The Plausibility That Jesus Returned to Life and Flew Away

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I find myself in voluntary pandemic related confinement to my house with nothing much to do. So I thought I would start an argument.

These quotes are taken from the "What happened to Paul on the road to Damascus?" topic.

"Acts very specifically indicates that Paul went three days without drinking. Three days without drinking, especially in an arid climate, is considered being at deaths door. So Paul was severely dehydrated. What are the symptoms of severe dehydration?" Hallucinations. Paul believed that during his period of incapacitation he met Jesus, who had been executed some years earlier. -- Tired of the Nonsense.

"We today have every reason to DOUBT, however, that during his incapacitation Paul actually met with and spoke with AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD BEEN DEAD FOR SEVERAL YEARS. Such a claim is NOT historical, since it contradicts all common experience, and common sense." -- Tired of the Nonsense

Christianity is founded on the premise that Jesus died but arose again on the third day. Would anyone like to discuss (disparage or defend) the plausibility of the claim that a corpse ACTUALLY returned to life and subsequently flew away?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 20 by Mithrae]

I acknowledge your point about statistics and bias. However, just because credible doctors and other medical professionals have used the word "miraculous" to describe a variety of biological events doesn't necessarily imply anything supernatural occurred. For instance, every time a child is born, people will regularly refer to that event as being a miracle despite it having a demonstrable scientific explanation. So, when someone experiences an unusual or unlikely recovery from some medical condition, it is part of our lexicon to slap the label "miraculous" on it. In other words, sometimes people describe something as being miraculous without deliberately intending for it to imply supernatural causation. You seemed to acknowledge this point when you posted, "Usually not clearly violating the observed patterns of physics at large, but evidently contrary to the normal course of nature." In this context, an appeal to "all common experience" would include these unusual events that need not assert supernatural causation as an explanation.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 21 by bluegreenearth]

So of the >1 million physicians in the USA, ~75% of whom believe in and ~55% of whom report personal witness of recoveries they consider miraculous (>500,000 miracle reports), what fraction do you suppose can reasonably be dismissed out of hand as those silly doctors simply misunderstanding the survey questions and dubbing as 'miraculous' medical outcomes which are merely fortuitous?

Again, particularly in light of more detailed reports such as those from Lourdes providing the depth of evidence for highly plausible miracle reports, it seems to me that it is nothing more than an article of blind faith to imagine that 100% of those medical experts' testimony are incorrect! Undoubtedly quite a few are incorrect, for reasons such as yours and (more plausibly) due to doctor error and limitations of current medical knowledge in general: But even if we suppose that such ad hoc speculation can explain away 90% of those reports (which I would consider an absurdly high assumption) that would still imply that there've been over 50,000 genuine miracles in the USA alone over the past five or six decades.

And note that such a figure is really not that remarkable: Even 200,000 miracles over that timeframe would be about one miracle per lifetime per thousand US citizens, which would mean that plenty of people would go their entire lives without ever witnessing a miracle, and without anyone close to them witnessing one either. Alongside more detailed examples such as Lourdes, the testimony of these medical experts provides overwhelming evidence that miracles do in fact occur... and yet they still obviously couldn't be described as 'common' experience.

You seemed to acknowledge this point when you posted, "Usually not clearly violating the observed patterns of physics at large, but evidently contrary to the normal course of nature." In this context, an appeal to "all common experience" would include these unusual events that need not assert supernatural causation as an explanation.

Yes, I chose those words carefully: It's worth noting that even resurrections and walking on water needn't necessarily violate the 'laws of physics' either, even if we were to imagine that those were indeed proscriptive laws. Stage magicians have performed all kinds of feats which would be deemed supernatural, until we see what's going on behind the curtains. But even if there were some kind of hidden transfer of energy freezing the water beneath Jesus' feet, it obviously still would be a miracle; if it had occurred it would be powerful evidence of external agency intervening in the normal course of events, regardless of which strings were pulled to get the job done. By implication, violating the currently-observed patterns of physics is neither a valid argument against reported miracles, nor a useful criterion for deciding what constitutes a 'real' miracle.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 21 by bluegreenearth]

So of the >1 million physicians in the USA, ~75% of whom believe in and ~55% of whom report personal witness of recoveries they consider miraculous (>500,000 miracle reports), what fraction do you suppose can reasonably be dismissed out of hand as those silly doctors simply misunderstanding the survey questions and dubbing as 'miraculous' medical outcomes which are merely fortuitous?

