Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You seem to say: "If we believe in God, then it is not a problem to believe in the miracles of the Bible, e.g. talking clouds".

My question is: how do we believe in a particular God (e.g. the Christian God) and, as a consequence, have little problems to believe in His miracles?

First, we can set a foundation by arguing the existence of a God, PERIOD...and that is the traditional monotheistic God. Only one God is needed so therefore we need not go beyond necessity by postulating polytheistic gods. After that, it is just a matter of narrowing down which God this is...so we go from making a case for a GOD, to making a case for WHICH GOD, and if the arguments are valid and sound (the arguments for Jesus' Resurrection), then the case has been made for the Judeo-Christian God.

We cannot possibly use the miracles contained in His Holy Book as evidence of His existence.

What if we have good reasons to believe in miracles?

We would first need to believe in them alone before we can draw conclusions about the author of such events, otherwise our belief system would not stand on its rational feet.

No one starts off as an apologist. Me personally, I started off with faith in God, and as I got older, my faith has been strengthened by nice, sound, valid arguments. Now I am quite confident that I am on the winning team.

That is, we need to have independent means that enable belief in the Christian God, first.

What are they?

The truth value of biblical writings can be true regardless of whether or not there are independent means which corroborate it.

 

[outhouse]

The truth value of biblical writings can be true regardless of whether or not there are independent means which corroborate it.

And by those same EXACT standards


Biblical writings can be FALSE

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And by those same EXACT standards


Biblical writings can be FALSE

Could be, but I doubt it.

 

[cottage]

Tell ya what..start a thread on it and watch the flies come swarming around...and I will be one of those flies.

I’ll start a new thread in ‘General Religious Debates’.

Is that the best you got, cot? Asking why didn't Jesus quietly ascend to heaven? Many answers can be given to this, but why waste time giving answers when no answer is gonna be good enough for you?

It is a very, very important point. There was no good reason for Jesus to go walk-about after he’d done the deed of dying for our sins, unless it was to prove that he was the Son of God by coming to life again? So what happened to faith?
Everything in the Bible concerning Jesus and God himself has a human-centric feel to it. The Bible’s writers knew the Resurrection thing was never going to carry with readers on faith alone as in ‘Jesus was dead and went to heaven’. No, it was a case of round up ‘the usual suspects’ (as the chief of police said in the film Casablanca). Let’s have him appear to lots of folk, and even have them sit face-to-face and break bread with him. That ought to do it!

Not necessarily. I mean, Satan and his demons believe that God exist, yet they all rebelled against God despite this.

I said if all those dead holy men had really come to life then the whole world, and not just believers, would be forced to take a very different view on mortal existence.
You replied with a circular argument:

‘Satan and his demons believe that God exist, yet they all rebelled against God despite this.’

Reminder: It is the believers’ Biblical view that is being disputed against the wider world so you can’t call upon characters from the Bible to support the believers’ Bible view.

Every belief, whether religion or otherwise is accepted only by those that believe it, and not by those that don't believe it. Tell me something I don't know.

Well, that’s a very simplistic statement! What I’m sating is that belief in the Resurrection is only held to by those with an emotional, spiritual, or psychological commitment to an article of faith and not a historical fact.

What scientific experiment can you use to determine whether or not a person can rise from the dead?

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m asking why, if this event actually occurred in history then how come does it not excite the scientific community? I’ll answer that for you if I may: it is because the scientific community as a whole does not believe for a moment that any such thing occurred. It is faith not fact, held by those who are disposed to such beliefs.

I think it is. Abiogenesis, in my opinion, is impossible on naturalism, and until I have empirical reasons to believe otherwises, I see no reason to think that it can happen.

To say something is impossible on ‘naturalism’ is to assume a complete understanding of what that term actually encompasses. I reserve a good dose of skepticism for most claims including the wacky scientific ones, but there are a number of interesting studies underway, as well as the Urey-Miller experiment from a few years back. We’ll have to wait and see.

But abiogenesis and macroevolution, in my opinion (on evolution) has not been proven, yet so many naturalists accept it by faith.

