well, it isn't that either. These particles — photons, usually — do not exist as matter until they are formed, and quickly cease to exist. They are responsible for things like the Casimir effect — and Hawking radiation.

The SciAm article you linked to is saying the same thing I am. The other two articles have no implications with regard to the existence of Hawking radiation, which is generally accepted.

if its not nothing, then matter ex nihilo is an invalid argument. which leaves other possibilities that do not require an "uncaused cause" scenario. until you dig further back...but the information available in that regard is extremely limited so theres no point speculating until we have more solid ground to base it on.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

perhaps the same assumptions that neoholographic keeps expounding on. perhaps you are familiar with that work.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

I need to stop you here because something needs clarification. EVERYTHING that science says is an assumption. They are all guesses based on the evidence compiled. When new evidence comes about, the guesses are changed. So you are argument really holds no water, since we can apply that same reasoning to any other scientific question/discipline. Nothing in science is definitively proven.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StalkerSolent

I need to stop you here because something needs clarification. EVERYTHING that science says is an assumption. They are all guesses based on the evidence compiled. When new evidence comes about, the guesses are changed. So you are argument really holds no water, since we can apply that same reasoning to any other scientific question/discipline. Nothing in science is definitively proven.

Yup, that's basically what I'm saying, although I wouldn't say everything science says is an assumption, but rather science rests on certain assumptions. And if you apply that line of reasoning further, you find that there is, in fact, a lot of other things that we have evidence for that we cannot prove. Such as God. Or ghosts. Or Bigfoot. The question is *not* "Is there evidence for God/ ghosts/aliens/Bigfeet" (there is) but rather "is the evidence compelling?"

This, in my humble opinion, is what we need to look at from *all* angles, whether it is the textual evidence that Jesus was crucified, or the scientific opinions of the Big Bang. Can we prove it? Nope. Can it be persuasive? Definitely.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I don't think I'm familiar with it, but it sounds cool! I'll see if I can find it!

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

Yup, that's basically what I'm saying, although I wouldn't say everything science says is an assumption, but rather science rests on certain assumptions. And if you apply that line of reasoning further, you find that there is, in fact, a lot of other things that we have evidence for that we cannot prove. Such as God. Or ghosts. Or Bigfoot. The question is *not* "Is there evidence for God/ ghosts/aliens/Bigfeet" (there is) but rather "is the evidence compelling?"

And this gets back to my point about subjective vs objective evidence. Nine times out of ten, if science determines that the evidence isn't compelling enough to sign off on it being real, it is because the primary (if not the only) form of evidence presented saying it is true is subjective evidence. So like I said, you may not actually typed out the term "subjective evidence" but I understood what you were getting at when you went down this line of reasoning.

If you want subjective evidence to be compelling, you need to first show that the person relating the events is reliable. This is impossible since even experts lie at times and everyone's brain plays tricks on them when recalling past events. It is also exceptionally hard to decouple confirmation biases away from subjective evidence.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

And this gets back to my point about subjective vs objective evidence. Nine times out of ten, if science determines that the evidence isn't compelling enough to sign off on it being real, it is because the primary (if not the only) form of evidence presented saying it is true is subjective evidence.

Or because the area is outside of the realm of science. Science, for instance, can tell you what happens if you gas a room full of people or drop a nuclear weapon on a city, but it doesn't have much to say about whether that is a good idea or not, only the effect it will achieve. In this sense, it is largely descriptive and quite limited.

So like I said, you may not actually typed out the term "subjective evidence" but I understood what you were getting at when you went down this line of reasoning.

Good! The real question, though, is did you listen to "Still Alive?"

If you want subjective evidence to be compelling, you need to first show that the person relating the events is reliable. This is impossible since even experts lie at times and everyone's brain plays tricks on them when recalling past events. It is also exceptionally hard to decouple confirmation biases away from subjective evidence.

Yup! But there is a lot of evidence that is not subjective, merely interpreted subjectively. For instance, (since this is a thread on historical research) we've got a pretty good idea that the New Testament was written very soon after the period when Christ was supposed to have lived (IIRC, we have texts of most of the New Testament that date to within a hundred years or so, which is actually pretty good evidence that He lived! I think the only thing better is literally finding a temple or minted coins or something; I don't think we have contemporaneous writings for most people living before Christ, and obviously the government in AD 25 had other ideas of what to put on their coin.) This is objective evidence, and I don't think these should be (objectively) evaluated any differently from other, similar texts of the period. But some people take them as good evidence that the Christian religion is true, while others find them insignificant. Here, confirmation bias cuts both ways: some people, perhaps, are desperate to confirm the religion of their childhood, while others are equally desperate to destroy it. Some seek liberation from guilt by seeking a power outside of themselves to absolve it, while perhaps others are seeking liberation from guilt by trying to destroy any outside power that would condemn. In the end, the confirmation bias rages strong on both sides, and I don't think that either side has a monopoly on it. But the idea that "there is zero evidence for God" or "zero evidence that Christ rose from the dead" makes about as much sense as saying "there is zero evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii" or "there is zero evidence that the moon exists." There is certainly evidence, strong, hard, objective evidence we can all agree on. What we disagree on is whether or not it is compelling, and ultimately that is a subjective judgment made from an incomplete understanding of what limited objective evidence we have.

