(April 11, 2018 at 7:42 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(April 11, 2018 at 9:34 am)SteveII Wrote: Why can't you connect the dots in many cases? Context seems to be very important. I have written this before (I think to you actually):
When discussing Jesus' miracles, the context that strengthens the probability that the cause was supernatural, might include:
1. Timing
2. Illustrating a particular point. Example Mat 9 Jesus told a man his sins were forgiven. When the religious leaders grumbled that this was blasphemy, he asked what was easier to say that your sins are forgiven or to tell him to get up an walk.
3. Reinforce teachings with some authority. Example feeding 5000, Matt 9:35
4. So that people might believe (specifically stated). Example Lazarus (John 11)
5. Reward for faith.
6. Theologically significant. example virgin birth, baptism, tearing of the veil in the temple, resurrection.
In the first place, you didn't understand what I wrote. I said that you cannot connect the effect up to any particular cause, and specifically that you can't connect these miracles up to God as the cause. If miracles have no causal story, as you seem to be implying, then you can't connect them up to anything. Perhaps Jesus was just a very powerful wizard? Or perhaps one of the disciples was the wizard, and was simply playing Jesus for a rube. Or perhaps these things just simply happened out of the blue, and the real miracle is that Jesus was able to predict when these uncaused events would occur, and used that ability to hitch his star to something higher? (I could make a mint if I could only predict when people's cancers were going to go into remission. Televangelists today play this very angle.) You don't know because by definition, the supernatural does not have an ordinary cause. You've severed any possible link between event and cause, because by definition, there isn't any link between the two that we can discern.
You are trying to force deductive reasoning (the conclusion is certain) into a place that only calls for inductive reasoning (the conclusion is probabilistic). All these possible scenarios become less likely the more data you have.
Quote:Beyond that, believing that the accounts in the bible happened as recorded is simply begging the question. People frequently mistake the order of events even right after something occurs, much less 20 or more years after the fact. And if events occur out of order, say the person was healed and then Jesus made his proclamation, it's a known fact that people tend to reorder things in their mind to make a coherent story; memory is more reconstruction, than recall. But it's irrelevant, as the point is that all the miracles in the bible, under your definition, simply become unexplained phenomenon. This robs the bible of any authority it might have had and opens up a whole range of alternate explanations for the claims about God made therein.
It has nothing to do with begging the question. I believe the accounts are generally accurate. I have additional current evidence (personal, personal knowledge of anecdotal evidence, etc.). I think some natural theology arguments make a point. A cumulative case is not question begging.
Regarding accuracy of memory, that theory only goes so far. It might be good for an event or two, but the more data you have from different sources, the more that is unlikely to the point of improbable. It is almost certainly true that the Christians of the period believed these things to be true. It is the only theory that fits all the facts.
