A Free One for the Apologists

[Jagella]

Hold on to your halos, Christians, but I'm about to agree with you and disagree with Bart Ehrman on an issue. Bart Ehrman insists that miracles cannot be considered historical because they are the least probable of any event. I disagree with Bart's logic because a miracle, improbable as it might seem, might be considered historical if the evidence is good enough.

I think the following is a good example of a miracle we can be assured happened. Let's say Donald Trump holds a press conference (a miracle in its own right). At that press conference our dear president begins to levitate and float around the room defying gravity. The media including CNN and Fox News (bitter enemies) get all of this on camera. The resulting video is very clear and shows that Donald had no tether or any other contrivance that could have lifted him. James "the Amazing" Randi, an arch skeptic of miracles, happens to be at that press conference. He pushes his way past the Secret Service men and carefully examines the President. His face all white Randi gushes in front of the entire press corps: "It's a miracle--a true-blue jen-you-wine miracle!"

So do you agree that good evidence trumps probability when we judge the historicity of a miracle or any other event?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 14 by Mithrae]

I'm not sure it is better evidence than for some miracle claims I've seen, though it certainly beats most of 'em.

Well, if you're familiar with any miracle claim that has better evidence than the scenario I posted, then please let us know!

...the scenario of relatively good evidence which you provided is not very plausible to begin with, because even if 'miracles' do occur, they're not likely to happen in front of multiple TV crews and internationally-recognized professional sceptics.

I understand that my hypothetical scenario is not very plausible. The point is, however, that it illustrates a situation in which we have evidence for miracles that would render the skeptic's claim of improbability moot. No matter how improbable it might seem that I would win two jackpots in two different lotteries, if I can fork over the winning tickets, then I've proved my claim. The events I'm claiming did in fact happen, I can prove it, and claiming it's improbable cannot disprove it.

Your scenario describes what sceptics might want to see as evidence... and it still probably wouldn't be enough for many.

That may be true. A perceived miracle might be a dream or a hallucination. However, with enough time, dreams or hallucinations might be ruled out. The effects of dreams and hallucinations do not normally linger.

By loose analogy, what we might want to see of planets orbiting distant stars is high-resolution imagery showing continents and cloud cover. But because of known and perfectly reasonable limitations, what we expect to see and what we are currently content with, are tiny wobbles in the relative motion of a visible star.

Anybody with the right astronomical equipment can see stars wobble indicating orbiting planets. This kind of robust corroborating, observable evidence is rarely if ever offered for miracles. If it was available for a miracle, then I might just be convinced.

[AdHoc]

Hold on to your halos, Christians, but I'm about to agree with you and disagree with Bart Ehrman on an issue. Bart Ehrman insists that miracles cannot be considered historical because they are the least probable of any event. I disagree with Bart's logic because a miracle, improbable as it might seem, might be considered historical if the evidence is good enough.

I think the following is a good example of a miracle we can be assured happened. Let's say Donald Trump holds a press conference (a miracle in its own right). At that press conference our dear president begins to levitate and float around the room defying gravity. The media including CNN and Fox News (bitter enemies) get all of this on camera. The resulting video is very clear and shows that Donald had no tether or any other contrivance that could have lifted him. James "the Amazing" Randi, an arch skeptic of miracles, happens to be at that press conference. He pushes his way past the Secret Service men and carefully examines the President. His face all white Randi gushes in front of the entire press corps: "It's a miracle--a true-blue jen-you-wine miracle!"

So do you agree that good evidence trumps probability when we judge the historicity of a miracle or any other event?

So in this hypothetical did the event actually happen?

Or is it fake news?

Because seeing something on tv is not particularly the best evidence for the truth of a matter. As evidenced by Faux news and CNN themselves.

But if you're talking about actual good evidence then yes it trumps probability if not then we could never learn anything just roll the dice

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 14 by Mithrae]

I'm not sure it is better evidence than for some miracle claims I've seen, though it certainly beats most of 'em.

Well, if you're familiar with any miracle claim that has better evidence than the scenario I posted, then please let us know!

As luck would have it I was creating a thread for it as you were posting your reply. A fellow was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, a debilitating disease of the central nervous system for which no known cure exists to this day. Over several years his condition deteriorated until he was in a wheelchair in 1985, and continued to worsen over the next two years; bedridden, he was on a 100% invalidity pension from the French government with an allowance for a third party carer. Then, taken for a pilgrammage to the Marian shrine at Lourdes in October 1987, he felt sensations of overwhelming peace, then chills warming to a great heat throughout his body... and then he could walk.

