arnoldo

What proof do you have that miracles are impossible?

Johnny Skeptic

First of all, since the Bible is the claimant, I do not need any proof that miracles are impossible. There is a burden of proof, not a burden of disproof.

Second of all, since I am an agnostic, I do not rule out a reasonable possibility that a God exists, but that still leaves people who claim that miracles have occured with the responsibility of providing sufficient evidence regarding which miracles have occured.

Third of all, hundreds of millions if not billions of non-Christian theists believe that miracles have occured, but not biblical miracles. Those people believe that miracles exist, and they would also want you to provide reasonable evidence that Jesus performed miracles.

It is just as reasonable for skeptics to ask Christians for reasonable evidence that Jesus performed miracles as it would be for Christians to ask Muslims for reasonable evidence that Muhammad performed miracles.

So, do you want to keep playing games, or would you like to provide whatever evidence you have that Jesus performed miracles?

arnoldo

Look at the universe, it's a miracle.

Johnny Skeptic

But even if that is true, it does not tell us which God exists, and which miracles he performed, thus my request to you to provide whatever evidence you have that Jesus performed miracles.

In my previous post, I said that "hundreds of millions if not billions of non-Christian theists believe that miracles have occured, but not biblical miracles. Those people believe that miracles exist, and they would also want you to provide reasonable evidence that Jesus performed miracles." So what evidence do you have that Jesus performed miracles? If you do not have any, what is the purpose of having any more discussions?

rhutchin

Certainly, given the consequences, one should consider it. But, if all one had to do to escape hell was to believe that a pig flew, why not believe? That would certainly be easier than having to deal with Christ.

rhutchin

The surviving textual documents are sufficient in quantity and quality to overcome these issues. However, you will have to take it up with the textual critics to sort it all out.

Johnny Skeptic

You admitted that out of emotional self interest you would believe in a flying pig under certain conditions. That means that it is reasonable to assume that you also trust the Bible out of emotional self interest, not based upon understanding the Bible. Since you are an inerrantist, you automatically rubber stamp everything that the Bible says no matter what, and you do not seriously consider any evidence that contradicts the Bible. Since you are not willing to seriously consider any evidence that disagrees with the Bible, why should skeptics seriously consider anything that you say?

You have a habit of stating that evidence exists, but you seldom specifically state what the evidence is. How do you expect to convince anyone of anything without discussing specifics?

You have not provided any credible evidence that there are not any consistencies in the Bible. Many books and articles provide credible evidence of inconsistencies in the Bible. In addition, it is a virtual certainty that a global flood did not occur.

"It behooves people to consider those things written in those documents?" There you go again implying threats, as you have frequently done in the past with the fraudulent Pascal's Wager. You are a Calvinist. If Calvinism is true, it doesn't make any difference what anyone believes since God chose who he will save before the foundations of the world. Consider the following from a Calvinist website:

http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

If you wish to argue with your fellow Calvinsts, go ahead. If you agree with them, then you need to consider the following that they said:

"When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God."

Your comment "It behooves people to consider those things written in those documents," which you meant as a threat since you have told skeptics on many occasions that God will punish them, is not compatible with the Calvinist website that I quoted, which says "When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist." If the elect cannot resist accepting God, obviously, God's choice is the only issue, not what anyone chooses to believe of their own free will. As the Calvinist website says, "Romans 9:16.......says that 'it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy.'" Apparently in spite of all of the discussions that I have had with you in the past and recent present about Pascal's Wager not being compatible with Calvinism, you still do not understand that you are wrong. It would be interesting to know how many Calvinists promote Pascal's Wager. I assume very few.

Consider the following:

http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8...5539.xml&style

spin

Nothing more than a bald opinion and one that you can't even pretend to support?


spin

Solo

Psychiatry.

Jiri

arnoldo

A secular person has the same evidence of Jesus' acts/teachings as Plato or Aristotle's acts/teachings. What evidence do you have that Plato/Aristotle in fact said or did anything attributed to them?