Does Jesus's Prayer Show Christianity Is False?

[One Bad Pig]

No. Not true. Since the supernatural is beyond the scope of scientific investigation, it is not possible to state that supernatural events are impossible.

Yet you keep highlighting their improbability, based on scientific investigation? Why is it so hard for you to admit that, in your worldview, supernatural events are impossible? Or is it your faith designation that needs tweaking?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Gary. I stated that this is a metaphysical claim. Posting a video on burden of proof is useless on that. Anyone who makes a claim has a burden to back it. You claimed that scientists and doctors aren't convinced miracles have happened. I ask "Okay. Why should I take people who don't study metaphysics seriously on a question that is about metaphysics? Posting burden of proof does not work, especially since you're considering skepticism as the default position for a worldview any anyone else has the burden of proof. It's a great way to avoid your intellectual responsibility of actually making an argument. In fact, that's your modus operandi. "Let me do a survey to see if most people would find this the best explanation." (Why not go the data and talk about it?) "Most Jews don't accept your claim." (Again, why not go to the data?) "Doctors and scientists don't believe this. (Why not go to the data?)

Most Jews rejected the resurrection in the time of Jesus. Yeah. Why should that surprise me? That's exactly what I expect in fact. The Christian faith was utterly shameful and to accept it was to accept a position of shame and seen as traitorous to YHWH. Again, how does that work on explaining the data?

Seriously. Go to a library. Read the best scholarship on both sides of the issues. Then come back and talk about it. Right now, you're just showing you switched from an uninformed Christianity to an uninformed skepticism. You hold the opposite position with the same zeal I suspect. It's just the loyalty that's different.

[psstein]

And what else are you suggesting is needed to argue for this alleged event? The metaphysical? Theological? Philosophical?

Philosophy. You have to argue for miracles happening.

Ludemann's attempt to say "modern science shows the dead stay dead" doesn't constitute an argument against.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Philosophy. You have to argue for miracles happening.

Ludemann's attempt to say "modern science shows the dead stay dead" doesn't constitute an argument against.

It's not like that's a new discovery

[Leonhard]

Actually when it comes to the reality of the supernatural an epistemologist would be as equally important in the discussion.

Mike Licona in his 700+ page tome on the historicity of the ressurection, spends no less than 200 pages just dealing with how you'd approach miracles in history.

I higly recommend the book Gary. I personally found the case very convincing.

[Gary]

Yet you keep highlighting their improbability, based on scientific investigation? Why is it so hard for you to admit that, in your worldview, supernatural events are impossible? Or is it your faith designation that needs tweaking?

I've never said impossible, but I've never said that the existence of leprechauns is impossible either. I just believe that they are both very, very improbable.

Again, it all comes down to the probability of the existence of miracles. I'm not sure there is any way to narrow the gap in our very discrepant estimation of the probability of miracles. Any suggestions?

[Gary]

Gary. I stated that this is a metaphysical claim. Posting a video on burden of proof is useless on that. Anyone who makes a claim has a burden to back it. You claimed that scientists and doctors aren't convinced miracles have happened. I ask "Okay. Why should I take people who don't study metaphysics seriously on a question that is about metaphysics? Posting burden of proof does not work, especially since you're considering skepticism as the default position for a worldview any anyone else has the burden of proof. It's a great way to avoid your intellectual responsibility of actually making an argument. In fact, that's your modus operandi. "Let me do a survey to see if most people would find this the best explanation." (Why not go the data and talk about it?) "Most Jews don't accept your claim." (Again, why not go to the data?) "Doctors and scientists don't believe this. (Why not go to the data?)

Most Jews rejected the resurrection in the time of Jesus. Yeah. Why should that surprise me? That's exactly what I expect in fact. The Christian faith was utterly shameful and to accept it was to accept a position of shame and seen as traitorous to YHWH. Again, how does that work on explaining the data?

Seriously. Go to a library. Read the best scholarship on both sides of the issues. Then come back and talk about it. Right now, you're just showing you switched from an uninformed Christianity to an uninformed skepticism. You hold the opposite position with the same zeal I suspect. It's just the loyalty that's different.

