Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Rahul]

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?

Because they didn't have snopes.com to check to verify the shit?

Your statement doesn't make any sense. People used to believe in witches.

People used to believe horse tail hairs in puddles morphed into worms.

For a lot longer time period that humanity believed in solid science.

Yeah our species was ignorant as fuck for a long time. I don't see how that's evidence that we should continue to believe in retarded shit.

In spite of all the evidence in favor of Christ,

What evidence? I've looked. What evidence besides the bible even says he existed at all?

There's no contemporary evidence at all. There's nothing there. There are well respected ancient historians in his part of the world that spoke in detail about everything going on at that time. None of them mention Christ.

Roman records don't even see fit to mention him. And those guys were meticulous about written records.

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.

That's the disconnect. Don't take shit for granted. Justify your beliefs. That's all we would like you to do. Just justify it and not take it for granted.

Of all the 6 billion people alive today, how many have had a book written about them?

Well I haven't had near as many books written about me as Harry Potter.

Do you doubt the Trojan war?

Yeah, I kinda do. Especially the Trojan horse thing. Not sure about that. But I'm willing to hear more evidence.

Or is it only the ones that would change the way you live, i.e. your morality or lifestyle?

Why would believing in Jesus change the way I live or my lifestyle? I actually live a more socially accepted lifestyle now since I deconverted from Christianity than I lived back when I believed.

[Foxaèr]

Why is it that no one doubted Christ's existence for more than the first 1800 years?

They did. They just were not as vocal about it back then as they are now. Your statement is as absurd as those in which people claim gay people did not exist hundreds of years ago. Sure they did, but they were not out of the proverbial closet at the time.

Who says that a person has to have been written about to prove they existed?

Historians. Other people around the same time were written about, even statues were made to depict them and their existence. No such luck with Jesus, except in a fiction book. That is because he most likely did not exist as a real person.

[Zarith]

Delusions are a natural phenomena, not a supernatural phenomena.

And yet people posit supernatural explanations for these types of experiences. You seem quick to fall back on naturalism to prove your point when it is convenient, when in reality you have no basis to make claims like this.

Muhammad did not claim to be God.

Oh, OK, so if someone claims to be God then that is reason to take them seriously. Got it.

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.

Funny how you can't seem to direct that kind of reasoning back onto your own beliefs.

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.

Cool story. There was a point in my life where I thought I believed the same stuff you did. I examined the evidence, and found very little evidence for miracles, dead people coming back to life, talking snakes and shrubberies, global floods, manna from heaven, and that sort of thing; but mountains of evidence of phony religions and man's propensity to make shit up. Even you must agree with the existence of many false religions.

If I were to witness any of these miraculous-type of events today, I would have to seriously reconsider my beliefs. Show me the money?

[Ryantology]

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.

Why is it that no one doubted that weather was god-magic? Or that the earth was only 6000 years old? Myths persist when very few people are able to scrutinize them in depth. Most the Bible's claims could not be easily dismissed while science was not yet adequate to properly explain how the universe actually works. Oh, and let's not forget how the Christian churches of the world have long gone out of their way to dissuade critical examination of their myths through threats of violence and an afterlife in hell.

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.

Because, even the most credulous need something physical to justify believing in something obviously not in touch with reality, even if it's just words on paper. If nobody wrote down "God's" word, the god you worship would have faded into obscurity thousands of years ago and the Jesus myth would have never derived from it.

Of all the 6 billion people alive today, how many have had a book written about them?

Millions. Check the biography section of a library or bookstore. Anybody who achieves any sort of remarkable fame gets books written about them.

Not that this proves anything. Frodo Baggins had a book written about him, too, and there's every bit as much legitimate evidence that he is real.

Do you doubt the Trojan war? We have more proof that Jesus was alive than we do of that event.

People thought that Troy was mythical until people discovered the ruins of the city. You know, physical evidence.

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?

To some greater or lesser degree, all of them. The more evidence there is to support a cited historical event, the likelier it is I accept it, and there's always the possibility that future discoveries may disrupt what we currently believe to be true. That's what it's like when you're not willing to accept anything purely on the basis of faith. Not that I would change anything about myself if your God wasn't a myth. I would oppose your God if he was there to oppose.

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.

One who doesn't pretend that his religion is inherently violent and hateful?

[BettyG]

Delusions are a natural phenomena, not a supernatural phenomena.

And yet people posit supernatural explanations for these types of experiences. You seem quick to fall back on naturalism to prove your point when it is convenient, when in reality you have no basis to make claims like this.

Muhammad did not claim to be God.

Oh, OK, so if someone claims to be God then that is reason to take them seriously. Got it.

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.

Funny how you can't seem to direct that kind of reasoning back onto your own beliefs.

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.

Cool story. There was a point in my life where I thought I believed the same stuff you did. I examined the evidence, and found very little evidence for miracles, dead people coming back to life, talking snakes and shrubberies, global floods, manna from heaven, and that sort of thing; but mountains of evidence of phony religions and man's propensity to make shit up. Even you must agree with the existence of many false religions.

If I were to witness any of these miraculous-type of events today, I would have to seriously reconsider my beliefs. Show me the money?

Salem witch trials are a prime example of not following the rules of evidence, false accusations and lapses in due process. Sad as this was, society has learned a lot from these failures. Perhaps some of it was motivated by misunderstanding those who we would call insane. It is a lesson on what happens when the dignity of humans is ignored and free will runs amok.