But science is a tentative faith, and only as good (or as bad) as the last hypothesis. And I can argue passionately for what I believe to be true while having to acknowledge that I might yet be proved wrong. In comparison religious faith allows nothing to count against it. Can you say ‘It is possible I am wrong in my belief in God’?

Um, cot. No one is saying that these men rose naturally from the dead. Resurrections are miracles, cot.

So, it’s magic then? And magic belongs to children’s tales, fables and mythology.

Cot, as the narratives put it...not only did they see Jesus, but they spoke with him and ate with him...how would they THINK that they see a physical person talking and eating with them??

And even if they thought they saw him when they didn't, that would not explain the empty tomb...as Jesus' body would still lay there, right?


That wouldn't explain the empty tomb, nor will it explain the origins of the beliefs of former skeptics James and Paul.


That wouldn't explain the letters of Paul that predate the Gospels at which he preached a physical Resurrection and post-mortem appearances.

That is to assume they actually did see him. I’m sorry but I see the Bible as a work of fiction interspersed with contemporary events.
And the letters of Paul I view as part of the schema! The Bible is a continuing saga, a self-fulfilling prophecy and its contributors all become part of the legend.

You say he is promoting a cause...I say he is merely stating what occurred. Either way, there is just not enough there for you to build a case for anything.

I think there is as it is being claimed that those events actually occurred and ought to be viewed historically. Matthew isn’t merely alluding to something as hearsay or information received from others but is making a bald statement as if it were a fact. Frankly it puts the Jesus episode in the shade. There is no having to put two and two together as with the empty tomb and then Jesus being reported as doing his public relations thing with the general populace. The saints and holy men were dead and safely in their graves, and then up they jumped and sauntered off into the city like spring lambs. If true then the dead really can come alive, and in which case everything we know, or think we know, about our biological existence needs to be reviewed. And yet it isn’t! Where are all the academic studies of The Day the Graves Opened? And if false which must be the obvious conclusion, then other statements by Matthew must also be doubted.

Most people like who? Unbelievers? I would think so.

No, believers also accept that decayed and putrid flesh cannot be restored to life

He never alluded to a number. He said "many".

‘A number’ means it is not a specific quantity.

Reveal his sources? I guess you were expecting a bibliography at the end of the book, huh? And what do you mean "greater" miracle? Greater in terms of quantity? That may be your view, but the Christian view is Jesus' Resurrection is greater in terms of significance.

A bibliography is hardly necessary! I’m saying he gave no indication as to where that information came from, or who was supposed to have witnessed the event, but then he wouldn’t if he’d made it up.

If you want to base your entire case against the Resurrection on Matthew 27, then I will leave you to it. That subject doesn't even put a small dent in the case for the Resurrection, buddy lol.

Do you know what, I actually believe it does! And if one of the Evangelists can be faulted then others too are worth a look at. Normally I concern myself with the classic proofs, but I’m getting a taste for Biblical inerrancy.

 

[idav]

Jesus told the people of his generation...."" "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet"" [Matthew 12:39] The sign of Jonah referred to his supposed resurrection. But besides this, Jesus promised no signs to his generation. Aren't miracles signs? So was Jesus lying when he said he would not perform any signs, or miracles? Or as I contend, this is proof that Jesus did not perform any miracles.

IMO the miracles were added to the Jesus story after Jesus' untimely death.

BigRed

No signs is a sign that perhaps god just got tired of its creation and left them to their own devices. And god said "you all wack, I'm out".

 

[idav]

First, we can set a foundation by arguing the existence of a God, PERIOD...and that is the traditional monotheistic God. Only one God is needed so therefore we need not go beyond necessity by postulating polytheistic gods. After that, it is just a matter of narrowing down which God this is...so we go from making a case for a GOD, to making a case for WHICH GOD, and if the arguments are valid and sound (the arguments for Jesus' Resurrection), then the case has been made for the Judeo-Christian God.

If the resurrection occured its a good case but I am hardly impressed with having to wait thousands of years later for jesus to come back and finish his world peace.

What if we have good reasons to believe in miracles?

Its a case for unexplained else any miracle can justify any religion cause they claim miracles and claim to know why and how.