I don't dismiss those reports out of hand. The point is that I find no justification for concluding anything from those reports.

[Replying to post 21 by bluegreenearth]
Again, particularly in light of more detailed reports such as those from Lourdes providing the depth of evidence for highly plausible miracle reports, it seems to me that it is nothing more than an article of blind faith to imagine that 100% of those medical experts' testimony are incorrect! Undoubtedly quite a few are incorrect, for reasons such as yours and (more plausibly) due to doctor error and limitations of current medical knowledge in general: But even if we suppose that such ad hoc speculation can explain away 90% of those reports (which I would consider an absurdly high assumption) that would still imply that there've been over 50,000 genuine miracles in the USA alone over the past five or six decades.

And note that such a figure is really not that remarkable: Even 200,000 miracles over that timeframe would be about one miracle per lifetime per thousand US citizens, which would mean that plenty of people would go their entire lives without ever witnessing a miracle, and without anyone close to them witnessing one either. Alongside more detailed examples such as Lourdes, the testimony of these medical experts provides overwhelming evidence that miracles do in fact occur... and yet they still obviously couldn't be described as 'common' experience.

I'm not following how any of that justifies me to conclude anything about those anomalous unexplained "miracle" claims. It seems the only intellectually honest response is to remain skeptical until such a time that sufficient evidence becomes available for me to reach some sort of conclusion.

You seemed to acknowledge this point when you posted, "Usually not clearly violating the observed patterns of physics at large, but evidently contrary to the normal course of nature." In this context, an appeal to "all common experience" would include these unusual events that need not assert supernatural causation as an explanation.

Yes, I chose those words carefully: It's worth noting that even resurrections and walking on water needn't necessarily violate the 'laws of physics' either, even if we were to imagine that those were indeed proscriptive laws. Stage magicians have performed all kinds of feats which would be deemed supernatural, until we see what's going on behind the curtains. But even if there were some kind of hidden transfer of energy freezing the water beneath Jesus' feet, it obviously still would be a miracle; if it had occurred it would be powerful evidence of external agency intervening in the normal course of events, regardless of which strings were pulled to get the job done. By implication, violating the currently-observed patterns of physics is neither a valid argument against reported miracles, nor a useful criterion for deciding what constitutes a 'real' miracle.

Since I am unable to "see what's going on behind the curtains" of each Jesus miracle claim, what justification do I have for concluding anything about their cause? Furthermore, since I wasn't in the audience approximately 2000 years ago for the Jesus traveling magic show, what would be my justification for trusting reports of miracles written by ancient non-skeptical evangelists with a theological motivation to convert others to the Christian faith?

[1213]

Christianity is founded on the premise that Jesus died but arose again on the third day. Would anyone like to discuss (disparage or defend) the plausibility of the claim that a corpse ACTUALLY returned to life and subsequently flew away?

I think it would at least be good to first understand these:

But their eyes were kept from recognizing him.
Luke 24:16

Jesus said to her, "Don't touch me, for I haven't yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
John 20:17

The other disciples therefore said to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." After eight days again his disciples were inside, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, the doors being locked, and stood in the midst, and said, "Peace be to you." Then he said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see my hands. Reach here your hand, and put it into my side. Don't be unbelieving, but believing."
John 20:25-27

According to the story, his disciples didnt first recognize him. At first it was not allowed to touch him. And Jesus also appeared to locked room in a way that seems not possible for normal physical body. So, by what the story tells, Jesus who was raised, didnt have normal physical body anymore. Which is why I think the whole premise that you have is wrong. The question should be, could it be possible that Jesus was raised with spiritual body that is different than natural body?

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is also a spiritual body.
1 Cor. 15:44

I believe what the Bible tells, for example because I cant believe we would have the story, if it didnt really happen.

