cognac

Google Bayes's Theorum as applied to miracles, or read an understandable application from Blackburn's "Think." It's searchable on Amazon.

Diogenes the Cynic

Coming up with the evidence is your problem, not ours. You're the one who wants to convince others to believe this stuff. It sounds like you're admitting you can't come up with any reason why we should.
Well I think you'll agree that it's ancient. Whether it's "scribblings" is a matter of subjectivity. It's an opinion. there isn't any sense in asking someone to prove their opinion is their opinion.

Patriot7

Smoke and mirrors my friend. Smoke and mirrors is all this is. I assure you I work with people all day who are most likely so much better at emitting smoke screens to cover claims they cannot prove that you would be well advised to simply answer direct questions.

You are not using the empirical method. If you were your argument would take the form of something like this.....

1. Jesus wasn't raised from the dead. (This is your claim and then it would be followed by an argument in support of your claim)
2. Because the body is still in the tomb. (reference to empirical evidence)
3. Then you could buttress your conclusion with references to "the consensus of scholars" to give your opinion credibility.

So far your argument is from the consensus. Or that the claims of the gospels are categorically impossible. Neither approaches uses the empirical method.

Patriot7

Are you saying that truth is merely subjective opinion?

Diogenes the Cynic

No, I'm saying the question of whether the NT is "scribbles" is a subjective opinion.

buckshot23

You hear that physicists? Stop researching.
Wikepedia is an authority? Anyways it says it is presumed that they will not change.
I cannot exclude any possibilities. Personally I do not think they do exist but I cannot state so with absolute certainty.
I am not trying to establish that anything is possible or impossible so how can I be using a tautology? I am asking you how you can be 100% certain that a certain event is impossible? You do not know that pink unicorns do not exist and shouldn't use dogmatic absolute language in describing them.
You have complete knowledge of the laws of physics I suppose. Not the "known" laws but the complete laws of physics.
The term "laws" is a human invention and can change.
Afraid not. You cannot establish that there will never be another discovery that changes our fundemental understanding of how particles interact.
So for every event in the history of the universe there was a first time for it's occurence up until that point it was impossible because it was never observed up until that time.
By human definition, which could change with new discoveries.
By human definition based upon an incomplete knowledge.
Of course they do. You are not a computer without bias. Somethings are not knowable with 100% accuracy and yet you use language that seems to hint toward that knowledge. We are all biased.
You have so. I am running short on time so I cannot quote you properly but when you say that Matthew did not write the gospel with his name you left no room for any doubt. The gospel was written by a person or persons and you have subjective evidence which you think indicates that Matthew did not write it. Then you state categorically that matthew was not the author.
It is your absolutist language which argues against you. You talk as if you were there watching the original document being written.

All you have is subjective opinion, period.

Patriot7

You're miscasting my position here. I won't accuse you of outright dishonesty, as I think this is our point of contention. Lying and a difference of view with regards to the facts are clearly two different categories.

The evidence already exists DTC. Even the "consensus of modern scholars" agrees that the NT manuscripts are authentic ancient documents. Can you muster an argument using other ancient literature that gives a different account of Christ's life that you believe is true?

Diogenes the Cynic

It certainly is.
You should take your own advice.
You're wrong from the start. The first claim is YOUR claim that Jesus DID rise from the dead. You now have the burden to prove it. Good luck.
What tomb? Prove there was a tomb. Prove there was a BODY.
I've made no argument from consensus and I'll ask you once more to quit misrepresenting what other posters have said.

Assuming that the laws of physics cannot be violated is part and parcel of empirical method. You should really try to Google the word or something.

Patriot7

Subject to the "consensus of modern scholarship"?

buckshot23

Maybe and there probably are events that are impossible with only natural law is considered. In context I am asking why the absolute language when we do not know 100% if something is impossible. However in a larger context I agree with what you say here.