[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
Penatis,

Sec: "You have presented no Virgin Birth stories that predate that of Jesus."

You: "The mother of Heracles was a virgin at conception."

Two points.

1. How was she a virgin when she conceived if she conceived by having sex?

How do you KNOW Alcmene had sex? She had never slept with a man. She gave birth after an encounter with a god.

Layman: The miracle of Jesus' conception is not that Mary had sex with a divine figure and therefore conceived a divine figure. The miracle was that she conceived without any sexual act at all, with a divine figure or otherwise.

1. You certainly have every right to BELIEVE anything you wish. I certainly DO NOT have to BELIEVE that the birth narratives told by Matthew and Luke are anything but fabulous stories.

2. There is NOTHING more "miraculous" in one story than there is in the other, except in the minds of Christians. If Heracles had become the "savior of the world," then you would be arguing that his birth was more "miraculous."

Layman: 2. Even granting point 1, are you ignoring the difference between a virgin BIRTH and a virgin CONCEPTION?

Why must you assume that Zeus physically entered Alcmene? Maybe she just thought he did. Maybe his spirit entered her. Anyway, I don't see how one conception is superior to the other.

Layman: I thought SecWL made the difference quite clear.

I think both of you are ignoring the similarities.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SecWebLurker:
penatis:
No need to be "sorry." Until something is shown to be possible, it is reasonable to think it is impossible.

SecWebLurker: No, its not reasonable. Its ridiculous. We wouldn't be doing abiogenesis research if we thought it was IMPOSSIBLE for life to arise naturalistically would we? We wouldn't have tried to get to the moon if we thought it was IMPOSSIBLE, would we have? Columbus wouldn't have made the voyage if he thought it was impossible, would he have?

penatis: We are not trying to prove virgin births are we? We are not trying to prove that dreams are reality are we? We are not trying to prove that angels exist are we? You don't seem to understand the difference between science and religion/superstition.

SecWebLurker: We are searching out the possibility for that for which we have no evidence. No one assumes their impossibility because we have no evidence, contrary to your general belief that "Until something is shown to be possible, it is reasonable to think it is impossible."

You keep bringing up scientists and their endeavors. Perhaps you can explain why scientists are not attempting to demonstrate the existence of virgin births, angels, and holy spirits.


penati: Again, it is impossible until it is demonstrated that it is possible.

SecWebL: Only in the mind of penatis.

penatis: Hardly. I am logical. You are not.

SecWebLurker: Hahaha...right.

penatis: Thanks for agreeing.

SecWebLurker: I was laughing at you.

You believe in fairy tales, and you are laughing at me for not believing them? Wow!!! Far out, Dude!!

SecWebLurker: I wasn't agreeing. Quote a philospher or a textbook on logic that says something must be PROVEN before it is considered anything other than impossible.

Logically, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the BELIEVER, not the skeptic. I do not think virgin births are possible. You do. Prove they are!

SecWebLurker: No one had demonstrated that it was possible to get to the moon prior to the Apollo mission that made it. To claim that it was impossible before several major unsuccessful attempts would have just been idiotic.

penatis: You may characterize logical thinking as "idiotic" if you wish. That does nothing to change its correctness. Also, you continue to use a false analogy. You erroneously compare science with religion. They are mutually exclusive.

SecWebLurker: LOL@"You continue to compare science with religion"...Someone needs to see the Wizard about a brain...In ANY area -science, historical research, theology, etc., we NEVER *know* something is impossible because there is, as yet, no PROOF of it, unless of course we either a) make metaphysical assumptions or b) deem it "logically impossible", which means it entails some sort of logical contradiction.

penatis: Yes, someone needs to see "the Wizard" and find out what science thinks of virgin births and angels and dreams of virgin births and holy spirits.

SecWeb: Science itself doesn't have anything to say about any of these things, and plenty of scientists believe in their actual occurence.

There may be men/women who have been trained as scientists, but they are not believers of superstitious things as a result of scientific observation. They are just as superstitious as you are.

SecWebLurker: The most we can say is "This usually doesn't happen...".

penatis: WE CAN SAY THAT VIRGIN BIRTHS NEVER HAPPEN.

SecWebLurker: You can say it as an article of faith, but you have no evidence for this claim. All you know is that you "ain't ne'er seen one", but that isn't really evidence of anything.

