Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

Questions for WinePusher:

1) If, as per your own admission, an event is extremely unlikely, because there is overwhelmingly strong empirical evidence against it, and only circumstantial evidence for it, what is the reasonable position to hold:
a) Acknowledge that anything is possible, but operate under the assumption that it didn't happen.
b) Assume that because it's not impossible that it happened, therefore it happened.
c) Other (please specify)

2) If claim X has extremely strong empirical evidence against it and extremely weak circumstantial evidence for it, and claim Y has only somewhat strong empirical evidence against it, and quite strong circumstantial evidence for it, what is more reasonable, to believe both claims X and Y, to disbelieve both X and Y, to believe X but disbelieve Y, to believe Y but disbelieve X?

3) If event A constitutes a corpse that has been dead for three days coming back to life, and event B constitutes several corpses that have been dead for more than three days all simultaneously coming back to life, what is more reasonable, to believe that both A and B were events that violated the laws of nature as we understand them, that neither violated the laws of nature as we understand them, that A did but B didn't, or that B did but A didn't?

[WinePusher]

We certainly DO NOT know that "the natural order is not immutable." In fact all scientific investigation has indicated that matter/energy interacts with itself along rather rigidly defined lines. Defining and predicting just what these lines are, we refer to as the laws of physics. The laws of physics ARE CONSIDERED IMMUTABLE, according to all observation and experimentation. At least until or unless it can be established unequivocally that these natural laws can be overcome under very specific conditions. Currently we have no such examples. Beyond the laws of physics is the realm of things that we imagine COULD be true. This is known as make believe. Again, being human and therefore fallible it is not out of the question that today's make believe COULD prove to be tomorrow's reality. Implicitly believing in make believe is a child's game however.

Finally someone manages to make a good argument about this issue. You said that the laws of physics are considered immutable. Yes, no one would disagree. As an academic discipline the laws of science are assumed to be uniform and immutable. But, this is not an ironclad fact. This is instead an axiomatic assumption science makes in order to operate. This is not a scientifically proven fact, it is instead an axiomatic assumption meaning that there is a real possibility that suspensions of the natural order can occur. There is no scientific law that disproves miracles.

You also have to keep in mind that whenever a Christian talks about miracles, they are not talking about the natural order suspending itself. The claim behind the resurrection is not that Jesus body magically rose from by his own volition. The claim is that God the father intervened in the natural world and caused Jesus' body to rise. This is part of the background knowledge I was referring to. If you could prove that there were no supernatural 'dimension,' in other words if you would prove that basic principle behind naturalism, then miracles would be impossible. But, when you take into consideration that fact that God exists then the probability of any miracle increases drastically.

As I said in thread, the evidence for the existence of a deistic God is overwhelming. I would say that the skepticism nonbelievers have towards claims like that resurrection are intellectually justified, but when it comes to a plain, deistic, supernatural, transcendent intelligent designer atheists and agnostics fall falt on their faces.

What we know is that while miracles are highly improbable when taken at face value, the probability of their occurrence can be increased when you take background knowledge and circumstancial evidence into account.

We don't know anything about miracles AT ALL. Not a single event in all of human history which can be examined and for which it can be unequivocally established that the known laws of physics were overcome has ever occurred. To this point all we have are insupportable claims, which are, let's face it, the common currency of make believe. Until such time as we have EVEN ONE such unequivocal occurrence, miracles will remain the stuff of make believe.

That is the point of these debates, both on these forums and in the philosophical/apologetic community at large. To determine whether these miracle claims are real or fake. I think they are real and you apparently think they aren't. We are at an impasse. And please, don't use the old 'I'm smarter and I'm not as gulliable as you cause I don't believe in miracles' line. The majority of the human population has been and currently is religious. The majority of great thinkers, philosophers and scientists throughout history have been Christian and have professed belief in God.

No one recorded it, you're right. So what? While no one recorded it was certainly preached throughout Palestine at the time it occured and, subsequently, the entirety of the Roman Empire.