Editing this to throw in a link: we've got the entire NT by 325 AD and the first fragments before 100 AD. Compare this to, say, the writings of Caesar or Plato, which have a gap of more than a thousand years. Linky

Obviously this doesn't *prove* anything, but I'd say it counts as good evidence that, at a bare minimum, Jesus was a real person.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Or because the area is outside of the realm of science. Science, for instance, can tell you what happens if you gas a room full of people or drop a nuclear weapon on a city, but it doesn't have much to say about whether that is a good idea or not, only the effect it will achieve. In this sense, it is largely descriptive and quite limited.

That's because morality is an invention of humans and not an invention guided by the universe. The entire aspect of morality is subjective. Even supposedly clearly defined wrongs can be justifiable in the right circumstances, and many morals change over the years. This is a poor example since there is nothing scientific about morality. Morality belongs in the realm of philosophy.

Good! The real question, though, is did you listen to "Still Alive?"

Shhh don't tell anyone but I only played the second Portal game, not the first one...

Yup! But there is a lot of evidence that is not subjective, merely interpreted subjectively. For instance, (since this is a thread on historical research) we've got a pretty good idea that the New Testament was written very soon after the period when Christ was supposed to have lived (IIRC, we have texts of most of the New Testament that date to within a hundred years or so, which is actually pretty good evidence that He lived! I think the only thing better is literally finding a temple or minted coins or something; I don't think we have contemporaneous writings for most people living before Christ, and obviously the government in AD 25 had other ideas of what to put on their coin.) This is objective evidence, and I don't think these should be (objectively) evaluated any differently from other, similar texts of the period.

Have you heard Penn and Teller speak on what is known about Elvis by the public at large in the 30 years since Elvis lived?



As you can see, people have odd ideas of what Elvis was like and we actually have physical records that people can go look at that will substantiate or deny their ideas, but they have them anyways. Now remove those physical records in the case for Jesus and you can start see how this may turn into a problem for people writing about Jesus even a few years after his death.

Also, the entire bible is subjective evidence. Every single claim and story written in it is subjective. They are all retellings of witnessed events, which is subjective evidence. This means that we cannot even definitively say for sure that Jesus existed or not. For all we know a group of people got together and created a fictional character called Jesus to inspire the masses and wrote about him.

But some people take them as good evidence that the Christian religion is true, while others find them insignificant. Here, confirmation bias cuts both ways: some people, perhaps, are desperate to confirm the religion of their childhood, while others are equally desperate to destroy it. Some seek liberation from guilt by seeking a power outside of themselves to absolve it, while perhaps others are seeking liberation from guilt by trying to destroy any outside power that would condemn.

No, because the bible is subjective evidence. There is no quantifiable evidence presented in the bible. It's all hearsay, which is the definition of subjective. So the people who take it as good evidence that the Christian religion is true are working off of a confirmation bias. People who disbelieve the bible based on the fact that it is subjective evidence just say that the jury is still out, or point to evidence that disproves that claims in the bible could have physically happened (ex: noah's flood couldn't happen as written because there isn't enough water on the earth to cover the planet).

In the end, the confirmation bias rages strong on both sides, and I don't think that either side has a monopoly on it. But the idea that "there is zero evidence for God" or "zero evidence that Christ rose from the dead" makes about as much sense as saying "there is zero evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii" or "there is zero evidence that the moon exists." There is certainly evidence, strong, hard, objective evidence we can all agree on. What we disagree on is whether or not it is compelling, and ultimately that is a subjective judgment made from an incomplete understanding of what limited objective evidence we have.

No, again, there is no objective evidence for god and there is no objective evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Actually I think that a better case could be made for god's existence than for Jesus rising from the grave. At least with god, you could always employ the god of the gaps idea (god does the things that science currently can't explain), with Jesus rising from the grave, there are literally whole fields of science that disprove that account (biology and physics to name two of them).

Also, no the two statements about god and Jesus aren't relateable to the statements about Obama or the moon. We can produce Obama's birth certificate. We have pictures of the moon (or you can just look up at night time and see it). The only evidence we have for god or the Jesus account is the Bible. The Bible self-references itself as the truth which is a circular argument fallacy. There is a BIG difference in the evidence there, which again boils down to the subjective vs objective evidence issue.

