~M~

whoaaaaaaaaaaa....

P(r)= 0 is a bit harsh, eh? why not 0.1? i think, however, i could bump P(r) to 0.1 (at least)if it culd be established that god exists and that we would expect god to do the miraculous every now and then.

whadda ya say?

~M~

what i dont understand is how it would preclude miracles unless you have some rather strong presuppositions.

Oxymoron

The thing to note is the O() notation - order of magnitude. Sure, if 1 in 10 people got up from being dead then p(R)=0.1 is a justifiable prior. However, given there are 100,000,000,000 people who have ever lived, and that Jesus is the only one who allegedly recovered from death, I say a reasonable prior is p(R)=10^-11.

~M~

yes, well, that's up for the debate. and, while I wholly agree the intrinsic probability is low, I think ,and some eminent philosophers agree, that its workable.

Earlier I noted that I find it highly unlikely that eminent philosophers of science such like Swinburne, Sobel, and so forth would play the Bayes game concerning the miraculous if it were just as easily disposed as you seem to think it is.

Until I check your sources, I am left contemplating a question: Is Oxymoron, some dude on the net, correct about these eminent philosophers? Are these philosophers of science likely deluding themselves into thinking that the Bayes games are applicable to the miraculous or is this dude on the net missing something?

which is more likely the case? where does the bigger miracle rest?

dog-on

wishful thinking...

KrisK10

PunkforChrist,

That's a new one I've never heard! To continue this dialog, can you please provide 1 scholar that supports that view (i.e. that the Acts 26:19 reference to a "vision" (optasia) is not a reference to the conversion appearance of Paul outlined immediately prior to that verse)?

Kris

punkforchrist

Yes, Norman Geisler is one. In fact, it's not even clear that optasia ought to be translated as "vision", since it is distinguished with the word horama, and the two are used a total of thirty times in the writings of Luke. The fact that optasia is used in the context of physical sight suggests a physical manifestation.

Toto

Norman Geisler is a Christian apologist and president of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina. There are some notes on his debate with Farrell Till here.

Is there anyone else with less of an ideological bias?

KrisK10

PunkforChrist,

Nice job (assuming Geisler has some schooled credentials...he does doesn't he?) Now can you please outline the actual arguments for how one can conclude that the "vision" in Acts 26:19 does not refer to the initiatory conversion appearance experience of Paul narrated immediately prior. It seems pretty straightforward to me that the vision" in Acts 26:19 does refer to the initiatory conversion appearance experience of Paul narrated immediately prior. Here is the NRSV of Acts 26:12-22 (with the "vision" word in question boldfaced):

I was travelling to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, 13when at midday along the road, your Excellency,* I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and my companions. 14When we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.” 15I asked, “Who are you, Lord?” The Lord answered, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16But get up and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and testify to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you. 17I will rescue you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you 18to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” 19 ‘After that, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision [optasia, same word as in 2 Cor 12:1], 20but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout the countryside of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and do deeds consistent with repentance.


Actually, before you do the above, could you please explain this statement of yours:

"it's not even clear that optasia ought to be translated as "vision", since it is distinguished with the word horama [used in Acts 9:10, 12 for example], and the two are used a total of thirty times in the writings of Luke. The fact that optasia is used in the context of physical sight suggests a physical manifestation."

It doesn't matter the exact translation of optasia; the point is that this exact same word is used in both Acts 26:19 and 2 Cor 12:1, and the latter is agreed by all to be a visionary experience that is indistinguishable from an individual hallucination. This would seem to count against Craig's assertion that there is a differentiation in the NT between a vision of Christ and a resurrection appearance of Christ, i.e. the same word is used for both. Lastly, aren't you in your last sentence there ("The fact that optasia is used in the context of physical sight suggests a physical manifestation.") admitting that the optasia used in Acts 26:19 is a reference to the initiatory conversion appearance experience of Paul narrated immediately prior?

I'm about to bail out of this conversation Punk unless you got some pretty good answers.

Kris

gregor

And you would be whom, exactly?

Oxy seems to have the more pursuasive points so far.