Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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:

Lightning is a creation of God, krptid. Just because you can explain a natural phenomenon by natural means doesn't mean you can explain the ORIGIN of the physical entity to begin with. You havent explained away the existence nor the NEED of God just because you can explain how nature works.

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.

But I am not talking about how nature works. I am talking about the ORIGINS of nature itself. Science is a tool we use to explain how nature works, but it can only do that if nature already exists...I am talking about a more deeper question; the origins of nature itself...and you cant use science to explain the origins of nature. You can't use science to explain the origin of life and consciousness, because these things are beyond science.

When it comes to abiogenesis, we simply do not know. 100 years from now we might have it completely replicated.

This is similar to a Christian saying "100 years from now, Christ may return". That is something you accept by faith.

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).

Well, in essence, that is what it means. Or it may not mean "too stupid", it may just mean "not as smart in comparison to this mindless and blind process".

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.

If abiogenesis isn't possible, then intelligent design would be the only game left in town.

 

[cottage]

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.

Now look, not only am I in a different time zone to you but I’m here entirely at my own convenience. And why do you post in a public forum if you don’t want to debate in public?

lol sometimes, a response is just not worth it

.

But you have responded, while saying nothing pertinent.

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.

But we have only the testimonies for the Resurrection by which to judge the plausibility and Matthew’s account is extremely implausible.

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’s just an over generalization that you’re using to support your circular argument from the Bible. And in any case you are completely missing the point of what I said, although to be fair I think perhaps we’re at cross purposes. I argued that if dead people coming back to life were a fact, as they supposedly do according to the Bible, then the world at large would have a very different view on our bodily existence. In other words the very real possibility of surviving our deaths would be accepted no differently from any other fact of our existence, regardless of any religious beliefs. But that isn’t the case at all; and even Christians themselves only believe in the dead coming alive in the context of the Biblical doctrine.

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.

You are still using the Bible as an argument for the Bible.

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.

You’ve sidled out of the question to avoid the addressing the issue I put to you. I am not stating, nor have I ever stated, that everything in the world can only be explained by ‘naturalism’, a position that is either ambiguous or dogmatic. I asked if the Resurrection was a generally accepted historical event then why does it not excite the scientific community? Why despite all the instances of people coming back to life in the Bible is it still universally accepted by believers and non-believers alike that dead bodies do not live again? The answer we both know is because the Bible is an article of faith and the Resurrection not a recognized historical event.

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.

Then you’re begging the question! Do I need to explain it?

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.

You are putting words in my mouth. And your argument is disingenuous; science doesn’t know how life began, and I am certainly in no position to claim that life comes from non-life, whereas you are arguing that bodies rise from the dead. And yes, that is an outrageous assertion.


Continued...

 

[cottage]

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.

No it is not! The dead living again, and life coming from non-life, are not logical absurdities, but anintelligent, omnipotent, personal and self-sufficient being creating the world to have relationship with his creation is self-contradictory and logically absurd!

Also you are guilty of the fallacy of bifurcation. Your argument is that there are only two possible options to choose from, either 1) God did-it or 2) life came from non-life. Life in some form could have begun with the world and lain dormant until conditions were temperate and conducive to its development. That is logically possible and might even be true.

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

But you don’t know it was inanimate matter!

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.

Indeed that second sentence is a distinct possibility.

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?

But I’m casting doubt upon the Bible as a truthful historical account.

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 Resurrection of Jesus Christ is presented an argument to prove God exists, and yet here you are presupposing the existence of God to prove the Resurrection is true! Another unexpected circuit!

A case can only be made on the basis of probability. Now permit me to quote Dr Simon Greenleaf on that very matter, taken from The Testimony of the Evangelists:

“In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether is it possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true.”


