Jesus and Miracles

[FallentoReason]

For those of you who believe that miracles are indistinguishable from natural processes (i.e. miracles can be *explained* naturally) I have a question for you:

What's the explanation of Jesus' resurrection?

A) He never died, but instead made it seem like he did, then "rose" again in 48 hours.

B) He actually died and *stayed* that way, but intellectual dissonance got the best of the disciples (i.e. there's an apparent contradiction in a pair of details, so the one that gets neglected is the one that would be the defeater of the belief the person wants to keep. This means that people might have been claiming to be Jesus and even though they didn't look like Jesus, the disciples brushed that detail aside and believed they really *were* the true Jesus because the disciples believed Jesus was definitely going to be resurrected.)


Seeing as though men don't come back from the grave (especially after the most brutal execution method of the era), what's the partial truth of this naturally explainable miracle? That he died or that he didn't?

[NoraBrimstone]

He probably never existed in the first place, but if he did, he'd definitely be dead by now.

Option B is the most likely out of the above, though. After all, the Bible does say that the resurrected looked nothing like the living Jesus. So unlike him, that none of them recognised him.

[FallentoReason]

He probably never existed in the first place, but if he did, he'd definitely be dead by now.

I'm undecided as to whether he was an historical figure. Usually I think the most modest stance is that he existed, but not much about him can actually be known.

Option B is the most likely out of the above, though. After all, the Bible does say that the resurrected looked nothing like the living Jesus. So unlike him, that none of them recognised him.

My thoughts exactly.

[Godscreated]

For those of you who believe that miracles are indistinguishable from natural processes (i.e. miracles can be *explained* naturally) I have a question for you:

What's the explanation of Jesus' resurrection?

A) He never died, but instead made it seem like he did, then "rose" again in 48 hours.

B) He actually died and *stayed* that way, but intellectual dissonance got the best of the disciples (i.e. there's an apparent contradiction in a pair of details, so the one that gets neglected is the one that would be the defeater of the belief the person wants to keep. This means that people might have been claiming to be Jesus and even though they didn't look like Jesus, the disciples brushed that detail aside and believed they really *were* the true Jesus because the disciples believed Jesus was definitely going to be resurrected.)


Seeing as though men don't come back from the grave (especially after the most brutal execution method of the era), what's the partial truth of this naturally explainable miracle? That he died or that he didn't?

Are we going to use the Bible as the evidence, since there is no other place to gather info, or is this a let's just make stuff up type of deal.

[Something completely different]

Are we going to use the Bible as the evidence, since there is no other place to gather info, or is this a let's just make stuff up type of deal.

How can you talk of the bible as evidence and acuse others of making stuff up?

---

In the same fucking sentence.

[Brian37]

For those of you who believe that miracles are indistinguishable from natural processes (i.e. miracles can be *explained* naturally) I have a question for you:

What's the explanation of Jesus' resurrection?

A) He never died, but instead made it seem like he did, then "rose" again in 48 hours.

B) He actually died and *stayed* that way, but intellectual dissonance got the best of the disciples (i.e. there's an apparent contradiction in a pair of details, so the one that gets neglected is the one that would be the defeater of the belief the person wants to keep. This means that people might have been claiming to be Jesus and even though they didn't look like Jesus, the disciples brushed that detail aside and believed they really *were* the true Jesus because the disciples believed Jesus was definitely going to be resurrected.)


Seeing as though men don't come back from the grave (especially after the most brutal execution method of the era), what's the partial truth of this naturally explainable miracle? That he died or that he didn't?

How about the simple explination.

It never happened.
People don't rise from the dead.
It is a myth people made up.

Doesn't that seem more likely than magic?

[fr0d0]

For those of you who believe that miracles are indistinguishable from natural processes (i.e. miracles can be *explained* naturally)

I didn't read past this epic fail.

[FallentoReason]

Are we going to use the Bible as the evidence, since there is no other place to gather info, or is this a let's just make stuff up type of deal.

I take it your answer is then A, which would be the more plausible out of the two.

Then again, you might believe in the traditional miracle where the supernatural violates nature.

---

It never happened.
People don't rise from the dead.
It is a myth people made up.

Your simple technique of just asserting -not p- isn't convincing to the theist. They'll just say p back. Might as well be yelling "YES"... "NO"... "YEEES".... "NOOO".

---

For those of you who believe that miracles are indistinguishable from natural processes (i.e. miracles can be *explained* naturally)

I didn't read past this epic fail.

Why not? I mean:

The supernatural never acts naturally. That's not what I'm saying. Supernatural events occur and have to be indistinguishable from natural events, or they couldn't be supernatural. If we can see a process outside nature, that process becomes nature.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-20349-po...#pid493082

That's twice now that you've contradicted yourself.

[fr0d0]

I think it's more than twice that you've managed to misunderstand FNM.

Supernatural events cannot be proved to be supernatural.

If they really are supernatural, you will always be able to doubt that they are. EVERYTHING could be explained away using a natural explanation, but that doesn't mean that you can know if it was natural or not.

We have no scientific evidence at all of anything ever having supernatural cause. That's how it should be. That's how it has to be.

That doesn't disprove the supernatural at all. Do you see?

[Minimalist]

The bible isn't evidence. The bible is the problem.

I go with Option C.

None of it ever happened. Simple horseshit.