Two different panels of doctors - the Lourdes Medical Bureau, convened from all doctors and health professionals in Lourdes at the time, regardless of religious beliefs, and the 20+ member International Medical Committee of Lourdes comprised of respected medical professors and doctors from a variety of nations meeting annually - certified the cure with overwhelming majority votes, the latter panel doing detailed investigations to confirm the initial diagnosis and years of follow-up to ensure it was a full recovery not merely a temporary remission.

Full details in my thread Medical miracles at Lourdes? This was just one out of six 'miracles' which have occurred there since 1960, all confirmed under the same process. I've so far found two articles in the peer-reviewed scientific literature discussing the Lourdes phenomenon, neither of which suggest that the cures are hoaxes or medically explainable, and even the explicitly sceptical sources I've checked specifically dispute the validity of only three or four of those cases (obviously still a long way from disproving them).

But as I anticipated, this evidence just isn't good enough for some of our more sceptical friends

[marco]

So do you agree that good evidence trumps probability when we judge the historicity of a miracle or any other event?

So when a miracle happens, we can say a miracle has happened. If Abraham Lincoln appeared at the press conference and joined Donald in the air that would be contributory evidence I suppose.

Meanwhile, back on Earth, it is fair to say that when we are discussing things regarded as miracles two millennia ago we can reasonably say they probably did not occur. The loaves and fishes didn't increase, Lazarus stayed put and water was water, not wine, nor did it allow humans to walk all over it.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 18 by Realworldjack]

Do you happen to know of "any miraculous events" that can be "accepted as fact?" I do not.

I suppose it depends on who is doing the accepting. I am not convinced of any miracles ever happening if by "miracles" we are referring to some of the events described in the Bible like seas parting or saviors resurrecting. Other people, of course, do believe in those miracles. So it's subjective as to what we will accept as true.

I tend to agree here, except for the fact that I believe a resurrection is, impossible.

That might be true. Why is a resurrection impossible? I know of no logical impossibilities, but rising from the dead may be biologically or physically impossible. Perhaps the Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out a resurrection, but it probably does not. There may be some biological law that makes it impossible, but I don't know of any.

You see, I do not believe that the Biblical writers were attempting to persuade anyone that a resurrection was possible. Rather, they seem to be announcing that, the impossible occurred.

We know of at least one person who is said to have initially doubted the resurrection claims: Thomas. The "Doubting Thomas" story seems to be evidence that not all people in First-Century Israel were quick to believe wild stories. So at least some of them may have thought a rising from the dead was impossible or very unlikely.

This may be true, but the probabilities never have any bearing at all upon whether an event actually occurred, or not. Probabilities only have bearing upon whether I may highly doubt such things, or tend to believe them.

The reason I said that probabilities only come into play in the absence of good evidence is that in some cases the only evidence we have are written stories. Written stories are not what I think are good evidence. If that's all we have, then that's when we must ask how probable is it that what those stories describe are true.

I suppose it depends on who is doing the accepting.

This is not exactly accurate. Sure, there are those who accept things that are facts, that are not necessarily facts, but if you will notice my question was,

Do you happen to know of "any miraculous events" that can be "accepted as fact?"

So then, there is a difference between asking, "if there CAN be" as opposed to asking, "do you know of any miraculous events that ARE accepted as fact?" I know of many that "are." I know of none that really "can."

So it's subjective as to what we will accept as true.

Maybe it is the word, "accept" that we are hung up on. Therefore, I will agree here, but the truth is not subjective to who "accepts" it. Truth is truth whether anyone "accepts" it or not.

Why is a resurrection impossible? I know of no logical impossibilities, but rising from the dead may be biologically or physically impossible.

It is impossible for the exact reasons you state. It is "biologically and physically impossible."

The reason I said that probabilities only come into play in the absence of good evidence is that in some cases the only evidence we have are written stories. Written stories are not what I think are good evidence.

Allow me to attempt to explain where you are in error here. When it comes to the Resurrection, we do not have, "written stories." Rather, what we have is, "written letters" between different parties, and there is a tremendous difference!

The difference is, the evidence is clear, that these men were not attempting simply to write stories, but were rather simply living their life, and these letters are the by product of living their life.

Lets take the author of Luke, and Acts, for example. It is clear that the author of both of these letters were one and the same. These letters were addressed to someone by the name of Theophilus.

