Why science and religious fatih need not be in conflict: It's as easy as 1-2-3!

[Simon Moon]

I do not necessarily state the miracles are impossible, only unsupported by evidence...And when told by theists that miracles can't be tested scientifically, all I can do is wonder, why I should accept them as being true?

You are right they are not tested scientifically, precisely because naturalism, even methodological kind, deliberately rules out attributing any effect to any type of cause other than material or efficient causes. You are also ruling out particular purported miracles just because they happened in the past. It is a matter of historical record, the Emanuel Swedenborg accurately described the timing and exact timing of a fire in Stockholm even though he was in Gotenburg, hundreds of miles away at the time making it otherwise impossible to know those things. To me that is certainly uncanny and by the common definitions of AF qualifies as a documented miracle.

Of course, using methodological naturalism, a supernatural cause for an alleged miracle could not be verified. But here's the real problem, there has never been a confirmed supernatural event, that has no possible natural explanations.

Your bar is very low if you do not consider there being any possible natural explanations for the Swedenborg fire predictions.

Swedenborg also claimed to communicate with spirits on the moon, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, Saturn, Venus. What a coincidence that the only planets he was able to communicate with spirits, were the only planets known at the time. If only he could have hung on another 9 years, then he would have been able to add Herschel's discovery of Uranus to his list.

Sorry, but ancient scriptural accounts of a bunch of prescientific, superstitious people, is hardly good evidence for miracles. Especially considering the amount of time that passed between the alleged events, and the time they were recorded, by anonymous non-eyewitnesses. The texts that contain the stories, purporting to be historical testimony, is a bit circular. Again, hardly good evidence.

That is your opinion, most likely based on scholarly sources you trust. It is most certainly a minority opinion, but it would be futile attempting to dissuade you using research I find more trustworthy. The question for both of us, is whether or not we believe those sources only because we like their conclusions.

That may be true, but there are specific clues in each Gospels pointing to their not being written by eyewitnesses. And I believe the majority of scholars are on the side of them not being eyewitnesses. My cousin graduated from Harvard divinity school, and that is what is taught there, and he's still a believer.

I can interview 1000's of people still living, that purport to have been abducted by aliens. Should I believe them? Do you?

The UFO phenomena is undoubtedly real. What exactly it means I haven't a clue.

I believe you missed the point I was making.

First of all, you need to explain what you mean by "undoubtedly real". If you mean, the witnesses sincerely believe they had an experience, then yes, it is real that they had an experience.

The question I asked though, is do you believe they were accurately abducted by aliens? If you don't like the alien abduction scenario, what about all the sincere believers in Bigfoot or Chupacabra who claim to have witnessed them? Do you believe they ACTUALLY saw a real Bigfoot or Chupacabra? Again, I am not saying they are lying, only that they are misinterpreting what they witnessed.

What I am leading at, is why when an extraordinary claim of events are written on little pieces of parchment decades after the alleged events, almost 2000 years ago, they become more credible, than people actually still alive that witness some other extraordinary event?

---

That is your opinion, most likely based on scholarly sources you trust. It is most certainly a minority opinion, but it would be futile attempting to dissuade you using research I find more trustworthy. The question for both of us, is whether or not we believe those sources only because we like their conclusions.

N.T Wright (leading British New Testament scholar, Pauline theologian, and retired Anglican bishop) - “I don’t know who the Gospel writers were and nor does anyone else.”

“The argument of this book [Jesus and the Eyewitnesses]–that the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus–runs counter to almost all recent scholarship. As we have indicated from time to time, the prevalent view is that a long period of oral transmission in the churches intervened between whatever the eyewitnesses said and the Jesus traditions as they reached the Evangelists [the authors of the Gospels]. No doubt the eyewitnesses started the process of oral tradition, but it passed through many retellings, reformulations, and expansions before the Evangelists themselves did their own editorial work on it.”

Not sure how it could be the minority of scholars, when a leading mainstream scholar (and hardly on the fringe, and a Christian) states that it is the prevalent view.