Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Zarith]

If you believe that empirical verifiability is the only way to know truth, why are you using logic to convince me that I am wrong? Ergo, you apparently do not totally hold empirical verifiability as an axiom. This whole thread is a logical debate, not a scientific experiment.
I love science. I work in medical research. I read lab experiments all day long. I just know its limits. The scientific method has to be logical and reasonable or the experiments won't prove anything other than the design of the experiment was wrong.

I haven't gotten around to discussing reasons why Christianity is logical. I am trying to stick to the topic.
I am also a skeptic that assumes that events have natural causes unless proven otherwise. When studying a miracle, I also rule out the possibility of fraud or lunacy. C.S. Lewis in his book, Mere Christianity, said that Jesus is either a liar, lunatic or Lord. He demonstrated why the Lord option was the most reasonable. He used to be an atheist until the evidence demonstrated otherwise. (I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt). You cannot assume Jesus was a liar or lunatic unless you examine the evidence.

One cannot be skeptical of everything. In addition to evidence and logic, you have to trust those who have the proper authority. If that were not true, then there would be not point in going to school or reading books. You seem to trust David Hume like a god. Can you see the flaws in his logic?

The consequences of sin are both here and hereafter. I have that insight on experience and good authority. If you were open to why Jesus is a good authority, I would explain it. However, I sense it would be wasted effort. So I'd like to continue discussing how we can know what is true. I believe it is through science, evidence, AND logic.

Supposing that the possibility of miracles cannot be ruled out, can you give good reasons for believing that they do in fact occur, and that the particular miracles you believe to have happened, did happen? The OP seems to make a hash out of special relativity and quantum mechanics in attempting to make a point that science cannot rule out this possibility, but why should anyone believe that any particular miraculous explanation merits belief?

[BettyG]

You are using a much narrower definition of reality than I am. There is more than what meets the eye.

There is certainly more than meets the eye. What you have to demonstrate the existence of the specific 'more' you seem certain exists.

As a Christian, you imply that you have exclusive access to the truth. Appealing to the unknown only serves to undermine the claim you're attempting to defend.

The evidence is outlined in books I have read: The Godless Delusion, I Don't have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, The Language of God, Mere Christianity, and The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Save me the trouble of typing all that and read the books. I dare you.

A thing cannot be both true and not true at the same time. I have been showing the flaws in Hume's and Descartes' logic. I supposed I will get around to Immanual Kant and the rest sooner or later, but I would prefer not to have to go there. It is all easily available in the books I listed above.
I have to call it a night for now.

[Zarith]

Whatever you say. You might consider cracking a math textbook first, and brushing up on probability, since you are confusing the chance for an event to occur, with the conditional probability that the event did occur given the observed state of the world and the other possible ways of making those same conditions appear.

[Ryantology]

The evidence is outlined in books I have read: The Godless Delusion, I Don't have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, The Language of God, Mere Christianity, and The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Save me the trouble of typing all that and read the books. I dare you.

These are testimonials, written by Christians to sell the Christian myth. They are of no use to me or this discussion.

[Silver]

These are testimonials, written by Christians to sell the Christian myth. They are of no use to me or this discussion.

One thing theists fail to realize is that personal Christian testimonial is not evidence of anything except religious bias. The personal testimony serves as little purpose as faith in proving anything remotely resembling the truth.

[Faith No More]

The reliability of the Bible is a whole different topic. Perhaps we can have a thread on that later. I don't have time for it right now. You all are keeping me occupied responding to this thread. So it has to be a lick and a promise for awhile.

Oh, my...

[Mister Agenda]

The biggest failure Christians have when trying to discern the validity of the resurrection is to take the eyewitness testimony as infallible. Take the C.S. Lewis quote in which he says that Jesus was either "Liar, lunatic, or lord." How about misquoted, misunderstood, or completely fabricated?

In the interest of alliteration, how about misquoted, misunderstood, or manufactured?

---

The evidence is outlined in books I have read: The Godless Delusion, I Don't have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, The Language of God, Mere Christianity, and The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Save me the trouble of typing all that and read the books. I dare you.

Tell you what. I'll read The Godless Delusion if you read The God Delusion. I've already read The Language of God and Mere Christianity (although its been awhile). Collins is a good scientist who doesn't let his religous beliefs interfere with his work, but it takes more than non-contradiction for something to exist. Lewis's 'false trilemma' has been exposed exlsewhere on this thread. My main complaint with books of Christians apologetics is that although they often purport to have reaching the nonChristian as their main goal, they read like their main goal is to reassure Christians that they're not being unreasonable.