The case of the holy men leaving their graves or Jesus rising from the dead is not sufficiently probable that it must be judged true. For is it not more sufficiently probable that men must die and their corporeal forms return to dust than that they should return to life three days after in perfect health without the least corruption to the flesh? And we can’t, as we’ve already seen, presume a miracle-working God, to settle the matter on a probabilistic basis, without finding for the conclusion in advance.

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

Ask me to post a list of the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible.

 

[Parsimony]

Lightning is a creation of God, krptid. Just because you can explain a natural phenomenon by natural means doesn't mean you can explain the ORIGIN of the physical entity to begin with. You havent explained away the existence nor the NEED of God just because you can explain how nature works.

Likewise, if the origin of life was some day demonstrated to be a natural process such as abiogenesis, it would still be compatible with the idea that God created the Universe with the laws of physics and chemistry necessary to bring about abiogenesis.

But I am not talking about how nature works. I am talking about the ORIGINS of nature itself. Science is a tool we use to explain how nature works, but it can only do that if nature already exists...I am talking about a more deeper question; the origins of nature itself...and you cant use science to explain the origins of nature. You can't use science to explain the origin of life and consciousness, because these things are beyond science.

I think that depends. If you are talking about the origin of the Universe itself, then you may be right. If you are are talking about the origin of organic, cellular life, then science may some day be able to figure it out if abiogenesis is feasible.

This is similar to a Christian saying "100 years from now, Christ may return". That is something you accept by faith.

Correct. Belief in anything that has not been proven does require some degree of faith. I think abiogenesis has a pretty good chance of being plausible, but I cannot say that it has been proven given the current evidence.

Well, in essence, that is what it means. Or it may not mean "too stupid", it may just mean "not as smart in comparison to this mindless and blind process".

Were the ancients "not as smart in comparison to the mindless and blind process" that gives rise to lightning?

If abiogenesis isn't possible, then intelligent design would be the only game left in town.

In the strictest of senses, yes. Either life once came from non-life or it always came from prior life.

 

[viole]

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

Not necessarily. Postulating an evil God, together with a Good God, would solve the problem of evil nicely.

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

Which is?

The evidence corroborates my faith.

I would say your faith corroborates your evidence.

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

You have an advantage. i will never be able to prove you wrong.

I was raised with a Christian foundation.

Of course you were.

For some reason, I am very good at reading minds. More than 90% of the times I am able to ascertain the environment believers are raised with, when I know their beliefs.

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.

That is not relevant. Losing a known faith is easy. The question is how do you get the right one if you were not raised with it, for historical or cultural reasons.

If you can be saved only by accepting Christ, how are you going to be in the winning team if you never heard of Him?

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

Which is basically the only evidence you base your beliefs upon.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Now look, not only am I in a different time zone to you but I’m here entirely at my own convenience.

So am I.

And why do you post in a public forum if you don’t want to debate in public?

I have 2,500 posts of me engaging in public debates, but whose counting?

But we have only the testimonies for the Resurrection by which to judge the plausibility and Matthew’s account is extremely implausible.

You make it seem as if Matthew is the only Gospel, cot. We have a total of 4, including testimonies from two more sources, Paul and James, one of which was written prior to the Gospels, yet it supplements them well.

That’s just an over generalization that you’re using to support your circular argument from the Bible. And in any case you are completely missing the point of what I said, although to be fair I think perhaps we’re at cross purposes. I argued that if dead people coming back to life were a fact, as they supposedly do according to the Bible, then the world at large would have a very different view on our bodily existence.

And as I said, not necessarily. For all I know unbelievers would then look for naturalistic reasons why dead people would come back to life. After all, that is what they do regarding anything else. So again, not necessarily.

In other words the very real possibility of surviving our deaths would be accepted no differently from any other fact of our existence, regardless of any religious beliefs. But that isn’t the case at all; and even Christians themselves only believe in the dead coming alive in the context of the Biblical doctrine.

Yeah, because Christians believe that the dead coming back to life is wholly unnaturalistic, and if it does happen the explanation lies far beyond the realm of science.

