Tercel

No. The logic is this:
1. I am a theist and a supernaturalist
2. If belief in "natural laws" equals naturalism then I qualify as a naturalist
3. I would then be both a supernaturalist and a naturalist.
4. Any definition of naturalism which allows someone to be both a naturalist and a supernaturalist is silly. (They are supposed to be opposites) Therefore the definition given in 1 is not a good definition.

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

HRG

You want to conclude from the statement that they saw X that X actually happened. But in order to do this, you need to assume naturalism. The reliability of our perception depends on the regularity of many physical and chemical processes: the emission and propagation of photons, the reactions in the retina, the propagation of nerve impulses etc.

IOW, once you assume that supernatural influences are possible, you can never tell whether the event that they saw actually happened, or whether a supernatural influence made them see an event which never happened in reality.

There are no eyewitnesses to a particular supernatural event.

HRG.

NOGO

Bad example. Multiple attestation IS support for accuracy if they say the same thing. This is not the case for the resurrection.

Matthew's account of the resurrection is completely different than John's. If they both saw this first hand then their stories should not contradict as they do. If Matthew's is correct then John simply made it up and vice versa. They cannot both be true.

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Skeptical

AF, I am disappointed. I have posted to you 3 times in this thread but have yet to hear back any response.

In brief, you previously asked about level of proof required for NT belief, you also say one cannot discount the supernatural. Ok, I will play that game. I gave 2 specific examples of what I would consider supernatural evidence in my previous posts, you have not addressed why neither of them or anything similar are to be found in the NT.

Also, I ask you again, for the 3rd time, "what evidence would you accept as contradicting the claims of the NT". IOW, how, in your opinion, could one disprove the NT? If your answer is simply, "you cannot", just say so. At least be honest.

As to your "gun to the head" question. I would say it depends on your world view and how strongly the belief is held. If I was on trial for witchcraft circa 16th century and the judge told me, "admit that your wife and child are witches, or we will burn you at the stake", I would like to believe that I would tell him to f*** off and go to the stake. (or take a bullet in the head to match your method of execution)

I don't believe that Christians thought that the story of Christ was a lie. I firmly believe that they _thought_ it was true. Many moslems are willing to die right now for Allah, but according to your view they are simply mistaken, delusional, etc. Same song, different tune. What makes them so wrong and the 2nd century Christians so right?

Finally, I would ask, why is it that no one in the past 18 to 19 centuries has claimed to raise someone from the dead (maybe more accurate to say no one has been able to demonstrate it since there are reports at various times of dead raisings of various sorts, but no evidence)?

Jesus does it, his disciples are reported to do it, why wouldn't their disciples be able to do it? For that matter, why can't Christians today do it? For that matter, why can't you do it? (if you can, please let me know, I would _love_ to see it!)

If all that was required to be able to raise the dead was belief in Jesus and his divinity, it would seem that anyone today who believed in Christianity would be able to raise the dead?

Honestly, I'm curious what you think about these questions.

Atticus_Finch

He fits into a decidedly different category. The Apostles are accused here of making up the story of the resurrection. Therefore, if that is true, they would know it was a lie. Would you die for something you knew to be a lie. Atta, on the other hand, believed in a lie which I assume he did not know to be untrue. That is very different.

Regards,

Finch

Atticus_Finch

Please note, the apologetic argument regarding the fact that the apostles died for their belief in the resurrection only applies to the apostles. I agree that it has no persuasive value if applied to anyone other than the eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Christ. No one has yet taken on this issue. Would the apostles have died for something they KNEW to be a lie?

You ask what would disprove the NT. First, let me apologize for not responding earlier. Although I love the fact that there have been over 100 posts on this topic, it really makes it hard to keep up and respond to each one. I also thought I had addressed this issue in response to someone else. Let me brainstorm on what would disprove the NT: produce Christ's body, show that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses or approved by eyewitnesses.

Regards,

Finch

hezekiah jones

Um, okay.

Carry on, and best of luck.

sidewinder

I'd be curious to know what AF thinks about the numerous contradictions and errors in the OT and NT?

MOJO-JOJO

Yes, I understand this, I used to believe as you do. But for the benefit of giving any credence to this notion, please name or reference for us just ONE supernatural event in recent recordable history (say..the last 100 years or so). Some event that has been described and corroborated by many witnesses, and that can ONLY be (with at least 99.99% certainty) accounted for as having no other possible natural explanation, and therefore must be supernatural. Just ONE... You know...humans appearing instantly out of dust, people turning water into wine, raising dead people to life, whole worlds being created in one day, people feeding thousands of others with one basket of fish and bread, yadda yadda.

Supernatural explanations like "God put those dinosaur bones in the earth to give us something to play with", or "Of course God could create the universe in one week....He's God!" are simply ridiculous, childish and ignorant. When you have an unsupportable trump card like that which can be used to explain away anything, including Santa Claus and turning Pinocchio into a real boy, then why are we even bothering to have this debate??

One final question too. If a supernatural event were to occur in a natural world, wouldn't that event now no longer be considered supernatural, but in fact natural? I don't know...just food for thought.

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: MOJO-JOJO ]</p>

madmax2976

But what one can do is look at the preponderance of the evidence against supernatural events and make the reasonable assumption that the probability of supernatural events is extremely low - Or, at the very least, a great deal of evidence will be required to counter the case them.

Only theists seem to talk in terms of absolute on this subject and I suspect its because they think they can win by beating a straw man. We don't say that miracles absolutely can't happen. What we do say is that the evidence for them is exceptionally weak. We know people lie, make things up, delude themselves into believing things, are tricked, etc.. The probabilities for any of these things is far greater than that for any supernatural explanations.

Your case could be supported Atticus if you would just demonstrate one supernatural event to be true. Not only will you support your case, you'll be instantly famous and perhaps win James Randi's million dollar reward. THEN you can tell us all how silly we are for not accepting 1st century claims of people rising from the dead, earthquakes, angels, virgin births, and someone walking on water.

<strong> Done. I go on record as saying the supernatural is "possible". I'll just add that leprechauns and unicorns are possible as well, but I have little reason to believe they are probable.

<strong> Great. Now all you have to do is support beyond a reasonable doubt the implied claims that:

1. Anyone died directly because of their refusal to reject their beliefs.

2. That anyone knew the stories they confessed to be true was in a position to know if they were actually a lie.

3. That anyone who was killing people of certain beliefs gave a rats ass about whether they deconverted or not.


Good luck

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>