Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[littleendian]

If one reads the things Jesus said, I don't see how anyone could say He was a lunatic.

Lets see what the police would say when I go stand up somewhere on a hill in the center of Berlin and claim that I'm Gods son, that the German people are indeed God's chosen people and that I'm also the new chancellor of Germany (*).

I think they'd lock me up pretty quickly, and rightly so. Yes, I say Jesus was one among many lunatics of his time, with the difference that he found enough other lunatics to follow him to keep the entire crazyness rolling for two thousand years.

NEVERMORE.

(*) Basically today's equivalent of King of the Jews.

[downbeatplumb]

Is there any proof that Jesus existed at all?

Let alone that he was some sort of god on a gap year.

[Zarith]

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.

Your one 'eyewitness' is writing well after the fact, admits to having visions, and seems to be unaware of many important events in the gospel narrative. The rest is hearsay. If this were a courtroom, the accused would walk.

It would be impossible for over five hundred people to have the same delusion.

Weren't you just trying to prove that we can't rule out the possibility of supernatural phenomena?

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.

A Muslim would say the same things about Muhammad, and it's equally irrelevant in either case.

[BettyG]

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.

Said like a true disciple of Rene Descartes.

---

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.

Your one 'eyewitness' is writing well after the fact, admits to having visions, and seems to be unaware of many important events in the gospel narrative. The rest is hearsay. If this were a courtroom, the accused would walk.

It would be impossible for over five hundred people to have the same delusion.

Weren't you just trying to prove that we can't rule out the possibility of supernatural phenomena?

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.

A Muslim would say the same things about Muhammad, and it's equally irrelevant in either case.

Your skepticism reminds me of the story about a man who thought he was dead and that dead people bleed. So the doc got him to work at a funeral home. After seeing that dead people don't bleed, the doc poked him and blood came out. The man exclaimed, "See, I told you dead people bleed!"

If you are a committed disciple of skepticism, no amount of evidence will phase you. I have an open mind, so I have explored the evidence for Jesus.

Delusions are a natural phenomena, not a supernatural phenomena.

Muhammad did not claim to be God. It is a well known fact that Muhammad had his visions during epileptic spells. I think that would have an effect on his credibility. Neither would I be a disciple of a man who had a nine year old wife, along with some others. Also, it is inconsistent to say Islam is a religion of peace, yet promise 72 virgins to those who die in battle. He is not my kind of religious leader.

---

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.

Your one 'eyewitness' is writing well after the fact, admits to having visions, and seems to be unaware of many important events in the gospel narrative. The rest is hearsay. If this were a courtroom, the accused would walk.

It would be impossible for over five hundred people to have the same delusion.

Weren't you just trying to prove that we can't rule out the possibility of supernatural phenomena?

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.

A Muslim would say the same things about Muhammad, and it's equally irrelevant in either case.

The passage above was written about 55 AD. Paul was alive and there when the Resurrection occurred.

---

If one reads the things Jesus said, I don't see how anyone could say He was a lunatic.

Lets see what the police would say when I go stand up somewhere on a hill in the center of Berlin and claim that I'm Gods son, that the German people are indeed God's chosen people and that I'm also the new chancellor of Germany (*).

I think they'd lock me up pretty quickly, and rightly so. Yes, I say Jesus was one among many lunatics of his time, with the difference that he found enough other lunatics to follow him to keep the entire crazyness rolling for two thousand years.

NEVERMORE.

(*) Basically today's equivalent of King of the Jews.

Have you performed miracles? Were there 500 eyewitnesses when you rose from the dead? Were there prophesies for more than a 1000 years about all the details of your life? Jesus did not come for political power either. I would not describe his teaching as crazy because I am enjoying the benefits of being his disciple.

---

Is there any proof that Jesus existed at all?

Let alone that he was some sort of god on a gap year.

Read your history books. No one suggested such a ridiculous thing until the last century. There are both Roman and Jewish ancient sources that talk about Jesus.

---

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.

They are logical presentations of the facts, not subjective witness stories or opinions. You can ignore the facts, but not the consequences. Truth is truth, whether you agree with it or not.

[Ryantology]

Have you performed miracles? Were there 500 eyewitnesses when you rose from the dead? Were there prophesies for more than a 1000 years about all the details of your life? Jesus did not come for political power either. I would not describe his teaching as crazy because I am enjoying the benefits of being his disciple.

I don't trust most eyewitness accounts from last week, let alone 20 centuries ago. I'll be impressed by a prophecy when concrete, detailed, plainly-written, precisely-timed predictions come true to the minute. Vague nonsense in the bible doesn't interest or impress me, and does nothing to suggest inspiration from an all-knowing God, who must certainly be capable of better.

[downbeatplumb]

Is there any proof that Jesus existed at all?

Let alone that he was some sort of god on a gap year.

Read your history books. No one suggested such a ridiculous thing until the last century. There are both Roman and Jewish ancient sources that talk about Jesus.

Debunked I'm afraid.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/s...ojfaq.html

[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?

You'll have to investigate them yourself because you will shoot down any evidence I present. Check out The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict., pages 358-361, 661-671. It is too much to type in a forum like this. If you refuse to read the evidence, I must conclude that you are just playing games with me.

[Minimalist]

Ho-hum... the catholic miracle generator swings into full production mode!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013...t=1&f=1001

Second Reported Miracle Paves Way For Pope John Paul's Sainthood

I wonder why it is that they don't count the number of altar boys who suddenly developed size fifteen assholes thanks to the pervert priests that JP2 allowed to run roughshod?

That would probably cut down on the collections, I guess?

[Rahul]

I wonder why it is that they don't count the number of altar boys who suddenly developed size fifteen assholes thanks to the pervert priests that JP2 allowed to run roughshod?

[BettyG]

Read your history books. No one suggested such a ridiculous thing until the last century. There are both Roman and Jewish ancient sources that talk about Jesus.

Debunked I'm afraid.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/s...ojfaq.html

It boils down to my list of authorities versus yours. Why is it that no one doubted Christ's existence for more than the first 1800 years? The weight of history is against your side.
In spite of all the evidence in favor of Christ, I don't think it is absolutely necessary that anyone wrote about Him. Who says that a person has to have been written about to prove they existed? I would assume that it was so taken for granted that no one ever thought that some 1800-2000 years later that documentation would be needed by skeptics like you. Of all the 6 billion people alive today, how many have had a book written about them?
Do you doubt the Trojan war? We have more proof that Jesus was alive than we do of that event. What other historical events do you doubt? Or is it only the ones that would change the way you live, i.e. your morality or lifestyle?