The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[robvalue]

Sure Of course, the first thing is to make a falsifiable claim. Otherwise, there is nothing to investigate. So just saying "this is a miracle" for example, is an unfalsifiable claim. I can't prove it wasn't partly the work of God. But neither can anyone prove it was, or even if it was possible it was; dead end. All they can do is the argument from ignorance, or else demonstrate some way they can actually know anything about the supernatural element. Nice Hume article, thanks

So I agree, unless there is a hole in my logic, any miracle claim (God was involved) is untestable and therefor worthless. No amount of evidence can make any difference until such time as the claim is falsifiable.

By "anything" I mean that I could be wrong about anything, even the above. I'm happy to discuss any section of my thoughts, assumptions and beliefs. So I'm open to being corrected on even my most basic logic if it is wrong. But that of course doesn't mean I just accept I am wrong because someone says so. They need to convince me.

Randy is reading up on my website, so I think he will appreciate the barriers to the supernatural as I see them. If he has a way to try and bridge this, I'll be interested.

I always prefer to say "I don't know" rather than come up with an answer I don't have confidence in. And by saying this, or saying I reject a claim, I'm not saying the claim is wrong.

Sure, we could start a topic on it, if you think there is more to discuss?