You are still using the Bible as an argument for the Bible.

No, I am using the bible as a basis to tell you that this is what a person believed, based on this person's own writing. In other word's, "according to the story..." And the points that you raise are invalid according to the story.

This is no more different than me claiming that we have reasons to believe that Akhenaten was the father of King Tut based on the knowledge we have of Ancient Egyptian writings.

You’ve sidled out of the question to avoid the addressing the issue I put to you. I am not stating, nor have I ever stated, that everything in the world can only be explained by ‘naturalism’, a position that is either ambiguous or dogmatic.

I have no problem addressing any issue that you raise...I merely pointed out the fact that you have a lot of nerve, in my opinion, to judge anything as absurd if you don't believe in God, since there are certain absurd implications that arise if you negate the existence of God.

I asked if the Resurrection was a generally accepted historical event then why does it not excite the scientific community?

Because the scientific community, especially the naturalists, don't concern themselves with things that lie beyond the realms of science, which is where the Resurrection would lie.

Why despite all the instances of people coming back to life in the Bible is it still universally accepted by believers and non-believers alike that dead bodies do not live again?

First off, it is not universally accepted by believers that dead bodies do not live again. Where did you get that from? Christians devout their entire lives (and their future) based on dead bodies coming back to life, and one in particular, Jesus Christ. Non-believers are the opposite. It is just that simple and I dont understand why you seem to think that you are raising this tough knock-down question.

The answer we both know is because the Bible is an article of faith and the Resurrection not a recognized historical event.

Well, since the question was based on a false assumption, there is no answer that we "both" know, apparently. I don't draw that same conclusion.

Then you’re begging the question! Do I need to explain it?

I am not begging the question since I said "the hypothesis is..."

You are putting words in my mouth. And your argument is disingenuous; science doesn’t know how life began, and I am certainly in no position to claim that life comes from non-life, whereas you are arguing that bodies rise from the dead. And yes, that is an outrageous assertion.


Continued...

One thing I've noticed about you is the fact that at times you put forth your best effort by trying to avoid certain positions....but the more you post you, you imply your position based on what what you say.

If someone is on here telling me that it isn't possible for God to exist (in our OA discussions), then that implies that this person doesn't believe in God. If you don't believe in God, then you believe that life came from non-life. It is a default position.

I've never "heard" you explicitedly say "God doesn't exist"...but you have said that the existence of God is not possible...and if a person claims the existence of God is not possible, then this person believes, by default, that life came from non-life. There is no way out of it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No it is not! The dead living again, and life coming from non-life, are not logical absurdities

If a man attaches a bomb to himself and blows himself in to pieces, describe to me how this man can come back to life under natural law. I will wait.

, but anintelligent, omnipotent, personal and self-sufficient being creating the world to have relationship with his creation is self-contradictory and logically absurd!

Based on what?

Also you are guilty of the fallacy of bifurcation. Your argument is that there are only two possible options to choose from, either 1) God did-it or 2) life came from non-life. Life in some form could have begun with the world and lain dormant until conditions were temperate and conducive to its development. That is logically possible and might even be true.

Wait a minute; "Life in some form could have begun"? If it begun, it began to exist and did not exist until it begun to form.

But you don’t know it was inanimate matter!

The universe began to exist, cot.

Indeed that second sentence is a distinct possibility.

Either they believed it, or they were lying. Which is it?

But I’m casting doubt upon the Bible as a truthful historical account.

So how far are you willing to go? Did Jesus exist? Did the disciples exist? Did Paul exist? Did Jesus get crucifed? Did the disciples steal the body and lie? Did Paul lie? Did any of the biblical "characters" exist?

As I said in a previous post, you have a habit of failing to explicitedly reveal your position, and then when I try to gather what little you give me and draw a conclusion, I get accused on attacking a position that you claim you never held. So, tell me what is your position on this issue. No more games. What do you think happened...or didn't happen?

