Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[One Bad Pig]

"So, I think to myself: He is either lying, misunderstood what he saw, or it happened. Assuming I understood the story he told (and I sometimes doubt that), these are the only three conceivable alternatives. The first two are very hard to believe. Therefore, I think I believe the third."


people lie all the time, but I dont think this guy is.

Did you read the context, or just ignore it? The writer explained why he ruled out lying.

the guy misunderstood what he saw is hard to believe even though people making mistakes happens routinely and is well documented...

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Yes, people mistakenly see ears grow back all the time.

the only rational conclusion to draw is that the miracles were real.

I laughed a little. c'mon - you guys have to at least see how this looks....

Yes - it looks like you have no rational answer, so you mock instead.

quite obviously he can perform that miracle anytime he wants. he could prove it to Gary, he just chooses not to.

What part of "that's not now miracles work" don't you understand?

Gray has already chosen not to believe. so witnessing a real miracle wouldnt work for him... even though it seems to have for Isaac, Jacob, Gideon, Naaman, the Israelites, Moses, Hezekiah, Thomas and the other apostles... but other than them, witnessing a real miracle wouldnt work since Gary has doesnt want to believe it them...

even though his belief in the color of the sky wouldnt change even if wanted to believe it was another color, and other such obvious things...

Yes, that is patently obvious. It is obvious in your case as well. Thank you for tacitly admitting that no evidence would be sufficient.

[William]

1) Yes, I would.

2) Depends what you mean. I was raised in a very liberal form of Judaism (Reform), and neither of my parents are at all religious. My mother is more or less an apatheist and my father a deist. I was more or less an agnostic by the time I was 15. In high school, I fluctuated between atheism, agnosticism, and deism.

how would you identify yourself now? what type of believer?

and what was it that helped you cross the from atheist/agnostic to believer?

[William]

Did you read the context, or just ignore it? The writer explained why he ruled out lying.

doesnt mean I have to.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Yes, people mistakenly see ears grow back all the time.

and still more likely than actually having an ear grow back. but yeah, ears grow back all the time, so I guess you're right.

Yes - it looks like you have no rational answer, so you mock instead.

so we're not that different after all.

What part of "that's not now miracles work" don't you understand?

I mean, this is kinda funny...

Yes, that is patently obvious. It is obvious in your case as well. Thank you for tacitly admitting that no evidence would be sufficient.

this seems like sarcasm. I can appreciate that. But in all honestly, i think certain miracles would be more than an academic observation, but also impact one emotionally, at least in some way. I have a hard time taking one's word for such things, and again this also goes for grand events that arent even supernatural, but I can and have imagined certain things that I believe would convince me.

But even then, I doubt that I would be surprised if others doubted the event when or if I relayed it to them. I wouldnt be offended by that, I would expect it. In fact, if tell something to someone now about an event or a person, I usually insist that they not take my word for it, but to ask around or inquire of others. I've been mistaken before and certainly will be again, so I may be now.

But a claim and a claim of evidence just isn't the same thing as evidence itself. and with some things, claims just dont work as evidence.

[psstein]

how would you identify yourself now? what type of believer?

and what was it that helped you cross the from atheist/agnostic to believer?

I'm now a Roman Catholic. I have doubts, but they tend to be more emotional than intellectual. I'm not the most gifted in "feeling my faith," so I find Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology questionable at best.

There were a lot of reasons. I found philosophical arguments for the existence of God compelling. I also thought the fine-tuning of the universe to be suggestive of something more than just total chance.

On the "why Christianity?" side, I found the evidence for Jesus to be far stronger than the evidence for Judaism.

[William]

I'm now a Roman Catholic. I have doubts, but they tend to be more emotional than intellectual. I'm not the most gifted in "feeling my faith," so I find Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology questionable at best.

There were a lot of reasons. I found philosophical arguments for the existence of God compelling. I also thought the fine-tuning of the universe to be suggestive of something more than just total chance.

On the "why Christianity?" side, I found the evidence for Jesus to be far stronger than the evidence for Judaism.

so was that evidence enough to keep you from considering any other religion, in your opinion?

[psstein]

so was that evidence enough to keep you from considering any other religion, in your opinion?

There are other considerations. I thought the evidence for Islam poor (Jesus was clearly crucified), and I found the claims of Eastern religions intellectually unsatisfying.

[Gary]

I'm now a Roman Catholic. I have doubts, but they tend to be more emotional than intellectual. I'm not the most gifted in "feeling my faith," so I find Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology questionable at best.