[bluegreenearth]

I believe what the Bible tells, for example because I cant believe we would have the story, if it didnt really happen.

Do you consistently apply that epistemology to all historical claims?

[benchwarmer]

I believe what the Bible tells, for example because I cant believe we would have the story, if it didnt really happen.

Do you consistently apply that epistemology to all historical claims?

Or given what 1213 said, all STORIES?

Why do we have stories about other gods, spirits, and even simple humans? I suppose we should believe all those really happened as well?

Or do we only believe when it's our favorite god concept that is being cross examined?

1213, surely you don't believe all stories just because they were written down. Why are you giving preference to stories found in the Bible compilation?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 24 by 1213]

I think it would at least be good to first understand these:

But their eyes were kept from recognizing him.
Luke 24:16

Jesus said to her, "Don't touch me, for I haven't yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
John 20:17

The other disciples therefore said to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." After eight days again his disciples were inside, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, the doors being locked, and stood in the midst, and said, "Peace be to you." Then he said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see my hands. Reach here your hand, and put it into my side. Don't be unbelieving, but believing."
John 20:25-27

According to the story, his disciples didnt first recognize him. At first it was not allowed to touch him. And Jesus also appeared to locked room in a way that seems not possible for normal physical body. So, by what the story tells, Jesus who was raised, didnt have normal physical body anymore. Which is why I think the whole premise that you have is wrong. The question should be, could it be possible that Jesus was raised with spiritual body that is different than natural body?

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is also a spiritual body.
1 Cor. 15:44

The disciples claimed that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. But the "arisen" Jesus looked like another person. Also, this new "spiritual body" you refer to seems to have come complete with old wounds.

I believe what the Bible tells, for example because I cant believe we would have the story, if it didnt really happen.

Then you accept this story as valid.

Wikipedia
Splitting of the moon
The splitting of the moon (Arabic: ) is a miracle in Muslim tradition attributed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad.[1] It is derived from the Quran, Surah Al-Qamar verses 54:1-2, and mentioned by Muslim traditions such as the Asbab al-nuzul (context of revelation).

Verses 54:1-2 of the Quran reads:



The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder. But if they see a Sign, they turn away, and say, "This is (but) transient magic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon

And this story.

Wikipedia
Isra and Mi'raj
Isra and Mihraj Calligraphy for all descriptive purposes
The Isra and Miraj (Arabic: , al-Isr wal-Mirj) are the two parts of a Night Journey that, according to Islam, the Islamic prophet Muhammad took during a single night around the year 621. Within Islam it signifies both a physical and spiritual journey. The Quran surah al-Isra contains an outline account,[2] while greater detail is found in the hadith collections of the reports, teachings, deeds and sayings of Muhammad. In the accounts of the Isra, Muhammad is said to have traveled on the back of a winged mule-like white beast, called Buraq, to "the farthest mosque". By tradition this mosque, which came to represent the physical world, was identified as the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. At the mosque, Muhammad is said to have led the other prophets in prayer. His subsequent ascent into the heavens came to be known as the Miraj. Muhammad's journey and ascent is marked as one of the most celebrated dates in the Islamic calendar.

Muhammad ascended into heaven with the angel Gabriel and met a different prophet at each of the seven levels of heaven; first Adam, then John the Baptist and Jesus, then Joseph, then Idris, then Aaron, then Moses, and lastly Abraham. After Muhammad meets with Abraham, he continues on to meet Allah without Gabriel. Allah tells Muhammad that his people must pray 50 times a day, but as Muhammad descends back to Earth, he meets Moses who tells Muhammad to go back to God and ask for fewer prayers because 50 is too many. Muhammad goes between Moses and God nine times, until the prayers are reduced to the five daily prayers, which God will reward tenfold.[17] That again, Moses told Muhammad to ask for even lesser but Muhammad felt ashamed and said that even with lesser prayer times, his followers might not even perform diligently and said he is thankful for the five.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isra_and_Mi%27raj

And this:

"That they said (in boast) "We have killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of Allah";-- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:--" (Koran, Su 4:157).