A thing cannot be both true and not true at the same time. I have been showing the flaws in Hume's and Descartes' logic. I supposed I will get around to Immanual Kant and the rest sooner or later, but I would prefer not to have to go there. It is all easily available in the books I listed above.
I have to call it a night for now.

What thing do you think we think is true and not-true at the same time?

[Tonus]

That just reinforces my impression. How do we define that which we cannot even perceive?

Aren't you basing your questions on Rene Descartes' philosophy?

I am basing my question on the assumption that we can broaden the definition of "metaphysics" to include god(s). I am not sure how we get from claiming that love and math are immaterial to having this provide any sort of path to supernatural deities that take a direct hand in the shaping of the universe and a specific interest in us as individuals.

How do we define god? Is he just a concept, then? An emotional state?

[BettyG]

If you believe that empirical verifiability is the only way to know truth, why are you using logic to convince me that I am wrong? Ergo, you apparently do not totally hold empirical verifiability as an axiom. This whole thread is a logical debate, not a scientific experiment.
I love science. I work in medical research. I read lab experiments all day long. I just know its limits. The scientific method has to be logical and reasonable or the experiments won't prove anything other than the design of the experiment was wrong.

I haven't gotten around to discussing reasons why Christianity is logical. I am trying to stick to the topic.
I am also a skeptic that assumes that events have natural causes unless proven otherwise. When studying a miracle, I also rule out the possibility of fraud or lunacy. C.S. Lewis in his book, Mere Christianity, said that Jesus is either a liar, lunatic or Lord. He demonstrated why the Lord option was the most reasonable. He used to be an atheist until the evidence demonstrated otherwise. (I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt). You cannot assume Jesus was a liar or lunatic unless you examine the evidence.

One cannot be skeptical of everything. In addition to evidence and logic, you have to trust those who have the proper authority. If that were not true, then there would be not point in going to school or reading books. You seem to trust David Hume like a god. Can you see the flaws in his logic?

The consequences of sin are both here and hereafter. I have that insight on experience and good authority. If you were open to why Jesus is a good authority, I would explain it. However, I sense it would be wasted effort. So I'd like to continue discussing how we can know what is true. I believe it is through science, evidence, AND logic.

Supposing that the possibility of miracles cannot be ruled out, can you give good reasons for believing that they do in fact occur, and that the particular miracles you believe to have happened, did happen? The OP seems to make a hash out of special relativity and quantum mechanics in attempting to make a point that science cannot rule out this possibility, but why should anyone believe that any particular miraculous explanation merits belief?

Humans have developed the laws of evidence to convict criminals. We can know when fraud has been committed. We used logic to solve crimes. In the same way, we can know if a report of a miracle is fraud.

When something happens that is beyond human power, when there is no fraud in the history of the event, and delusional thinking has been ruled out, then there remains the question of how the event happened. Events have causes.
Jesus claimed to be God. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic or else he would be the Devil of Hell. If He was lying, He would be evil, because He was the cause of many people being martyrs. This excludes the possibility that Jesus was merely "a great moral teacher."

No one at the time of Jesus' resurrection denied that Jesus claimed to be God, that He lived or that the tomb was empty. No one, including the Jews or the Romans, denied that Jesus had died. No human can rise from the dead. Death is an unmistakable condition. Since the Roman centurion pierced the pericardium (evidenced by blood and water flowing out when He was pierced), there is no doubt Jesus was dead.

There were people who saw Him alive (1 Corinthians 15:3 "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.") It only takes one eye witness to convict a person of a crime. It would be impossible for over five hundred people to have the same delusion.
There was no good reason for these people to be martyred rather than deny Christ. Someone would have ratted on it to save their neck if it were a fraud.

If one reads the things Jesus said, I don't see how anyone could say He was a lunatic. His teaching has survived two thousand years. It has changed the course of history. No one who ever lived has been as influential as Jesus. The rantings of a lunatic, however, would not have had that effect.
There are numerous sources that attest that he really existed. No one said He was a legend until the 1800s. The people that believed that have been refuted on numerous counts.

I conclude that Jesus was who He said He was. His miracles attest to the fact that He is God.

[Silver]

I conclude that Jesus was who He said He was. His miracles attest to the fact that He is God.

Thank you for proving nothing except the time proven understanding that there is no definitive difference between Christian belief and rectal waste removal.

When you finally have some real evidence that Jesus was the divine son of god, please submit it so that you can receive the reward for having done something no one in the history of Christianity has ever been able to do.