And a missing corpse and empty grave are VASTLY more likely to be the result of actions taken by the living, then a result of actions taken by the corpse, aren't they! According to Matthew 27:64 the chief Jewish priests suspected that the followers of Jesus intended to move the body of Jesus and then spread the story that he had arisen from the dead. And in fact both of these things occurred, just as predicted, although no one seemed to have been much impressed by the story at the time. Is it so unthinkable that Christianity could have originated as nothing more then a lie and a hoax and then grown into a religion with billions of devoted followers? If so explain Islam. Or Mormonism. Explain how people can be so gullible, because I can't. I can see that people are perfectly willing to believe in nonsense if they find it sufficiently emotionally appealing however, and that IS discouraging I must admit. But then I have always been interested in finding out what is true, and how the universe REALLY works. The emotional need that make believe seems to fill in others has never attracted me.

You are conflating the two issues that I had previously tried to seperate. Yes, as a purely scientific occurence we would have to assume that the disciples moved the body. But, as a historical explanation it causes more problems because, again, the disciples died for their beliefs on a massive scale. In addition, there would have been Roman guards at the tomb to prevent the disciples from stealing the body. The only explanation for successfully explains these historical anomalies (the empty tomb, the genuine belief of the disciples to have physically experienced the risen Christ, and the quick and widespread expansion of Christianity throughout Palestine and the Roman Empire) is the resurrection hypothesis. In terms of history, the resurrection is the most plausible explanation. But, in terms of biology, medicine and physics the resurrection is the weakest explanation. We seem to disagree on the former but agree on the latter.

[FarWanderer]

The majority of great thinkers, philosophers and scientists throughout history have been Christian and have professed belief in God.

Wow really? This is quite a claim. I mean "the belief in God" part I can buy, but the "have been Christian" part I can't.

I doubt that any non-Christian would ever agree to your claim. And I wouldn't be certain that all Christians would either.

[Danmark]

The majority of great thinkers, philosophers and scientists throughout history have been Christian and have professed belief in God.

Wow really? This is quite a claim. I mean "the belief in God" part I can buy, but the "have been Christian" part I can't.

I doubt that any non-Christian would ever agree to your claim. And I wouldn't be certain that all Christians would either.

Correct, but of course it isn't a matter of whether some one agrees or not. It is a matter of proof or documentation. He has given none, nor has he defined 'great thinkers.' He also has not given a time frame. Certainly 100% of the 'great thinkers' were not Christian before the Christian era.

I looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_atheists *
Just the list of famous atheist and and agnostic philosophers alone is too long to list here [about 5 large screen monitor pages]. Then there is a long list of atheist and agnostic scientists. Well, you get the idea if you just look at the footnote.

Most of the philosophers listed are from the 19th and 20th Centuries, which makes sense because atheism and agnosticism are relatively recent and have emerged and become popular among 'great thinkers' as knowledge has replaced superstition.
To these lists you would also have to add the 'Great Thinkers' throughout history who may have been religious, but not Christian.

BTW, I also looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:C ... ilosophers
Another long list, but only about 2 monitor pages. The list of Christians in science for the 18th and 19th Centuries is about 8 pages long.
The list of atheist and agnostic scientists is about 10 pages on the same 27" monitor.

I think we have to chalk up remark as 'off hand' and not thought out or carefully researched. It is also a fairly meaningless statement. Of more relevance today is the Pew Study that found that among the general public only 16 percent do not believe in a traditional god of theism, but among scientists the number jumps to nearly 60%. [I've included those who believe in a 'universal spirit or higher power, but not in 'god'.]
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scie ... nd-belief/
_________________________
* List of atheists by profession

List of atheist activists and educators
List of atheist authors
List of atheist philosophers
List of atheists (miscellaneous) - shorter groups: Business, Comedians, Historians, Military, Social Scientists, Sports, Visual arts
List of atheists in film, radio, television and theater
List of atheists in music
List of atheists in politics and law
List of atheists in science and technology
Lists by surname[edit]

List of atheists (surnames A to B)
List of atheists (surnames C to D)
List of atheists (surnames E to G)
List of atheists (surnames H to K)
List of atheists (surnames L to M)
List of atheists (surnames N to Q)
List of atheists (surnames R to S)
List of atheists (surnames T to Z)
See also[edit]

