In arguments over whether the Bible has evidence (it doesn't), I've occasionally seen Christians use the story of Doubting Thomas like it's some kind of trump card. "Why are you asking for evidence? Jesus already gave it to Thomas. What more do you need?" What are your thoughts on that? *Grabs bucket of popcorn*
For reference, this is the section in question:
It’s super-convenient that the bible says that the bible’s claims are true because of another claim in the bible about a person the bible claims existed. There’s literally nothing to work with here. All it reflects is in-universe continuity. Like when they say you can kill a vampire with sunlight or a stake, and later in the story, guess what, those methods work!
I flew to work last week. I flapped my arms and flew to work. My friend Thommo didn’t believe me, so I showed him. I flapped my arms and flew around the room. He was convinced and bought me a beer. And then everybody on the bus applauded.
Do you now have good reason to believe I can fly?
Here’s another one that comes up occasionally:
The book that claims a magical man lived on Earth is the same book that claims 500 unnamed people we can’t identify, interview or demonstrate even existed at all are the corroboration of the first claim.
We don’t have good reason to believe the Jesus character, as described, as a supernatural, divine being, even existed. Telling more unverified stories about this unsubstantiated character doesn’t help. All they’ve done is create more claims that need proof, without addressing the first one, constructing a Jenga tower of rickety ideas.
Doubting Thomas as an apologetic is completely worthless and demonstrates either a lack of understanding or deliberate avoidance of their Burden of Proof obligations, all the way down to the level of what even constitutes proof, which necessarily includes independent verifiability.
If there’s good evidence for the validity of one of the gods or scriptural books in the real world, why not simply present it instead of just reading out more of the story? At some point, they have to start corroborating at least one of their claims, or we’re reasonably justified in just plain ignoring them.
P.S. I made up Thommo.