Board index ‹ God

[jimwalton]

> Ok, so rationally we shouldn't claim that Jesus performed any miracles.

No, that's not rational, it's negative bias. There is evidence in the Gospels that he performed miracles; miracles are consistent with the kind of person Jesus was, and Josephus confirms that he performed miracles. So rationally we should claim he did perform miracles, since also science can't say whether miracles are possible or not. (Science can only deal with matters within its sphere, like the observation of repeatable natural phenomena.)

> We should not accept any claims other than that Jesus existed and had a brother.

You haven't read what I said. Again (this time with more cowbell): "What we do have is the existence of a Galilean Jew named Jesus who was born between 7 and 4 BC and died between AD 26-36. We have that he lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere, was called Christos in Greek, had a brother named James, and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and possibly Greek. It is believed even from non-Christian sources that he had both Jewish and Gentile followers, and that Jewish leaders held unfavorable opinions of him. There are two events (and only two) whose historicity is subject to 'almost universal assent': that he was baptized by John the Baptist and shortly afterwards was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate."

> Any claims about miracles should not be accepted.

On the contrary, they should be accepted. There's nothing in science that says miracles are impossible. There's nothing in history that says miracles are impossible. If God truly exists, then miracles are certainly possible. The only reason to assert that "any claims about miracles should not be accepted" is if you have an a priori negative bias that forbids you from considering the possibility.

> I can't shown absolute certainty that the pterodactyl has gone extinct, but I have evidence enough to make me confident that the claim is likely true. In other words, I assess that the evidence is sufficient to justify a high degree of confidence even if I can't claim complete certainty.

There we go. Now we're talking. This is the same reasoning by which I assess that the Bible is true. Thank you.

[TrakeM]

>No, that's not rational, it's negative bias. There is evidence in the Gospels that he performed miracles; miracles are consistent with the kind of person Jesus was, and Josephus confirms that he performed miracles. So rationally we should claim he did perform miracles, since also science can't say whether miracles are possible or not. (Science can only deal with matters within its sphere, like the observation of repeatable natural phenomena.)
If you don't have solid evidence to back up a claim we shouldn't accept your claim. You don't have good solid evidence of miracles. It's that simple. If all that you have is a religious book to say that these miracles were performed, then that's not evidence enough to give me any real confidence that it happened and therefore should not be accepted. If I accept such a claim without evidence, then I might as well accept the claim that Mohamed rode to the moon on a winged horse. That was also in a holy book and not justified by any real evidence. Should we accept that claim?

>You haven't read what I said. Again (this time with more cowbell): "What we do have is the existence of a Galilean Jew named Jesus who was born between 7 and 4 BC and died between AD 26-36. We have that he lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere, was called Christos in Greek, had a brother named James, and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and possibly Greek. It is believed even from non-Christian sources that he had both Jewish and Gentile followers, and that Jewish leaders held unfavorable opinions of him. There are two events (and only two) whose historicity is subject to 'almost universal assent': that he was baptized by John the Baptist and shortly afterwards was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate."
None of what you are saying there includes any supernatural events. Therefore, the miracles aren't justified by the evidence that you have. Therefore rationally we shouldn't accept the claims of miracles if you don't have real evidence. The Bible is no more evidence than the Qua'ran or the Vedas or the Bhagavad Gita. If all that you have to say that Jesus performed miracles is the Bible, then you don't have enough evidence to give any more confidence to that claim than that Mohamed rode to the moon on a winged horse.

>On the contrary, they should be accepted. There's nothing in science that says miracles are impossible. There's nothing in history that says miracles are impossible. If God truly exists, then miracles are certainly possible. The only reason to assert that "any claims about miracles should not be accepted" is if you have an a priori negative bias that forbids you from considering the possibility.
We don't accept a claim unless it can be shown that it isn't true. We only accept a claim if evidence can be presented to give us a high degree of confidence that it is true. Clearly, you don't have evidence enough to back up the claim of miracles, therefore those claims are not accepted. The Bible isn't evidence any more than the Qua'ran or Vedas or other holy texts of which there are many.

>There we go. Now we're talking. This is the same reasoning by which I assess that the Bible is true. Thank you.
It's not. I have solid evidence to back up the idea that the pterodactyls are no longer around. You can present evidence that there was once a Jesus, but not much evidence of any miracles. Therefore, the only claims that should be accepted are those that you can back up with real evidence. The ones that you can back up with real evidence doesn't include anything supernatural. We don't accept claims unless you can back it up with evidence. If we do otherwise, we'll accept the claim that Mohamed rode to the moon on a winged horse simply because it is claimed by the Qua'ran. The Bible isn't enough to justify a claim. It has to be backed up by actual evidence.

[jimwalton]

> If you don't have solid evidence to back up a claim we shouldn't accept your claim.

I ran into the corner of a table two days ago, and my leg hurts like crazy. But I have no evidence to back up my claim. Should I not be believed?

> You don't have good solid evidence of miracles. It's that simple.

Sure we do. It's not so simple at all. Craig Keener wrote a two-volume work on the good solid evidence of miracles. (https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1500771106&sr=1-1&keywords=Craig+keeners+miracles)

> None of what you are saying there includes any supernatural events.

You didn't ask for evidence of supernatural events. The only evidence we have of that is Jesus' resurrection, and there's reviewable evidence there.

[TrakeM]

>I ran into the corner of a table two days ago, and my leg hurts like crazy. But I have no evidence to back up my claim. Should I not be believed?
Billions of Muslims claim that Mohamed rode to the moon on a winged horse. Shouldn't they be believed? If we are going to be logical, your claims (especially those that are extraordinary) should only be believed if they are backed up by solid evidence.

>You didn't ask for evidence of supernatural events. The only evidence we have of that is Jesus' resurrection, and there's reviewable evidence there.
Somehow I doubt that you have evidence of Jesus' resurrection that would be enough for a consensus among historians or scientists of this claim. I'm sorry, but you're making extraordinary claims and trying to back it up with very thin evidence. Why is it that all of the Historians aren't regarding Jesus' resurrection as a historically verifiable event if the evidence is so grand? Do so many historians just hate the idea of a god? Are they in cahoots with the devil? Are they so biased against god that they can't take an objective look at the historical evidence and make an assessment just based on the historical evidence? Or maybe, just maybe, it's because the historical case for Jesus having risen from the dead isn't that strong.