No one starts off as an apologist. Me personally, I started off with faith in God, and as I got older, my faith has been strengthened by nice, sound, valid arguments. Now I am quite confident that I am on the winning team.

Everyone is in search of truth and nobody has a stranglehold on it.

The truth value of biblical writings can be true regardless of whether or not there are independent means which corroborate it.

Then it could just as easily be false, no evidence means its just a story which you can either believe or not with no reason to give it credibility.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I’ll start a new thread in ‘General Religious Debates’.

Tell me what time are you starting it and I will be there a half hour early

It is a very, very important point. There was no good reason for Jesus to go walk-about after he’d done the deed of dying for our sins, unless it was to prove that he was the Son of God by coming to life again? So what happened to faith?

What happened to faith? Well, what do you think Christians of today are utilizing? Faith!! He did a walk-thru because it needed to be done "for the record". And you are absolutely right...he proved he was exactly who he said he was by coming to life again. The Resurrection confirmed his message: that he was/is the Son of the living God.

Everything in the Bible concerning Jesus and God himself has a human-centric feel to it. The Bible’s writers knew the Resurrection thing was never going to carry with readers on faith alone as in ‘Jesus was dead and went to heaven’. No, it was a case of round up ‘the usual suspects’ (as the chief of police said in the film Casablanca). Let’s have him appear to lots of folk, and even have them sit face-to-face and break bead with him. That ought to do it!

That wouldn't explain the empty tomb nor would it explain the origins of Paul and James' belief. Paul could care less about Jesus or his Resurrection so of course he wasn't expecting Christ to rise...so what would be his reasons for meta-morphing from a skeptic and persecutor of Christians to martyred Christ-thumping believer?

I said if all those dead holy men had really come to life then the whole world, and not just believers, would be forced to take a very different view on mortal existence.
You replied with a circular argument:

‘Satan and his demons believe that God exist, yet they all rebelled against God despite this.’

My point was, even people with the most damaging evidence against Christian-unbelief (which is the up-close and personal relationship with God) can still abandon the faith...even if the holy men appeared to unbelievers, that still would not guarantee fellowship with Christ. So your point isn't necessarily true. I knew a gentleman who told me that even if Jesus appeared to him personally, he STILL would not become a Christian. Second, even in the story of the Exodus where Moses appeared before Pharaoh and performed all of these miracles and showed "Jehovah's" superiority over the Egyptian gods, did all of the Egyptians suddenly become Jews? Did this force them to "take a different view on religious experience"? Obviously not. So what you are saying isn't necessarily true.

Reminder: It is the believers’ Biblical view that is being disputed against the wider world so you can’t call upon characters from the Bible to support the believers’ Bible view.

I used a narrative in the bible as a counter-argument against your claim that people would be forced to take a different view on man's mortal existence. According to the bible, this isn't necessarily true, and even according to my own personal experience, this isn't necessarily true. So you have one bible example and one personal experience example.

Well, that’s a very simplistic statement! What I’m sating is that belief in the Resurrection is only held to by those with an emotional, spiritual, or psychological commitment to an article of faith and not a historical fact.

Paul and James didn't have any emotional, spiritual, or psychological commitment to the Christian faith and they still became believers, based on the evidence. Second, you are committing the genetic fallacy, by reasoning that just because the disciples had emotional or spiritual commitments to the faith that their claims are claims of faith, and not facts. This is fallacious, because the truth value or their claims are either true or false regardless of their commitments.

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m asking why, if this event actually occurred in history then how come does it not excite the scientific community? I’ll answer that for you if I may: it is because the scientific community as a whole does not believe for a moment that any such thing occurred. It is faith not fact, held by those who are disposed to such beliefs.

And this scientific community as a whole probably endorses naturalism, so why doesn't this belief of naturalism excite the religious community? I'll answer that for you if I may: it is because the religious community as a whole does not believe for a moment that any such thing is true. It is also faith not fact, held by those who are disposed to such beliefs.

See how that works?

To say something is impossible on ‘naturalism’ is to assume a complete understanding of what that term actually encompasses.

Oh trust me, I know what the term means. Naturalism is the view that the natural world is all there is. No supernatural entity, realm, or otherwise.