Or this one.

"Throughout the middle ages, the legend of Pandera and Yeshu, considered by most scholars a Jewish invention, continued to persist. The tale however is extremely ancient, for it was known, long before the Christians had the power to persecute, to the Greek Neo-Platonist Celsus, who flourished 175-180 (AD). Origen quotes the Greek as having said, concerning the mother of Jesus, that 'when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera.' (Contra Celsum, VII, ix). Knowledge now available (in the Dead Sea Scrolls) concerning the Teacher of Righteousness (as termed by the Essenes) has thrown an entirely new light on this Pandera-legend, which is related in detail by Morris Goldstein and which, in brief, runs as follows: There lived in the days of King Jannaeus, 103-76 (BC), in Bethlehem, a certain disreputable young man whose name was Joseph Pandera. He seduced the chaste and lovely Miriam by pretending to be her betrothed husband, Johanan; and the result was a son, Yeshoshua, or Yeshu. When it became known that Yeshu was illegitimate, he fled to Galilee, where he practiced magic by learning the letters of the Ineffable Name and where he declared that he was born miraculously of a virgin, according to the prophesy of Isaiah 7:14. Yeshu, thereupon, declared himself the Messiah, and produced various texts from the prophets, which he said applied to him. The Jewish sages then brought Yeshu before queen Helene (probably the wife of Aristobulus II) and accused him of sorcery. A corpse was brought in, and when Yeshu restored it to life the queen became his devotee. The sages now selected a man called Judah Iskarito and taught him also the letters of the Ineffable Name, by which he too could practice magic. In a trial before the queen, both Yeshu and Iskarito lost their memory of the name and fell down powerless. Yeshu was now seized and beaten, was given vinegar to drink, and a crown of thorns was placed upon his head at Tiberias. There was a struggle among the people, and Yeshu escaped with some of his fellow-conspirators to Antioch or Egypt, where they remained until the Passover, at which time Yeshu went to Jerusalem to relearn the letters of the Ineffable Name in the Temple. Riding into Jerusalem on an ass he fulfilled the prophesy of Zechariah. Identified by Iskarito as a false prophet, Yeshu was seized and put to death on the eve of the Passover Sabbath. If Yeshu was born near the beginning of Alexander Jannaeus' reign, he would have been in his thirties at the time of his execution. The bold followers of Yeshu now came to Queen Helene with the report that he was not in his tomb, but had ascended to heaven as he had prophesied. Since his body could not be found, she demanded of the sages that they produce it within three days. It so happened, however, that the gardener, foreseeing conspiracies by the followers of Yeshu, had taken the body from the tomb and buried it in the garden; and when he learned of the queen's ultimatum, he told the sages where it lay. They seized it, tied it to the tail of a horse, and dragged it before Helene, who therefore renounced the false prophet, commended the sages for their wisdom, and derided those who had been deluded by the sorcerer."

"The story concludes with a resume of how the followers of Yeshu sought to overthrow Judaism by re-dating their feast days and their holy celebrations and by repudiating their rituals and their dietary laws; and how they caused a great commotion among the Jews for thirty years by declaring that their prophet was now sitting at the right hand of God and would return as the Almighty Messiah to condemn all unbelievers to the eternal fires of hell. This ancient legend prompts theories which, to say the least, are quite fascinating. We know that the Essenes made a fundamental issue over their divergent calendar, which placed their feasts and celebration on days other then those observed by the orthodox; and we have seen that it was a dispute over this which precipitated the trial and execution of the Teacher" ("The Story of Christian Origins", Larson, pages 281-283).

[Mithrae]

It's worth noting that even resurrections and walking on water needn't necessarily violate the 'laws of physics' either, even if we were to imagine that those were indeed proscriptive laws. Stage magicians have performed all kinds of feats which would be deemed supernatural, until we see what's going on behind the curtains. But even if there were some kind of hidden transfer of energy freezing the water beneath Jesus' feet, it obviously still would be a miracle; if it had occurred it would be powerful evidence of external agency intervening in the normal course of events, regardless of which strings were pulled to get the job done. By implication, violating the currently-observed patterns of physics is neither a valid argument against reported miracles, nor a useful criterion for deciding what constitutes a 'real' miracle.