ETA:

Editing this to throw in a link: we've got the entire NT by 325 AD and the first fragments before 100 AD. Compare this to, say, the writings of Caesar or Plato, which have a gap of more than a thousand years.

Except we also have objective evidence of Caesar's existence, like coins minted in his image. It's not just his writings or writing about him.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

is morality as crucial to the survival of the human species as science, in your opinion?

a reply to: TzarChasm

That is a good question. As a social species, I'd say that at some level, yes it is fundamental to our survival. Since the only thing that humans seem to be able to do well is rationally think, humans work the best when we are in groups and the only way to function well as a group is to have a defined set of rules to live by and not offend others in your group. With an anything goes attitude, a group could quickly devolve into infighting and be easier prey to outside predators.

BUT now that humans have conquered the planet with our technology, we can revisit this question. But even now, I think morals, at some level, are necessary to keep society intact. With anarchy, might makes right resurfaces, and humans have leveled the playing field in the might territory thanks to technology. We would destroy ourselves without morals, or rebuild a society and institute new morals.

So, in conclusion, morals are arbitrarily and vague, but necessary for human interaction.

ETA: I just reread your question and realize I read it wrong. I'll keep up those two paragraphs and answer your question. Morality is important to humans survival. Science isn't important at all. Science is just a result of man's idle curiosity.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

That's because morality is an invention of humans and not an invention guided by the universe.

This is your subjective belief

Morality belongs in the realm of philosophy.

My point precisely!

Shhh don't tell anyone but I only played the second Portal game, not the first one...

0_0

Have you heard Penn and Teller speak on what is known about Elvis by the public at large in the 30 years since Elvis lived?

As you can see, people have odd ideas of what Elvis was like and we actually have physical records that people can go look at that will substantiate or deny their ideas, but they have them anyways. Now remove those physical records in the case for Jesus and you can start see how this may turn into a problem for people writing about Jesus even a few years after his death.

That was a good video! But Elvis actually did live (and die.) Furthermore, even if you remove the physical records, you can still make a good case Jesus lived (and died) because of Christianity (sort of like you could make a good case Elvis existed because of all of his fanatics!) I'd also like to point out that people that deny that Elvis died don't face religious persecution

Also, the entire bible is subjective evidence. Every single claim and story written in it is subjective. They are all retellings of witnessed events, which is subjective evidence. This means that we cannot even definitively say for sure that Jesus existed or not. For all we know a group of people got together and created a fictional character called Jesus to inspire the masses and wrote about him.

...this is true of all ancient history. If you're willing to throw this out, we should throw out everything written, and possibly archeological records, because people could have made/written them for kicks. (I mean, the temples, no, but what if Julius Caesar was a fictional character and a bunch of his fangirls made statuary and wrote fan fiction? My personal hypothesis is that when the Romans got bored, they made these to screw with us.)

No, because the bible is subjective evidence. There is no quantifiable evidence presented in the bible. It's all hearsay, which is the definition of subjective. So the people who take it as good evidence that the Christian religion is true are working off of a confirmation bias. People who disbelieve the bible based on the fact that it is subjective evidence just say that the jury is still out, or point to evidence that disproves that claims in the bible could have physically happened (ex: noah's flood couldn't happen as written because there isn't enough water on the earth to cover the planet).

Um, the Biblical texts are objective evidence inasmuch as they objectively exist and can be evaluated as such. It consists of second-hand evidence...just like papers on particle research from CERN and the latest and greatest astronomical research. The primary difference is that we're living in the here and now and are evaluating them as they occur, while in two thousand years, people may only have books that were printed in 2200 (and they might think that CERN was a massive hoax...which is *possible.*)
Also see what I said above: we toss the Bible, we toss history.

No, again, there is no objective evidence for god and there is no objective evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Actually I think that a better case could be made for god's existence than for Jesus rising from the grave. At least with god, you could always employ the god of the gaps idea (god does the things that science currently can't explain), with Jesus rising from the grave, there are literally whole fields of science that disprove that account (biology and physics to name two of them).

See, though, if you buy the idea that God exists, the idea that Jesus rose from the dead is much easier to swallow

Also, no the two statements about god and Jesus aren't relateable to the statements about Obama or the moon. We can produce Obama's birth certificate. We have pictures of the moon (or you can just look up at night time and see it). The only evidence we have for god or the Jesus account is the Bible. The Bible self-references itself as the truth which is a circular argument fallacy. There is a BIG difference in the evidence there, which again boils down to the subjective vs objective evidence issue.

My point wasn't that the evidence that the moon exists is just as strong as the evidence that God exists (I'd agree that the evidence for the moon is stronger) but rather that there is evidence for both.
(You do realize that a birth certificate is definitionally a second-hand report that an event occurred, though, right? Which is what you are arguing is unreliable...)

Except we also have objective evidence of Caesar's existence, like coins minted in his image. It's not just his writings or writing about him.

Fangirls