(June 28, 2018 at 6:08 pm)possibletarian Wrote:(June 28, 2018 at 4:01 pm)SteveII Wrote: Why would knowledge of the natural world preclude any belief in the supernatural?
It does not preclude belief in the supernatural, that is not in doubt, nor was it the question. We know people believe in the supernatural, the question is why.
Quote:What knowledge did the first century people lack about the natural world that would have made a difference in how the chronicled miracles were seen?
Yes I agree, why believe them though we can see clearly people believe them now, even though they themselves have not witnessed them?
Quote:They understood that lame was lame, leprosy was bad, dead was dead, and 5000 people eating 12 loaves and fishes had no naturalistic explanation.
That's what makes them seem so made up, just like all miracles.
Quote:Are you also aware that each miracle had context and a stated purpose that illustrated something. For example. Mark 2:1-12 showed he had the power to forgive sins.
Again, evidence that they were not real, but stories intended to make a point, or make people believe in someone.
Regarding all of your comments above:
-- We are wired to believe in the supernatural
-- To most people, a miracle, a story, listening to people's experiences with the supernatural is not considered impossible.
-- If it is possible, then context is examined.
For example, the Mark 2 story about the paralytic man. If I heard today that a paralytic man was healed out of the blue. I would say "perhaps". If it was related to me this story:
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? 10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all.
Quote:Quote:If you search for Indian guru's you will come across claims that these people carry out miracles along a similar theme, some of them still alive and with eye witness accounts many of whom are still alive. I assume you reject these miracles out of hand (please correct me if i'm wrong). Why not research some of them, and see if eye witness account is adequate for you to believe they can indeed do miracles.
If it's not adequate for you now despite the masses of people saying they see miracles, or whatever other supernatural events you care to describe from all religions and creeds, then why believe them in the bible ?
Steve repliedQuote:I googled Indian Guru Miracles. The first page of links is not promising. I am not chasing this rabbit for such a weak list of 'miracles' surrounded by controversy. If you want to pick one out to discuss, by all means...
Well of course they are not promising, that's because miracles likely do not really happen, and did not happen. They were made up events as part of a story and or delusion.
I did the same for christian miracles and found a similar weak list.
The question is though, why believe those chronicled in the bible ?
This is what happens when you believe a book is holy, it becomes the claim and evidence all rolled into one.
Why believe the Bible and not some random claim in remote parts of India? No context is provided that makes sense. If some context is offered, does it fit into a wider context that continues to make sense? and so on.
You don't believe the Bible is Holy therefore the content is true. You believe the content is true and the Bible becomes Holy.
The Bible and the claim are not the same thing. There is ample evidence that people believed the content for decades prior to the current books of the Bible being written. So, how can they be the same thing if one preceded the other?
