God v/s Science

[ben says]

Also, I may add...

There are two fundamental issues here that render the concluding remarks as not sound (in the above-referenced "story").

1. Empirically science is used when convenient, as is faith. Faith and empiricism/science are the two epistemological tools the student uses when generating his argument. Both are starkly different. One relies on sensory perception, inductive argument, and repeatability, to reach probable conclusions. The other, faith, is first and foremost arbitrary. The student though does not believe it to be so arbitrary when he can ground some of his arbitrariness in empirical claims; rendering some probability to his initially arbitrary faith. When empirical claims begin to diverge with his faith though (like evolution), empiricism is no longer a valid tool for reaching epistemological truths. Thus, empiricism tells us truths; empiricism does not tell us truths, is contradictory. Thus any truth reached via empiricism, by his own standard, isn't a truth at all; simultainiously any truth he reaches without empiricism is at best arbitrary and less probable.

2. This is an entirely separate issue than 1, dealing more with ontology. Ontologically the student believes that which exist is that which can be substantiated in material limits. That which cannot is the absence of a material limit, is not a substance, but still notable ontologically. Thus there is notable darkness, but ontologically it exist as an absence; that is it has ideological existence as the absence of material light which is substantial. Therefore, we can only refer to, soundly, that which has material limits as substantial existence. This, as a modus operandi of a more advance epistemology (which the student didn't intend for it to be, but nevertheless it consequentially is his MO) is a more refined position than the stark and absurd contradictions of 1. However, it too fails to establish good/evil or the existence of a deity. First, because there is no material limit in relation to the existence or non existence of god, thus we cannot define an absense of a deity, without a substantial limit to a deity either. Of course if one is to apply a limit to a deity, one instantly concedes the deity is not omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Thus it isn't a deity. Second, when good and evil are used as signs of gods existence - which still has no substance since it has no material limit - we are still not clear on what the material limits of good or evil are either. Thus the entire ontological and epistemological framework that is implicit in the students metaphysics, while credible for light and darkness, necessitate the nonexistence of a deity, goodness, and evil, in his own metaphysical framework.

[Debbie Thompson]

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

Yes, pretty close, although I don't call it a cop out.  "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.  Hebrews 11:1"  Sounds crazy, doesn't it?  The substance of things that don't exist and are only hoped for?  The evidence of something we can't see?  We can't see the wind.  We can only see the evidence of the wind.  We can't physically see our Creator, we can only see and feel the evidence of His work in our lives or the lives of others.  God doesn't have to prove himself to you.  It's a leap of faith.  The evidence comes later to us. 

[Dog Walker]

Thank you, Ben, for taking the time to unravel the word games and for doing it so well.

[ben says]

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

Yes, pretty close, although I don't call it a cop out.  "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.  Hebrews 11:1"  Sounds crazy, doesn't it?  The substance of things that don't exist and are only hoped for?  The evidence of something we can't see?  We can't see the wind.  We can only see the evidence of the wind.  We can't physically see our Creator, we can only see and feel the evidence of His work in our lives or the lives of others.  God doesn't have to prove himself to you.  It's a leap of faith.  The evidence comes later to us.

On first glance, this isn't pretty close, not quite. it's spot on. Faith is what is what is hoped for. Again, what I hope for can be arbitrary when presented as an epistemological Truth. I hope for a deity, 72 virgins, a never ending pizza, or santa clause. To move from hope to existence, and to existence to Truth is the arbitrary position, in that it makes anything hoped for Truth; thus if anything can be true, nothing can be as well.

This is also backpedaling and an entire shift in ontology. First substance was that which had material limits...now substance is that which is hoped for without sense experience. How did we go from absolute zero, and full spectrum light as substance, to hope as substance. There's zero consistency here. I don't hope for absolute zero, or full spectrum light, but we initial gave them substance, now we don't?

Not to mention you're quoting a 2,000 year old book.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Not to mention you're quoting a 2,000 year old book.

Not quite.  We'll have to wait at least 18 more years (give or take a few, but He was at least 30) before it can be considered 2,000 yrs. old.   

[ben says]

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

Yes, pretty close, although I don't call it a cop out.  "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.  Hebrews 11:1"  Sounds crazy, doesn't it?  The substance of things that don't exist and are only hoped for?  The evidence of something we can't see?  We can't see the wind.  We can only see the evidence of the wind.  We can't physically see our Creator, we can only see and feel the evidence of His work in our lives or the lives of others.  God doesn't have to prove himself to you.  It's a leap of faith.  The evidence comes later to us.

