quote:I think you are having a problem with the word "objective." Just because we only know of the objective evidence through written accounts of witness testimony doesn't make the evidence itself less objective
The problem is with your idea of what it means to have evidence. If all we have is the stories - even if they are witness accounts - then we only have the stories which are not physical evidence at all, s dit is the objectivity of the stories that matters.
quote:Either the Red Sea parted leaving a path of dry land or it didn't. Witnesses say it did, Moses or his scribe wrote what the witnesses said.
No, there is no significant evidence that Moses, or anyone contemporary with him, wrote a word of it. On the evidence we do have it is likely written hundreds of years after the supposed time of the events (which can’t even be reliably identified).
quote:If it did that's objective evidence of some kind of supernatural intervention, which the witnesses call God.
The very fact that you have to say if shows us that we don’t have that as evidence.
quote:Same with all the other miracles. I can't show them to you because they were one-time events that came and went and left only witness testimony to their having been.
In other words the actual miracles aren’t available as evidence. All we have are stories (which are generally not even written by witnesses)
quote:You think you can dismiss it all because it was written down, but that's nonsensical.
You cannot reasonably accuse people of dismissing evidence that we don’t actually have. If all we have are stories then the stories must be evaluated. Just calling them witness testimony is not enough to establish them as factually reliable.