There were a lot of reasons. I found philosophical arguments for the existence of God compelling. I also thought the fine-tuning of the universe to be suggestive of something more than just total chance.

On the "why Christianity?" side, I found the evidence for Jesus to be far stronger than the evidence for Judaism.

Dear Stein and other Christians,

If your Faith gives you peace and comfort, great. I'm not asking Christians to abandon their faith, I am asking you to abandon the weak excuses for claiming that your faith is fact; a fact that we non-believers must all accept personally, and, "facts" that we should encode into our public laws and social mores--- or face your god's judgment, in whatever form that might be.

Take the fundamentalism and exclusiveness (we are right, everyone else is wrong, and everyone else is going to pay for being wrong) out of Christianity and it is a nice belief system.

[One Bad Pig]

doesnt mean I have to.

No, but you were seriously misconstruing what was said.

and still more likely than actually having an ear grow back. but yeah, ears grow back all the time, so I guess you're right.

No, ears don't grow back all the time. On the other hand, it's not exactly something that's easy to misconstrue. There was clearly no ear present, and then there was. We're not talking about something glimpsed out of the corner of one's eye, or Elvis on toast.

so we're not that different after all.

I mean, this is kinda funny...

Miracles by definition are supernatural and therefore cannot be repeated scientifically.

this seems like sarcasm.

It's not. I quite honestly believe that no evidence would be sufficient for you to believe.

[tabibito]

for the believers on this forum, I've sort of devolved into a few sniping comments here and there. I dont think I've gotten out of control, but i prefer to avoid that type of behavior. So sorry.

For me, I think we've pretty much exhausted our view on miracles and what we think is credible or incredible.

So, if I could, I have two questions:

1) there are mass witnesses to miracles of catholics, Hindus, Buddhists and others - would you believe these miracles if there were multiple reports of them?

I would not dismiss the possibility that the reports were accurate - which is for the most part the same as for reports by Christians of miracles.

2) Were raised with a belief in the Bible, or were any of you raised in either an opposing religion or raised truly atheistic?

Childhood spent going to Sunday School, but I had classed God as just another story along the lines of Father Christmas, Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny by the time I was in my teens.

right. quite obviously he can perform that miracle anytime he wants. he could prove it to Gary, he just chooses not to.

Were Gary to see a miracle, he would still fail to witness it.

Gray has already chosen not to believe. so witnessing a real miracle wouldnt work for him... even though it seems to have for Isaac, Jacob, Gideon, Naaman, the Israelites, Moses, Hezekiah, Thomas and the other apostles... but other than them, witnessing a real miracle wouldnt work since Gary has doesnt want to believe it them...

If I remember rightly, Gary said exactly that a couple of days ago. Well not exactly ... more a matter of believing his pre-suppositions over any possible evidence that any such miracle had occurred.

[Gary]

I would not dismiss the possibility that the reports were accurate - which is for the most part the same as for reports by Christians of miracles.

Childhood spent going to Sunday School, but I had classed God as just another story along the lines of Father Christmas, Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny by the time I was in my teens.

Were Gary to see a miracle, he would still fail to witness it.

If I remember rightly, Gary said exactly that a couple of days ago. Well not exactly ... more a matter of believing his pre-suppositions over any possible evidence that any such miracle had occurred.

[Gary]

[tabibito]

Using those same standards of evidence in a courtroom would render it impossible to convict anyone of any crime.

However, there is one human who knows with certainty, regardless of how flimsy or solid the evidence, whether in fact the accused has committed the crime. The fact seems to have escaped the cited author's attention.

[psstein]

If Johnson is saying Hume's standards aren't strong enough, then Johnson's argument is even more flawed than Hume's.

As for "exclusivism" and all that, keep in mind not every Christian denomination believes in it. The Catholic Church teaches God is present in all religions.

[Gary]

If Johnson is saying Hume's standards aren't strong enough, then Johnson's argument is even more flawed than Hume's.

As for "exclusivism" and all that, keep in mind not every Christian denomination believes in it. The Catholic Church teaches God is present in all religions.

Has the Catholic Church abandoned its belief in divine punishment for "sins" in Hell and Purgatory?

[Gary]

If Johnson is saying Hume's standards aren't strong enough, then Johnson's argument is even more flawed than Hume's.

As for "exclusivism" and all that, keep in mind not every Christian denomination believes in it. The Catholic Church teaches God is present in all religions.

Please elaborate.