(April 17, 2017 at 3:56 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(April 17, 2017 at 12:35 pm)Harry Nevis Wrote: You don't know what a skeptic is. Or, since you can't produce any objective, testable evidence for your beliefs, you twist the definition to make you seem open minded. Since a miracle has never been proven to occur)or even passed the first phase of inquiry), and many so-called miracles have been shown to be false/faked, there is no reason to believe they happen anywhere but in the mind. If one can be proven, then I'll change my mind.
Historical events cannot be replicated and therefore cannot be made testable. It is true that no miracle has been proven to the satisfaction of all people. That is to be expected. I cannot think of any idea so crazy that no one believes it nor any idea so incontrovertible that someone somewhere won't doubt it. The various items presented by Christians as evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ may not be sufficient for you to move from skepticism to belief. I accept your incredulity without attributing your skepticism to stubbornness or willful ignorance.
Faith is not something people reason to; but rather, something they reason from. That does not make faith unreasonable. Often upon being presented with the Gospel message and various testimonies from contemporaries and historical sources, the Holy Spirit prompts some people to faith that its message is true and relevant to their lives. If is does, their faith is justifiable. If after coming to faith, they weigh the various objections, are of sound mind, and have made a reasonable effort to determine the truth, yet still find the possible defeaters unconvincing, then their faith is warranted. That is where I stand. I heard the Gospel. The Holy Spirit moved me to assurance. I considered the objections. No compelling defeaters have come to my attention. And what I have since learned seems to reinforce the truth of the Gospel.
YMMV.
Still not understanding there is a huge difference between making claims, passing those claims down through generations, and the claims themselves being factual, either historically accurate or scientifically accurate.
The ancient Egyptians are a provable society that existed, the pharaohs existed, we can prove they existed. So by your logic you should believe in all their gods and fantastic claims.
They Mayans also had a provable history, we know they existed, and again, by your logic you should believe all their fantastic claims and you should believe in all their gods.
Other religions including Buddhists and Hindus and Jews all have histories too. That does not make any club true, or any god real, it merely means those societies passed down to the next generation the claims of their parents.
There is no such thing as a magic baby being born with super powers without a second set of DNA just like you accept that the Egyptian god Horus was not a man with a falcon head. Now if you stupidly believe the ancient Egyptians back then didn't literally believe in a man/god with a falcon head, you are a fool. They believed in those gods as literally as you believe in yours, and they depict unscientific fantastic claims just like the Jesus myth makes claims of being born of a virgin, poofing water into wine. FYI the Jesus curing blindness story is not the first cure of blindness story. The Egyptian healing god Thot spit in the eye of Horus to cure his blindness. Next time you pass an "Rx" pharmacy symbol remember that because it stems from the ancient story of the Egyptians.
If you want a baby, you need two sets of DNA. If you want wine, you need grapes and it is a long process not something anyone can "poof" out of nothing. If you want fix your eyes you go to an eye doctor with a MEDICAL DEGREE.
