Some theological apologists seem to think that there can be no such thing as a science of historical events, because such events are universally unique. However, there is much mainstream science that is *exactly* that; has anyone ever used that argument to try to demonstrate that geology cannot be a science?

I'm not sure how geology could demonstrate an event like the resurrection.

Why is that? The question is perfectly suitable. Even one-time historical events leave behind testable evidence. Events have fingerprints, so to speak.

The Grand Canyon, the formation of the moon, the Revolutionary War - these are all one-time events in history. We can make testable, scientific statements about their nature and characteristics. Why wouldn't we be able to do that about other alleged events?


Nice dodge. But I also mentioned C14 reliability, which is not a scientific constant. Ditto for the age of the earth.

And the "one time event" fallacy is discussed above.

But, you have not demonstrated that the resurrection was a historical event. Need I remind you that one of your premises is out of order?

You have to demonstrate two things here:

1. that such event as a resurrection are even possible; and

2. that Jesus participated in such an event.

You can't get to #2, if you haven't proven #1.

You miss the point deliberately, sir.

The question was whether or not there could exist a science of historical events, if such events are unique.

Since there are so many unique events in geology, are you also arguing that geology cannot be a science? Because it contains (and relies upon) so many unique historical events?

Speaking of reminding. I am still waiting for you to prove that the scientific method itself proves that it is the only way to have
"any degree" of certainty about anything.

Again:

"And I think you are confusing the scientific method with the philosphical underpinnings of that method. Perhaps if you explained precisely what you mean by the scientific method, and then demonstrated how, step by step, it proves that it is the only way to
have "any degree" of certainty about anything, you could be more persuasive."

And the best way to prove that something is possible is to prove that it happened.

I have no need to bring these up because even if I articulated the 'evidence' for a certain figure I was trying to deify, they would probably be as easily refuted as your 'evidence' on the very first page.

Jesus's miracles don't matter. He may have been an extremely well trained magician who decieved many. He gained notoriety because of it.

But this is where Christians run into a wall.

Skeptics ask "well how do I know Jesus wasn't just another guy who knew how to speak and hoax miracles?"

Because of this question, Christians have had to 'invent' the resurrection as proof that he was no ordinary man. Now we find the true test. If Jesus did indeed survive death, where is he now? Why is he not walking the earth? And the Christians again have to make things up like "Oh, yeah, about that, well he is in heaven now with God and stuff."

People who want to believe, believe. Others who believe that the truth is sought and not given by the mouth of a man, continue on seeking. (laughing loudly as they walk away, I might add)

P.S.
I hope the last part about laughing makes you happy in your faith, when reading the Bible. I am aware of the many verses in Proverbs speaking of a fool saying there is no God.

I say a bigger fool adds to the collection plate when it is passed around on Sunday Morning. Have you ever had a really scrubby poor person come to your church saying: "I was out on the street, but pastors of your church picked me up and let me stay at their (lavish) house and fed me and gave me money that they said came from the church."?

I didn't think so. They just buy bigger Church buildings.

Oh, nothing is more absurd than an atheist accusing Christians of not caring about charity? Did atheists found the Salvation Army? The Red Cross? The YMCA? Teen Challenge? Compassion International? Hundreds and hundreds of hospitals in this country alone? The Harbor Light Mission? Countless innercity homeless shelters and youth centers?

My church supports a homeless shelter and a battered women's shelter. What does yours do?

No. You miss my point. I stated it earlier. What "scientific" evidence would you expect from an event like the resurrection?

The necessary prerequisite to historical evidence (#2 - that someone in history did an amazing deed) is to show that such deeds are even possible (#1).

If you can't clear #1, then your arguments about #2 are dead on arrival.

If there is a question as to the feasibility of your starting premise, then you need to clear that up first before moving on to your conclusion. And I think that everyone would agree that there is more than just a "minor question" as to your starting premise.

Not interested in your point. Only interestd inyour answer to Loren's question, which preceded your "point" anyhow.

So once more:

Can geology, a science with many unique one-time events, truly be a science?

Since there are so many unique events in geology, are you also arguing that geology cannot be a science? Because it contains (and relies upon) so many unique historical events?




[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 20, 2001).]