Also "The Bible" really hasn't demonstrated that it's that much more resillient than many of the world's ancient texts.  You can still go into any major bookstore and still buy "The Iliad", "The Odyssey", the "Bhagavad Gita", the Egyptian "Funerary Texts and Book of the Dead", "The Gnostic Gospels" ( interest in which has been dramatically on the increase over the last 50 years or so in comparison to the texts contained in the official version to the point that modern versions of "The Bible" are starting to include them in their texts), and even the Sumerian texts long after the time when Christians tried to stamp all trace of most of them out of the world, so I wouldn't even say "The Bible" is all that more resillient than many other ancient texts.

Remind me again how man people in the world in different countries and across different culters and races worship the God of the Iliad RELIGIOUSLY day by day. We know who christians are, but what do you call people who's main religious text is th e Book of the Dead? Are you a member or believer in any of these groups? Have you been debating or seen many debates with people that worship the god og the Odyssey?

Please expand upon the purported significance and the followings of these texts you mentioned in contrast to the Bible. Thanks

Maybe...maybe not. We don't really know the probabilities involved. Anyway, that wasn't really my point. My point was that we can actually have meaningful discussions about non-observed entities.

I think you might be confusing confirming something exist through evidence and something existing in of itself. For simplicity sake let me use myself as an example:

If there were no internet and there was no profile on vgchartz called cyberninja45, you (dsgrue3) would not be able to confirm that there actually is a person that is capable of typing this response, but your inability to confirm my existence (through the internet) does not negate my existence for 20 something years on the earth.

In other words I still existed whether you had evidence or not.

Uh, you can't use self-existence. That's redundant. It will always be true and isn't a valid hypothesis.

Indeed, existence is absolutely predicated upon evidence! That's what I said! 

Your anology is ridiculous, the moment you were birthed someone witnessed that event, thus confirming your existence. Thus you exist. 

Again, it's the converse that is false:

In an event where genesis has no observer (the splitting of cells), the existence of a given cell does not rest on its observation, imho. So that cell not being observed doesn't equate to it not existing.

We have evidence for this. It has been observed. You have no point, you're still focussed on sight.

That specific cell's existence.

You're not providing a specific enough example. It's very ambiguous. Is there just one cell, two, do they encompass a larger cluster of cells, do they form a known creature, etc, etc. 

I'm talking about when a cell multiplies itself. 1 cell becomes two. I'm talking about the newly created cell.

Unless it's being observed, we may not know it exists. But whether we know it exists or not, it may exist (and in this case it does, because I said it did in my hypothtical).

We can certainly observe the splitting of cells, this is testable. We can absolutely confirm the existence of the new cell via observation. Not sure what your point is?