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is presented an argument to prove God exists, and yet here you are presupposing the existence of God to prove the Resurrection is true! Another unexpected circuit!

My belief in the existence of God is based on other arguments...my belief in the Resurrection is based on THIS argument. If I didn't have independent reasons to believe in God, then I wouldn't believe in the Resurrection.

A case can only be made on the basis of probability. Now permit me to quote Dr Simon Greenleaf on that very matter, taken from The Testimony of the Evangelists:

“In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether is it possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true.”


The case of the holy men leaving their graves or Jesus rising from the dead is not sufficiently probable that it must be judged true. For is it not more sufficiently probable that men must die and their corporeal forms return to dust than that they should return to life three days after in perfect health without the least corruption to the flesh? And we can’t, as we’ve already seen, presume a miracle-working God, to settle the matter on a probabilistic basis, without finding for the conclusion in advance.

The resurrection of the holy men is all in context with the Resurrection of Jesus, cot. No one is claiming that out of the blue, people started to naturally rise from the dead. We are claiming that Jesus' Resurrection sparked a chain reaction of all sorts of supernatural occurences. We have good reasons to believe that God exists, and we also have good reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. It is based on these reasons (in the same context) that we believe that the Matthew account of the holy men can be taken as literally true.

Ask me to post a list of the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible.

Post a list of the contradictions...and I predict half of them will be ones that were answered a gazillion times already.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Likewise, if the origin of life was some day demonstrated to be a natural process such as abiogenesis, it would still be compatible with the idea that God created the Universe with the laws of physics and chemistry necessary to bring about abiogenesis.

I see where you are coming from, and even if that were to happen, that would still imply intelligent design, as intelligence is used to bring about abiogenesis..but then again, I don't think life or consciousness is a physical entity, period. The mind is not a physical entity and its origins cannot be explained by natural law.

I think that depends. If you are talking about the origin of the Universe itself, then you may be right. If you are are talking about the origin of organic, cellular life, then science may some day be able to figure it out if abiogenesis is feasible.

Well, if you can't explain the origins of all space, time, matter, and energy by naturalistic means, then how can you explain the origin of life by natural means? Life depends on the existence of space, time, matter, and energy, right?

Correct. Belief in anything that has not been proven does require some degree of faith. I think abiogenesis has a pretty good chance of being plausible, but I cannot say that it has been proven given the current evidence.

I don't think consciousness/the mind can be explained by natural means. It isn't a physical thing.

Were the ancients "not as smart in comparison to the mindless and blind process" that gives rise to lightning?

They were smart enough to understand that intelligent design plays some role in it. There belief in theism wouldn't have changed if someone explain to them how nature works.

In the strictest of senses, yes. Either life once came from non-life or it always came from prior life.

Yeah, but the problem is you can't have life from life occurences extending all the way back to eternity past. This is the naturalists biggest problem.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Not necessarily. Postulating an evil God, together with a Good God, would solve the problem of evil nicely.

Really?

Which is?

The argument based on the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ :yes:

I would say your faith corroborates your evidence.

The faith came first, then the evidence.

Of course you were.

For some reason, I am very good at reading minds. More than 90% of the times I am able to ascertain the environment believers are raised with, when I know their beliefs.

Well, what it boils down to, REGARDLESS of which religion I could have grew up with...I just can't believe that life can come from nonlife, intelligence can come from non-intelligence, and consciousness can come from unconsciousness. I just can't believe that. Just can't. To each his own, but I just cant do it.

That is not relevant. Losing a known faith is easy. The question is how do you get the right one if you were not raised with it, for historical or cultural reasons.

Then the question is ultimately, which one is the right one?

If you can be saved only by accepting Christ, how are you going to be in the winning team if you never heard of Him?

Since Christians believe that God is holy and just, we believe that God will judge people based on what they know, not what they don't know. All cases are not equal.

Which is basically the only evidence you base your beliefs upon.