Portal icon Atheism portal
Category:Atheists
List of agnostics
List of converts to nontheism
List of deists
List of fictitious atheists and agnostics
List of former atheists and agnostics
List of humanists
List of Jewish atheists and agnostics
List of pantheists

[no evidence no belief]

We certainly DO NOT know that "the natural order is not immutable." In fact all scientific investigation has indicated that matter/energy interacts with itself along rather rigidly defined lines. Defining and predicting just what these lines are, we refer to as the laws of physics. The laws of physics ARE CONSIDERED IMMUTABLE, according to all observation and experimentation. At least until or unless it can be established unequivocally that these natural laws can be overcome under very specific conditions. Currently we have no such examples. Beyond the laws of physics is the realm of things that we imagine COULD be true. This is known as make believe. Again, being human and therefore fallible it is not out of the question that today's make believe COULD prove to be tomorrow's reality. Implicitly believing in make believe is a child's game however.

Finally someone manages to make a good argument about this issue.

Dude, we've all been saying this exact same thing to you for a while now.

You said that the laws of physics are considered immutable. Yes, no one would disagree. As an academic discipline the laws of science are assumed to be uniform and immutable. But, this is not an ironclad fact.

Right. We are 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure, not 100% sure.

This is instead an axiomatic assumption science makes in order to operate.

It's an empirically observed and overwhelmingly established fact.

This is not a scientifically proven fact,

It is not a mathematically proven fact. As in, we're not 100% sure. We are only 99.99999999999999999999999999%

it is instead an axiomatic assumption meaning that there is a real possibility that suspensions of the natural order can occur.

Yes. A 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 possibility.

There is no scientific law that disproves miracles.

Sure there is. The law of gravity. Corpses don't fly. Case closed. What you're trying to say is that we're not 100% sure that gravity prevents corpses from flying. You are correct. We are only 99.999999999999999999999999999999% sure of that.

You also have to keep in mind that whenever a Christian talks about miracles, they are not talking about the natural order suspending itself. The claim behind the resurrection is not that Jesus body magically rose from by his own volition. The claim is that God the father intervened in the natural world and caused Jesus' body to rise.

Right. The claim is not that X happened of it's own volition. It is that X happened as a result of Y, or contingent upon Y.

Probability that X happened: 0.0000000000000000000000000000001%
Probability that Y happened: 0.0000000000000000000000000000001%

This is part of the background knowledge I was referring to. If you could prove that there were no supernatural 'dimension,' in other words if you would prove that basic principle behind naturalism, then miracles would be impossible. But, when you take into consideration that fact that God exists then the probability of any miracle increases drastically.

If you take into consideration the possibility that an entity that can violate the laws of nature at will exists, then the probability of ANYTHING increases drastically. Anything from flying corpses, to flying dragons, to flying reindeer to alien spaceships behind the comets become possible in a much more real way.

Here is the problem: The possibility that God is real increases the possibility of flying corpses by several orders of magnitude, but the possibility that God is real and caused a corpse to fly, is of itself extremely low. The probability that a corpse flew IF God exists is maybe 0.01%, but the probability that God exists AND that he caused a corpse to fly is still in the 0.000000000000000000000000000000001% range. You gained nothing.

It's like saying "The probability that I win the lottery three times in a row is 0.000000000000000000000000000000001%. But the probability that I win the lottery IF I am the luckiest person alive is 0.1%". What is the probability that you're the luckiest man alive? 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001%. The probability that you are the luckiest man alive AND that you win the lottery 3 times in a row? 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

How do you determine if a God who can do anything exists? How do you determine that if he can do anything, if all the things he could do, he caused a corpse to fly but NOT a horse to fly, or several corpses to simultaneously come back to life?

As I said in thread, the evidence for the existence of a deistic God is overwhelming.

Well, you did say that. But you also said that multiple dead, decomposing and buried corpses simultaneously coming back to life and clawing their way out of their tombs is NOT a suspension of the laws of nature, so forgive us if we don't take your word as Gospel. No pun intended.

I would say that the skepticism nonbelievers have towards claims like that resurrection are intellectually justified, but when it comes to a plain, deistic, supernatural, transcendent intelligent designer atheists and agnostics fall falt on their faces.

