Can't prove the supernatural God

[Pat Mustard]

Steve this is one of those areas where you continually fall flat on your face. You assert that those things actually happened, it is therefore up to you to prove that they did. There is no need for us to prove your assertions false, especially as is the case with miracles those assertions are about the truthfulness of extremely unfeasible events.

You would have the same problem with me asking you to prove the theory of gravity wrong as I have with your continuous efforts to get us to prove your assertions wrong.

I never asked anyone to prove my assertions false.

Yes you did. Read the portion of your post I quoted. It contains a direct question to prove miracles you assert false.

I have said over and over in this thread, exactly what you quoted above.

No you haven't. I've quoted you saying the exact opposite.

You have reasons to think the events of Jesus life did not happen...and those reasons, when examined closely, just seem to be the claim that supernatural events do not happen.

Correct. The rational explanation that miracles cannot happen because they are the result of an agent who exists outside reality is my position. Congratulations on finally getting that simple point through your thick skull.

Therefore the argument goes: supernatural events did not happen because supernatural events cannot happen. Tell me why that is not circular.

D'uh. Because what is supernatural is what exists outside nature, and nature is the sum total of reality. Therefore any claim outside nature can be safely ignored.

Your illustration of me proving theory of gravity wrong is disanalogous to a discussion on historical events. I happen to believe the events of Jesus' life are recorded accurately enough.

You happen to be wrong. The earliest version of the accepted bible wasn't created until the 4th century CE, and has gone through many changes up until at least the 20th century CE. It has been radically altered, for example the oldest version of the gospel the Markan document originally had no resurrection, the long ending with a resurrection only appearing in the 200s CE, when a preponderance of theologists were coming down as proto-orthodox, and therefore had a vested interest in showing that Yeshua was god and had resurrected bodily.

I am not typing them again, so you can look back even a page or two if you want to know what they are. Additionally, I find theories of "honest mistake" or "vast conspiracy" not having any real substance--seems like people just throwing stuff against the wall to see what might stick.

I know what you believe are arguments in favour of biblical truthfullness. Unfortunately they are at best bad arguments easily exposed as insufficient by large loopholes, special pleading, ignoring the available evidence and assuming that multiple writers are actually one person (there is significant evidence that four different people wrote all the Pauline texts in the bible, and sufficient evidence that more than one person wrote it. There is no evidence that any of the writers were actually Saul of Tarsus).