Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

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?

Dear Readers of this blog:

Do you know how many people visit Lourdes each year? Answer: 80,000
Do you know how many years pilgrims have been flocking to Lourdes? Answer: over 100 years.
So 80,000 x 100 = 8,000,000 people.

Do you know how many official "cures" the Catholic Church counts during those 100 years? Answer: 66

SIXTY-SIX!

Jesus and the Virgin Mary are either VERY stingy about healing suffering, sick and dying people at this "holy site", or the claim itself is nonsense. Pure nonsense! The fact that 66 people out of EIGHT MILLION have been officially healed at this site by touching holy water and not because of some natural explanation for their improved health, is statistically speaking, pure nonsense!

[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."

Your logic and that of Dirty Pig escapes me.

[Gary]

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.

Yes, when your position is being pummeled by the opposition it is best to start restricting comments.

[Gary]

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.

Wrong. There is no more reason for me to read Keneer than there is for me to read someone who writes a two volume expose on the literal existence of little green Martians. Why: Answer: The onus is not on skeptics to disprove an extraordinary claim, the onus is on the proponent(s) of the extraordinary claim to provide evidence for that claim. Provide ONE, just ONE, miracle claim from Keneer's book and let's all examine it. Nick has the book so let him post the miracle claim.

You may not like that, but that is how all other extraordinary claims in western, civilized, industrialized society works. We skeptics are under no obligation to prove that Big Foot does NOT exist. The proponents of the existence of Big Foot must provide extraordinary, convincing evidence of this beast other than doctored photos and videos.

Ditto for Christians and their miracle cures, empty tombs, and post-death appearances.

Howl all you want, but that is what our society demands. If you don't like it, move somewhere where superstition is the highest form of critical thinking.

[tabibito]

"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.

No-one was talking about guessing games.

[tabibito]

Dear Readers of this blog:

Do you know how many people visit Lourdes each year? Answer: 80,000
Do you know how many years pilgrims have been flocking to Lourdes? Answer: over 100 years.
So 80,000 x 100 = 8,000,000 people.

Do you know how many official "cures" the Catholic Church counts during those 100 years? Answer: 66

SIXTY-SIX!

Jesus and the Virgin Mary are either VERY stingy about healing suffering, sick and dying people at this "holy site", or the claim itself is nonsense. Pure nonsense! The fact that 66 people out of EIGHT MILLION have been officially healed at this site by touching holy water and not because of some natural explanation for their improved health, is statistically speaking, pure nonsense!

66 is the number they are left with after they have eliminated all that they consider might have been influenced by naturalistic causes, after pursuing investigations that come close to being as ridiculous in their standards as the ones you demand.
It would only take one verified miracle to demolish the contention that there are no miracles - just as it only takes one verified error, no matter how trivial, to demolish the contention that the Bible is free of all error.

[Adrift]

Dear Readers of this blog

[Sea of red]

[Gary]

66 is the number they are left with after they have eliminated all that they consider might have been influenced by naturalistic causes, after pursuing investigations that come close to being as ridiculous in their standards as the ones you demand.
It would only take one verified miracle to demolish the contention that there are no miracles - just as it only takes one verified error, no matter how trivial, to demolish the contention that the Bible is free of all error.

???

[Gary]

Yes, I realize that you are either clueless...or hopelessly brainwashed.

[Gary]

Are you serious, Red? You agree with their logic?

[Gary]

Wow. I just don't understand. Neither I nor William have made the claim that miracles are impossible, but this strawman continues to be erected against us. Our position is that miracles are improbable and unprovable, as long as there is any other more probable, non-miracle, explanation available. If that doesn't make sense to you guys, nothing will.

[Christianbookworm]

What exactly is a miracle? Anytime God does something in history? That seems too broad. Anytime God does an act that we can't do with our present technology(or the technology of the time period, though Jesus would still be better than any paramedics/emergency department at resuscitating clinically dead people and definitely better at bringing back brain dead people.)? But that doesn't make sense as a definition. If a fictional character does something that's impossible for us to do, it isn't called a miracle, but instead that the fictional character has superpowers. Or the writers fail physics. So, would a better definition be an act of God that is meant for a particular purpose that goes above the laws of physics? Since God created the universe, He can do whatever He pleases with the "programming".

[KingsGambit]

What exactly is a miracle? Anytime God does something in history? That seems too broad. Anytime God does an act that we can't do with our present technology(or the technology of the time period, though Jesus would still be better than any paramedics/emergency department at resuscitating clinically dead people and definitely better at bringing back brain dead people.)? But that doesn't make sense as a definition. If a fictional character does something that's impossible for us to do, it isn't called a miracle, but instead that the fictional character has superpowers. Or the writers fail physics. So, would a better definition be an act of God that is meant for a particular purpose that goes above the laws of physics? Since God created the universe, He can do whatever He pleases with the "programming".

I actually like your initial definition, but for the purpose of discussions such as this, I understand that it might not fly.

[Christianbookworm]

I actually like your initial definition, but for the purpose of discussions such as this, I understand that it might not fly.

But if God uses non-miraculous means to do something, is that still a miracle?