There's also the issue of saying god doesnt have to prove himself, yet doing a number of rhetorical philosophy 101 tricks to prove his existence, along with some science, along with a whole new concept of substance, followed by the admission that okay god doesnt have to prove himself. The mental gymnastics are staggering.

Why would you first believe something as True, and then await the evidence? Wouldn't it be more prudent to base belief on initial evidence?

[BridgeTroll]

I always learn something in these threads.  For those like me...  This is pretty long...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Epistemology i/ɨˌpɪstɨˈmɒlədʒi/ (from Greek ἐπιστήμη (epistēmē), meaning "knowledge, science", and λόγος (logos), meaning "study of") is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge.[1][2] It addresses the questions:

What is knowledge?
How is knowledge acquired?
To what extent is it possible for a given subject or entity to be known?
How do we know what we know?
Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification. Another perennial concern of the field is the possibility that there is very little or no knowledge at allâ€"skepticism. The field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge.

The term was introduced by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier (1808â€"1864).[3]

[BridgeTroll]

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

Yes, pretty close, although I don't call it a cop out.  "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.  Hebrews 11:1"  Sounds crazy, doesn't it?  The substance of things that don't exist and are only hoped for?  The evidence of something we can't see?  We can't see the wind.  We can only see the evidence of the wind.  We can't physically see our Creator, we can only see and feel the evidence of His work in our lives or the lives of others.  God doesn't have to prove himself to you.  It's a leap of faith.  The evidence comes later to us.

There's also the issue of saying god doesn't have to prove himself, yet doing a number of rhetorical philosophy 101 tricks to prove his existence, along with some science, along with a whole new concept of substance, followed by the admission that okay god doesnt have to prove himself. The mental gymnastics are staggering.

Why would you first believe something as True, and then await the evidence? Wouldn't it be more prudent to base belief on initial evidence?

Ben... I find this discussion interesting.  May I frame it a bit differently?  You mention the need for evidence to base your belief on.  I might suggest the evidence is stronger for a god or "higher power" to exist than the evidence to the contrary.  Some of that evidence might include...

The existence of a book... at least partially historically correct with confirmed individuals and historical events.  Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Herod, Mohammad, and others did indeed exist.  They did say various things and various events did in fact happen.  Some of them are indeed unconfirmable... but many are.  I will admit some of that evidence may indeed be flimsy... but it is evidence nonetheless.

On the other hand... I am not sure there is evidence to the contrary.  In other words... where has anyone given any historically verifiable evidence that a god or higher power does not exist.  It seems to me certain things are simply unknowable.  Is there an afterlife?  We will never know.  All that is left is belief...

[Bridges]

The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

You can't prove a negative.  See Russell's Teapot. 

[BridgeTroll]

The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

You can't prove a negative.  See Russell's Teapot. 

I have already suggested that there is quite possibly more proof in the pro than the con...

[BridgeTroll]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872â€"1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others not to doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God and has drawn some criticism for comparing the unfalsifiability of a teapot to God.

Counterarguments

Literary critic and novelist James Wood, without believing in God, says that belief in God "is a good deal more reasonable than belief in a teapot" because God is a "grand and big idea" which "is not analogically disproved by reference to celestial teapots or vacuum cleaners, which lack the necessary bigness and grandeur" and "because God cannot be reified, cannot be turned into a mere thing".[7]

Philosopher Paul Chamberlain says it is logically erroneous to assert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not.[8] He notes that all truth claims bear a burden of proof, and that like Mother Goose and the tooth fairy, the teapot bears the greater burden not because of its negativity but because of its triviality, arguing that "When we substitute normal, serious characters such as Plato, Nero, Winston Churchill, or George Washington in place of these fictional characters, it becomes clear that anyone denying the existence of these figures has a burden of proof equal to, or in some cases greater than, the person claiming they do exist." [8]

Another counter-argument, advanced by philosopher Eric Reitan,[9] is that belief in God is different from belief in a teapot because teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable, and that given what we know about the physical world we have no good reason to think that belief in Russell's teapot is justified and at least some reason to think it not.[10]

[ben says]

BT, if you don't mind, I will get to the brunt of your argument in a moment. In the meantime, I must point out oddity in the following statement.