Since I am unable to "see what's going on behind the curtains" of each Jesus miracle claim, what justification do I have for concluding anything about their cause?

If you personally witnessed Jesus walking on water and being raised from death, are you trying to tell me that you would consider it unjustified to view it as validation of Jesus' claims that his God had his back? Simply because you couldn't see which strings were pulled to get the job done?

Some critics on the forum have readily stated that even if millions of Christians suddenly disappeared, then they and the whole world saw the skies above Jerusalem filled with armies from heaven with Jesus at their head, they still would not consider it evidence of Christianity. Whether or not stances such as these have any intellectual merit in themselves, it seems obvious that there is simply no possibility of rational debate against that kind of selective hyper-scepticism. As I've suggested several times already, of course we can always invent ad hoc speculation along the lines of alien invasions or government/billionaire conspiracy theories - or simply spreading outright falsehood in the case of Dunning's article on the Calanda report so popular among 'sceptics'; a point which you have not yet addressed - in order to claim that literally any evidence does not 'prove' or 'justify' a conclusion that we don't want to believe. If your stance is anything along those lines, it's probably important to understand that hurdle early on.

[Replying to post 21 by bluegreenearth]

So of the >1 million physicians in the USA, ~75% of whom believe in and ~55% of whom report personal witness of recoveries they consider miraculous (>500,000 miracle reports), what fraction do you suppose can reasonably be dismissed out of hand as those silly doctors simply misunderstanding the survey questions and dubbing as 'miraculous' medical outcomes which are merely fortuitous?

I don't dismiss those reports out of hand. The point is that I find no justification for concluding anything from those reports.

A sudden and rapid reversal of the known natural course of events inescapably implies the intervention of an external agency; and when that agency is not human it must be either gods or aliens or leprechauns or the like.

I'm not following how any of that justifies me to conclude anything about those anomalous unexplained "miracle" claims. It seems the only intellectually honest response is to remain skeptical until such a time that sufficient evidence becomes available for me to reach some sort of conclusion.

I would say that the only intellectually honest approach is to accept the conclusions offered by the experts who actually witness or personally investigate such events as being plausible. Failing to accept such expert conclusions as plausible based purely on our own personal ignorance is not intellectually honest at all; it's precisely the same kind of approach employed by 'sceptics' of climate science and evolution.

Of course unlike climate science and evolution expert investigators of alleged miracles often come to quite different conclusions so, in the case of any particular report among these hundreds of thousands inferred from surveys of doctors' experience, it would be appropriate to consider it plausible either that a miracle did or did not occur. But even under the extremely dubious assumption that every case held an 80 or 90% probability that the doctor's miracle conclusion was incorrect, the fact that there are so many independent reports means that it is essentially certain that many of them were indeed genuine reversals of the natural course of events, and hence real miracles; unless of course you think that capricious leprechauns or aliens are a better explanation

[bluegreenearth]

If you personally witnessed Jesus walking on water and being raised from death, are you trying to tell me that you would consider it unjustified to view it as validation of Jesus' claims that his God had his back? Simply because you couldn't see which strings were pulled to get the job done?

I was speaking from the perspective of someone who has not personally witnessed those events but have only been provided with copies of translated, redacted, and demonstrably embellished evangelical texts written approximately 2000 years ago by believers who had a theological motivation to convert others to Christianity.

Some critics on the forum have readily stated that even if millions of Christians suddenly disappeared, then they and the whole world saw the skies above Jerusalem filled with armies from heaven with Jesus at their head, they still would not consider it evidence of Christianity. Whether or not stances such as these have any intellectual merit in themselves, it seems obvious that there is simply no possibility of rational debate against that kind of selective hyper-scepticism. As I've suggested several times already, of course we can always invent ad hoc speculation along the lines of alien invasions or government/billionaire conspiracy theories - or simply spreading outright falsehood in the case of Dunning's article on the Calanda report so popular among 'sceptics'; a point which you have not yet addressed - in order to claim that literally any evidence does not 'prove' or 'justify' a conclusion that we don't want to believe. If your stance is anything along those lines, it's probably important to understand that hurdle early on.