I reserve a good dose of skepticism for most claims including the wacky scientific ones, but there are a number of interesting studies underway, as well as the Urey-Miller experiment from a few years back. We’ll have to wait and see.

So basically you are telling me that nature, with its blind and mindless abilities, was able to do something that intelligent human beings weren't able to do...and that is create life from non-life? So a mindless entity is more intelligent than bright human beings?

But science is a tentative faith, and only as good (or as bad) as the last hypothesis. And I can argue passionately for what I believe to be true while having to acknowledge that I might yet be proved wrong. In comparison religious faith allows nothing to count against it. Can you say ‘It is possible I am wrong in my belief in God’?

I can say that I am 99.9% sure I have am on the winning team with theism. And even with that .1%, I am being modest. The arguments are just to strong.

So, it’s magic then? And magic belongs to children’s tales, fables and mythology.

Well, I can ask you the same question. You are the one that believes this inanimate matter suddenly came to life and began thinking, talking, reproducing, eating, ect. That seems like magic to me.

That is to assume they actually did see him. I’m sorry but I see the Bible as a work of fiction interspersed with contemporary events.

So the disciples didn't believe that they saw the risen Jesus? Never mind whether they saw him or not, but to you believe that they believed that they seen him??

And the letters of Paul I view as part of the schema! The Bible is a continuing saga, a self-fulfilling prophecy and its contributors all become part of the legend.

Then why was the tomb empty? If you are going to start a religion about a physically Resurrected person, you may get off to a terrible start if the alleged Resurrected person's body still lay dead in the tomb. Second, are you saying that Paul and the disciples were lying? Or do you believe that they believed what they claimed?

I think there is as it is being claimed that those events actually occurred and ought to be viewed historically. Matthew isn’t merely alluding to something as hearsay or information received from others but is making a bald statement as if it were a fact.

The question is, if God exists, is it possible???? That is the hypothesis, that GOD raised Jesus from the dead, cot. If it happened, God was the culprit. It was his idea. He orchestrated the whole event. Based on the narrative, there is just to little information on there to draw much of any conclusion, other than to say, if God exists, then it is possible.

No, believers also accept that decayed and putrid flesh cannot be restored to life

Based on what?

‘A number’ means it is not a specific quantity.

Ok, so since the narrative says "many"...many = x. We don't know what x is.

A bibliography is hardly necessary! I’m saying he gave no indication as to where that information came from, or who was supposed to have witnessed the event, but then he wouldn’t if he’d made it up.

He gave no information where any of the stuff he wrote came from.

Do you know what, I actually believe it does! And if one of the Evangelists can be faulted then others too are worth a look at. Normally I concern myself with the classic proofs, but I’m getting a taste for Biblical inerrancy.

Hahahahahahaha. Well, create some threads about anything you have in mind and I will see you there.

 

[outhouse]

Could be, but I doubt it.

How would you know?


You don't study biblical history, nor attend higher learning at a university or college.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

How would you know?

I draw my conclusions based on the arguments that I've presented on these very forums from since day 1.

You don't study biblical history, nor attend higher learning at a university or college.

Studying biblical history and attending higher learning at a university or college may be preferred, but it is not required.

 

[outhouse]

Studying biblical history and attending higher learning at a university or college may be preferred, but it is not required.

That depends on how ignorant one would like to remain.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That depends on how ignorant one would like to remain.

Yourself included.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If the resurrection occured its a good case but I am hardly impressed with having to wait thousands of years later for jesus to come back and finish his world peace.

Since we are on God's time, checking your watch and looking in to the sky may not be of best interest.

Its a case for unexplained else any miracle can justify any religion cause they claim miracles and claim to know why and how.

Lets just focus on the Resurrection.

Everyone is in search of truth and nobody has a stranglehold on it.

More like a headlock.

Then it could just as easily be false

Then a plausible explanation needs to be provided for the evidence that has been presented.

, no evidence means its just a story which you can either believe or not with no reason to give it credibility.

If I didn't have reasons to believe, I wouldn't believe.

 

[outhouse]

Yourself included.

I actually have a passion for the bible and study it, and take classes.


There will always be a certain level of ignorance, no matter how educated one chooses to become.