I've explained the data, Nick. I and most skeptics I've spoken to believe that my hypothetical explanations DO explain the evidence and that my explanation is far, far more probable than your supernatural explanation. We are never going to come to an agreement on this issue, my Christian friend, until we find a way to narrow our very differing views on the probability of miracles. In my world view, a very rare aberration in the behavior of one individual or small group (moving a corpse in first century Judaism) is far more likely than your supernatural explanation. I understand that you don't see it that way.

I am not sure there is any way for us to move forward. We are at an impasse, as I see it.

[Gary]

Philosophy. You have to argue for miracles happening.

Ludemann's attempt to say "modern science shows the dead stay dead" doesn't constitute an argument against.

I realize that philosophy is highly respected among theologians and I think as a field of study it has contributed greatly to the advancement of mankind. So I am not saying that it is a useless or trivial field. But when it comes to the issue of "what is reality", I think most people in western society have accepted the scientific method and reason as the basis of reality. I don't think the majority of society is interested in sitting around debating whether or not one truly exists or is the figment of someone else's imagination. The issue is settled for most people: We trust science and reason to determine truth. I know that theologians don't like that, but that is the way it is.

[Adrift]

I've never said impossible, but I've never said that the existence of leprechauns is impossible either. I just believe that they are both very, very improbable.

Again, it all comes down to the probability of the existence of miracles. I'm not sure there is any way to narrow the gap in our very discrepant estimation of the probability of miracles. Any suggestions?

If you believed in a being that was capable of producing miracles, that'd probably be a start.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I realize that philosophy is highly respected among theologians and I think as a field of study it has contributed greatly to the advancement of mankind. So I am not saying that it is a useless or trivial field. But when it comes to the issue of "what is reality", I think most people in western society have accepted the scientific method and reason as the basis of reality. I don't think the majority of society is interested in sitting around debating whether or not one truly exists or is the figment of someone else's imagination. The issue is settled for most people: We trust science and reason to determine truth. I know that theologians don't like that, but that is the way it is.

What a nice philosophical statement on the nature of reality to argue that philosophy doesn't tell us the nature of reality.

It's funny.

[One Bad Pig]

I've never said impossible, but I've never said that the existence of leprechauns is impossible either. I just believe that they are both very, very improbable.

Again, it all comes down to the probability of the existence of miracles. I'm not sure there is any way to narrow the gap in our very discrepant estimation of the probability of miracles. Any suggestions?

You label yourself as a non-supernaturalist. Miracles are inherently supernatural. Therefore, despite your protestations to the contrary, your position is that miracles are not possible. Further, since probability is a statistical measurement, and miracles are not measurable, there is no such thing as "probability of miracles."

Perhaps you should quit using language like it's silly putty.

[Gary]

If you believed in a being that was capable of producing miracles, that'd probably be a start.

True. But I believe that there is ample evidence that proves that Yahweh is a fictional ancient middle-eastern character in an ancient Jewish holy book, and the argument that there is ONE, monotheistic God is also very weak. There may well be a Creator, but we have no idea...yet...at least, who he, she, it, or they is/are. See the video I posted above. So there is no proof of the existence of any supernatural being with supernatural powers. They might exist, but until better evidence comes along, I choose to ignore all supernatural claims and alleged supernatural beings.

Maybe we should start our discussion by debating the existence of Yahweh.

[Gary]

What a nice philosophical statement on the nature of reality to argue that philosophy doesn't tell us the nature of reality.

It's funny.

Philosophy is a dying field, my friend. Just ask a philosophy professor at any major university.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Philosophy is a dying field, my friend. Just ask a philosophy professor at any major university.

Yeah. Do you have a response because I have no reason to think you know what you're talking about, especially as someone who has considerable reading in philosophy.

[Gary]

You label yourself as a non-supernaturalist. Miracles are inherently supernatural. Therefore, despite your protestations to the contrary, your position is that miracles are not possible. Further, since probability is a statistical measurement, and miracles are not measurable, there is no such thing as "probability of miracles."

Perhaps you should quit using language like it's silly putty.

"Further, since probability is a statistical measurement, and miracles are not measurable, there is no such thing as "probability of miracles."

Exactly. The normal scientific tools used to determine claims of fact cannot be used to investigate supernatural claims as they cannot be measured. That is why I choose to ignore such claims. Their probability is so low, in my opinion, that it is a better use of my time to ignore them as if they were impossible.