Can I help it if I have good reasons to believe what I believe?

 

[Parsimony]

I see where you are coming from, and even if that were to happen, that would still imply intelligent design, as intelligence is used to bring about abiogenesis..but then again, I don't think life or consciousness is a physical entity, period. The mind is not a physical entity and its origins cannot be explained by natural law.

Then intelligent design (in the broadest sense of the term) is compatible with abiogenesis and evolution.

Well, if you can't explain the origins of all space, time, matter, and energy by naturalistic means, then how can you explain the origin of life by natural means? Life depends on the existence of space, time, matter, and energy, right?

Lightning also depends on the existence of space, time, matter and energy, yet no one these days argues that every thunderbolt from the clouds is brought about by miraculous intervention.

I don't think consciousness/the mind can be explained by natural means. It isn't a physical thing.

We have not solved the hard problem of consciousness, but divine causation is just one possible answer. We simply do not know the real explanation with certainty.

They were smart enough to understand that intelligent design plays some role in it. There belief in theism wouldn't have changed if someone explain to them how nature works.

Which is a perfectly acceptable belief system. I think deists tend to think like this, for example.

Yeah, but the problem is you can't have life from life occurences extending all the way back to eternity past. This is the naturalists biggest problem.

I'm not arguing that life does go back eternally.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Then intelligent design (in the broadest sense of the term) is compatible with abiogenesis and evolution.

I don't see how. I don't see how the universe can start off with a big bang with absolutely no consciousness and life whatsoever...and then get to a point where it eventually comes alive and begin thinking. I don't for one minute grant the possbility that scientists can go in a lab and create life, especially intelligent life.

Lightning also depends on the existence of space, time, matter and energy, yet no one these days argues that every thunderbolt from the clouds is brought about by miraculous intervention.

But believers argue that thunderbolts ultimately owes its origin to God.

We have not solved the hard problem of consciousness, but divine causation is just one possible answer. We simply do not know the real explanation with certainty.

Consciousness is not a physical entity, so it can't be explained by natural law.

Which is a perfectly acceptable belief system. I think deists tend to think like this, for example.

And that is one huge leap for logic.

I'm not arguing that life does go back eternally.

That is the default position if you negate the existence of a timeless First Cause.

 

[Parsimony]

I don't see how. I don't see how the universe can start off with a big bang with absolutely no consciousness and life whatsoever...and then get to a point where it eventually comes alive and begin thinking. I don't for one minute grant the possbility that scientists can go in a lab and create life, especially intelligent life.

You made the statement yourself: "I see where you are coming from, and even if that were to happen, that would still imply intelligent design, as intelligence is used to bring about abiogenesis." An intelligently-designed universe giving rise to abiogenesis.

But believers argue that thunderbolts ultimately owes its origin to God.

Yes, that God created the laws of physics that allow lightning to come into existence. It comes about from natural processes that God put in place. The same might be true of abiogenesis.

Consciousness is not a physical entity, so it can't be explained by natural law.

We don't know that. There are many aspects of natural law that are not physical entities in themselves (electric charge, spin, entropy, etc.).

And that is one huge leap for logic.

You do realize that I was agreeing with you there, right?

That is the default position if you negate the existence of a timeless First Cause.

Which is something that I do not negate.

 

[cottage]

I have 2,500 posts of me engaging in public debates, but whose counting?

Then I’m puzzled to know why you want to make an exception in my case? In what way are my arguments to be awarded special consideration over the other 2000 plus postings?

You make it seem as if Matthew is the only Gospel, cot. We have a total of 4, including testimonies from two more sources, Paul and James, one of which was written prior to the Gospels, yet it supplements them well.

Apart from the 3000 word critique of the Testimony of the Evangelists that I’ve previously posted on this forum, Bible inerrancy is new ground for me. So my approach is to do one at the time.

And as I said, not necessarily. For all I know unbelievers would then look for naturalistic reasons why dead people would come back to life. After all, that is what they do regarding anything else. So again, not necessarily.