I have never said "ain't ne'er seen one." That is a misrepresentation of my argument. I have repeatedly said there is no evidence demonstrating they exist. One more time, present evidence demonstrating the existence of virgin births. Logically, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

SecWebLurker: Even the laws of physics are just inductive generalizations. They are descriptive of what usually goes on. If you claim the laws of physics are absolute and can and will never be breached, you make a metaphysical assumption. You assume uniformity.

penatis: I have stated that virgin births, as related by Matthew and Luke, are impossible until someone demonstrates they are.

SecWebLurker: Yeah, we've been reading along.

Yeah, and you still presented no evidence.

SecWebLurker: You want to carve out some little niche for religion only and apply your rule of "I need proof or else its impossible", but you yourself write: "Until something is shown to be possible, it is reasonable to think it is impossible." Oh, SOMETHING? So this idiotic rule (that has nothing to do with logic) applies to more than JUST virgin births? Like aliens, Columbus' voyage, the moon-landing, abiogenesis research, etc.?

penatis: I don't want anything. Until virgin births and fairies are proven to exist, I say they do not. If you think they do, present evidence.

SecWeb: I've already given my reasons for accepting the VB. I don't feel any need to convince you of them. And since you think they are impossible, there's no point in discussing evidence.

Baloney! Just present evidence. CONVINCE me. Of course, if all you have are two fairy tales, then I don't find them convincing. Prove that virgin births take place. It is that simple.

SecWebLurker: No evidence can convince someone of that which they "know" to be impossible.

Whoa, wait a minute. I said they are impossible UNTIL they can be shown to be possible. Just present scientific evidence showing they are possible, then I will seriously consider the evidence.

SecWebLurker: So it is your poor logic that leads you to rule out evidence of the supernatural a priori.

Nope. I use good logic. You use superstition. I haven't ruled out anything. Just present evidence. I will look at it.

SecWebLurker: Either a VB is impossible or it isn't. Make up your mind.

I haven't made up my mind about anything. Just present evidence demonstrating the existence of virgin births. So far, you have not done so.

SecWebLurker: If its possible, then we can talk about evidence. If its impossible, then there cannot possibly be any evidence for it.

No, you have it backwards. I have continually stated that something is impossible UNTIL it can be demonstrated it is possible. For example, I think it is impossible for a man to eat a solid block of granite, the size of a house, in one gulp. I will continue to think this UNTIL I see evidence that it can be done.

SecWebL: I've dealt with all of this.

penatis: No, you have not. You have a couple of contradictory fairy tales as evidence. That is it.

SecWebLurker: Call it what you like. It doesn't bother me penatis.

penatis: I call it what it is. I am not here to bother you.

SecWebLurker: Well, I simply disagree with you. I guess we'll just go on restating our positions all year.

No problem here. I enjoy exposing fairy tales. BTW, I have lots of time.

SecWebLurker: By the same standards you call the virgin birth a fairy tale, your position that virgin births are impossible is equally a fairy tale.

penatis: I have told no fairy tales. Matthew and Luke have.

SecWebLurker [in penatis mode]: I submit that you have told the fairy tales.

[In the SecWebLurker mode]: I believe in fairy tales because I just want to. I don't have to present evidence and you can't make me.

SecWebLurker: And SETI is searching for fairty tales in outer-space.

penatis: Another virgin birth, as related by a dream and an angel?

SecWebLurker: Nope, extra-terrestrial intelligences, which by your criteria, are an impossibility (i.e. a "fairy tale"). You should give em a call...I wonder if they'd find your "logic" convincing...

I think extra-terrestrial intelligence is NOT an impossibility. There is a high probability that some type of intelligence is somewhere in the infinite universe. Of course this is a matter of science, not religion. For example, I consider fairies or demons or gods in outer space to be impossible. I seriously doubt that any scientific search will turn any up, but if scientists do find evidence of any or all of them, I will be the first to modify my views.

There is no evidence for other forms of intelligence in our universe. Does that mean that their existence is impossible? Huh, Mr. Logic?

penatis: Well, Mr. Superstitious, scientific endeavors are NOT superstitious endeavors, are they. Of course, you may think someone is attempting to demonstrate the exisence of fairies. I don't have any belief in them.

SecWeb: If that for which there is no evidence as yet, is IMPOSSIBLE, then searching for extra-terrestrials is a search for the IMPOSSIBLE.

