Your complete dismissal was not unexpected- which speaks to my point. If you set the evidence bar as high for, say, that Moses was in fact a fictional character, as you set it for the historical accuracy of the Biblical account of Moses- then you would, at best, be agnostic regarding the matter. There are highly intelligent people, on both sides, who have dedicated their lives to these matters. While I think it is only natural to favor one side or the other (based on one’s presuppositions), I think it is unfair to dismiss such arguments as though they are completely unfounded and ridiculous. Furthermore, I think such behavior is all too often rooted in fear of being wrong, rather the confidence of being right. I see this behavior on both sides, and it is usually accompanied by intellectual dishonesty. While I truly believe that my position is true, I’m willing to admit that I might be wrong- because I rely on the interpretation of evidence by fallible human beings (myself especially).

quote:
It’s sad that you continue to try to equate science with faith

I’m not. I’m merely pointing out that both require faith. Faith is not exclusively a religious term. It is belief- plan and simple. When a scientist formulates a hypothesis, he begins with a belief. He then tests that belief and makes the necessary adjustments. To even begin to do science, one must have faith that the laws of nature will remain consistent in the future- which is something that no scientific experiment can prove- as the future is not observable.

quote:
science is the “antithesis of faith—it requires that all assumptions be questioned, that all proposed explanations be based on demonstrable evidence, and that all hypotheses be testable and potentially falsifiable”. While faith is the belief without evidence, in this case the belief in magic.

Science has its limitations. It can only measure the material world- in the present (that which can be observed). I sincerely hope that you have experienced true love. (Pro tip: having children will, more often than not, solidify this experience) Can love be scientifically measured? How much does it weigh? Where does it come from? What are its dimensions? Where was it before you had it? Where does it go when you lose it? I suspect you will answer with some snarky comments about scientific research regarding neurons and chemical reactions and such, but said research does very little to define the experience. A reductionist/materialist explanation does nothing to satisfy the curiosity of the transcendent and immaterial pillars of our existence and experience. Though, I’m sure you have faith that science will one day provide sufficient answers to these questions (if you care at all- I sincerely hope you do). But, I believe that these questions will be better suited to the disciplines of philosophy, psychology and theology. Logic and reason are the preferred means of discerning matters of the human condition- though medicine may often be of complimentary value. Science without philosophy is like the guy at the gym who always skips leg day. Incomplete.

quote:
If you applied the same level of scrutiny to the tablet found a Ashurbanipal‘s library, then you would have to consider that the earliest Greek manuscripts we have of the gospels dating to around 300-400CE means that they must’ve been written about 300-400CE.

I know what you mean. And, I agree. I’m more than willing to admit my bias. I’m just trying to point out your blind spot- which is that you seem not to be aware that you also are biased by your presuppositional worldview. It is the lens through which you view everything, yet you don’t seem to realize it.

quote:
there’s also zero evidence there is a god.

There is evidence. Whether or not one interprets that evidence to lead to the conclusion that God exists, or overlooks it entirely, will be determined by one’s inherent bias.

Mundane Example: I open the refrigerator, searching for the ketchup. When I don’t immediately see it, I think to myself “She (my wife- no pics) hasn’t been to the store in a while. We must be out of ketchup.” I tell her we’re out of ketchup. I’m convinced of it. How could I be wrong? I know what ketchup looks like. And this refrigerator has no ketchup in it. While I’m standing there, thinking about she failed to go to the store- she walks up, moves a couple of things around, and hands me the ketchup. I’ll be damned- it was there all along. In this example, I wish there hadn’t been any ketchup- because now I’m wrong and I look like an idiot. More importantly, this is a common example of how we can look for things, that are right in front of us- and be completely convinced that they are not there.