And of course you will now make a cogent argument to support that, right?

[Danmark]

As I said in thread, the evidence for the existence of a deistic God is overwhelming.

And you were and are overwhelmingly wrong. You simply listed the classic 'proofs' of god. None of them is convincing, except to those who want to believe them. All were refuted more than a hundred years ago.

But I want to ask about your use of the word 'deistic.' If you mean some 'higher power' or 'universal spirit' as opposed to a god that is personal, then you are agreeing that it is easier to 'prove' the existence of this universal and undefinable spirit or force, than it is to prove a theistic god. If that is what you are saying, then I agree it is much harder to prove the existence of a traditional god of theism, a Christian God.

[no evidence no belief]

Hey guys, I just thought of something interesting.

WP is making the argument that a flying corpse is unlikely, but a flying corpse IF a skydaddy exists is more likely. IF a skydaddy exists.

But we shouldn't calculate the probability of X being true IF Y is true. We should calculate the probability of X being true AND Y being true.

Simple mathematics. I'll first relay my argument with a simple example, and then apply it to the miracles issue.

If you go to the store, you are 40% likely to be able to find and buy a Lindor chocolate bar.

A gift basket is 50% likely to contain a Lindor chocolate bar.

You are 50% likely to be given a gift basket.

So, the probability that you obtain a Lindor NOT contingent on a gift basket is 40%

The probability that you obtain a Lindor IF you obtain a gift basket is 50%

But the relevant figure is that the probability that you obtain a gift basket AND it has a Lindor bar in it is 25%. Lower than the standalone probability of a Lindor Bar not contingent on a gift basket.

If you stack sequences of uncertain claims and make the last one contingent on the previous one, the probability of the entire stack being true is decreased, not increased.

The probability that a corpse flew IF God exists is higher than if God didn't exist, but the probability that God exists AND that he caused a corpse to fly is lower than a corpse's spontaneous flight.

Remember your 4th grade maths: If you want to calculate the probability that something happened OR something else happened, you add the fractions resulting in a higher probability. If you want to calculate the probability that something happened AND something else happened as well, you multiply the factions, resulting in a lower number.

[dianaiad]

Hey guys, I just thought of something interesting.

WP is making the argument that a flying corpse is unlikely, but a flying corpse IF a skydaddy exists is more likely. IF a skydaddy exists.

But we shouldn't calculate the probability of X being true IF Y is true. We should calculate the probability of X being true AND Y being true.

Simple mathematics. I'll first relay my argument with a simple example, and then apply it to the miracles issue.

If you go to the store, you are 40% likely to be able to find and buy a Lindor chocolate bar.

A gift basket is 50% likely to contain a Lindor chocolate bar.

You are 50% likely to be given a gift basket.

So, the probability that you obtain a Lindor NOT contingent on a gift basket is 40%

The probability that you obtain a Lindor IF you obtain a gift basket is 50%

But the relevant figure is that the probability that you obtain a gift basket AND it has a Lindor bar in it is 25%. Lower than the standalone probability of a Lindor Bar not contingent on a gift basket.

If you stack sequences of uncertain claims and make the last one contingent on the previous one, the probability of the entire stack being true is decreased, not increased.

The probability that a corpse flew IF God exists is higher than if God didn't exist, but the probability that God exists AND that he caused a corpse to fly is lower than a corpse's spontaneous flight.

Remember your 4th grade maths: If you want to calculate the probability that something happened OR something else happened, you add the fractions resulting in a higher probability. If you want to calculate the probability that something happened AND something else happened as well, you multiply the factions, resulting in a lower number.

I am not mathematically talented, but it seems to me that your argument, above, applies to correlations, not causations. There is, for instance, nothing about a gift basket that necessitates a Lindor chocolate bar. There is nothing in the chocolate bar that requires it's presence in a gift basket; the presence of both together is the result of action by a third party; neither suffers from the lack of the other.

However, the argument (as I saw it, anyway) is that resurrection is only possible IF there is a God...a causal relationship, not just a correlative one. This puts your argument regarding probabilities into the proverbial cocked hat.

