Miracles are evidence there is no God(s)

[Clara Tea]

I'd go with 2 (and possibly occasionally 1).

Just so I'm clear: I don't think the claims are credible enough to accept as true; I just think that all the other miracle claims I've ever seen are less credible than this one.

I also think that if you can't demonstrate that your favourite miracle claim isn't at least as credible as the "milk miracle" - i.e. a claim we can probably both agree isn't well-supported enough to be believed - then I won't see any need to take your claim seriously.

Capillary action is well understood in physics, and that could account for the milk miracle.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Capillary action is well understood in physics, and that could account for the milk miracle.

And yet it's still better-supported than any other miracle claim I've ever come across.

 

[leroy]

That doesn't make it unlikely at all, since those are written claims from an unknown source, after the fact. The theft of a body, is a far more probable event than a supernatural event like resurrection, that's a given since we know one is possible, and have no objective evidence for the other.

The “theaf of the body” is an admission that the tomb was empty, so which one is it? Do you agree with the historicity of the empty tomb or not?

Because it's harder to write woman than man? Seriously?

Women where considered “bad and unreliable witnesses” so any fabrication about an empty tomb is likely to put men as the chief witnesses of the event

Yes that's just another bare claim, you can't evidence a bare claim with more bare claims.

Some definitions are required; what is the difference between “bare claim” and “evidence” (in the context of ancient history)?

If you are talking about history, by definition all we have are “claims” for example we “know that alexander the Grate was born in Macedon because a guy named Plutarch and a guy Named Arrian claim it……………..so should we accept these claims as evidence that Alexander was born in Macedon?

At what point does a claim becomes evidence?

Should we reject the claim that Alexander was born in Macedon, because all we have are “claims” from ancient biographers that lived long after Alexander died?

You're assuming the story happened as described, and wasn't simply fabricated later. You are also assuming the empty tomb requires a supernatural explanation, even though this violates Occam's razor, as there are much simpler explanations that require no assumptions that violate natural law.

Well we can establish as historical fact that Jews and Romans wanted to stop the early Christian movement.

And showing the body of Christ would have been a good idea to serve that purpose, the fact that the body was not exposed, strongly indicates that the tomb was empty.

You are also assuming the empty tomb requires a supernatural explanation

No, at this point I am simply establishing the historicity of the empty tomb. So do you accept that the tomb probably* was found empty?

 

[leroy]

You didn't address the central thesis of my post in rebuttal to yours, which is your principal responsibility in a discussion if there is to be any forward progress. You wrote

1 Jesus died
2 He was buried
3 The tomb was found empty
4 Peter and the disciples (and others) had experiences that they interested as having seed the risen Jesus
5 The best explanation for these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead
.

My point is that you will deny (or remain skeptical) about these claims without offering an alternative explanation for what could have happed.​

I addressed your points directly, but you didn't return the favor. I told you that I thought 1 and 2 were likely to be historically accurate, and that the report of an empty tomb had little meaning to me. I would need to know that it was Jesus' tomb, and if so, and a body was placed in it, that it wasn't later removed. All of that is much more likely than that a supernatural event occurred, since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there is nothing better than hearsay in support of that claim. I have no idea what experiences were being reported as having seen the living Jesus, but the same objection applies. We don't know these people, or what they saw or claimed to see. We don't know if they would lie to promote their faith as Luther suggested was appropriate, or if they are easily suggestible and actually saw nothing.

I contradicted your point 5 and addressed the next line by offering not just an alternative explanation, but reasons why it was also the most likely, as I have done again.

And what did you give me back? More questions about one word in the entire answer, legend. How about an actual discussion where we each acknowledge what the other has written, broken down into its major point and the various minor points provided to support it, and everywhere you disagree, please say so explicitly and also say why. If you won't do that, the discussion has already stalled and can make no further forward progress. The subject was one you wanted to discuss. It was one you solicited input on. I gave you that, and you went off an irrelevant tangent asking more questions about one word I used, the answers to which would be useless to this discussion.

I called the story of Jesus a legend because as I've noted, I consider it partly factual and partly fictional. It really doesn't matter which of those figures believed what they reported and which knew that they were "Luther-ing" it on the supernatural claims. What's the harm in lying if it's for the greater good, right? It could be either, I couldn't guess, and as I said, what they actually believed wouldn't matter either way.

*I* don't believe that they witnessed a resurrection, because I don't believe a resurrection occurred. Maybe, but the best evidence for that miraculous event actually occurring is hearsay, and there are much better and likelier explanations, which was a contradiction of your central point, was it not? Didn't you want to address that? You didn't.

So, If you wish to engage in a cooperative discussion, please show as much attention to my words as I do to yours, and address them as I have outlined - as I have addressed yours here. You now have two theses to rebut if you care to: the first about why a naturalistic explanation for the supernatural claims of resurrection is possible, and in my opinion, also likely, but possible is enough, as you seem to have ruled that out based on your belief in scripture. You may have ruled it out, but I have not, and I would appreciate a comment from you why you disagreed with my analysis if you did. This is what I mean by acknowledging that there are two of us participating, but only one of us acknowledging the other.

Let me summarize what somebody else has called the pyramid of disagreement. The highest form of disagreement is to address the central issue in the way I've described. Next is doing so with a part of the reply, while ignoring the rest of it including the central point. Next is simply disagreeing with no reason given, sometimes followed by words that don't rebut the rebuttal, sometimes simply, "That's not what I believe." The lowest forms don't even explicitly disagree, as was the case with your answer.

I offer these words constructively. I think if you take them to heart, you'll come out ahead for it, as will others you converse with. Ask yourself what's in it for the other guy?

You now have a second central thesis to respond to if you care to do so - the idea that a response to a post ought to be as I have suggested, that you haven't done that, and that it would be to our mutual benefit if you did. You can either address those points and explain which you agree with, which you don't, and why you disagree if you do.

So to sumerize your possition out of these claims:

1 Jesus died
2 He was buried
3 The tomb was found empty
4 Peter and the disciples (and others) had experiences that they interpreted as having seed the risen Jesus


5 The best explanation for these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead

Your main point of disagreement is that even if 1,2,3 and 4 where true, you still disagree with 5 and that “legend” would be the best explanation …………… is this a correct representation of your view?

 

[setarcos]

Hmm...Satan is God of this world (a false God), you say. Then why do people pray to God?

?? I'm not understanding the question? In order to understand why a person prays to God, first one needs to know the person and second the framework that the particular prayer is encompassed by which defines its use. I didn't say Satan is God of this world. The bible did. A false God is a being which feigns the powers and glory associated with a true God but is not itself a true God. It is a deceiver in that respect.