The danger lies in those who think they are educated and are not. Myself included.

 

[cottage]

Tell me what time are you starting it and I will be there a half hour early

Why always the sardonic remarks?

What happened to faith? Well, what do you think Christians of today are utilizing? Faith!! He did a walk-thru because it needed to be done "for the record". And you are absolutely right...he proved he was exactly who he said he was by coming to life again. The Resurrection confirmed his message: that he was/is the Son of the living God.

We agree! That’s got to be a first! ‘It needed to be done for the record’. Yes, indeed it did. For it would not have had the same effect if the Bible writers had simply stated: ‘And after his crucifixion Jesus ascended to heaven.’ But by incorporating witnesses into the tale it was made to sound more credible. He had to prove it, and it seems odd to think that the Son of Almighty God was obliged to put on a show for the crowd as they couldn’t just take him at his word. That would suggest his influence on earth was not that great after all, and he was just an itinerant preacher who talked a good talk.

That wouldn't explain the empty tomb nor would it explain the origins of Paul and James' belief. Paul could care less about Jesus or his Resurrection so of course he wasn't expecting Christ to rise...so what would be his reasons for meta-morphing from a skeptic and persecutor of Christians to martyred Christ-thumping believer?

But this is to assume that all that was written was true. Just on Matthew’s account alone there is good reason to believe at least some of it was a work of fiction.

My point was, even people with the most damaging evidence against Christian-unbelief (which is the up-close and personal relationship with God) can still abandon the faith...even if the holy men appeared to unbelievers, that still would not guarantee fellowship with Christ. So your point isn't necessarily true. I knew a gentleman who told me that even if Jesus appeared to him personally, he STILL would not become a Christian.

I’m not talking about belief but whether we can take it as read that dead bodies came to life. And I’m arguing that we cannot. Whether or not belief can be changed it is the case that biblical claims of the dead coming back to life is a faith-based spiritual belief and has no accordance with factual existence.
I said:
“… if all those dead holy men had really come to life then the whole world, and not just believers, would be forced to take a very different view on mortal existence”
Biblical stories have not altered the consensus that dead people rise up out of their graves and wander about.

Second, even in the story of the Exodus where Moses appeared before Pharaoh and performed all of these miracles and showed "Jehovah's" superiority over the Egyptian gods, did all of the Egyptians suddenly become Jews? Did this force them to "take a different view on religious experience"? Obviously not. So what you are saying isn't necessarily true.

And this is yet another example of circular reasoning, where a story in the Bible is being given as an explanation why another story in the Bible is true.

I used a narrative in the bible as a counter-argument against your claim that people would be forced to take a different view on man's mortal existence. According to the bible, this isn't necessarily true, and even according to my own personal experience, this isn't necessarily true. So you have one bible example and one personal experience example.

It was still a circular argument; an argument from and to the Bible.

Paul and James didn't have any emotional, spiritual, or psychological commitment to the Christian faith and they still became believers, based on the evidence. Second, you are committing the genetic fallacy, by reasoning that just because the disciples had emotional or spiritual commitments to the faith that their claims are claims of faith, and not facts. This is fallacious, because the truth value or their claims are either true or false regardless of their commitments.

That isn’t my argument. I wasn’t referring to characters in the Bible but to those that believe in the Bible. And my statement that Bible believers are committed emotionally, psychologically and spiritually to their faith is secondary to my assertion that the Resurrection claim is false.
If you remember I said this:
“… I’m saying no such things happened because if they had the whole world, and not just believers, would be forced to take a very different view on mortal existence. The Resurrection is just a believers’ argument; it is not an accepted fact.”

And this scientific community as a whole probably endorses naturalism, so why doesn't this belief of naturalism excite the religious community? I'll answer that for you if I may: it is because the religious community as a whole does not believe for a moment that any such thing is true. It is also faith not fact, held by those who are disposed to such beliefs.

See how that works?

No, I don’t. And what has that got to do with the question I posed?
There are facts for which there is general agreement; that the dead do not walk out of their graves being one. But Christians make a singular special exception for where this has occurred according to their Bible, an article of faith; and that is why it doesn’t excite the scientific community because it’s seen as a doctrinal belief as faith, a believers’ argument and not a general or historical fact.
And incidentally neither scientists nor atheists necessarily subscribe to or lean towards naturalism.