What I’m saying is if people survived their own deaths, by whatever reason, then the world at large would have a very different view than it presently has on human bodily existence. But in both cases that does not happen because surviving bodily death is only a faith-based belief and not a fact.

Yeah, because Christians believe that the dead coming back to life is wholly unnaturalistic, and if it does happen the explanation lies far beyond the realm of science.

‘Christians believe’…which is my argument exactly. A believers’ argument.

No, I am using the bible as a basis to tell you that this is what a person believed, based on this person's own writing. In other word's, "according to the story..." And the points that you raise are invalid according to the story.

But that is to say the story is an argument for the story!

This is no more different than me claiming that we have reasons to believe that Akhenaten was the father of King Tut based on the knowledge we have of Ancient Egyptian writings.

Not the same. When you spoke of Exodus where Moses appeared before Pharaoh and performed all of these miracles and showed "Jehovah's" superiority over the Egyptian gods you are making a circular claim to the supernatural to support your argument for the Resurrection as a supernatural event.

I have no problem addressing any issue that you raise...I merely pointed out the fact that you have a lot of nerve, in my opinion, to judge anything as absurd if you don't believe in God, since there are certain absurd implications that arise if you negate the existence of God.

Then please name them? And by return I’ll give some examples that are absurdities within the proper meaning of the term.

Because the scientific community, especially the naturalists, don't concern themselves with things that lie beyond the realms of science, which is where the Resurrection would lie.

Well yes, exactly that! The scientific community and the world at large do not set off to discover what believers cannot even prove to themselves.

First off, it is not universally accepted by believers that dead bodies do not live again. Where did you get that from? Christians devout their entire lives (and their future) based on dead bodies coming back to life, and one in particular, Jesus Christ. Non-believers are the opposite. It is just that simple and I dont understand why you seem to think that you are raising this tough knock-down question.

Precisely the answer I expected. You’re not getting the essence of what I’m saying. Of course Christians believe Christ was resurrected, and of course they may believe they too can look forward to an afterlife, but they don’t believe the dead spring out of their graves and walk off as Matthew insists. The general consensus is that in this life the dead remain dead.

I am not begging the question since I said "the hypothesis is..."

But a hypothesis cannot be given to support the conclusion; the object is to prove the hypothesis by means of the conclusion.

This is what you are saying:

If God exists he can perform miracles
The Resurrection was a miracle, hence God exists
Therefore the Resurrection is true.

That is the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, and you need to prove a miracle occurred
-----------------------------------------------------
This should be your argument:
If the Resurrection is true, then God exists
The Resurrection is true (because of such-and-such is proved)
Therefore God exists

One thing I've noticed about you is the fact that at times you put forth your best effort by trying to avoid certain positions....but the more you post you, you imply your position based on what what you say.

If someone is on here telling me that it isn't possible for God to exist (in our OA discussions), then that implies that this person doesn't believe in God. If you don't believe in God, then you believe that life came from non-life. It is a default position.

I've never "heard" you explicitedly say "God doesn't exist"...but you have said that the existence of God is not possible...and if a person claims the existence of God is not possible, then this person believes, by default, that life came from non-life. There is no way out of it.

Well I have said ‘God does not exist’ many, many times. That’s the proposition to be tested, and I’ve not yet found myself contradicted. And it is utter false to say rejection of god-belief means belief in life from non-life. I believe no such thing, quite regardless of whether that state of affairs is actually the case – which may even be true! All we know is that life began, just as we know that the world began. And the world beginning with existent life is logically possible.

 

[cottage]

If a man attaches a bomb to himself and blows himself in to pieces, describe to me how this man can come back to life under natural law. I will wait.

The dead whether entire or dismembered do not live again in reality, but it is not a logical absurdity. We can conceive of the man blown to atoms after which all the constituent parts are pieced together to give the man back his original form; no contradiction is implied.

