Merzbow42

You're being overly picky here. By definition, an omnipotent God can temporarily (or permanently) pervert the laws of physics as he sees fit. They are laws insomuch as they hold all the time as long as they are untouched by something outside the system.

Here's an easy analogy. You must have played the "Game of Life" cellular automata computer simulation. There are laws about cell birth and death that always hold in the game. Creatures who may evolve into intelligence in that game would deduce these laws and insist they always hold. As their God, however, let's say I change them temporarily in a small portion of their universe, then restore them. Now what would be the correct conclusion for the game's evolved scientists? Yup. "Goddidit".

NatSciNarg

OK, that's fair enough. Somehow I read it as you arguing that there were a hundred-fold more than Stark predicted. From your previous posts that I have seen, I thought that was a little unlikely!

Matthew

Awmte

How does a probability of 1 - (1/1000) equate to 97% instead of 99.9% anyway?

Helpmabob

So is that 97% proof, plus 3% faith. Seems like a done deal to me. Whisky's only 40% proof, but we that doesn't stop us drinking the stuff.

Johnny Skeptic

It ain't nearly a done deal. To what extent would a loving God go in order to keep people from going to hell?

dongiovanni1976x

1. If a miracle is “an observable natural occurrence that contradicts natural law”
2. And a natural law is “what describes what has been repeatedly observed to occur”
3. And an omnipotent god is “a supernatural being with the ability to contradict natural law”
4. And it is not IMPOSSIBLE, since it is conceivable, for an omnipotent god with the power to contradict “natural law” to exist…
5. Then it is possible for a miracle to occur, BUT all we would be able to say from such a circumstance is that our original “natural law” was incorrect and formulate a new law/theory/approximation to encompass the new phenomena we just observed.

The only way to conclude that “Godidit” is to assume there is such a being in the first place. And to do so leads scientific inquiry down a slippery slope where any observable phenomena that causes one “to wonder” (Mirari/Miracle) becomes possible divine intervention. This inclination is not only lazy but also tends to satisfy only the simple minded as it relies on unfounded supernatural assumptions and stifles the questioning at the heart of scientific inquiry.

I prefer to rely on what we can observe as the primary source of inquiry into the origin of unexplained phenomena like the great Hippocrates who said, Though I would be astonished if the atoms in a decayed human body reanimated themselves, I would have to limit myself to an empirical approach to understand this bizarre phenomena because to assign it to “Goddidit” would be antithetical to my natural state of curiosity and no further inquiry would be required or meaningful.

Now the question could arise: What is more probable, if you were witness to a decayed body which reanimated itself in front of your eyes: (a) that Goddidit (b) that some hitherto unobserved natural occurrence took place (c) or that you yourself were hallucinating or deceived in some other natural way…?

If all we had was a report of someone witnessing such an event, the historian must always conclude with what is “most probable” and since there is no evidence for any natural occurrence of a body reanimating itself and there is no way to empirical observe a possible intercession by some supernatural agent, one must assume that the witness was deceived or being deceptive in someway. To assume Goddidit would be a theological position, not an historical one.

Helpmabob

I think He went as far as raising Christ - that is enough. To what extent do you go to hide from God?

Jesus was in the tomb for only three days – insufficient for much decay to occur, and no one actually saw any Jesus in the process of reviving, they only met Him afterwards. People had seen him resurrect others during His lifetime. They had also witnessed how He had behaved throughout His whole life. This raft of factors combined to point to the explanation that Jesus was telling the truth, and that He had been resurrected as He claimed.

Sven

Any body decays enough in three days that a resurrection is impossible - the brain decomposes that rapidly that only a few minutes are too much for reanimation.

Even more reason to be suspect. Especially since they supposedly did not recognize him.

You mean: Some people wrote decades afterwards how he supposedly behaved and that he supposedly resurrected others.

If we consider all factors (see above) combined, they point to a nice story of fiction and self-deception.

Johnny Skeptic

That is not enough for a loving God. If God gave up something of great cost to mankind, then quite naturally he would be much more willing to give up something that cost him very little, namely providing a lot more evidence than we have, thereby resulting in more people becoming Christians who were not previously convinced. The #1 priority of a loving God would have to be to do everything that he could in order to help insure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. It couldn't possibly be any other way. Surely it is not your position that God is not able to do anything that would increase the number of people who will go to heaven.

To the same extent that you have failed to provide reasonable proof that God is loving. At best, he is bi-polar and mentally incompetent. Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?"

dongiovanni1976x

I wasn't referring specifically to Jesus I was referring to a much earlier post that implied that if s/he saw a body reanimate itself in front of their eyes they would be led to believe that this event was "divine in nature" because it so strongly contradicts what we believe about the laws of physics. See quote below for reference: