Hmmm. I noticed I asked some questions and I did not get any answers to them, such as regards to the reading of Ehrman.
Yes he is, and quite likely the most educated man I know, and there are a lot of educated people I know.
So your idea is not to respond to any actual arguments he made against miracles being seen as automatically implausible and/or impossible. Got it.
No I don't. In fact, I've stated just the opposite. I've said my position does not rely on Inerrancy. I've even said as much in print and I have a whole separate blog dedicated to that topic. You are the one who has made a big deal over Inerrancy. Not me.
BUt this is not a rational way of doing things. Let's suppose that you have a scenario and a miracle looks like an explanation for the event. It's a possible one, but there are other ones. If there are others and they are presented and shown to be not likely or even impossible or based on ad hoc claims, then the miracle claim should be more and more probable. If the evidence of other positions weakens consistently and the evidence of the miracle position grows consistently, one should go with the miracle. It looks like you're looking at prior probability and ignoring any evidence which is really saying "No evidence can persuade me."
If that is what you are saying, rest assured everyone here is convinced of that.
I've said over and over you don't have to be a physician to know that dead people stay dead barring any outside interference. Being a physican cannot tell you if outside interference happened or is even likely. Science only tells you what happens barring no outside interference so you can be a master physician and still not be qualified on that area. Being a good metaphysician is what counts here. I also have a case for theism but that is not a bias. That is an actual argument, or in my case, at least five of them.
A big concession, so it's going to be up to you if you want to sacrifice ego or not. Right now, since you're not budging a bit even to contrary evidence and not answering questions, I suspect it is not evidence that is the issue or you'd listen to it.
Actually, my evidence was the creed from Paul. Even if Paul was wrong in his having an appearance of Jesus, which I doubt, the creed still stands.
Never used in my argument and I have already dealt with the claim of being anonymous and decades later. I had asked you earlier when you said you would treat the Gospels like other accounts of history with the same standard if that meant you would believe the Gospels or disbelieve that Caesar crossed the Rubicon. No answer.
Part of my argument, but changed behavior was not my argument per se.
Not a part of my argument seeing as my case never relied on the Gospels.
Oh you can quit if you want, but I will not chalk it up to you having a bias and my having a different one. I'll chalk it up to my going with the position evidenced by scholarship and your going with some other reason, especially since you were earlier in the thread condemning scholarship and asking me to admit it's nonsense. Sorry. Not going to happen.
Originally posted by Gary
View Post
4.2 How much would credible miracle reports establish?
In the final analysis, the relevance of background beliefs looms large. To say this is not to endorse a lazy and unprincipled relativism; rather, the point is that one's considered rational judgment regarding the existence and nature of God must take into account far more than the evidence for miracle claims. That is not to say that they could not be an important or even, under certain circumstances, a decisive piece of evidence; it is simply that neither a positive nor a negative claim regarding the existence of God can be established on the basis of evidence for a miracle claim alone, without any consideration of other aspects of the question.
For the evidence for a miracle claim, being public and empirical, is never strictly demonstrative, either as to the fact of the event or as to the supernatural cause of the event. It remains possible, though the facts in the case may in principle render it wildly improbable, that the testifier is either a deceiver or himself deceived; and so long as those possibilities exist, there will be logical space for other forms of evidence to bear on the conclusion. Arguments about miracles therefore take their place as one piece—a fascinating piece—in a larger and more important puzzle.
In the final analysis, the relevance of background beliefs looms large. To say this is not to endorse a lazy and unprincipled relativism; rather, the point is that one's considered rational judgment regarding the existence and nature of God must take into account far more than the evidence for miracle claims. That is not to say that they could not be an important or even, under certain circumstances, a decisive piece of evidence; it is simply that neither a positive nor a negative claim regarding the existence of God can be established on the basis of evidence for a miracle claim alone, without any consideration of other aspects of the question.
For the evidence for a miracle claim, being public and empirical, is never strictly demonstrative, either as to the fact of the event or as to the supernatural cause of the event. It remains possible, though the facts in the case may in principle render it wildly improbable, that the testifier is either a deceiver or himself deceived; and so long as those possibilities exist, there will be logical space for other forms of evidence to bear on the conclusion. Arguments about miracles therefore take their place as one piece—a fascinating piece—in a larger and more important puzzle.
Gary: And herein lies our inability to come to agreement on the "evidence" for the Christian miracle claims. You come to the evidence with a bias of belief that they must be true because you believe in the Christian God, and in your view, the Christian God is perfect; He cannot and does not make mistakes. If the claims in his Word are false, then He is false. Such a conclusion would be catastrophic to your world view.
I too come to the evidence with a bias; a bias of disbelief in the likelihood of virgin births, resurrections, and other miracle claims. I believe that anything is possible, including miracles, but I believe that miracle claims are the least probable, so if there is a reasonable, more probable non-miracle explanation, more probable based on personal experience, and cumulative human experience, then I reject the miracle claim due to it being less probable, not due to it being impossible.
If that is what you are saying, rest assured everyone here is convinced of that.
I have another bias I bring to the evidence: I don't believe that Yahweh ever existed (for multiple reasons) and I believe that Jesus is dead, because in my experience as a physician, truly dead people stay dead.
For me to accept evidence now, contrary to my new, current worldview, would be a blow to my ego, and my self-esteem, for (foolishly, it would turn out) having abandoned my previously cherished faith for inaccurate evidence.
So, we do have evidence for this miracle claim:
1. Personal testimony from Paul.
1. Personal testimony from Paul.
2. Four anonymous books written decades after the alleged event with lists of alleged eyewitnesses.
3. A culture-defying new belief that dramatically changes the behavior of numerous people and spreads, eventually, to every corner of the world.
4. Second century hearsay testimony by Papias regarding the apostolic authorship of the gospels.
The evidence is good enough for you. It's not good enough for me. And I believe that we can chalk up our disagreement to our biases...and call it a day.
Comment