No verifiable evidence is the Christian position

[Undeceived]

Why not say that Jesus was a chemist and I'm god with heating powers? Explanatory power for the supernatural is out the window.

What about the lame walking and blind seeing? Suppose the supernatural exists. Wouldn't you be deceiving yourself to go on saying "It's not verified as supernatural"? We have to let the mind go where our senses cannot. Use reason. Or shall I call you “JustshortofReason”?

[FallentoReason]

Why not say that Jesus was a chemist and I'm god with heating powers? Explanatory power for the supernatural is out the window.

What about the lame walking and blind seeing?

Two instances of explainable events through natural means, according to fr0d0. So what? Where's the miracle?

Suppose the supernatural exists. Wouldn't you be deceiving yourself to go on saying "It's not verified as supernatural"? We have to let the mind go where our senses cannot. Use reason. Or shall I call you “JustshortofReason”?

It makes *perfect sense* to say it hasn't been verified as supernatural. To demonstrate just how logical it is to ask that question, I'll once again make this claim: I'm god because I can turn cold air into hot air. Isn't my claim begging the question? Yep. Then why wouldn't Jesus' actions also deserve the exact treatment? Special pleading my friend.

The difference between you and me is our presuppositions. You presuppose that Jesus was divine and I'm not. Well, we're both going on the same "evidence", yet I can't see how you rationally came to the conclusion that Jesus was divine but I'm not. Show me this magical bridge that led you to that conclusion.

[Undeceived]

It makes *perfect sense* to say it hasn't been verified as supernatural. To demonstrate just how logical it is to ask that question, I'll once again make this claim: I'm god because I can turn cold air into hot air. Isn't my claim begging the question? Yep. Then why wouldn't Jesus' actions also deserve the exact treatment? Special pleading my friend.

The difference between you and me is our presuppositions. You presuppose that Jesus was divine and I'm not. Well, we're both going on the same "evidence", yet I can't see how you rationally came to the conclusion that Jesus was divine but I'm not. Show me this magical bridge that led you to that conclusion.

I see you are holding a heater in your hand. I know it is possible to heat air using technology. I have never seen the lame walk or blind see instantly, without technology. So I believe that the lame cannot be made to walk or the blind to see, using natural methods. In other words, I use experience to form my premises. Do you form your premises differently?

[Lucanus]

This is actually a (badly) disguised argument from ignorance. The fact you cannot link something to your previous experience does not necessarily mean this something is supernatural or unexplicable or goddidit. It might mean that your experience is incomplete and that you need more study to explain that phenomenon.

Not to mention that all other religions have claimed miracles too, there are even accounts of "lame walking" and "blind seeing" at the temple of Apollo in Delphi. So should we deduce "from our experience" that Apollo is the author of such miracles? I don't think so.

[FallentoReason]

It makes *perfect sense* to say it hasn't been verified as supernatural. To demonstrate just how logical it is to ask that question, I'll once again make this claim: I'm god because I can turn cold air into hot air. Isn't my claim begging the question? Yep. Then why wouldn't Jesus' actions also deserve the exact treatment? Special pleading my friend.

The difference between you and me is our presuppositions. You presuppose that Jesus was divine and I'm not. Well, we're both going on the same "evidence", yet I can't see how you rationally came to the conclusion that Jesus was divine but I'm not. Show me this magical bridge that led you to that conclusion.

I see you are holding a heater in your hand. I know it is possible to heat air using technology. I have never seen the lame walk or blind see instantly, without technology. So I believe that the lame cannot be made to walk or the blind to see, using natural methods. In other words, I use experience to form my premises. Do you form your premises differently?

This isn't about me, but rather the theistic account of miracles, and your account seems to be in direct contradiction to that of fr0d0's. you claim that the lame walking *doesn't* have a natural explanation, so I would assume that water to wine also *doesn't* have a natural explanation (which is the exact opposite of what fr0d0 claims) i.e. we're directly witnessing something *supernatural*, something seperate from the natural, something *impossible*.

What's it going to be?

[fr0d0]

I never said that water to wine doesn't have a supernatural explanation. I said it #could# have. This is crucial to faith: that it cannot be verifiably known.

Miracles are extraordinary events that lend meaning and support purpose. A miracle without purpose is a magic trick (ie not a miracle).

[Lucanus]

But how is faith any different from gullibility then?

[Minimalist]

WE have a winner!!!!!

[FallentoReason]

I never said that water to wine doesn't have a supernatural explanation. I said it #could# have. This is crucial to faith: that it cannot be verifiably known.

We need to make a distinction here. I'm going to explain what I think your position is and you can tell me if it's correct.

Some event A could either have begun to happen because of natural *or* supernatural reasons. Two examples:

Naturally caused event: my heater turning cold air to hot air.
Supernaturally caused event: Jesus turning water to wine.

The agent responsible in each case is either natural or supernatural.

Now, for some event A, the explanation of how the event *plays out* could either have a natural or supernatural explanation. Again, our two examples:

Naturally explainable event: my heater uses electricity to combust a gas and thus heat up air.
Supernaturally "explainable" event: Jesus turned water to wine by means that escape the way in which nature works.

So, when you say that there *could* be a supernatural explanation, do you mean that it could be the case that the event *can't* be explained naturally at all? If so, then this sounds like a contradiction between that and saying "miracles are indistinguishable from natural events".

Miracles are extraordinary events that lend meaning and support purpose. A miracle without purpose is a magic trick (ie not a miracle).

Jesus was definitely into "purposeless magic tricks". In Matthew he makes a fig tree wither because it didn't have fruit on it. What's the moral of the story? Well, apart from the creator of the universe apparently not knowing how its creation functions, I have no idea. But I guess this is another topic altogether. Feel free to give your opinion, but I don't want to pursue that here.

[fr0d0]

" So, when you say that there *could* be a
supernatural explanation "

I didn't say that. I said there could be a natural explanation, thus ruling out the possibility of verifiable evidence, the faith buster.

ALL events must also be explainable naturally.

God could have directed you to turn on the heater. If it suited his purpose, if the butterfly effect lead to some change in future events.

Yeah the fig tree it's hugely significant. Jesus did nothing without meaning.