(May 17, 2015 at 12:14 am)robvalue Wrote: You're very welcome, sleep well

Thank you for taking my point of view seriously, not a lot of theists do. And for your feedback about my site! I've designed it to be theist friendly as well as atheist, I hope I've succeeded.

Since Pyrrho has referenced David Hume, I thought you might like to know that a living scholar, philosopher William Lane Craig, deals with the subject of miracles and David Hume specifically in this published paper:

The Problem of Miracles:  A Historical and Philosophical Perspective
William Lane Craig
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-problem-of-miracles-a-historical-and-philosophical-perspective

Oh, fuck me! Now William Lane Craig? We have a Swedenborgian here who shows more interest in the Catholic intellectual tradition than you do. What do the neo-Scholastics have to say about Hume's arguments? That at least would be interesting. But Craig? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz . . .

I familiar with WLC. I'll say no more than that!

I can't read anything from your post. No links seem to work.

(May 17, 2015 at 1:00 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: Randy,

Here's the issue with your argument. It doesn't fucking matter. Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the NT is perfectly preserved in all points, exactly as the original authors intended. It proves nothing about the factual nature of what the text describes.

Let's suppose (for the sake of argument) that 2000 years from now, after a couple cataclysms, there are people worshiping our Lord and Savior, Harry Potter. They have copies of the Holy Septology, an account of the seven most important years of the life of Harry in detail as described by his most humble disciple J.K. Rowling. There has been heretical talk that the Holy Septology may be corrupt. Indeed, talk that it may even contain errors.

You are the guy trying to prove that they do indeed have true and accurate copies of the Holy Septology.

Whether the copies are faithful to the originals is absolutely irrelevant.

SOW-

On the one hand, you are right. Having an accurate copy of fairy tales doesn't make the case for Christianity. But having an accurate copy ABSOLUTELY silences the freshman-level argument that the Bible we have today is a corrupted text. This is a common Muslim argument, btw.

In order to make an airtight defense, I have to begin at the beginning and address each potential objection in turn.

Another argument against the NT is that it was written too late (ie, second century) to have been authored by eyewitnesses. I've addressed that, too.

So, thus far, I have only made two points:

1. The text of the modern NT is accurate.
2. The books of the NT were written early enough to have been the work of eyewitnesses or hearers of actual eyewitnesses.

I will be posting the next few points in the chain in the coming days, weeks and months.

Stay tuned.

---

(May 17, 2015 at 10:28 am)robvalue Wrote: I familiar with WLC. I'll say no more than that!

I can't read anything from your post. No links seem to work.

Try this:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-probl...erspective

(May 17, 2015 at 10:24 am)Randy Carson Wrote: The Problem of Miracles:  A Historical and Philosophical Perspective

William Lane Craig

You're seriously refering to William Lane Craig? The one with the mail order degree from a non accredited christian university? The one currently residing in a federal institution?

Figures, since, apart from your thread title, you constantly dodge historical facts or the historical approach. Probably because you haven't got a clue what history means from a scientific standpoint.

That is a lot of reading. If I'm getting it right, it seems to try and define miracles in a certain way, and then just say they are possible. But it's assuming "God" exists, or else they would not be possible. He can't do stuff if he doesn't exist. Sounds like more pre sup stuff to me, but please correct me if I've missed a step.

I've heard WLC try to prove God exists before and it's poor.

(May 17, 2015 at 10:40 am)abaris Wrote:

(May 17, 2015 at 10:24 am)Randy Carson Wrote: The Problem of Miracles:  A Historical and Philosophical Perspective

William Lane Craig

You're seriously refering to William Lane Craig? The one with the mail order degree from a non accredited christian university? The one currently residing in a federal institution?

Figures, since, apart from your thread title, you constantly dodge historical facts or the historical approach. Probably because you haven't got a clue what history means from a scientific standpoint.

Unless I missed something, Craig is not incarcerated.  You must be thinking of another professional panderer -- perhaps Hovind?  Unfortunately, Craig is still loose and debating anyone silly enough to give him the time of day.

(May 17, 2015 at 2:15 am)Nestor Wrote:

(May 17, 2015 at 12:01 am)Randy Carson Wrote: One more question though: Are supernatural things possible?

What exactly is a "supernatural thing"? A thing that operates without causes and wherefore constraints? Sure, that may be possible, but why call it supernatural? Why not simply allow, if we absolutely must, that some natural events occur due to spontaneous generation? And even then, no justification could ever be given without appeal to rigid experimentation that has exhausted all other possibilities, which from our standpoint, in a serious attempt to acquire knowledge into the unknown, must always exclude supernatural as a most implausible explanation. Aside from Hume's devastating critique of miracles, which Pyrrho already mentioned, interpretation of ill-defined or misunderstood phenomenon should always be mindful of Lucretius' wisdom that "ignorance of their causes constrain men to submit things to the empire of the gods, and to give over to the gods the kingdom of the universe," which obviously prevents real insight where it may be within reach. 

A thing which operates without causes may be possible.

That's a promising opening. It brings to mind the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Now, I am no philosopher, but you can read more about that from an expert on that argument here:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/in-defens...l-argument

Have you read any refutations of Hume? They are available and plentiful...

(May 17, 2015 at 10:45 am)robvalue Wrote: That is a lot of reading. If I'm getting it right, it seems to try and define miracles in a certain way, and then just say they are possible. But it's assuming "God" exists, or else they would not be possible. He can't do stuff if he doesn't exist. Sounds like more pre sup stuff to me, but please correct me if I've missed a step.

I've heard WLC try to prove God exists before and it's poor.

Yeah, Craig is a presuppositionalist.  It's intellectual salve for half-wits who fancy themselves thinkers.

(May 17, 2015 at 3:46 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(May 16, 2015 at 9:10 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Second century, eh? 


By AD 107, Ignatius of Antioch could already refer to the Christian Church as the Catholic Church and to the hierarchy of bishops, priests and deacons.

Beg pardon, but -- 107AD is the second century.

Just thought you'd like to know that ... since you clearly didn't.

Well, duh.

The whole REASON I referenced Ignatius is because only seven years after the turn of the century, he is referring to the Catholic Church and to bishops, priests and deacons. Obviously, these things were highly developed before midnight on December 31, 99.

NOW do you get it?