This author had no intention of writing "stories" because he had no idea that anyone else would ever read his letter, and he certainly did not have any idea about what we now call the Bible, and that his letters to Theophilus would one day end up in this Bible.

He was simply writing a letter to a friend, explaining to him the things that he had seen and witnessed, because although the author never mentions himself, he does begin to use the words, "we", and "us" when describing the events, indicating that he was there to witness the events.

Next, when we begin to compare these two letters, to the letters of Paul, (because they were real letters and not stories) we begin to see how they coincide together. Now, we do not have time to actually compare these things, but the point is, since it is clear that these things were not stories at all, but rather letters in which it is claimed by the authors, writing to completely different audiences, to have witnessed extraordinary events, then these letters become, evidence. If they were simply stories, then they would not be considered evidence.

The bottom line here is, you can simply dismiss these things as stories, and claim they are not evidence, but you would be in error, because not only are they evidence, they are very strong evidence.

This is the reason that there are so many people who must, and have to come up with alternative explanations in order to explain away the empty tomb. In other words, if these things could simply be classified as stories, then there would be no need for these alternative explanations.

You see, you would not attempt to come up with alternative explanations for the story of Santa, because once the presents under the tree are explained, there is no other evidence for Santa.

Santa, is just a story! The things contained in the Bible are not stories, but are rather letters, and they do indeed become evidence, especially when they are compared together.

[Realworldjack]

So do you agree that good evidence trumps probability when we judge the historicity of a miracle or any other event?

So when a miracle happens, we can say a miracle has happened. If Abraham Lincoln appeared at the press conference and joined Donald in the air that would be contributory evidence I suppose.

Meanwhile, back on Earth, it is fair to say that when we are discussing things regarded as miracles two millennia ago we can reasonably say they probably did not occur. The loaves and fishes didn't increase, Lazarus stayed put and water was water, not wine, nor did it allow humans to walk all over it.

Meanwhile, back on Earth, it is fair to say that when we are discussing things regarded as miracles two millennia ago we can reasonably say they probably did not occur. The loaves and fishes didn't increase, Lazarus stayed put and water was water, not wine, nor did it allow humans to walk all over it.

You can say these things are "fair to say" but it would be extremely presumptuous. You know like it would be extremely presumptuous for me to say, "it is fair to say that since these men wrote these things, they must be true."

This is why I would much rather study, and analyze the evidence involved instead of simply resting on the probabilities.

Allow me to explain when I will simply rest on the probabilities. It will be when I hear some sort of wild story, and could really care less one way or the other. In other words, I do not really care if it is true, or not, and do not care to take the time to analyze the evidence, because it is not important to me.

Therefore, I may simply claim that the event is highly unlikely and leave it at that. I am not claiming it is false, I am simply claiming to highly doubt it.

However, if I were interested, enough to be on a site debating the issue day in and day out, I would never one time refer to the probabilities, because I understand that the probabilities have no bearing at all upon what the truth may be, therefore there is no need in referring to them.

[Mithrae]

Allow me to attempt to explain where you are in error here. When it comes to the Resurrection, we do not have, "written stories." Rather, what we have is, "written letters" between different parties, and there is a tremendous difference!

The difference is, the evidence is clear, that these men were not attempting simply to write stories, but were rather simply living their life, and these letters are the by product of living their life.

Lets take the author of Luke, and Acts, for example. It is clear that the author of both of these letters were one and the same. These letters were addressed to someone by the name of Theophilus.

This author had no intention of writing "stories" because he had no idea that anyone else would ever read his letter, and he certainly did not have any idea about what we now call the Bible, and that his letters to Theophilus would one day end up in this Bible.

He was simply writing a letter to a friend, explaining to him the things that he had seen and witnessed, because although the author never mentions himself, he does begin to use the words, "we", and "us" when describing the events, indicating that he was there to witness the events.

That's not entirely accurate. Acts has a pretty clear literary structure, in which Jesus' command (Acts 1:8) is fulfilled to preach the gospel in Jerusalem (chapters 1-7), in all Judea and Samaria (chapters 8-12; as far as Damascus and Caesaria, including the conversions of an Ethiopian/Hamite in 8, a Jew/Shemite in 9 and a Roman/Japhethite in 10) and then "to the ends of the earth" with Paul's missionary journeys from chapter 13 onwards. That is part of the reason why Paul, as possibly the most active early missionary, features so prominently in the book even though he was a minor figure in the actual church 'hierarchy,' and why it ends with Paul still preaching the gospel under house arrest in Rome rather than telling of his death. Luke may have been a companion of Paul, but there's strong evidence that his books were written with some knowledge of the works of Josephus (or at least Jewish War, written c. 76CE; the case for his knowledge of Antiquities is considerably more tenuous despite Carrier's efforts), so he surely knew how Paul's story ended - it just didn't fit the structure and tone of the book.

