Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Mister Agenda]

The biggest failure Christians have when trying to discern the validity of the resurrection is to take the eyewitness testimony as infallible. Take the C.S. Lewis quote in which he says that Jesus was either "Liar, lunatic, or lord." How about misquoted, misunderstood, or completely fabricated?

In the interest of alliteration, how about misquoted, misunderstood, or manufactured?

---

The evidence is outlined in books I have read: The Godless Delusion, I Don't have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, The Language of God, Mere Christianity, and The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Save me the trouble of typing all that and read the books. I dare you.

Tell you what. I'll read The Godless Delusion if you read The God Delusion. I've already read The Language of God and Mere Christianity (although its been awhile). Collins is a good scientist who doesn't let his religous beliefs interfere with his work, but it takes more than non-contradiction for something to exist. Lewis's 'false trilemma' has been exposed exlsewhere on this thread. My main complaint with books of Christians apologetics is that although they often purport to have reaching the nonChristian as their main goal, they read like their main goal is to reassure Christians that they're not being unreasonable.

A thing cannot be both true and not true at the same time. I have been showing the flaws in Hume's and Descartes' logic. I supposed I will get around to Immanual Kant and the rest sooner or later, but I would prefer not to have to go there. It is all easily available in the books I listed above.
I have to call it a night for now.

What thing do you think we think is true and not-true at the same time?