How many times do I need to say it? The evidence is materialistic and as per topic title, the explanation is not-materialistic, as per the examples which I have cited. Have you been reading?
Yes, but not accepting your assertions as evidence.
Here's how it works. The Biblical record alleges certain events which entail the non-materialistic explanation. Observable materialistic research and history etc, in time, attest to the veracity of the non-materialistic explained claims or events recorded in the Biblical record.
quote:
It does not pay a prophet to be too specific.
--L. Sprague de Camp
If you make enough predictions some will be accurate. But you can't make claims for the inerrancy of the biblical record while there is that giant boo-boo of the global flood.
With DNA, the more complexity that is discovered via research, the more plausible the non-materialistic explanation becomes. With archeological research, such as the alleged Exodus site, the more corroborative evidence discovered in the region of the chariot debris in the sea, the more plausible the non-materialistic explanation for what is observed becomes.
Not so. You first have to eliminate the materialistic explanations. And for rusted chariot debris at the bottom of a lake there are many such explanations.
Conventional science and secularism appears to have no inclination for consideration to the possibility of a non-materialistic explanation of anything. Secularists would rather eat worms than to admit to a non-materialistic explanation for even one of the scores of fulfilled Biblical propecies, such as the amazing phenomena of Israel's preservation and restoration to return to the homeland after 19 long centuries of global exile in multiple nations, many from the opposite regions of the planet.
Non-materialist explanations are not needed, nor is there any evidence for them. There are claims based on religious belief, and some of those claims can be verified. But then the
Iliad claimed Troy was a real place, and that was verified a long time later. Do you claim some supernatural event there as well?
The problem is that you are doing religious apologetics, seeking to support religious beliefs. You are not doing science, which goes where the data lead.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.