Nope. See above.

SecWebLurker: And a belief in the IMPOSSIBLE is superstitious, isn't it? It doesn't matter who's believing it.

AGain, nope. There is a big difference between scientific probability and superstition.

Beliefs in gods, demons, angels, trolls, vampires, werewolves, fairies, hell, heaven, virgin births, holy spirits, etc. are of a superstitious character. I have no belief in any of them because there is no evidence demonstrating their existence. To my knowledge, there is not one single scientific search underway in 2001 to find any of these things. Maybe you know why.


SecWebLurker: It must...SETI must be wasting millions searching for a fairy tale.

penatis: If you think they are looking for fairies, then, yes, I think it is a waste of money.

SecWeb: By your criteria, they are.

Nope.

SecWebLurker: You have presented no Virgin Birth stories that predate that of Jesus.

penatis: Yes, I have. Go back and read the thread again. The mother of Heracles was a virgin at conception. Heracles was the product of Zeus and a human mother. The story predates the virgin birth myths of Matthew and Luke. The two Christian propagandists may have been influenced by the Greek myth.

SecWebLurker: Heracles is the product of physical sex between a god and a human. Hence, its not a virgin birth. Its a virgin having sex and getting pregnant.

penatis: You asked for evidence of a virgin birth story that predated the time of Jesus. I provided that. Only YOU fail to see the similarities in the stories.

SecWebLurker: A virgin birth is when there is NO SEX involved.

How do you know Zeus had sex with Alcmene. Were you there?

SecWebLurker: tic toc tic toc....penatis chomps away at my clock....

I have lots of time to discuss fairy tales like the virgin birth stories of Matthew and Luke. My clock keeps on a tickin'.

"Why must you assume that Zeus physically entered Alcmene? Maybe she just thought he did. Maybe his spirit entered her. Anyway, I don't see how one conception is superior to the other."

Umm. Since my understanding of the myth is that Zues impersonated her husband, "took" Alcmene by "deceit" and "lay with her all one night", I believe the only reasonable understanding of the myth is that Zues had sexual intercourse with her. Your objections to this reading are not only unreasonable, but indicate the extreme lengths to which you will go to "make" the connection between the two stories.

And you still can't avoid, even through such tortured logic as demonstrated above, that even if you demonstrated a virgin conception (which you most assuredly have not), that is not the same thing as a virgin birth. SWL's point stands.

SecWebLurker: We are searching out the possibility for that for which we have no evidence. No one assumes their impossibility because we have no evidence, contrary to your general belief that "Until something is shown to be possible, it is reasonable to think it is impossible."

penatis: You keep bringing up scientists and their endeavors. Perhaps you can explain why scientists are not attempting to demonstrate the existence of virgin births, angels, and holy spirits.

SecWebLurker: Because all of those involve elements that are not predictable - but either personal/transcendent agents, or events initiated by a personal being who transcends the universe.

penati: Again, it is impossible until it is demonstrated that it is possible.

SecWebL: Only in the mind of penatis.

penatis: Hardly. I am logical. You are not.

SecWebLurker: Hahaha...right.

penatis: Thanks for agreeing.

SecWebLurker: I was laughing at you.

penatis: You believe in fairy tales, and you are laughing at me for not believing them? Wow!!! Far out, Dude!!

SecWebLurker: I'm laughing at you because you have 'freethinkeritis'. You think you're using "logic" when you reject miracles, but you have no logical argument whatsoever that demonstrates their impossibility. You don't know what "logic" means.

SecWebLurker: I wasn't agreeing. Quote a philospher or a textbook on logic that says something must be PROVEN before it is considered anything other than impossible.

penatis: Logically, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the BELIEVER, not the skeptic. I do not think virgin births are possible. You do. Prove they are!

SecWebLurker: Sorry, I don't have to have PROOF to hold a belief. I've already discussed my reasons for believing in the VB. If you don't like them, I don't mind. I don't feel the need to convince you. As I've said fifty times now, my grievance is with your ridiculous assertion as concerns what is and isn't possible.

SecWebLurker: No one had demonstrated that it was possible to get to the moon prior to the Apollo mission that made it. To claim that it was impossible before several major unsuccessful attempts would have just been idiotic.

penatis: You may characterize logical thinking as "idiotic" if you wish. That does nothing to change its correctness. Also, you continue to use a false analogy. You erroneously compare science with religion. They are mutually exclusive.