Based on what?

Based on what I’ve explained to you in that passage and the full argument I’ve given you in the past. Am I to post it again?

Wait a minute; "Life in some form could have begun"? If it begun, it began to exist and did not exist until it begun to form.

Began to exist and 'began to form' is the same thing.

The universe began to exist, cot.

Yes, and 'it began with animate matter'. Nothing contradictory about that.

Either they believed it, or they were lying. Which is it?

No, not ‘which is it’. ‘Either they believed it, or they were lying.’

So how far are you willing to go? Did Jesus exist? Did the disciples exist? Did Paul exist? Did Jesus get crucifed? Did the disciples steal the body and lie? Did Paul lie? Did any of the biblical "characters" exist?

As I said in a previous post, you have a habit of failing to explicitedly reveal your position, and then when I try to gather what little you give me and draw a conclusion, I get accused on attacking a position that you claim you never held. So, tell me what is your position on this issue. No more games. What do you think happened...or didn't happen?

I think the problem is that you see things in an extremely simplistic way and rooted in the dogma of your belief system, which leads you to make assumptions. Also you forget or misconstrue what has been said; so I have to keep repeating myself. My view concerning the Bible is that it is fundamentally a work of fiction interspersed with some facts in a contemporary time frame. A 600 year-old Noah, talking snakes and donkeys, the parting of seas, and people climbing out of their graves is intermingled with characters that existed or might plausibly have existed. And as I’ve said previously I also agree with Hume, who said of the Evangelists that they promoted a holy cause, believing it to be true.

My belief in the existence of God is based on other arguments...my belief in the Resurrection is based on THIS argument. If I didn't have independent reasons to believe in God, then I wouldn't believe in the Resurrection.

If you’re presenting the historicity of the Resurrection as the proof for God’s existence then you don’t presuppose God’s existence to find for that conclusion.

The resurrection of the holy men is all in context with the Resurrection of Jesus, cot. No one is claiming that out of the blue, people started to naturally rise from the dead. We are claiming that Jesus' Resurrection sparked a chain reaction of all sorts of supernatural occurences. We have good reasons to believe that God exists, and we also have good reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. It is based on these reasons (in the same context) that we believe that the Matthew account of the holy men can be taken as literally true.

You haven’t answered the question of probability, which Greenleaf put so succinctly. Miracles such as the dead coming to life are highly improbable or impossible.

Post a list of the contradictions...and I predict half of them will be ones that were answered a gazillion times already.

I will. But what’s that you say…only ‘half’? I thought the Bible was supposed to be the inerrant Word of God?

 

[cottage]

Post a list of the contradictions...and I predict half of them will be ones that were answered a gazillion times already.

The Bible: The Holy Word of God​

God is just and impartial
Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25

God is unjust and partial
Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12

God is to be found by those who seek him. Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17
God is not to be found by those who seek him. Prov 1:28

God accepts human sacrifices. 2 Sam 21:8,9, 14/ Gen 22:2/ Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39
God forbids human sacrifice. Deut 12:30, 31

Because of man's wickedness God destroys him. Gen 6:5, 7
Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him. Gen 8:21

Killing commanded. Ex 32:27
Killing forbidden. Ex 20:13

Marriage or cohabitation with a sister denounced. Deut 27:22/ Lev 20:17
Abraham married his sister and God blessed the union. Gen 20:11, 12/ Gen 17:16

Seed time and harvest were never to cease. Gen 8:22
Seed time and harvest did cease for seven years. Gen 41:54, v56/ Gen 45:6

God is satisfied with his works. Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works. Gen 6:6

God is tired and rests. Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests. Is 40:28

 

[viole]

Really?

Really.

The argument based on the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ :yes:

Which is not existent, outside the claims of one book.

The faith came first, then the evidence.

Of course. But shouldn't be the other way round?