The existence of a book... at least partially historically correct with confirmed individuals and historical events.  Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Herod, Mohammad, and others did indeed exist.  They did say various things and various events did in fact happen.  Some of them are indeed unconfirmable... but many are.  I will admit some of that evidence may indeed be flimsy... but it is evidence nonetheless.

Do you realize how many 'books' this standard would apply to? The Iliad/Odyssey? The Book of Mormon? Quran? Gore Vidal's Lincoln? Dostoevsky's Demons?

My point is: all of the above-referenced books are at least "partially historically correct," with "confirmed individuals and historical events." Moreover, they did say "various things and various events that did in fact happen."

The only thing the Bible has on those books? Time. (Wait, never mind, pretty sure Homer came first, among others).

Not to mention, do we really want to rely on a book that professes subjugation of women, religious intolerance, use of capital punishment as penalty for violation of Mosaic Law, sexual acts like incest, toleration of the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments, and obligatory religious wars and the order to commit the genocide of the Canaanites and the Amalekites?

Seems like a risky book to follow.

Not to mention the downright eerie (and too coincidental, I may add) coincidences between Jesus Christ and Mirtha (600 B.C.)...

The Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version. Virtually all of the elements of Christian rituals, from miter, wafer, water baptism, alter, and doxology, were adopted from the Mithra and earlier pagan mystery religions. The religion of Mithra preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years. Mithraic worship at one time covered a large portion of the ancient world. It flourished as late as the second century. The Messianic idea originated in ancient Persia and this is where the Jewish and Christian concepts of a Savior came from. Mithra, as the sun god of ancient Persia, had the following karmic similarities with Jesus:


1)   Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun. Next to the gods Ormuzd and Ahrimanes, Mithra held the highest rank among the gods of ancient Persia. He was represented as a beautiful youth and a Mediator. Reverend J. W. Lake states: "Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with heaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator" (Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15).

   
2)   He was considered a great traveling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles.

   
3)   Mithra was called "the good shepherd, "the way, the truth and the light, redeemer, savior, Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb.

   
4)   The International Encyclopedia states: "Mithras seems to have owed his prominence to the belief that he was the source of life, and could also redeem the souls of the dead into the better world ... The ceremonies included a sort of baptism to remove sins, anointing, and a sacred meal of bread and water, while a consecrated wine, believed to possess wonderful power, played a prominent part."

   
5)   Chambers Encyclopedia says: "The most important of his many festivals was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of December, the day subsequently fixed -- against all evidence -- as the birthday of Christ. The worship of Mithras early found its way into Rome, and the mysteries of Mithras, which fell in the spring equinox, were famous even among the many Roman festivals. The ceremonies observed in the initiation to these mysteries -- symbolical of the struggle between Ahriman and Ormuzd (the Good and the Evil) -- were of the most extraordinary and to a certain degree even dangerous character. Baptism and the partaking of a mystical liquid, consisting of flour and water, to be drunk with the utterance of sacred formulas, were among the inauguration acts."

   
6)   Prof. Franz Cumont, of the University of Ghent, writes as follows concerning the religion of Mithra and the religion of Christ: "The sectaries of the Persian god, like the Christians', purified themselves by baptism, received by a species of confirmation the power necessary to combat the spirit of evil; and expected from a Lord's supper salvation of body and soul. Like the latter, they also held Sunday sacred, and celebrated the birth of the Sun on the 25th of December.... They both preached a categorical system of ethics, regarded asceticism as meritorious and counted among their principal virtues abstinence and continence, renunciation and self-control. Their conceptions of the world and of the destiny of man were similar. They both admitted the existence of a Heaven inhabited by beatified ones, situated in the upper regions, and of a Hell, peopled by demons, situated in the bowels of the Earth. They both placed a flood at the beginning of history; they both assigned as the source of their condition, a primitive revelation; they both, finally, believed in the immortality of the soul, in a last judgment, and in a resurrection of the dead, consequent upon a final conflagration of the universe" (The Mysteries of Mithras, pp. 190, 191).

   
7)   Reverend Charles Biggs stated: "The disciples of Mithra formed an organized church, with a developed hierarchy. They possessed the ideas of Mediation, Atonement, and a Savior, who is human and yet divine, and not only the idea, but a doctrine of the future life. They had a Eucharist, and a Baptism, and other curious analogies might be pointed out between their system and the church of Christ (The Christian Platonists, p. 240).