SecWebLurker: LOL@"You continue to compare science with religion"...Someone needs to see the Wizard about a brain...In ANY area -science, historical research, theology, etc., we NEVER *know* something is impossible because there is, as yet, no PROOF of it, unless of course we either a) make metaphysical assumptions or b) deem it "logically impossible", which means it entails some sort of logical contradiction.

penatis: Yes, someone needs to see "the Wizard" and find out what science thinks of virgin births and angels and dreams of virgin births and holy spirits.

SecWeb: Science itself doesn't have anything to say about any of these things, and plenty of scientists believe in their actual occurence.

penatis: There may be men/women who have been trained as scientists, but they are not believers of superstitious things as a result of scientific observation. They are just as superstitious as you are.

SecWebLurker: Actually there are several physicists and astronomers who have done work or research on anthropic "fine-tuning" and concluded that it is evidence for divine design. Theoretical physicist Paul Davies was promoting atheism prior to such a "conversion" of thought.

SecWebLurker: The most we can say is "This usually doesn't happen...".

penatis: WE CAN SAY THAT VIRGIN BIRTHS NEVER HAPPEN.

SecWebLurker: You can say it as an article of faith, but you have no evidence for this claim. All you know is that you "ain't ne'er seen one", but that isn't really evidence of anything.

penatis: I have never said "ain't ne'er seen one." That is a misrepresentation of my argument. I have repeatedly said there is no evidence demonstrating they exist.

SecWebLurker: No, you have said they are IMPOSSIBLE, not just that there is no evidence for Virgin births. And the only evidence you have for their impossibility is "I ain't ne'er seen one".

SecWebLurker: One more time, present evidence demonstrating the existence of virgin births. Logically, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

penatis: Actually, the burden of proof is on you when you are claiming that something is "impossible". Provide an argument demonstrating the impossibility of virgin births.

SecWebLurker: Even the laws of physics are just inductive generalizations. They are descriptive of what usually goes on. If you claim the laws of physics are absolute and can and will never be breached, you make a metaphysical assumption. You assume uniformity.

penatis: I have stated that virgin births, as related by Matthew and Luke, are impossible until someone demonstrates they are.

SecWebLurker: Yeah, we've been reading along.

penatis: Yeah, and you still presented no evidence.

SecWebLurker: Nor have you. But you've made the claim that the VB is impossible.

SecWebLurker: You want to carve out some little niche for religion only and apply your rule of "I need proof or else its impossible", but you yourself write: "Until something is shown to be possible, it is reasonable to think it is impossible." Oh, SOMETHING? So this idiotic rule (that has nothing to do with logic) applies to more than JUST virgin births? Like aliens, Columbus' voyage, the moon-landing, abiogenesis research, etc.?

penatis: I don't want anything. Until virgin births and fairies are proven to exist, I say they do not. If you think they do, present evidence.

SecWeb: I've already given my reasons for accepting the VB. I don't feel any need to convince you of them. And since you think they are impossible, there's no point in discussing evidence.

penatis: Baloney! Just present evidence. CONVINCE me. Of course, if all you have are two fairy tales, then I don't find them convincing. Prove that virgin births take place. It is that simple.

SecWebLurker: Look, I don't want to convince you of anything. Personally, if you think that lack of evidence equals impossibility, then I think you're an idiot. I really don't care what you believe.

SecWebLurker: No evidence can convince someone of that which they "know" to be impossible.

penatis: Whoa, wait a minute. I said they are impossible UNTIL they can be shown to be possible.

SecWebLurker: And this would further demonstrate what a dope you are. Obviously, whatever the phenomena, it WASN'T *actually* impossible if someone finally showed evidence for it. If there's even a chance that something exists, and hence, evidence can be given for its existence, then it is NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

penatis: Just present scientific evidence showing they are possible, then I will seriously consider the evidence.

SecWebLurker: I only claimed possibility in the broadly logical sense (do you know what that means???? I explained it 7 times. It simply means that a God existing and causing a VB entails no inherent contradictions). You, on the other hand, claimed absolute impossibility. Let's see your argument.

SecWebLurker: So it is your poor logic that leads you to rule out evidence of the supernatural a priori.

penatis: Nope. I use good logic. You use superstition. I haven't ruled out anything. Just present evidence. I will look at it.