Similarly, the gospel of Luke records events which the author clearly states he not been a witness of (1:2), but had "carefully investigated everything from the beginning." He was not simply conveying personal experience, but trying to make a persuasive case for what he believed. Theophilus (meaning loved by God or loving God) may not have been a specific person at all, simply an address to believers or potential converts in general; there's certainly nothing in the opening remarks of either work to suggest any kind of personal relationship between Luke and 'Theophilus,' and no closing remarks to either 'letter' at all.

John was probably written by the disciple, but it's clearly more of a theological tract than historical record. The most bare-bones gospel is Mark, probably by Peter's interpreter: In its original form it may not have even described any post-resurrection appearances by Jesus at all - it doesn't get any more spartan than that! But even Mark may well have drawn on earlier written sources (eg. a 'passion narrative' probably circulated in Judea before 44CE) and shows evidence of intending a particular thematic structure in at least some places.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 22 by AdHoc]

So in this hypothetical did the event actually happen?

Or is it fake news?

You should come to your own conclusion. If you have the kind of solid evidence that I posited in the OP, might you deem the apparent miracle to be a historical event? Or would you like Bart Ehrman say that it cannot be historical because you say any miracle is the least probable event?

Because seeing something on tv is not particularly the best evidence for the truth of a matter. As evidenced by Faux news and CNN themselves.

Do you know of any instance in which a major news agency fabricated an event out of whole cloth and did so with the cooperation of another news agency that it was very much at odds with?

But if you're talking about actual good evidence then yes it trumps probability if not then we could never learn anything just roll the dice

You got it! I don't understand Bart Ehrman sometimes. He's very knowledgeable yet seems to use a lot of faulty logic.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 25 by Realworldjack]

...the truth is not subjective to who "accepts" it. Truth is truth whether anyone "accepts" it or not.

True! But simply having the truth isn't enough; we need to know the truth. We are very imperfect in our ability to know the truth. We need to rely on our own judgment and our own perceptions. We also tend to be biased accepting what we like and denying what we don't like. If we do have the truth, then we need to communicate that truth to others which can be as difficult as learning the truth if not more difficult.

It is impossible for the exact reasons you state. It is "biologically and physically impossible."

I never stated that a resurrection is biologically or physically impossible. I said a resurrection may be biologically or physically impossible. Merely asserting the impossibility of a resurrection does not make it impossible.

When it comes to the Resurrection, we do not have, "written stories." Rather, what we have is, "written letters" between different parties, and there is a tremendous difference!

No, we do have written stories. The Gospels are written stories as is the Book of Acts. Written letters can contain stories. Luke I believe is an example of a story in a letter. So you are posting a false difference.

This author had no intention of writing "stories" because he had no idea that anyone else would ever read his letter, and he certainly did not have any idea about what we now call the Bible, and that his letters to Theophilus would one day end up in this Bible.

I'm not sure if I follow your logic. How do you know that the author of Luke had no idea that anybody aside from Theophilus would read his letter? If he didn't think anybody aside from Theophilus would read the letter, then how does that mean he didn't write a story? I can write a story with no intention of anybody reading it. It's still a story.

The bottom line here is, you can simply dismiss these things as stories, and claim they are not evidence, but you would be in error, because not only are they evidence, they are very strong evidence.

Stories can be true, and they can be evidence. Weak evidence, perhaps, but evidence nonetheless.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 23 by Mithrae]

But as I anticipated, this evidence just isn't good enough for some of our more sceptical friends

Thanks for posting that information!

Unfortunately, it falls far short of the evidence posited in my hypothetical scenario. The miracle allegedly happened to an unnamed person, but my scenario posits a miracle posited as happening to a person who is well-known around the world. No well-known, hardcore skeptics like James Randi investigated the supposed miracle in Lourdes and confirmed its authenticity. In my scenario any person who has sight can see the film footage of the miracle. This miracle at Lourdes is at best observable only by the people who knew the man including the doctors who are claimed to have examined him. Most of all at this point all we are presented with is a post from an unknown individual in an internet forum claiming the miracle while my scenario posits media coverage by well-known news agencies.

In any event this case is intriguing. I'd need to investigate it further to determine if the miracle claim is credible.