If I directly observed that millions of Christians suddenly disappeared followed by an appearance of heavenly armies led by Jesus, that would constitute empirical evidence in support of Christianity. No problem there. Sure, it would remain a possibility that I was suffering from a mental delusion or being trolled by mischievous extra-terrestrial aliens with advanced technology, but the empirical evidence would at least provide me with a personal justification for concluding Christianity was the most reliable explanation in that situation. However, I don't have that kind evidence to justify such a conclusion at this point. What I have are copies of translated, redacted, and demonstrably embellished evangelical texts written approximately 2000 years ago by believers who had a theological motivation to convert others to Christianity.

In regards to claims of modern miracles, you assert to have more recent and, allegedly, more credible reports of unusual or unexplained events but with no better understanding of how to determine if any of the proposed explanations for those events are false in order to reach a single most reliable conclusion. Nevertheless, you seem to suggest it is hyper-skeptical when people proportion their confidence in a belief to the quantity and quality of the supporting evidence.

A sudden and rapid reversal of the known natural course of events inescapably implies the intervention of an external agency; and when that agency is not human it must be either gods or aliens or leprechauns or the like.

Not necessarily. The operable phrase in your response is "known natural." How do I rule-out the possibility of an "unknown natural" cause? For that matter, how do I rule-out God or aliens or leprechauns or the like? How confident should I be in the reported data to conclude that there was a sudden and rapid reversal of the known natural course of events? How do I rule-out the possibility of unconscious bias in the statistical analysis? How do I rule-out the possibility of human error brought about by our fallible sense perceptions? How do I rule-out the possibility of deliberate misrepresentation or falsification of the data? What is the justification for ignoring or dismissing these critical thinking questions? Is it hyper-skeptical to ask ourselves these sorts of critical thinking questions when investigating hyper-extraordinary claims?

I would say that the only intellectually honest approach is to accept the conclusions offered by the experts who actually witness or personally investigate such events as being plausible. Failing to accept such expert conclusions as plausible based purely on our own personal ignorance is not intellectually honest at all; it's precisely the same kind of approach employed by 'sceptics' of climate science and evolution.

Of course unlike climate science and evolution expert investigators of alleged miracles often come to quite different conclusions so, in the case of any particular report among these hundreds of thousands inferred from surveys of doctors' experience, it would be appropriate to consider it plausible either that a miracle did or did not occur. But even under the extremely dubious assumption that every case held an 80 or 90% probability that the doctor's miracle conclusion was incorrect, the fact that there are so many independent reports means that it is essentially certain that many of them were indeed genuine reversals of the natural course of events, and hence real miracles; unless of course you think that capricious leprechauns or aliens are a better explanation

I'm not sure what experts you are referring to here, but I always find it helpful to research what the qualified and relevant skeptical experts have to say about any claims made by their peers. When those qualified and relevant skeptics identify legitimate logical fallacies or other errors in their peers' methods or reasoning, it provides a justification to remain skeptical. If the skeptics' objections are minor or illegitimate, then there is less of a justification to remain skeptical. In the case of modern miracle claims, the skeptics' objections have not been demonstrated to be minor or illegitimate as far as I'm aware. In the cases of global climate change and biological evolution, nearly all of the objections don't even come from qualified peers and are demonstrably illegitimate or minor.

So, I'm not claiming to know miracles don't occur, but you are claiming to know they do occur and are caused by an external agent. That is a fairly massive burden of proof you have there for which the supporting evidence you've provided is not yet proportional. Keep up the effort, though. If you ever manage to demonstrate that miracles do occur and are caused by an external agent, I will definitely want to acquire that knowledge and gladly support your nomination for a Nobel Prize.

[Mithrae]

I was speaking from the perspective of someone who has not personally witnessed those events but have only been provided with copies of translated, redacted, and demonstrably embellished evangelical texts written approximately 2000 years ago by believers who had a theological motivation to convert others to Christianity.