SecWebLurker: Where's your logical argument for the impossibility of the VB?

SecWebLurker: Either a VB is impossible or it isn't. Make up your mind.

penatis: I haven't made up my mind about anything. Just present evidence demonstrating the existence of virgin births. So far, you have not done so.

SecWebLurker: So you are admitting that you are open to the possibility of Virgin Births?

SecWebLurker: If its possible, then we can talk about evidence. If its impossible, then there cannot possibly be any evidence for it.

penatis: No, you have it backwards. I have continually stated that something is impossible UNTIL it can be demonstrated it is possible. For example, I think it is impossible for a man to eat a solid block of granite, the size of a house, in one gulp. I will continue to think this UNTIL I see evidence that it can be done.

SecWebLurker: Given what we know about nature thats impossible. But the VB isn't just a "given what we know about nature" scenario. The NT isn't claiming that the VB was a freak accident in nature, but that it is an act of God, who transcends nature. If there is nothing impossible about God existing, then there's nothing impossible about God causing a VB.

SecWebL: I've dealt with all of this.

penatis: No, you have not. You have a couple of contradictory fairy tales as evidence. That is it.

SecWebLurker: Call it what you like. It doesn't bother me penatis.

penatis: I call it what it is. I am not here to bother you.

SecWebLurker: Well, I simply disagree with you. I guess we'll just go on restating our positions all year.

penatis: No problem here. I enjoy exposing fairy tales. BTW, I have lots of time.

SecWebLurker: Do you enjoy exposing your poor understanding of logic as well?

SecWebLurker: By the same standards you call the virgin birth a fairy tale, your position that virgin births are impossible is equally a fairy tale.

penatis: I have told no fairy tales. Matthew and Luke have.

SecWebLurker [in penatis mode]: I submit that you have told the fairy tales.

[In the SecWebLurker mode]: I believe in fairy tales because I just want to. I don't have to present evidence and you can't make me.

SecWebLurker: And SETI is searching for fairty tales in outer-space.

penatis: Another virgin birth, as related by a dream and an angel?

SecWebLurker: Nope, extra-terrestrial intelligences, which by your criteria, are an impossibility (i.e. a "fairy tale"). You should give em a call...I wonder if they'd find your "logic" convincing...

penatis: I think extra-terrestrial intelligence is NOT an impossibility.

SecWebLurker: Want to show me EVIDENCE for extra-terrestrials then? Otherwise you believe in "fairy tales".

penatis: There is a high probability that some type of intelligence is somewhere in the infinite universe.

SecWebLurker: Let's see the evidence, let's see the calculations. Otherise - just fairy tales.

penatis: Of course this is a matter of science, not religion. For example, I consider fairies or demons or gods in outer space to be impossible. I seriously doubt that any scientific search will turn any up, but if scientists do find evidence of any or all of them, I will be the first to modify my views.

SecWebLurker: You believe in aliens, where's the evidence?

There is no evidence for other forms of intelligence in our universe. Does that mean that their existence is impossible? Huh, Mr. Logic?

penatis: Well, Mr. Superstitious, scientific endeavors are NOT superstitious endeavors, are they. Of course, you may think someone is attempting to demonstrate the exisence of fairies. I don't have any belief in them.

SecWeb: If that for which there is no evidence as yet, is IMPOSSIBLE, then searching for extra-terrestrials is a search for the IMPOSSIBLE.

penatis: Nope. See above.

SecWeblurker: Present evidence for extra-terrestrials.

SecWebLurker: And a belief in the IMPOSSIBLE is superstitious, isn't it? It doesn't matter who's believing it.

penatis: AGain, nope. There is a big difference between scientific probability and superstition.

SecWebLurker: Show me the evidence that makes aliens probable, Mr. Superstition.

SecWebLurker: Beliefs in gods, demons, angels, trolls, vampires, werewolves, fairies, hell, heaven, virgin births, holy spirits, etc. are of a superstitious character. I have no belief in any of them because there is no evidence demonstrating their existence. To my knowledge, there is not one single scientific search underway in 2001 to find any of these things. Maybe you know why.

SecWebLurker: But you have belief in aliens even though there is no evidence of their existence....Fairy tales....

SecWebLurker: It must...SETI must be wasting millions searching for a fairy tale.

penatis: If you think they are looking for fairies, then, yes, I think it is a waste of money.