 

[cottage]

Oh trust me, I know what the term means. Naturalism is the view that the natural world is all there is. No supernatural entity, realm, or otherwise.

No, what I mean is ‘naturalism’ like ‘materialism’ assumes a dogmatic position when there is no complete understanding of what there is. Although we at least know a material or ‘natural’ world exists, even if we don’t quite know what it is.

So basically you are telling me that nature, with its blind and mindless abilities, was able to do something that intelligent human beings weren't able to do...and that is create life from non-life? So a mindless entity is more intelligent than bright human beings?

Unlike you I don’t profess to know, although I can give you a metaphysical hypothesis, but I certainly don’t accept the proposition that an intelligent, omnipotent, personal and self-sufficient being created the world to have relationship with his creation (absurd). A deist or panentheist god is at least logically possible, unlike the contradictory Christian one.

I can say that I am 99.9% sure I have am on the winning team with theism. And even with that .1%, I am being modest. The arguments are just to strong.

So it is possible you are wrong in your belief in God.

Well, I can ask you the same question. You are the one that believes this inanimate matter suddenly came to life and began thinking, talking, reproducing, eating, ect. That seems like magic to me.

Was it inanimate matter? I’m ignorant as to how the world was formed. It is you who are making claims to magic, not me!

So the disciples didn't believe that they saw the risen Jesus? Never mind whether they saw him or not, but to you believe that they believed that they seen him?

I don’t assume that they did see him; so the question of whether they believed what they were supposed to have seen is neither here nor there.

Then why was the tomb empty? If you are going to start a religion about a physically Resurrected person, you may get off to a terrible start if the alleged Resurrected person's body still lay dead in the tomb. Second, are you saying that Paul and the disciples were lying? Or do you believe that they believed what they claimed?

Well it would certainly make sense to remove the body if you’re going to concoct a Resurrection story. And to your second question I’ll quote Hume again if I may. The Evangelists were all men of faith and they no doubt believed in their hearts what they recounted, and those who transcribed or made copies did so in the belief that it was the Truth, and so it was held and passed on as an Article of Faith. It is entirely conceivable that good men have their doubts and yet “persevere in it, with the best of intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting a Holy cause.”

The question is, if God exists, is it possible???? That is the hypothesis, that GOD raised Jesus from the dead, cot. If it happened, God was the culprit. It was his idea. He orchestrated the whole event. Based on the narrative, there is just to little information on there to draw much of any conclusion, other than to say, if God exists, then it is possible.

No, it isn’t a question of whether God’s existence and the performance of miracles possible; it is a question of whether it is probable. The Bible is supposed to account for God’s existence, but why should we believe Paul or the Evangelists in respect of the Resurrection when the Bible is full of contradictions and inconsistencies even before that supposed event?

Based on what?

Induction.

He gave no information where any of the stuff he wrote came from.

Quite!

Hahahahahahaha.

!

Well, create some threads about anything you have in mind and I will see you there.

I think we can continue in this thread, can’t we?

 

[viole]

First, we can set a foundation by arguing the existence of a God, PERIOD...and that is the traditional monotheistic God. Only one God is needed so therefore we need not go beyond necessity by postulating polytheistic gods. After that, it is just a matter of narrowing down which God this is...so we go from making a case for a GOD, to making a case for WHICH GOD, and if the arguments are valid and sound (the arguments for Jesus' Resurrection), then the case has been made for the Judeo-Christian God.

What is the problem with postulating more than one God?

What if we have good reasons to believe in miracles?

The good reason is that you have no reason to believe the miracles of one version of God and not the miracles of the competition.

You have to start with a belief in one (or more) god(s), and not because of the miracles He (they) performed. Otherwise, your reasoning would be hopelessly circular.

No one starts off as an apologist. Me personally, I started off with faith in God, and as I got older, my faith has been strengthened by nice, sound, valid arguments. Now I am quite confident that I am on the winning team.

Everybody believes to be in the winning team, so that is not an argument.

