Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[One Bad Pig]

THEISTS CANNOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF MIRACLES AND SKEPTICS CANNOT DISPROVE THEM.

I am increasingly inclined to see "skeptic" as not descriptive of you (or "new atheists" in general); you don't merely doubt religious claims, but categorically reject them altogether.

[Gary]

By your own challenges repeatedly stated in this thread - no such proof is possible - there will always be another "explanation" to those whose minds are closed to the possibility of miracles.

The claim that it is impossible (except to the person who performs a miracle) to prove that miracles can or have happened is proven - and the fact is meaningless.

Biblically - one neutral expert of the kind you propose is known. His name was Luke. While he could not get to the bottom of all the confused stories, perhaps, he gave as honest an appraisal as he could of what had been happening.

As for me - it is impossible to show me that miracles don't occur - absolutely and irrevocably.

Your are absolutely correct, Tabby, it is impossible to prove that miracles do not occur. On the other hand, it is impossible to prove that they do occur. Believing whether miracles happen or don't happen completely depends on each individual's judgment as to the probability of the various possible explanations for a very odd, very rare event.

I cannot prove that miracles do not occur any more than I can prove that leprechauns, unicorns, and fairies do not exist.

[Gary]

I am increasingly inclined to see "skeptic" as not descriptive of you (or "new atheists" in general); you don't merely doubt religious claims, but categorically reject them altogether.

Yes, but I reject them as IMPROBABLE and UNPROVABLE, not IMPOSSIBLE, as so many of you have repeatedly alleged.

I would like to hear Stein and Nick respond to this.

[tabibito]

Your are absolutely correct, Tabby, it is impossible to prove that miracles do not occur. On the other hand, it is impossible to prove that they do occur. Believing whether miracles happen or don't happen completely depends on each individual's judgment as to the probability of the various possible explanations for a very odd, very rare event.

I cannot prove that miracles do not occur any more than I can prove that leprechauns, unicorns, and fairies do not exist.

On the contrary: it IS possible to prove beyond all possible doubt, but only to the person who actually performs the miracle.
However, demanding "beyond all possible doubt" is an entirely ridiculous demand: rational people will be satisfied with "beyond reasonable doubt."
The only way to get to "beyond all possible doubt" is to first pass through the stage of accepting the evidence provided "beyond reasonable doubt."

[One Bad Pig]

Yes, but I reject them as IMPROBABLE and UNPROVABLE, not IMPOSSIBLE, as so many of you have repeatedly alleged.

And by "improbable" and "unprovable" you deny them altogether - because you demand proof (and ridiculous levels of proof, at that) before you'll accept one as having happened.

[William]

It's the reason I gave. I find J.P. Moreland's account quite good in fact. Why? Because seeing an ear grow back is nothing that you just happen to be mistaken on nor can it be something like the placebo effect. Note that when you have that account there has to be one of three options.

He is lying.

He is delusional in some way.

He's telling the truth.
If 1 and 2 are not likely, then 3 follows. The reality is numerous other people affirm this and Keener points this out in his book with even newspapers around the event citing it. Keener spoke to eyewitnesses and he's still speaking to them. He has students from all over the world and he asks them about miracles regularly.

And as for theism, I think the Thomistic arguments guarantee theism.

You have, but you have not given a basis at the same time. Your position relies on miracle claims being false. Mine says some could be false. Some could be true. Per the Chesterton quote earlier, yours is a position of dogma. Mine says "We determine if the miracle is true or false by the evidence."

Then they are telling the truth.

http://psych.stanford.edu/~bt/memory...sh-tversky.pdf

Sure. Why not?

I think this illustrates how some people will not believe anything. If you keep raising the bar of evidence, then you're not being fair to the evidence. If you make the standards impossibly high, you're also not being fair.

Yes. I think it's nonsensical to think everyone who ever lived who claims seeing a miracle is either lying or deluded in some way.

No. While Psstein referred to J.Z. Smith's excellent work, I'd also point to Mettinger's "Riddle of the Resurrection."

k

Why does a stone fall? Does it fall because there's a natural law outside of itself that it obeys, or does it fall because that is what is in the nature of a stone? Hume couldn't say that. Once you start denying essences to objects, things start going wrong. It was one of the greatest tragedies that we abandoned Aristotelianism.

Then he was not lying.

It's not imaginary. You made the charge that Paul is lying. I answered and then you said "Maybe he didn't know it was a lie." If he reported something false thinking it was true, then that is not lying. That is being mistaken.