SecWebLurker: They're looking for aliens, and there's no evidence for aliens, so they are on the same evidential ground as fairies.

SecWeb: By your criteria, they are.

penatis: Nope.

SecWebLurker: Yup.

SecWebLurker: You have presented no Virgin Birth stories that predate that of Jesus.

penatis: Yes, I have. Go back and read the thread again. The mother of Heracles was a virgin at conception. Heracles was the product of Zeus and a human mother. The story predates the virgin birth myths of Matthew and Luke. The two Christian propagandists may have been influenced by the Greek myth.

SecWebLurker: Heracles is the product of physical sex between a god and a human. Hence, its not a virgin birth. Its a virgin having sex and getting pregnant.

penatis: You asked for evidence of a virgin birth story that predated the time of Jesus. I provided that. Only YOU fail to see the similarities in the stories.

SecWebLurker: A virgin birth is when there is NO SEX involved.

penatis: How do you know Zeus had sex with Alcmene. Were you there?

SecWeb: How do you know he didn't? Were you there? I have no problem with remaining agnostic on whether or not he did. Of course, if we remain agnostic, we can't claim its evidence for a virgin birth.

tic toc tic toc....penatis chomps away at my clock....

SecWebLurker



[This message has been edited by SecWebLurker (edited March 02, 2001).]

1. Are you an historian or a Christian apologist with an agenda? If you want to discuss theology, why don't you discuss it with SecWebLurker? I am interested only in history.
2.Furthermore, how is one virgin birth myth superior to any other? Even if Zeus impregnated Alcmene with god-sperm, so what? Is that any LESS "miraculous" than Yahweh impregnating Miriam with "holy spirit" sperm?

Similarities:
Yahweh=god
Zeus=god

Miriam=virgin woman, engaged to Joseph
Alcmene=virgin woman of a pious nature, engaged to Amphitryon

Jesus=son of Yahweh, savior
Heracles=son of Zeus, savior


[This message has been edited by penatis (edited March 02, 2001).]

"1. Are you an historian or a Christian apologist with an agenda? If you want to discuss theology, why don't you discuss it with SecWebLurker? I am interested only in history."

Neither really. I am a Christian, a lawyer and a lay historian. I generally avoid theological discussion. I thought we were talking about demonastrating the source of the virgin birth accounts in Matthew and Luke. And I take it that you are conceding that the greek myth indicates a sexual relationship?

"2.Furthermore, how is one virgin birth myth superior to any other? Even if Zeus impregnated Alcmene with god-sperm, so what? Is that any LESS "miraculous" than Yahweh impregnating Miriam with "holy spirit" sperm?"

You still cling to the term "virgin birth," when the alleged Greek parrallel clearly wasn't even a virgin conception, much less a birth. Moreover, none of us every claimed that one story demonstrates a "superior" miracle to the other. We are pointing out that your distorted attempts to make this a strong parrallel are unfounded. Both stories could be completely wrong, but I find little reason to believe that the Matthean and Lukan accounts are simply rip offs of Hercules.

Furthermore, Zeus is depicted as having lots of other offspring -- meaning that his title of "Father Zeus" had been well-deserved :-)

The fundamental similarity here is divine impregnation; a god making a woman pregnant.

You continue to ignore the "Similarities" I presented. Why so? Is it because of Christian bias?

I didn't claim to be "neutral." I don't think anyone on this website is "neutral" on these issues. Most skeptics here have panic attacks about "opening" the door to the mere possibility of the existence of God. However, as I pointed out, I am not just an apologist, I am very interested in history. That being said, I am honest. I don't further arguments that I find unpersuasive.

Regardless, I'm not sure how this is relevant.

And I never said there weren't any similarities, I said I doubted that the Hercules story is the source for the virgin birth stories in Matthew and Luke. There certainly is no literary dependence, and I doubt there is inspirational dependence. As I said, this doesn't mean that they are true, just that they were not derived from that particular greek myth.

If it was created, or is a legend, I find it more likely that it was created to explain what the early Christians were convinced of: Jesus was the special and unique Son of God. However, I find the most likely explanation for THAT belief arising in the early Church was their firm conviction that Jesus performed miracles and was resurrected from the dead.