   
   In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts.

   
9)   He was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year.

   
10)   McClintock and Strong wrote: "In modern times Christian writers have been induced to look favorably upon the assertion that some of our ecclesiastical usages (e.g., the institution of the Christmas festival) originated in the cultus of Mithraism. Some writers who refuse to accept the Christian religion as of supernatural origin, have even gone so far as to institute a close comparison with the founder of Christianity; and Dupuis and others, going even beyond this, have not hesitated to pronounce the Gospel simply a branch of Mithraism" (Art. "Mithra").

   
11)   Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day." The Mithra religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."

   
12)   The Christian Father Manes, founder of the heretical sect known as Manicheans, believed that Christ and Mithra were one. His teaching, according to Mosheim, was as follows: "Christ is that glorious intelligence which the Persians called Mithras ... His residence is in the sun" (Ecclesiastical History, 3rd century, Part 2, ch. 5).

"I am a star which goes with thee and shines out of the depths." - Mithraic saying

"I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star." - Jesus, (Rev. 22:16)

Common' people...really?

[Bridges]

Yes. Very nuanced counterarguments revolving around the teapot itself.  The main idea still stands.  If you claim something exists, and then the burden of proof is on you.  Not on someone else to prove it doesn't.

I have already suggested that there is quite possibly more proof in the pro than the con...

You provided little, if any proof.  Your proof is that a book does exist, and that it is "at least partially historically correct."  There is serious debate over whether a lot of those people listed actually existed (as you even stated).  This is far from "proof", even according to you.  There again we are on the proof of existence.  Pointing back at the "book" is like defining a word with itself. 

You made a specious claim of proof, that even you question, and then claim you've laid more groundwork for pro than con.

I'm just pointing out, it doesn't work that way.

[BridgeTroll]

BT, if you don't mind, I will get to the brunt of your argument in a moment. In the meantime, I must point out oddity in the following statement.

The existence of a book... at least partially historically correct with confirmed individuals and historical events.  Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Herod, Mohammad, and others did indeed exist.  They did say various things and various events did in fact happen.  Some of them are indeed unconfirmable... but many are.  I will admit some of that evidence may indeed be flimsy... but it is evidence nonetheless.

Do you realize how many 'books' this standard would apply to? The Iliad/Odyssey? The Book of Mormon? Quran? Gore Vidal's Lincoln? Dostoevsky's Demons?

My point is: all of the above-referenced books are at least "partially historically correct," with "confirmed individuals and historical events." Moreover, they did say "various things and various events that did in fact happen."

The only thing the Bible has on those books? Time. (Wait, never mind, pretty sure Homer came first, among others).

Not to mention, do we really want to rely on a book that professes subjugation of women, religious intolerance, use of capital punishment as penalty for violation of Mosaic Law, sexual acts like incest, toleration of the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments, and obligatory religious wars and the order to commit the genocide of the Canaanites and the Amalekites?

Seems like a risky book to follow.

Not to mention the downright eerie (and too coincidental, I may add) coincidences between Jesus Christ and Mirtha (600 B.C.)...

The Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version. Virtually all of the elements of Christian rituals, from miter, wafer, water baptism, alter, and doxology, were adopted from the Mithra and earlier pagan mystery religions. The religion of Mithra preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years. Mithraic worship at one time covered a large portion of the ancient world. It flourished as late as the second century. The Messianic idea originated in ancient Persia and this is where the Jewish and Christian concepts of a Savior came from. Mithra, as the sun god of ancient Persia, had the following karmic similarities with Jesus:


1)   Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun. Next to the gods Ormuzd and Ahrimanes, Mithra held the highest rank among the gods of ancient Persia. He was represented as a beautiful youth and a Mediator. Reverend J. W. Lake states: "Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with heaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator" (Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15).

   
2)   He was considered a great traveling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles.

   
3)   Mithra was called "the good shepherd, "the way, the truth and the light, redeemer, savior, Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb.

   
4)   The International Encyclopedia states: "Mithras seems to have owed his prominence to the belief that he was the source of life, and could also redeem the souls of the dead into the better world ... The ceremonies included a sort of baptism to remove sins, anointing, and a sacred meal of bread and water, while a consecrated wine, believed to possess wonderful power, played a prominent part."