Well, what it boils down to, REGARDLESS of which religion I could have grew up with...I just can't believe that life can come from nonlife, intelligence can come from non-intelligence, and consciousness can come from unconsciousness. I just can't believe that. Just can't. To each his own, but I just cant do it.

That does not matter. Muslims do not believe that, either. The question is why you picked Christianity.

Would you lose your faith is we managed to generate spontaneous life from no life?

Then the question is ultimately, which one is the right one?

I propose to choose the one with the hottest hell. If you pick the wrong one, you would be better off.

Since Christians believe that God is holy and just, we believe that God will judge people based on what they know, not what they don't know. All cases are not equal.

In other words, it is better to not know anything about Jesus. At least you have a requirement less to fulfill, by not knowing about Him. Maybe the Gospel is in reality the Badspel.

I propose to forbid missionary work. It is highly risky for those poor souls.

Can I help it if I have good reasons to believe what I believe?

I argue that those reasons are not good enough.

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

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

Hasn't been for 2000 years.

Lets just focus on the Resurrection.

Stories are not evidence for a miracle occurring.

More like a headlock.

Meh

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

Like the plausible explanation that the stories were made up?

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

Stories are all we have. Those are not good enough reasons. Miracles need to show to exist in present in order to even consider them real in the past. Being only real in the past seems highly suspicious to me.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You made the statement yourself: "I see where you are coming from, and even if that were to happen, that would still imply intelligent design, as intelligence is used to bring about abiogenesis." An intelligently-designed universe giving rise to abiogenesis.

The key point is IF IT WERE TO HAPPEN, IT WOULD IMPLY INTELLIGENT DESIGN. So intelligent design is not negated, which is a problem for naturalists who maintain that there is no cosmic designer.

Yes, that God created the laws of physics that allow lightning to come into existence. It comes about from natural processes that God put in place. The same might be true of abiogenesis.

Right, as long as you admit that God put it in place.

We don't know that.

Yes we do, and we can draw that conclusion based on the law of identity which is the holy grail of the argument from consciousness.

There are many aspects of natural law that are not physical entities in themselves (electric charge, spin, entropy, etc.).

Yeah but if you can prove that all space, time, energy, and matter (STEM) is contingent, then even these physical entities that you speak of are not contingent and therefore have a beginning.

You do realize that I was agreeing with you there, right?

I think you misunderstood what I meant when I said that, but its cool.

Which is something that I do not negate.

Well, you want to play the devils advocate but the point is; that of which I mentioned is a problem for those that do negate it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Hasn't been for 2000 years.

And that could very well be because he is giving people like you a chance to accept him as Lord and Savior before it is to late. And 2,000 years may seem like a long time to you, but to God, 2,000 years like two days.

Stories are not evidence for a miracle occurring.

If the stories are true, then it is.

Like the plausible explanation that the stories were made up?

Plausible explanations that would explain the origin of the disciples belief.

Stories are all we have. Those are not good enough reasons.

The stories are good enough reasons for the billion of Christians that believe it.

Miracles need to show to exist in present in order to even consider them real in the past. Being only real in the past seems highly suspicious to me.

What a coincidence, I say the same thing regarding science and so called "macroevolution".

 

[idav]

And that could very well be because he is giving people like you a chance to accept him as Lord and Savior before it is to late. And 2,000 years may seem like a long time to you, but to God, 2,000 years like two days.

Yeah I'm done waiting.

If the stories are true, then it is.

How are you basing the truth of the stories, just faith is circular reasoning.

Plausible explanations that would explain the origin of the disciples belief.

Superstition, power hungry, I have a dozen explanations. Notice how fast the disciples started taking everyones money and killing people like they were some sort of mobster.

The stories are good enough reasons for the billion of Christians that believe it.

The stories require an extraordinary amount of faith.

What a coincidence, I say the same thing regarding science and so called "macroevolution".

Yeah while you ignore the macroevolution that we have evidence for, in the now. Insects and plants have much shorter generations to evaluate.