The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[One Bad Pig]

Irrelevant! We have no first-hand evidence of a miraculously growing limb, only anecdotal evidence. .

I note that you failed to answer my question. It is not "irrelevant", because you and I both know that your skepticism would not be dented by any level of evidence - you'd merely assume that there's a natural explanation anyway.

[shunyadragon]

Spin, spin, spin.

Better stop before you get dizzy and fall down.

[Jedidiah]

Better stop before you get dizzy and fall down.

Tell the fellow doing all the spinning.

[Tassman]

I note that you failed to answer my question. It is not "irrelevant", because you and I both know that your skepticism would not be dented by any level of evidence - you'd merely assume that there's a natural explanation anyway.

So your argument has changed from their being evidence of limbs miraculously regrowing to any substantive evidence of limbs miraculously regrowing. .

[One Bad Pig]

So your argument has changed from their being evidence of limbs miraculously regrowing to

Um, no. I'll take your willful misrepresentation of my argument as evidence that you haven't any better response.

[Adrift]

Um, no. I'll take your willful misrepresentation of my argument as evidence that you haven't any better response.

He's not really even engaging with you. He's just one of these people who must have the last word at all possible costs. I find it best to just ignore him when he gets to this state (which is usually within about the first or second reply).

[One Bad Pig]

He's not really even engaging with you. He's just one of these people who must have the last word at all possible costs. I find it best to just ignore him when he gets to this state (which is usually within about the first or second reply).

True. It's just mildly amusing to see him keep digging himself deeper. I'll get bored and some point and wander off.

[Tassman]

True. It's just mildly amusing to see him keep digging himself deeper. I'll get bored and some point and wander off.

True. It's just mildly amusing to see him keep digging himself deeper. I'll get bored and some point and wander off.

[Charles]

True. It's just mildly amusing to see him keep digging himself deeper. I'll get bored and some point and wander off.

I have just joined in so you cannot claim anything about me "digging deeper" or whatever. But I sure would like to see the evidence.

[shunyadragon]

I have just joined in so you cannot claim anything about me "digging deeper" or whatever. But I sure would like to see the evidence.

The claims stem from the Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts
By Craig S. Keener

I have read the reference, and documentation of even recent claims of miracles is weak, which the author uses to justify miracles, and centers of the fallacy of an 'appeal to ignorance' in recent miracles, and weak confirmation of doctors. Where like some miracles at Lourdes they will claim "There is not present scientific explanation." The book actually acknowledges the difficulty of claims of 'Miraculous Healing' and the possibility of natural causes.

[One Bad Pig]

I have just joined in so you cannot claim anything about me "digging deeper" or whatever. But I sure would like to see the evidence.

On the other hand, in line with your posting history on the site, I can point to the high probability that you're simply being disingenuous here. If you'd like to see the evidence, I'm sure you can manage to track down a copy of the work in question via your nearest lending library.

[Tassman]

On the other hand, in line with your posting history on the site, I can point to the high probability that you're simply being disingenuous here. If you'd like to see the evidence, I'm sure you can manage to track down a copy of the work in question via your nearest lending library.

Not good enough! YOU are the one who cited Keener as an authoritative source giving proof of miracles. In fact he doesn't. He himself acknowledges that his accounts have possible natural explanations, e.g. psychosomatic, and his references to limbs regrowing are hearsay. In one instance he quotes from Pat Robertson's book 'Miracles' about a second-hand report of such an event occurring somewhere in Ghana.

[psstein]

Not good enough! YOU are the one who cited Keener as an authoritative source giving proof of miracles. In fact he doesn't. He himself acknowledges that his accounts have possible natural explanations, e.g. psychosomatic, and his references to limbs regrowing are hearsay. In one instance he quotes from Pat Robertson's book 'Miracles' about a second-hand report of such an event occurring somewhere in Ghana.

The bold is not true. He admits that some of his reports may have plausible natural explanations. He also says that, in his judgement, others are explained far better through extra-natural causes.

You're making it look like he says that all of his miracle accounts are naturalistic.

[Tassman]

The bold is not true. He admits that some of his reports may have plausible natural explanations. He also says that, in his judgement, others are explained far better through extra-natural causes. .

Yes it's true. I said that "he himself acknowledges his accounts have possible natural explanations". His claim that some may be better explained "through extra-natural causes" is merely Keener's personal opinion. And we know that he is predisposed to believe in miracles to begin with. There's no verifiable evidence.

[Charles]

On the other hand, in line with your posting history on the site, I can point to the high probability that you're simply being disingenuous here. If you'd like to see the evidence, I'm sure you can manage to track down a copy of the work in question via your nearest lending library.

So based on my posting history which gives you the impression that I am likely to disagree, you are reluctant to go to further detail and share the proof I asked for? Or what? The reason for forums like this in my world would be to share your opinion and discuss. That includes giving other people a reason to actually hold the idea you hold. If you don't even want to bother doing that, then what is the point? You said "I can point to the high probability that you're simply being disingenuous here". Is that really the best you can come up with?