Merzbow42

Sheer thought experiment, I suppose. For example, it is possible that our universe is some gigantic simulation in the computer of some higher being, in the same way I can sit down at my computer and simulate a complex chaotic system using 2D cellular automata. I think that this is a more likely possibility than a hundred trillion trillion trillion atoms in a dead body spontaneously rearranging themselves to produce a live body.

Amaleq13

Aren't miracles improbable and contrary to natural law by definition?

If not, how do you define them?

Diogenes the Cynic

The only problem I see with this statement is that "improbable" is the wrong word. The correct word is "impossible." That which is contrary to natural law is impossible by definition. If we can't stipulate that then the word "impossible" has no meaning.

John Kesler

This concession by Ehrman is common but unnecessary, since not only is the god of the Bible not a "deist-type God," he is a specific deity--Yahweh, god of the Hebrews. Since this deity has certain attributes and characteristics, then the probablity of his existence can be analyzed, because if he is described as both having, and not having, certain qualities, then the likelihood that said deity exists diminishes. I don't understand why scholars who do detailed NT studies to determine what the "historical Jesus" actually said and did allow their opponents to speak of "God" as if no data about him exists. How about applying the same rigor to the study of the "historical Yahweh"?

dongiovanni1976x

Amaleq13, I believe what jjramsey was saying was that miracles are contrary to natural law but that in and of itself does not rule out their possibility. Therefore the conjunction "and" cannot apply.
However, Diogenes correctly pointed out that I think the word "improbable" should have been replaced with "impossible"
As long as we are working within the realm of established laws, such a conclusion is "natural" to deduce. But jjramsey may disagree that natural laws are immutable (i.e. a "god" may intervene and supercede such a law) Problem is, if they are mutable, then they are not laws from whence we can make sound deductions- thus the need to adhere to Diogenes interpretation as well as Ehrman's when approaching something historical in a critical sense.

jjramsey

Not necessarily. The definition of "natural law" that is used in practice is "observed regularity in the behavior of the universe." An observed regularity may turn out to have exceptions under certain circumstances.

Miracles are certainly contrary to natural law, and that limits how often one could expect them to be done. However, one can certainly imagine an alternate universe where people routinely got miraculously cured in a church healing service and that this could be verified by doctors, etc. That this is conceivable implies that the fact that the reason that reports of miracles in the real world are not generally credible has little to do with the concept of a miracle itself and more to do with the dubious nature of the evidence for miracles that we have noted so far.

jjramsey

This is a black-and-white fallacy, presuming that either a natural law is perfectly reliable or completely unreliable, with no possibilities in between. If natural laws are mutable, but either are suspended rarely or are suspended under particular controlled circumstances, then natural laws are are still reliable enough for practical use.

"Miracles are impossible" is an empirical statement, and our ability to determine the truth of it depends on the available evidence, period. Deciding that miracles are practically impossible based on the current evidence is thoroughly valid. However, deciding a priori that miracles are impossible regardless of any available evidence is unacceptable.

dongiovanni1976x

When we empirically OBSERVE an "exception", we alter our paradigm and thus the law is adjusted. The question before us, and the lynchpin to the Craig/Ehrman debate, is whether we can ever come to any understanding that such an exception is really the intercession of a supernatural force acting upon a natural occurence. Thus, if such a thing were to occurr, how would we ever really comprehend it as such...let alone how would we determine such an event in HISTORY.

dongiovanni1976x

The law at time 1 is immutable because when we "observe" a phenomena that invalidates it or runs contrary to it then we set up a new law. Thus it is not a fallacy to say that laws are immutable. They are just right or wrong. Their mutability lies in the fact that we "adjust" them according to new phenomena, but when we do that we have made a "new" law.

My question is, if all laws are based upon empirical observations and are provisional upon being discarded as new observations are made, how is it that we would ever be able to conclude that something non-empirical (i.e. supernatural and thus "naturally" unobservable) acted upon what it is we are observing?

jjramsey

The fundamental flaw is in assuming that something supernatural would be non-empirical and unobservable. Ghosts, goblins, magic, fairies, etc., are things that could be seen and heard if they were real.