This is where I expected you to go, based on previous conversations with you here . First, this is a misleading statement simply because there isn't a lot of physical evidence for the reliability of many ancient documents. In fact, less. Second, your bias for physical evidence is shown here when, in reality, testimonial evidence is almost equally as valid,...
Nope. DNA paternity tests beat marriage certificates. Every time.
... especially when it is impossible to procure physical evidence.
Nope again. Physical actions leave physical evidence. Every time. Sophistry is not going to help you on this one.
So when responding to a question like this we need to, first off, define what exactly we're talking about when it comes to the terms we're using. Really, this conversation is, at the most basic level, a conversation about epistemology.
Nope. Every piece of physical evidence beats sophistry. Every time.
Scientist is the ones that do not have their mind made up.
I take it that you write that scientists are the people who can't make their minds up.
Hope you do know that it's a virtue and not a vice? In the industry I work in (economic geology) scientists change their minds all the time as new evidence comes along. It works. Very, very well. Getting closer to reality all the time.
That's the way mining companies spend billions on exploration and mining. To change one's mind when new evidence comes along to get closer to reality is a virtue. Not a vice.
Working in industry where the survival of a company depends on refining methods and procedures is actually science at work.
Working with grants,...
Around 50% of the income the organisation I work for do come from grants. I work in economic geology.
... agendas have to be met and appeased to keep the grants coming.
Actually, the company I work for only has one agenda. To deliver the most reliable product to our customers. Mining companies, exploration companies, Governments, scientific organisations, chicken farmers, etc.
Keeping the grants coming is the most important thing.
Not for the organisation I work for. For us delivering the most reliable products is the most important thing. Then the income from mining companies and governments and chicken farmers, etc. just flows in and we get paid more! And we get more grants, too!
True science has to take a backseat to the most important thing.
True science, hey? It seems like you think that the science works like religions do...you read a favourite book and believe it must be true...science doesn't work like that.
The universe is expanding. which rules out a static universe. The Big Bang Theory requires the universe having a beginning to exist.
Stephen Hawking made the following statement concerning the universe.
"No divine force was needed to explain why the Universe was formed."
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”
“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”
You lost the argument the moment you tried an argument from authority, an authority who doesn't agree with you, ICANT.
For the universe to begin to exist, there must be a cause of some sort...
Or causes. Or not. Or the causes for the universe (if they existed then) don't exist anymore today. Or all the other millions of possibilities.
Causes that don't which logically pre-existed the universe.
Or logically didn't survive our current Universe.
The two leading options...
Two leading options? Trying a false dichotomy here?
... for a pre-existent cause are 1) God, and 2) natural law.
Or lots of Gods who died in the meantime. Or lots of non-Gods who died in the meantime. After all, the BB happened billions of years ago...for a scientist the false dilemma you presented is disturbing.
But if natural law is only DEscriptive and not PREscriptive, option 2 is ruled out as a cause.
Really? How so? I mean, nature exists today. Nature causes lots and lots of things, while any Spook or Spooks causing anything has never been observed.
... Take, for instance, Caesar's Firsthand account of the Roman invasion of Gaul (in the Commentarii de Bello Gallico). It is the only account we have of this invasion - we only have one manuscript - written by Caesar (or claimed to be), and the only copy we have is written 900 years after the event.
Whether Caeser existed or not, we have lots and lots and lots of other empirical, verifiable evidence that the Romans invaded and ruled Gaul. Your attempt at drawing similarities fails miserably.
We all know that, whether Caeser existed or not, he was not a Spook. And that the Roman empire ruled Gaul. And that Rome was a place and and they had an empire. And that DNA exists and existed in those days, too.