And just so you know, terming such as 'flying corpses' is not only offensive, but highly inaccurate; a corpse is a dead body. The whole point of resurrection is that the person experiencing it is ALIVE. Not 'undead,' or 'zombie,' or walking/flying corpses. Indeed, most folks who believe in resurrection believe that resurrected bodies are NOT the ones 'buried,' or at least, not completely...the new bodies are NEW, perfected, and very much alive, healthy and the precise opposite of 'corpse.' That's the whole point.

So you may continue to describe these events as 'walking/flying corpses' if you want to...but you need to be aware that doing so is an extremely inaccurate, as well as uncivil, way of presenting the doctrines and beliefs of those who believe in resurrection.

But if all you want is the titillation and irritation value, and don't care about accurately presenting the beliefs you are arguing against, go ahead. You won't be arguing against any belief anybody actually holds, but hey......free speech and all that.

[Danmark]

I am not mathematically talented, but it seems to me that your argument, above, applies to correlations, not causations. There is, for instance, nothing about a gift basket that necessitates a Lindor chocolate bar. There is nothing in the chocolate bar that requires it's presence in a gift basket; the presence of both together is the result of action by a third party; neither suffers from the lack of the other.

However, the argument (as I saw it, anyway) is that resurrection is only possible IF there is a God...a causal relationship, not just a correlative one. This puts your argument regarding probabilities into the proverbial cocked hat.

And just so you know, terming such as 'flying corpses' is not only offensive, but highly inaccurate; a corpse is a dead body. The whole point of resurrection is that the person experiencing it is ALIVE. Not 'undead,' or 'zombie,' or walking/flying corpses. Indeed, most folks who believe in resurrection believe that resurrected bodies are NOT the ones 'buried,' or at least, not completely...the new bodies are NEW, perfected, and very much alive, healthy and the precise opposite of 'corpse.' That's the whole point.

So you may continue to describe these events as 'walking/flying corpses' if you want to...but you need to be aware that doing so is an extremely inaccurate, as well as uncivil, way of presenting the doctrines and beliefs of those who believe in resurrection.

But if all you want is the titillation and irritation value, and don't care about accurately presenting the beliefs you are arguing against, go ahead. You won't be arguing against any belief anybody actually holds, but hey......free speech and all that.

One of the problems with discussing 'resurrected' bodies is that the term is not well defined, or it is defined in different ways, even within groups that believe in miracles or are theists. This may be an inherent problem with defining or discussing something that simply does not exist.

Is a resurrected body exactly or literally that; a body who has lost its soul or spirit and thus has ceased to function, followed by the soul/spirit returning to it? Or is it the spirit itself, which may be solely spirit yet projects an image of a body which can be seen, heard, and perhaps even touched? With a body that has become completely, physically destroyed, can its molecules be reconstructed somehow, according to the blueprint carried by the soul/spirit? What exactly IS the nature of these _______'s that are ascending? I submit that even if we use the Bible as a reference, we still do not know. We do not know because the Bible does not give us any clarity on the issue. And that may be a reflection on the fact that the whole thing is a product of the imagination and does not have to be harmonized with reality.

I certainly agree that there is no need to be gratuitously offensive in our use of terminology, but that may not be easily accomplished when the opposition believes something utterly preposterous from the point of view of a naturalist.

[WinePusher]

The majority of great thinkers, philosophers and scientists throughout history have been Christian and have professed belief in God.

Wow really? This is quite a claim. I mean "the belief in God" part I can buy, but the "have been Christian" part I can't.

I doubt that any non-Christian would ever agree to your claim. And I wouldn't be certain that all Christians would either.

Correct, but of course it isn't a matter of whether some one agrees or not. It is a matter of proof or documentation. He has given none, nor has he defined 'great thinkers.' He also has not given a time frame. Certainly 100% of the 'great thinkers' were not Christian before the Christian era.

Well, at the time when I wrote that I had a few major names in mind: Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Decartes, Boethius, Boyal, Spinosa, Faraday and many more. Again, those were just the few that popped into my head. All these individuals are some of the greatest thinkers, scientists and philosophers of all time and they all professed belief in God. My point was to refute the absurd atheist notion that theists will 'believe absolutely anything' and are 'gulliable' and 'stupid' because the world's most enlightened and intelligent people were believers.