The point I raised was with regards to whether violation of the currently-observed patterns of physics is either a valid criterion for what constitutes a genuine miracle, or a valid argument against the miraculous. Those recorded in the gospels are simply a useful point of reference in that regard. I'm not a Christian and I think it's probable that Jesus never rose from the dead, but I would argue that the claim has greater than 1% plausibility and many of the critical arguments/assumptions used to suggest otherwise seem quite faulty.

If I directly observed that millions of Christians suddenly disappeared followed by an appearance of heavenly armies led by Jesus, that would constitute empirical evidence in support of Christianity. No problem there. Sure, it would remain a possibility that I was suffering from a mental delusion or being trolled by mischievous extra-terrestrial aliens with advanced technology, but the empirical evidence would at least provide me with a personal justification for concluding Christianity was the most reliable explanation in that situation.

If you met one of those hyper-sceptical folk who have insisted that it would not be evidence of Christianity, in what way would you argue that 'Christianity' is a more reliable explanation than 'delusion' or 'alien invasion'?

A sudden and rapid reversal of the known natural course of events inescapably implies the intervention of an external agency; and when that agency is not human it must be either gods or aliens or leprechauns or the like.

Not necessarily. The operable phrase in your response is "known natural." How do I rule-out the possibility of an "unknown natural" cause? For that matter, how do I rule-out God or aliens or leprechauns or the like? How confident should I be in the reported data to conclude that there was a sudden and rapid reversal of the known natural course of events? How do I rule-out the possibility of unconscious bias in the statistical analysis? How do I rule-out the possibility of human error brought about by our fallible sense perceptions? How do I rule-out the possibility of deliberate misrepresentation or falsification of the data? What is the justification for ignoring or dismissing these critical thinking questions? Is it hyper-skeptical to ask ourselves these sorts of critical thinking questions when investigating hyper-extraordinary claims?

Miracle reports can be found in many if not all cultures, in all periods of history, and there appear to be hundreds of thousands of expert reports for them in the USA alone over the past few decades; so asserting that they are "hyper-extraordinary" claims sounds like something for which you must have a very compelling justification. I'm looking forward to hearing it, but perhaps this is simply a naturalistic bias accidentally creeping in.

With that in mind, how often and how thoroughly do you seek the answers to all of these questions when reading a newspaper or book on history or popular science? How do you rule out the possibility of a divine or demonic or conspiratorial cause for the alleged observations about the roundness of the earth? How confident should you be in the reported data to conclude that most of the volume of your table or chair or even your own body consists of empty space between particles? How do you rule out the possibilities of statistical bias and human error in media reports? How do you rule out the possibility of deliberate deception or falsification of data when you hear election results? Do you remain 'sceptical' about the claim that coronavirus is a serious risk; and if not, what is the justification for ignoring or dismissing these sorts of 'critical thinking' questions?

It seems to me that for most reasonable people, most of the time, our usual epistemic approach is that when we hear from an apparently qualified or reliable source information which does not radically contradict things of which we are already pretty certain (or our own deep biases/prejudices), we'll accept that information as at least plausible unless and until we discover otherwise; we don't demand exhaustive scrutiny and unquestionable proof for... well, for basically anything we accept as true, except in some professional (eg. legal or scientific) contexts. When it comes to medical miracles, doctors obviously are qualified sources and while we might doubt the reliability of any one or two random doctors, it would be obviously irrational to assume that they are being deceptive or simply naive en masse. So while it's certainly interesting and even important in this or any other subject to invent and explore dozens of deeply probing questions such as the ones you've raised, the working presumption of a reasonable person should be that those doctors' reports and conclusions are indeed plausible: Unless, that is, we are either a) pretty certain that miracles don't occur, or b) have some other deep bias or prejudice against their occurrence, or c) we are simply happy to engage in the special pleading of scrutinizing miracle claims far more than we tend to for the likes of media reports and popular science.

I would say that the only intellectually honest approach is to accept the conclusions offered by the experts who actually witness or personally investigate such events as being plausible. Failing to accept such expert conclusions as plausible based purely on our own personal ignorance is not intellectually honest at all; it's precisely the same kind of approach employed by 'sceptics' of climate science and evolution.