Venetus A (Marcianus Graecus 454), the oldest copy of the Iliad, is in the Public Library of St. Mark, in Venice, Italy. It is a 645-page 10th century parchment book and is the primary basis for all modern editions of the the Iliad.
We have manuscripts of the New Testament dating from the Codex Vaticanus. It has been dated palaeographically to the 4th century AD. Remember, the original manuscripts were written on papyrus, which decays over time.
Thus, the oldest New Testament manuscript is 6 centuries older than the oldest Illiad manuscript. Yet you say you believe that the Trojan War happened? Have you read the Illiad? It has some very strange creatures in it that are a stretch of the imagination to believe are true. They are so strange, it makes me wonder what the author was smoking!

When someone claims to be God and backs it up with miracles, raising up dead people, and rising from the dead himself, it is believable. Archaeology has provided evidence that events in the Bible happened approximately when it says they happened instead of hundreds of years later.

It takes more faith to be an atheist than I can muster. You have to follow illogical philosophies and ignore the cause and effect relationship. You have to believe the illogical idea that science is the only way to know truth, etc.

I want to get back to the topic of this thread. I have shown that you can't rule out miracles are possible because Einstein relativity opens possibilities that were previously ruled out as breaking natural laws. I have shown why logic is a valid way of knowing truth and that science depends on logic.
The thing we have not discussed is cause and effect. That is, events have causes. Miracles are historic events. Ergo, Miracles have causes. If they were explained by natural laws, fraud, or lunacy, they would not be miracles. So what is the cause of miracles? The only variable when they happened was prayer for a miracle. So it is logical to assert that miracles are caused by prayer to God. Therefore, God causes miracles and, therefore, this proves God exists.

[Ryantology]

Salem witch trials are a prime example of not following the rules of evidence, false accusations and lapses in due process. Sad as this was, society has learned a lot from these failures. Perhaps some of it was motivated by misunderstanding those who we would call insane. It is a lesson on what happens when the dignity of humans is ignored and free will runs amok.

It's what happens when Christianity is used as the basis for secular law. It is disingenuous of you to attempt to suggest that the extremely religious aspect of the event was irrelevant. The Bible places no value on due process or the rules of evidence (the Bible considers itself evidence of its own truth), after all, but it does call for the killing of witches.

Thus, the oldest New Testament manuscript is 6 centuries older than the oldest Illiad manuscript. Yet you say you believe that the Trojan War happened?

There is evidence that the Trojan War happened, or at least, that what we think of as the Trojan War is based, however loosely, upon real events. What you never see is a person insist that it certainly happened exactly as Homer described it, because too many elements do not correlate with reality.

Have you read the Illiad? It has some very strange creatures in it that are a stretch of the imagination to believe are true. They are so strange, it makes me wonder what the author was smoking!

If you believe wholeheartedly in a book which has talking donkeys, snakes, and bushes, it is hypocritical of you to dismiss the Iliad as obvious fantasy for having equally outlandish elements.

When someone claims to be God and backs it up with miracles, raising up dead people, and rising from the dead himself, it is believable. Archaeology has provided evidence that events in the Bible happened approximately when it says they happened instead of hundreds of years later.

It may prove that some of the events the Bible depicts actually happened. It does not even begin to demonstrate that the Bible is absolutely correct about everything it says. Your book doesn't gain 100% credibility on account of being right 1% of the time.

It takes more faith to be an atheist than I can muster. You have to follow illogical philosophies and ignore the cause and effect relationship. You have to believe the illogical idea that science is the only way to know truth, etc.

It takes a vastly larger amount of faith to believe in a god who is silent and invisible and in no way distinguishable from pure fantasy.

The thing we have not discussed is cause and effect. That is, events have causes. Miracles are historic events. Ergo, Miracles have causes. If they were explained by natural laws, fraud, or lunacy, they would not be miracles. So what is the cause of miracles? The only variable when they happened was prayer for a miracle. So it is logical to assert that miracles are caused by prayer to God. Therefore, God causes miracles and, therefore, this proves God exists.

This relies on the assertion that a legitimate miracle has ever taken place. You have not established this as factual. Everything which follows from that assertion is bogus.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

It takes more faith to be an atheist than I can muster. You have to believe the illogical idea that science is the only way to know truth, etc.

I have shown why logic is a valid way of knowing truth and that science depends on logic.

Science is only true when it agrees with me!

[Minimalist]

I have shown why logic is a valid way of knowing truth and that science depends on logic.

Logic only works when it begins from a premise that is true. Something that religious assholes can never seem to grasp.

Demonstrate that your god exists, bozo. We want evidence not your silly opinion.

[BettyG]

I have shown why logic is a valid way of knowing truth and that science depends on logic.

Logic only works when it begins from a premise that is true. Something that religious assholes can never seem to grasp.

Demonstrate that your god exists, bozo. We want evidence not your silly opinion.

I did that when I showed that miracles have a cause that occurs from prayer to God. If there were no God, there would be no miracles for miracles are acts of God in time and space.
Very few events qualify to be called miracles; that is, they must stand up to intense scrutiny to eliminate all natural causes, fraud, and mental problems. Catholics require the event to be confirmed by non-believers to be beyond natural explanations before it is declared to be worthy of belief.
Miracles are not the only demonstration of God's existence. It is the pattern of facts that add up to make faith in God believable. Let's intelligently and politely discuss them one at a time.

[Foxaèr]

I did that when I showed that miracles have a cause that occurs from prayer to God. If there were no God, there would be no miracles for miracles are acts of God in time and space.

Something that is miraculous is simply something that is unexplainable. It is not automatically something ordained from god. Theists automatically illogically attribute anything unexplainable to god, and that is merely intellectual laziness.