   
5)   Chambers Encyclopedia says: "The most important of his many festivals was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of December, the day subsequently fixed -- against all evidence -- as the birthday of Christ. The worship of Mithras early found its way into Rome, and the mysteries of Mithras, which fell in the spring equinox, were famous even among the many Roman festivals. The ceremonies observed in the initiation to these mysteries -- symbolical of the struggle between Ahriman and Ormuzd (the Good and the Evil) -- were of the most extraordinary and to a certain degree even dangerous character. Baptism and the partaking of a mystical liquid, consisting of flour and water, to be drunk with the utterance of sacred formulas, were among the inauguration acts."

   
6)   Prof. Franz Cumont, of the University of Ghent, writes as follows concerning the religion of Mithra and the religion of Christ: "The sectaries of the Persian god, like the Christians', purified themselves by baptism, received by a species of confirmation the power necessary to combat the spirit of evil; and expected from a Lord's supper salvation of body and soul. Like the latter, they also held Sunday sacred, and celebrated the birth of the Sun on the 25th of December.... They both preached a categorical system of ethics, regarded asceticism as meritorious and counted among their principal virtues abstinence and continence, renunciation and self-control. Their conceptions of the world and of the destiny of man were similar. They both admitted the existence of a Heaven inhabited by beatified ones, situated in the upper regions, and of a Hell, peopled by demons, situated in the bowels of the Earth. They both placed a flood at the beginning of history; they both assigned as the source of their condition, a primitive revelation; they both, finally, believed in the immortality of the soul, in a last judgment, and in a resurrection of the dead, consequent upon a final conflagration of the universe" (The Mysteries of Mithras, pp. 190, 191).

   
7)   Reverend Charles Biggs stated: "The disciples of Mithra formed an organized church, with a developed hierarchy. They possessed the ideas of Mediation, Atonement, and a Savior, who is human and yet divine, and not only the idea, but a doctrine of the future life. They had a Eucharist, and a Baptism, and other curious analogies might be pointed out between their system and the church of Christ (The Christian Platonists, p. 240).

   
   In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts.

   
9)   He was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year.

   
10)   McClintock and Strong wrote: "In modern times Christian writers have been induced to look favorably upon the assertion that some of our ecclesiastical usages (e.g., the institution of the Christmas festival) originated in the cultus of Mithraism. Some writers who refuse to accept the Christian religion as of supernatural origin, have even gone so far as to institute a close comparison with the founder of Christianity; and Dupuis and others, going even beyond this, have not hesitated to pronounce the Gospel simply a branch of Mithraism" (Art. "Mithra").

   
11)   Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day." The Mithra religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."

   
12)   The Christian Father Manes, founder of the heretical sect known as Manicheans, believed that Christ and Mithra were one. His teaching, according to Mosheim, was as follows: "Christ is that glorious intelligence which the Persians called Mithras ... His residence is in the sun" (Ecclesiastical History, 3rd century, Part 2, ch. 5).

"I am a star which goes with thee and shines out of the depths." - Mithraic saying

"I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star." - Jesus, (Rev. 22:16)

Common' people...really?

Just to be clear... my particular stance or argument is for the sake of this discussion.  It is the responsibility of anyone to weigh the available evidence and come to a conclusion.  In virtually any argument where there is murky and sometimes unverifiable evidence you will get differing conclusions.  I am simply saying... while the evidence in the pro is indeed murky and sometimes unverifiable.  The same holds true for the con argument.  The evidence you show above are certainly facts to be considered... some apply more weight to them than others.

[ben says]

Yes. Very nuanced counterarguments revolving around the teapot itself.  The main idea still stands.  If you claim something exists, and then the burden of proof is on you.  Not on someone else to prove it doesn't.

I have already suggested that there is quite possibly more proof in the pro than the con...

You provided little, if any proof.  Your proof is that a book does exist, and that it is "at least partially historically correct."  There is serious debate over whether a lot of those people listed actually existed (as you even stated).  This is far from "proof", even according to you.  There again we are on the proof of existence.  Pointing back at the "book" is like defining a word with itself. 

You made a specious claim of proof, that even you question, and then claim you've laid more groundwork for pro than con.

I'm just pointing out, it doesn't work that way.

Pretty much what I tried to say with: please decipher between the Bible, The Iliad, and Gore Vidal's Lincoln. Trying to figure out what BT offered as proof beyond "it's a book."