Rusting Car Bumper

There is a diference between "say" and "infer." Please keep that in mind.

I didn't SAY you SAID something. I said that from your PREMISES one can really INFER what my claim as opposed to your claim. The premises infers something diferent from what you claim. You cannot a priori dismiss miracles that easily. Remember that we are talking about claimed historical evidence of miracles and not just the existence of miracles.

With regard to the second comment... Stories are evidence. What they are evidence of is the dispute. You are simply not considering that the "small" miracles wouldn't necessarily have any corroborating evidence over time. You can't simply dismiss them. Why would multiple independent sources write about a simple isolated case of turning of water into wine?

This last example points out the worst problem for considering miracles through historical evidence.... It's basically impossible for there to be such evidence that is convincing *even if* there were such miracles. I could literally say that any event in history was the result of miracles and you couldn't argue against it.

I could say that Washington crossed the Deleware and won because God helped him and not because his men braved these conditions and won through their own actions. There is no way to refute nor confirm such a claim.

I was stating that the points of premise which you stated in your earlier post (that we agree on) actually argue for this position and not the one you claimed.

DC

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalChicken ]</p>

sensate

I think an old empty box is a good metaphor for Christianity.

Echo

Brew,

Permit me to ask you this: what effect do you think this ossuary should have on the atheist community?

No one is disputing that the ossuary,assuming it is legitimate, possesses historical significance, and no is disputing that the ossuary might have something to teach us about the time in which James and Jesus lived. Were you anticipating some reaction other than this?

Hobbs

I am aware of that. I was trying to clarify what I said, because I don't think that it infers what you claim, at least not to the extent that you claim.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I certainly didn't intend even to try to dismiss miracles a priori, and I don't see where I said something that would infer that conclusion.

I wasn't dismissing them. I wasn't even considering them, because they were beside my point.

I think we're talking past each other, and at least part of the fault is mine: I was a little unclear addressing your concerns, probably because I was aiming more toward Brewmaster's concerns. It's not a question of whether events are explainable by appealing to divine intervention, as with your Washington example. The question, in the context of Brewmaster's posts and my responses, is whether the events ever even occurred in the first place. My point to Brewmaster is that many of the Bible stories, even the nonmiraculous ones such as tens of thousands of followers and listeners from many nations over three years, slaughtering kids in Bethlehem, etc, are not credible stories since, if true, they would have been noted by others. Thus, we have good reason to discount the Bible's accuracy in its claims, even its nonmiraculous claims, about an alleged historical Jesus.

As for the point about miracle claims, I agree fully that there's no way to confirm or refute a claim that God was behind Washington's victory. But those events, even on that interpretation, were not miraculous in a nature-defying sense. That would be an interpretation of the events, neither provable nor refutable. And even if we had contemporary writers corroborating claims of "little miracles" like turning water into wine (something that does go against well-established capacities of nature), that is something that could be faked or misunderstood, so I agree that claims from history would do nothing to verify those miracle stories. That's why they are beside my point. I know they were part of your point to Brewmaster, but they are irrelevant to my point.

But zombies and the sun stopping in the sky are not normal occurrences; such events, if they occurred, would be so far out of the ordinary that, though their occurrence would not necessarily prove they were miraculous, they would prove at the very least that there's a whole lot more going on than we have been aware, and interpreting it as at least potentially a miracle would not be unreasonable. In that sense, unlike with Washington or water into wine, I think that historical evidence of the right kind could give us good reason to think that undeniably nature-defying events actually did take place. And if we have good reason to conclude that the events actually did take place, we would have to deal with the fact that they clearly go against well-established understandings of how nature can and can't work. We'd have to completely change our understanding of nature, or admit the possibility of a god or at least an extremely powerful being of some sort was behind it.

The point is moot, of course, because there is no such historical evidence that would force us to deal with that dilemma. Nor, and this is my point to Brewmaster, is there any historical evidence to corroborate even the nonmiraculous claims in the Bible which, if true, would have had corroborating historical evidence; thus we can discount even those nonmiraculous Bible stories as well as the miraculous ones which, if true, would have produced corroborating evidence. No a priori discounting of miracles here, just a posteriori discounting of stories both miraculous and mundane.

You made a very good point to Brewmaster in your response, and it is a difficult one for believers to deal with. But I disagreed with his response to you that your point is the heart of the matter and the rest is fluff. Your point is one part of the heart of the matter, and I was trying to show him that there's a lot more heart there. Before we can even get to your difficulty about Jesus' alleged miracles and divinity, there are huge difficulties in the accuracy of the Biblical claims about any of the events in his life, his beliefs, his intentions, his immediate followers' beliefs, etc, let alone his alleged claims to divinity in anything like what later became the orthodox Christian understanding of those alleged claims.

Your point, as I understand it, is that even if Brewmaster managed to get through those difficulties, or even if they weren't such difficulties in the first place, there would still be the difficulty of proving Jesus' miracles and claims to divinity were true. I agree that it would be very difficult, but I disagree that it would necessarily be impossible, at least for some of them. And since it wouldn't necessarily be impossible, believers can't dismiss the problem by saying it's just a matter of how you approach Jesus with your heart in an effort to avoid problems with approaching Jesus with one's head.

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: Hobbs ]</p>

Defiant Heretic

Well, my opinion is that Jesus didn't exist as a historical figure. I think this because there were several religions that predated Christianity which included similar characters in their myths.

However, even if Jesus did exist as a historical figure (which is a possibility), it still wouldn't prove that he was a god.

fcuk

For me, even if we proved that the Flood did really happen, that the wall of Jericho really did fall down (damn trumpets), and that Mary really still is a virgin...

Well, that wouldn't convince me that there is a God, either. Even if we could suddenly 'prove' everything in the Bible to be true.

David M. Payne

Sorry to interrupt this thread, but the question has to be asked. Did the Brewmaster (BM) turn out to be another hit and run theist on <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=001942" target="_blank">this thread he started?</a> You raised some points, BM, but you failed to follow through when the questions got a little tough. Are you ducking out on your critique of <a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=236" target="_blank">The Story of Bob?</a> We'll see.
And now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

David

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: David M. Payne ]</p>

American Agnostic

The Find doesn't mean much to me even if it is proven to 100% authentic (doubts are already being raised and they seem justified). I'm agnostic but I don't deny that Jesus existed. I even think that it's likely. What I deny is that Jesus was anything more than human. He had many wise sayings and insights which, unfortunatly, have been buried under two millenia of christian propaganda.

simian

Well, it has been more than a full day since I state why I refer to Christian mythology instead of religion (certainly there is the religion also - but I know Christians who believe NONE of the mythology - the resurrection for example, but I place this subject more on the mythology side).

Does anybody think Brewmaster will come back and try to show me the error of my ways?

Me neither.

Simian

Brewmaster

Greetings:

I apologize to everyone for not responding fast enough. As I said on another thread, I am in the process of selling my house, packing, and finishing up grad school. I think I made a mistake posting two questions at the same time. I plan to respond very soon. Be patient.