A simple challenge for atheists

[SteveII]

How do you prove a miracle happened? If an event can't be naturalistically explained, than either 1) it did not happen or 2) it did happen and would therefore be supernatural. In the absence of surviving physical evidence to examine, say a man born blind now sees--something not available to us 2000 years later, we are left with eyewitness testimony.

To save you all time, I know you are going to say some version of: the gospels were written 30-50 years later, my favorite crackpot historian that says Jesus never existed, it is fact that all of this was a big hoax. Yeah yeah yeah. Those are all opinions. There are plenty of modern secular historians who believe that Jesus existed.

Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285

Robert M. Price (an atheist) who denies the existence of Jesus agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 0830838686 page 61

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200

Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34

It is clear that the four authors of the gospels and Paul (who wrote even earlier) believed these events took place. They would have all known the major characters. So since you want to deny the content of the gospels really happened, you can't simply say they were mistaken--there are too many of them and the resulting historical chain of events have to be explained. So you are left with the conclusion that it was a big hoax. Frankly, that is harder to believe than believing in the events as they were told.

[FatAndFaithless]

How do you prove a miracle happened? If an event can't be naturalistically explained, than either 1) it did not happen or 2) it did happen and would therefore be supernatural. In the absence of surviving physical evidence to examine, say a man born blind now sees--something not available to us 2000 years later, we are left with eyewitness testimony.

But it's not eyewitness testimony. It's people decades later relaying what they claim people claim they saw.

To save you all time, I know you are going to say some version of: the gospels were written 30-50 years later, my favorite crackpot historian that says Jesus never existed, it is fact that all of this was a big hoax. Yeah yeah yeah. Those are all opinions. There are plenty of modern secular historians who believe that Jesus existed.

Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285

Robert M. Price (an atheist) who denies the existence of Jesus agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 0830838686 page 61

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200

Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34

It is clear that the four authors of the gospels and Paul (who wrote even earlier) believed these events took place. They would have all known the major characters. So since you want to deny the content of the gospels really happened, you can't simply say they were mistaken--there are too many of them and the resulting historical chain of events have to be explained. So you are left with the conclusion that it was a big hoax. Frankly, that is harder to believe than believing in the events as they were told.

Ugh, this shit again. There's a thread in which this kind of idea is dissected in excruciating detail.

Additionally, can you have one single post that doesn't contain or end in a massive argument from ignorance? "It just seems more likely to me that all the miracles and supernatural, untestable, unverifiable, unrepeatable, untouchable events actually happened as described, rather than the people who wrote about these events were simply wrong."


Are you serious?

[SteveII]

Ugh, this shit again. There's a thread in which this kind of idea is dissected in excruciating detail.

Additionally, can you have one single post that doesn't contain or end in a massive argument from ignorance? "It just seems more likely to me that all the miracles and supernatural, untestable, unverifiable, unrepeatable, untouchable events actually happened as described, rather than the people who wrote about these events were simply wrong."

Are you serious?

Yes. The gospels are evidence. The quality of the evidence is opinion. You cannot prove that these things didn't happen. I cannot prove that they did. You can't prove that miracles can't happen just like you can't prove there is no God. I can't prove that miracles happened and I can't prove there is a God. The only thing I can do is to defend that believing in God is not irrational.

[IATIA]

Yes. The gospels are evidence.

Evidence of what? It is, at best, our interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone else's perception of what they may or may not have seen and experienced. It is called hearsay and is not evidence by any stretch of the imagination.

[FatAndFaithless]

Yes. The gospels are evidence.

No, they're not, but thanks for playing. They aren't evidence for the events described within them any more than Harry Potter is evidence for magical train stations and talking goblins. The gospels are claims of what happened, not evidence. If you can't even see that, then discussion with you is about as useful as an asshole on an elbow.

The quality of the evidence is opinion.

Again, just plain fucking wrong. The 'quality' of any type of evidence is largely based on its level of corroboration.

You cannot prove that these things didn't happen.

You cannot prove that the events descirbed in the bhagavad gita didn't happen. That's a statement that is absolutely devoid of meaning.

I cannot prove that they did.

Then why the hell are you asserting that they did?

You can't prove that miracles can't happen just like you can't prove there is no God. I can't prove that miracles happened and I can't prove there is a God.

See above.

The only thing I can do is to defend that believing in God is not irrational.

Sorry, lacking evidence, reason, or any actual logical argument for believing in the existence of something is the very definition of irrationality.

[SteveII]

Yes. The gospels are evidence.

Evidence of what? It is, at best, our interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone else's perception of what they may or may not have seen and experienced. It is called hearsay and is not evidence by any stretch of the imagination.

The events described in the gospels and Acts are the best attested to set of individual events in ancient times. There are 4 sources (with supporting documentation from Paul) easily within a lifetime of eyewitnesses AND subsequent historical chain of events that support them.

[Crossless2.0]

To save you all time, I know you are going to say some version of: the gospels were written 30-50 years later, my favorite crackpot historian that says Jesus never existed, it is fact that all of this was a big hoax. Yeah yeah yeah. Those are all opinions. There are plenty of modern secular historians who believe that Jesus existed.

Jesus? Maybe. But Jesus Christ? Since your position hinges on Jesus Christ having existed, and since contemporary secular historians, by definition, don't believe in Jesus Christ, your appeal to authority falls flat.

You're not interested in a charismatic Rabbi who gained a following, died a shameful death, and became an object of evolving folk lore. You're interested in the alleged miracle-working God-man who was resurrected, etc. -- the 'Jesus' of the NT. Saying that we can't disprove the Bible's silly miracle stories and so have to grant the possibility that it's all true is just a weasel tactic you believers trot out to deflect the true burden of evidence. You don't hold yourself to that standard of willful idiocy when reading accounts of miracles outside your religious tradition (e.g., The Quran, The Gita, The Iliad), so why would you expect anyone here to make an exception in your case?

[FatAndFaithless]

The events described in the gospels and Acts are the best attested to set of individual events in ancient times. There are 4 sources (with supporting documentation from Paul) easily within a lifetime of eyewitnesses AND subsequent historical chain of events that support them.

Good lord that is one of the most incorrect and distressingly-stunted statements you could make. It's a shame that it's so widely believed by certain Christian sects.

[robvalue]

You're saying we should just believe miracles happened, since it's unfair to ask for evidence, as there isn't any.

No. No, no, no, no, no, *inhales* no. Yes! Wait, no.

You are free to believe whatever you like, but you can't expect sceptics to take you seriously if want us to just take what a crusty book says on face value.

Who am I even talking to anymore. Lurkers maybe. Hi lurkers!

[Esquilax]

The events described in the gospels and Acts are the best attested to set of individual events in ancient times. There are 4 sources (with supporting documentation from Paul) easily within a lifetime of eyewitnesses AND subsequent historical chain of events that support them.

I think you forgot a few inconvenient facts here, like how all the gospels were written anonymously, and none of them list any eyewitnesses that they were drawing their knowledge from. Or how the early church chopped and changed what counted as a canonical gospel over time.

Or how, quite simply, the gospels are the claim of what happened, not evidence for that claim. The claims of the gospels exist only in the gospel, there are no secondary historical texts that reference the pertinent divine claims of that book, therefore the book itself is the claim, and not evidence for itself. You can't say "the events depicted in this book are true, because the book says they're true!" Steve.