But how did you start believing in the Christian god? Would you have started believing in Him if you were born in America before Columbus' visit? How?

The truth value of biblical writings can be true regardless of whether or not there are independent means which corroborate it.

Sure. The same with thousands of other possible books.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Parsimony]

So basically you are telling me that nature, with its blind and mindless abilities, was able to do something that intelligent human beings weren't able to do...and that is create life from non-life? So a mindless entity is more intelligent than bright human beings?

That's a bit of a problematic argument because the knowledge and capabilities of humanity changes massively over time. Imagine if this argument was used 2,000 years ago to prove that lightning was the result of miraculous divine intervention and not the result of natural processes:

"So basically you are telling me that nature, with its blind and mindless abilities, was able to do something that intelligent human beings weren't able to do...and that is create electricity? So a mindless entity is more intelligent than bright human beings?"

Today, however, we have the technology to produce enough electrical energy to power cities and countries. Was lightning divine before we discovered how to produce electricity and naturalistic after we figured it out? The same argument could be used for gravity today. We don't know how to create and control gravity in the laboratory to suit us, but no one argues that gravity is not naturalistic.

When it comes to abiogenesis, we simply do not know. 100 years from now we might have it completely replicated. Or not. If it is possible, then the problem is not that we are too stupid to figure it out. It's simply that we have not figured it out yet (much as the ancients hadn't figured out how to produce spacecraft or lasers yet, despite being similar in intelligence to us today). If abiogenesis is not possible at all, then our own intelligence is irrelevant in an argument anyway. We wouldn't be able to do it regards of how smart we are.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Why always the sardonic remarks?

Because I find it amazing that you don't want to discuss this one on one...on another format, where the conversation will take place in REAL time and on a point by point basis..apparently you are more interested in having an audience than you are with finding out the truth.

We agree! That’s got to be a first! ‘It needed to be done for the record’. Yes, indeed it did. For it would not have had the same effect if the Bible writers had simply stated: ‘And after his crucifixion Jesus ascended to heaven.’ But by incorporating witnesses into the tale it was made to sound more credible. He had to prove it, and it seems odd to think that the Son of Almighty God was obliged to put on a show for the crowd as they couldn’t just take him at his word. That would suggest his influence on earth was not that great after all, and he was just an itinerant preacher who talked a good talk.

lol sometimes, a response is just not worth it.

But this is to assume that all that was written was true. Just on Matthew’s account alone there is good reason to believe at least some of it was a work of fiction.

It is on the basis of whether the Resurrection itself is more plausibly true...and if it is, then there is no need to doubt Matthews account of the others.

I’m not talking about belief but whether we can take it as read that dead bodies came to life. And I’m arguing that we cannot.

If God exists, then we can.

And this is yet another example of circular reasoning, where a story in the Bible is being given as an explanation why another story in the Bible is true.

It was still a circular argument; an argument from and to the Bible.

That is why I gave the personal experience example, and that is just one person that I knew of...there is no telling how many more people throughout history felt the same way he did...so based on that alone, you don't have a case, because some people won't believe regardless what amount of evidence is presented before them.

That isn’t my argument. I wasn’t referring to characters in the Bible but to those that believe in the Bible. And my statement that Bible believers are committed emotionally, psychologically and spiritually to their faith is secondary to my assertion that the Resurrection claim is false.
If you remember I said this:
“… I’m saying no such things happened because if they had the whole world, and not just believers, would be forced to take a very different view on mortal existence. The Resurrection is just a believers’ argument; it is not an accepted fact.”

And my point was Paul or James weren't believers, cot. So you can't use that argument if we have former skeptics that believed based on what they claimed that they saw.

No, I don’t. And what has that got to do with the question I posed?

What do you mean what does it have to do with the question? It is asking you the same question you asked me, but on the flip-side to naturalism.

There are facts for which there is general agreement; that the dead do not walk out of their graves being one.

There is also general agreement that if God exists, he has the power to resurrect anyone he chooses from the dead. The hypothesis is that God raised Jesus from the dead, and if God exists, he can certainly do so if he pleases.