Of course unlike climate science and evolution expert investigators of alleged miracles often come to quite different conclusions so, in the case of any particular report among these hundreds of thousands inferred from surveys of doctors' experience, it would be appropriate to consider it plausible either that a miracle did or did not occur. But even under the extremely dubious assumption that every case held an 80 or 90% probability that the doctor's miracle conclusion was incorrect, the fact that there are so many independent reports means that it is essentially certain that many of them were indeed genuine reversals of the natural course of events, and hence real miracles; unless of course you think that capricious leprechauns or aliens are a better explanation

I'm not sure what experts you are referring to here, but I always find it helpful to research what the qualified and relevant skeptical experts have to say about any claims made by their peers. When those qualified and relevant skeptics identify legitimate logical fallacies or other errors in their peers' methods or reasoning, it provides a justification to remain skeptical. If the skeptics' objections are minor or illegitimate, then there is less of a justification to remain skeptical. In the case of modern miracle claims, the skeptics' objections have not been demonstrated to be minor or illegitimate as far as I'm aware. In the cases of global climate change and biological evolution, nearly all of the objections don't even come from qualified peers and are demonstrably illegitimate or minor.

The experts I'm referring to are the American doctors of whom ~55% report personally observing medical outcomes which they deem to be miraculous. Which sceptics are you referring to who have refuted these conclusions?

In the case of the rapid, medically-unexplained cures of serious illnesses investigated and reported by the Lourdes committee, the sceptical response (at the least the one commissioned by James Randi which I looked into a while back) consists not of demonstrating that miracles do not occur, nor finding fault with the reported data, nor even providing an actual medical explanation for the healing, but simply offering speculation about a supposedly possible route towards a medical explanation. And that of course is a point which I have already acknowledged, that in the case of any particular reported miracle there will always be some possibility of the real cause being something other than divine agency: But it would become vanishingly improbable for those slim possibilities to turn up true again and again and again for every single one of the eight or so Lourdes cures identified as miracles in the past half century, and even moreso for the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of miracles reported by doctors in the USA (and worldwide).

Claiming that some vague and unidentified "skeptics' objections have not been demonstrated to be minor or illegitimate" is not an argument, I'm afraid: If there's a valid objection that you've encountered, surely you would have posted it by now?

So, I'm not claiming to know miracles don't occur, but you are claiming to know they do occur and are caused by an external agent. That is a fairly massive burden of proof you have there for which the supporting evidence you've provided is not yet proportional. Keep up the effort, though. If you ever manage to demonstrate that miracles do occur and are caused by an external agent, I will definitely want to acquire that knowledge and gladly support your nomination for a Nobel Prize.

I'm claiming that it is virtually certain that major, rapid reversals of the 'currently-known' normal course of serious illnesses occur thousands of times around the world each year, and that appealing to purely speculative unknown 'natural' processes is a viable though obviously far from conclusive response in any given case and hence a slim possibility at best as applied to all such cases.

You are certainly welcome to demonstrate otherwise, but condescension simply doesn't cut it, particularly since I don't think you've provided a credible response to any of the three main points I've raised:
> Regarding the thoroughly investigated and documented cures at Lourdes, you simply claimed that the Vatican had conceded them to be no more commonplace than spontaneous remissions in the general population, without providing a source even when asked or otherwise supporting your claim
> Regarding the less-evidenced but particularly remarkable report of a healed amputation from Calanda, verified by the sworn testimony of four medical workers, you posted Brian Dunning's blatant falsehoods apparently without much investigation beforehand (or even bothering to glance at the thread I linked) and more worryingly without acknowledging the problems of what you had posted when I pointed it out
> And regarding the breadth of evidence provided by surveys of doctors' experience, you have not even attempted to account for the fact that this more intelligent and educated subset of the population (who should be expected to report lower levels of belief/experience of miracles if they did not in fact occur) actually report similar levels of belief but much higher levels of personal witness of miracles; highly inconsistent with the 'miracles don't occur' scenario, but highly consistent with the intervention of a benevolent agency