The eyewitnesses would have been known to the community. The statement is meant to be as succinct as possible. That will aid in memorization. In an oral community, this is perfectly acceptable.

So you just said earlier that Paul was seen as a liar by some and then say that everyone is going to trust Paul. Which is it? As for a letter getting lost, what letter? The only one being discussed is 1 Cor. 15 and we have it right here.

No. It's golden because it's a historical claim about a major figure that is remarkably early.

Is every early historical claim about any figure always assumed true?
This is kind of silly.

No. I said miracles are not essential to the religions. It's true. They're not. Christianity makes it central.

And have you read anything such as McIver's work on Jesus, Memory, and the Synoptic Gospels? Have you studied oral societies? This wasn't a case of individual memories. This was a case of group memories. The group told the stories to each other over and over and the ones with the best memories were the gatekeepers. Also, memories were far better back then.
Yes. In an age where you could not write post-it notes or store everything on an IPhone or Laptop, you had to remember everything. Just look at people like the Rhapsodes who memorized the works of Homer entirely. Many of the educated Jews would have the whole Old Testament memorized.

This is also a misnomer anyway. You would have no problem with centuries later for ancient history, unless you're skeptical of Alexander the Great. For miracles, you think decades later is too much. Well the creed in 1 Cor. 15 is not decades later and you still throw it out. This has nothing to do with decades or centuries. This has to do with just not being willing to accept miracles.

Ancient history does not take things. It is either ancient people or historians of ancient history.

Thanks for the clarification.

Did Hannibal cross the Alps?

Let's suppose this is true. So what? Once again, my case has never hinged on the Gospels.

And for good reason.

For the first kind, you have one case cited and this from modern times, not ancient times. The same for the son. This also assumes the people who claimed Mary didn't see anything and for the dancing sun, it's my understanding that if you stare at the sun long enough, it will cause retinal damage of a sorts that is permanent and will make the sun look like it's dancing. Sorry, but I have no desire to test this hypothesis. Again, this is why I find these cases quite weak.

Okay. What did the Christian cult leaders stand to gain?

There is hardly any major claim that all scholars will agree on in a field, but the data I am using is accepted by the majority of critical scholars. I find the other explanations extraordinarily weak.

I find that we do not agree.

Could you offer a percentage of the critical scholars in that the field that believe history shows that jesus was actually crucified?

Name one.

Who would later die again. Jesus rose in a body that would never die again.

No. We don't. Every Christian in this thread will agree that miracles are very very rare and if you can show a natural explanation, we will have no problem going with it.

Except you wont. You demand absolute proof for the natural explanations to your miracles while expecting that everyone believe the miracles based on nothing more than claims.

Maybe, but with good historiography, we tend to go with the simplest explanation because multiplying explanations leads to more difficulties.

Why should I be surprised by this?

Good grief. I wonder how you misunderstand this. With a ghost story, we could be convinced the person thought they saw something. If they thought they saw someone who had been dead before, what would they conclude?


The person was dead. It was their ghost or their angel.

Even today I know of no case where a spouse sees their recently departed spouse and then says "Open the tomb! He must be alive!"

No. You're not.

Dead seen on a day to day basis? No more than today. As for being less educated, this has zip to do with this as they knew dead people stay dead.

Lack of education is still relevant because it speaks to an ignorance as well as a predisposoition to superstition.

Totally serious. Read some scholarly works on ancient memory.

Who said they see dead people all the time?

I'm not. I'm just saying they had better memories. You're adding in a bunch of other stuff.

Youre just not making good sense and adding additional impactions with your phrasing.

Maybe your memory isn't that good....

You comfortable considering the possibility without scholarly input?

[William]

And by "improbable" and "unprovable" you deny them altogether - because you demand proof (and ridiculous levels of proof, at that) before you'll accept one as having happened.

what's an acceptable amount of evidence for a miracle and do you think it's on par with that of alien encounters and abductions, magic and sightings of extinct animals?

[Gary]

On the contrary: it IS possible to prove beyond all possible doubt, but only to the person who actually performs the miracle.
However, demanding "beyond all possible doubt" is an entirely ridiculous demand: rational people will be satisfied with "beyond reasonable doubt."
The only way to get to "beyond all possible doubt" is to first pass through the stage of accepting the evidence provided "beyond reasonable doubt."

"On the contrary: it IS possible to prove beyond all possible doubt, but only to the person who actually performs the miracle."

Absolutely false. The person who THINKS that he has performed a miracle may be mistaken. A rare but natural event may have occurred which he ASSUMES is due to a miracle.