But Christians make a singular special exception for where this has occurred according to their Bible, an article of faith; and that is why it doesn’t excite the scientific community because it’s seen as a doctrinal belief as faith, a believers’ argument and not a general or historical fact.
And incidentally neither scientists nor atheists necessarily subscribe to or lean towards naturalism.

As I said before, there are those in the scientific community which believes that life can come from nonlife. What I find amazing is how you can make it seem as if rising from the dead is so outrageous (or whatever you think it is), yet you believe that life came from nonlife. We've never seen people rise from the dead, and we've also never seen life come from non-living material....yet Christians believe the first, and you believe the latter....how is resurrections any more absurd than abiogenesis, or consciousness from unconsiousness? In my eyes, it isn't. At least with resurrections Christians are not claiming that it happened NATURALLY, which is the case for naturalists and abiogenesis.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, what I mean is ‘naturalism’ like ‘materialism’ assumes a dogmatic position when there is no complete understanding of what there is. Although we at least know a material or ‘natural’ world exists, even if we don’t quite know what it is.

Ok????

Unlike you I don’t profess to know, although I can give you a metaphysical hypothesis, but I certainly don’t accept the proposition that an intelligent, omnipotent, personal and self-sufficient being created the world to have relationship with his creation (absurd). A deist or panentheist god is at least logically possible, unlike the contradictory Christian one.

You are talking about what else is absurd as if the position you have isn't absurd enough. If you negate intelligent design that is EXACTLY what you have to believe, that we get life, consciousness, and sight from a non-living, unconscious, blind process? That is ABSOLUTELY absurd.

So it is possible you are wrong in your belief in God.

.1% possible that I am wrong...and I like my chances.

Was it inanimate matter? I’m ignorant as to how the world was formed. It is you who are making claims to magic, not me!

But that is what had to happen on naturalism. No way out of that one.

I don’t assume that they did see him; so the question of whether they believed what they were supposed to have seen is neither here nor there.

That is why the question is did they believe that they saw him? Were they going around town claiming that they saw the risen Jesus? History tells us...yes.

Well it would certainly make sense to remove the body if you’re going to concoct a Resurrection story.

So there is the answer...they stole the body, and the made up the whole story, right? That explains the disciples, but that doesn't explain Paul. Paul said he saw Jesus, too. So what is the origin of his belief? And James?

And to your second question I’ll quote Hume again if I may. The Evangelists were all men of faith and they no doubt believed in their hearts what they recounted, and those who transcribed or made copies did so in the belief that it was the Truth, and so it was held and passed on as an Article of Faith. It is entirely conceivable that good men have their doubts and yet “persevere in it, with the best of intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting a Holy cause.”

Paul wasn't a man of faith in Jesus.

No, it isn’t a question of whether God’s existence and the performance of miracles possible; it is a question of whether it is probable.

It is both possible and probable. It is possible based on the fact that it is possible for God to exist, it is probable based on the background evidence we have of the disciples and Paul.

The Bible is supposed to account for God’s existence, but why should we believe Paul or the Evangelists in respect of the Resurrection when the Bible is full of contradictions and inconsistencies even before that supposed event?

Wow, cot is turning into the inerrancy ninja right before my very eyes. Hmm, I will play along with you....what contradictions and inconsistencies?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What is the problem with postulating more than one God?

Only one God is necessary to explain the effects, so postulating any more than that is over-kill.

The good reason is that you have no reason to believe the miracles of one version of God and not the miracles of the competition.

I have historical evidence for the miracles of one god, and not the "competition".

You have to start with a belief in one (or more) god(s), and not because of the miracles He (they) performed. Otherwise, your reasoning would be hopelessly circular.

The evidence corroborates my faith.

Everybody believes to be in the winning team, so that is not an argument.

It wasn't an argument, it was the fact of the matter.

But how did you start believing in the Christian god? Would you have started believing in Him if you were born in America before Columbus' visit? How?

I was raised with a Christian foundation. As far as "what if" scenario's, who knows? There is no way to know, especially since I've heard quite a few people state that they were "former" Christians but abandoned the faith as they got older or "wiser"...so it doesn't really matter the scenario.

Sure. The same with thousands of other possible books.

That is true, but I can only vouch for the book of my faith.