Kosta thinks he is being an objective analyst but in reality his method of examining the evidence is entirely subjective. He seems to have made up his own rules for examining the evidence. He refuses to look at anything other than natural empirical evidence in order to believe in the supernatural and then when confronted with the evidence, i.e., the eyewitness testimony of people who literally gave their lives in defense of their testimony, he shrugs it off as being "biased".
So in reality it appears to me that kosta is not really looking for reasons to believe, but looking only for excuses NOT to believe.
Calling the eyewitness testimony biased is not a reason, it is an excuse.
IMHO kosta is not being sincere when he claims he is looking for truth or looking for God. IMHO he is just looking for an excuse to confirm his own agnosticism.
I don't think kosta's looking for "natural empirical evidence in order to believe in the supernatural." He's willing to admit only "evidence" that conforms to his presupposition that there is no such thing as the supernatural.
He's got some kind of doctrinal filter at work. All nonconforming evidence be damned a priori. Especially direct experiential evidence and testimony of same. All witnesses are suspect because of kosta's impossible criteria, which they cannot possibly satisify. He keeps moving the goalpost anyway. So what is the "measure" here? It can only be — kosta. I.e., something that exists only in kosta's mind.... That is, in a most relentlessly subjective (non)standard. His method tears him out of the community of Being. So his subjective maunderings are IMHO doubly suspect.
Meanwhile, it seems to me kosta is here not to argue in good faith, but to propagandize in a vague sort of way, and to agitate against the Living God. JMHO FWIW.