For instance, if I stand along side the road and say to you, "I am going to perform a miracle. The next car that drives by, Tabby, is going to be a red convertible." And lo and behold, within 30 seconds, a red convertible drives by. Was that a miracle or a very odd coincidence?

No one can say for sure, right?

But probabilities/statistics would say that it was most likely an odd coincidence. You are free to believe that it was a miracle, and no one can prove you wrong, but odds are...you are wrong.

[William]

"On the contrary: it IS possible to prove beyond all possible doubt, but only to the person who actually performs the miracle."

Absolutely false. The person who THINKS that he has performed a miracle may be mistaken. A rare but natural event may have occurred which he ASSUMES is due to a miracle.

For instance, if I stand along side the road and say to you, "I am going to perform a miracle. The next car that drives by, Tabby, is going to be a red convertible." And lo and behold, within 30 seconds, a red convertible drives by. Was that a miracle or a very odd coincidence?

No one can say for sure, right?

But probabilities/statistics would say that it was most likely an odd coincidence. You are free to believe that it was a miracle, and no one can prove you wrong, but odds are...you are wrong.

if someone said that they could bring my grandfather back to life, and then they did it right there, i'd probably believe that. Or if they healed steven Hawkins or cured my grandmother's paralysis, or made the missing limb of someone IO knew grow back right then, I'd believe those things.

they'd be hard to fake if not impossible. Plus, they'd have an added emotional effect as well.

There are some i'd believe. but it would have to be someone i knew and i'd most likely have to witness it myself, with very few exceptions.

[William]

Gary, you're a dactor so maybe you can tell me if I'm way off base but:

my youngest had an ear infection a few months ago and the doctor gave him some antibiotics. They didnt work. the doctor tried another type of antibiotics and that did work.

the first antibiotic usually works for everyone else, but for some reason it didn't. Instead of giving the same antibiotic to him again and again until it worked, she adjusted and tried another one.

Maybe the evidence for miracles and the Resurrection is compelling to them and to others, but it just isn't for us. So giving the same evidence again and again is no more compelling than the first time we saw it. If their God is real, then he knows I'm sincere. If he's real and can really do anything and perform any miracle, then why not do one that works for me or for all those others who dont buy what's currently available?

[Gary]

William,

Nick wants to convince you that miracles are just as probable in human experience as non-miracle causes for rare, odd, difficult-to-explain events. When asked to provide evidence for this claim, Nicks points to Keener's two volume work with long lists of anecdotal testimonials about alleged miracles. However, Nick has not given us any proof that even ONE of these claims cannot be explained with a non-miracle cause. If Nick is unable to provide even ONE case that has supporting evidence that rules out all possible naturalistic (of non-miracle origin) explanations, then his argument fails. It utterly and completely fails.

[William]

William,

Nick wants to convince you that miracles are just as probable in human experience as non-miracle causes for rare, odd, difficult-to-explain events. When asked to provide evidence for this claim, Nicks points to Keener's two volume work with long lists of anecdotal testimonials about alleged miracles. However, Nick has not given us any proof that even ONE of these claims cannot be explained with a non-miracle cause. If Nick is unable to provide even ONE case that has supporting evidence that rules out all possible naturalistic (of non-miracle origin) explanations, then his argument fails. It utterly and completely fails.

well, i feel the same way.

[Truthseeker]

When I left this topic yesterday, the thread's end was #149. Now, when I came back today, it was 162. Perhaps there should be a daily limit of 2 pages.

[psstein]

This thread is so much nicer with people on ignore.

Skepticism implies you don't believe claims at first glance and actually investigate them. Most people who call themselves "skeptics" today are dogmatic. I don't believe miracle claims at first glance either. I actually investigate them.

Being dogmatic means you believe (or don't believe) regardless of what the evidence suggests. For example, why are miracles impossible? Because miracles can't happen.

If you're going to go after Keener, you have to read the book. I don't go after people whose books I haven't read. Intellectual honesty demands you actually read books and engage arguments, rather than handwaving them away.

[psstein]

William,

I'm involved in the field of NT at a secular university. Jesus' death by crucifixion is held by 99.999% of critical scholars in the field of NT, Classics, and Early Christianity. The exceptions are Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier. Even atheist and agnostic scholars (Funk, Ludemann, Crossley, Casey, Frederickson, Ehrman, etc.) hold Jesus' death by crucifixion as historically certain. It's not just multiply attested in the NT, it's heavily attested in secular sources.