SecWebLurker: We are searching out the possibility for that for which we have no evidence. No one assumes their impossibility because we have no evidence, contrary to your general belief that "Until something is shown to be possible, it is reasonable to think it is impossible."
penatis: You keep bringing up scientists and their endeavors. Perhaps you can explain why scientists are not attempting to demonstrate the existence of virgin births, angels, and holy spirits.

SecWebLurker: Because all of those involve elements that are not predictable - but either personal/transcendent agents, or events initiated by a personal being who transcends the universe.

In other words, science does not investigate imaginary things such as "transcendent agents or events that transcend the universe."

penati: Again, it is impossible until it is demonstrated that it is possible.

SecWebL: Only in the mind of penatis.

penatis: Hardly. I am logical. You are not.

SecWebLurker: Hahaha...right.

penatis: Thanks for agreeing.

SecWebLurker: I was laughing at you.

penatis: You believe in fairy tales, and you are laughing at me for not believing them? Wow!!! Far out, Dude!!

SecWebLurker: I'm laughing at you because you have 'freethinkeritis'. You think you're using "logic" when you reject miracles, but you have no logical argument whatsoever that demonstrates their impossibility. You don't know what "logic" means.

It is perfectly logical to presume angels, virgin births, fairies, demons, trolls, gods, heaven, hell, etc. are nonexistent until evidence demonstrates the contrary.

SecWebLurker: I wasn't agreeing. Quote a philospher or a textbook on logic that says something must be PROVEN before it is considered anything other than impossible.

penatis: Logically, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the BELIEVER, not the skeptic. I do not think virgin births are possible. You do. Prove they are!

SecWebLurker: Sorry, I don't have to have PROOF to hold a belief.

Very true, but why do you believe in absurd things?

SecWebLurker: I've already discussed my reasons for believing in the VB. If you don't like them, I don't mind. I don't feel the need to convince you. As I've said fifty times now, my grievance is with your ridiculous assertion as concerns what is and isn't possible.

You have presented zero evidence demonstrating the existence of virgin births, and yet, you believe they occur. Why?

SecWebLurker: No one had demonstrated that it was possible to get to the moon prior to the Apollo mission that made it. To claim that it was impossible before several major unsuccessful attempts would have just been idiotic.

penatis: You may characterize logical thinking as "idiotic" if you wish. That does nothing to change its correctness. Also, you continue to use a false analogy. You erroneously compare science with religion. They are mutually exclusive.

SecWebLurker: LOL@"You continue to compare science with religion"...Someone needs to see the Wizard about a brain...In ANY area -science, historical research, theology, etc., we NEVER *know* something is impossible because there is, as yet, no PROOF of it, unless of course we either a) make metaphysical assumptions or b) deem it "logically impossible", which means it entails some sort of logical contradiction.

penatis: Yes, someone needs to see "the Wizard" and find out what science thinks of virgin births and angels and dreams of virgin births and holy spirits.

SecWeb: Science itself doesn't have anything to say about any of these things, and plenty of scientists believe in their actual occurence.

penatis: There may be men/women who have been trained as scientists, but they are not believers of superstitious things as a result of scientific observation. They are just as superstitious as you are.

SecWebLurker: Actually there are several physicists and astronomers who have done work or research on anthropic "fine-tuning" and concluded that it is evidence for divine design. Theoretical physicist Paul Davies was promoting atheism prior to such a "conversion" of thought.

You seem to believe everything you read. BTW, what does this have ot do with the virgin birth myths?

SecWebLurker: The most we can say is "This usually doesn't happen...".

penatis: WE CAN SAY THAT VIRGIN BIRTHS NEVER HAPPEN.

SecWebLurker: You can say it as an article of faith, but you have no evidence for this claim. All you know is that you "ain't ne'er seen one", but that isn't really evidence of anything.

penatis: I have never said "ain't ne'er seen one." That is a misrepresentation of my argument. I have repeatedly said there is no evidence demonstrating they exist.

SecWebLurker: No, you have said they are IMPOSSIBLE, not just that there is no evidence for Virgin births. And the only evidence you have for their impossibility is "I ain't ne'er seen one".

I suppose you get a giggle out of repeating "I ain't ne'er seen one" over and over, but I have never said it, nor do I think it. It is a misrepresentation of my argument. But, if it gives you a little giggle, keep repeating it.

You still have not given a reason for believing the fairy tales of Matthew and Luke. Nor, have you given any evidence demonstrating that virgin births occur.

I guess this can go on and on and on...