evidence for and against miracle claims

[atheist buddy]

That Jesus was born of a virgin, that 9 months before he was born, one of Mary's eggs was NOT fertilized by a human sperm cell, is not a nebulous metaphysical claim. It's an empirical claim about the physical world.

As such, it is, or should be, subject to the same level of evidence-based scrutiny as any other empirical claim.

If the empirical evidence for it is found to be nill or close to nil, highly unreliable and very dubious, whereas the evidence against it is found to be plentiful, reliable, testable, falsifiable, and convergent from multiple independent spheres of knowledge, then it must be concluded that the claim that Jesus was born of a virgin is not credible, and thus belief in it is not justified.

So, I will write below all the evidence I can think of for and against the claim that Jesus was born of a virgin, and let's see what we come up with.

Evidence against Jesus being born of a virgin:

Biological evidence - where babies come from
Human reproductive biology is fully understood. Our understanding of the subject is so profound, that just by taking a cheek swab of any two individuals, we are able to predict with complete accuracy whether their child will or will not have Achondroplasia, Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency, Antiphospholipid Syndrome, Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease, Charcot-Marie-Tooth, Cri du chat, Crohn's Disease, Cystic fibrosis, just to stay witin a partial list of the diseases within the first 3 letters of the alphabet. In courts of law, we are able to determine with 99.99% certainty the paternity of a child. We are able to perform cloning, invitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, and more. We understand the mechanics of procreation to a degree that can be fairly described as complete. All of the material empirical evidence, which we understand completely, points to the fact that for a mammal to become pregnant and give birth to fertile offspring without the intervention of a male member of her same species, is biologically impossible. The same biologists and doctors who's expertise has been demonstrated by centuries of tangible results predicated on the correctness of their opinions, all agree on this.

Chemical evidence - the chemistry of fertilization.
The same chemical expertise that allows us to develop life saving medicine, and which is also part and parcel with the biology that allows us to understand DNA, tells us with no shadow of a doubt that the spontaneous materialization of a complete set of 23 human chromosomes inside a human egg, is chemically impossible.

Physical evidence - the physics of DNA
We are able to split the atom and send men on the moon. We are able to accelerate subatomic particles to almost the speed of light and take photos of them crashing into each other, and to land unmanned vehicles on mars. We can predict eclypses with to-the-second accuracy, and we can tell the chemical composition of a star trillions of miles away based on its light spectrum. The very understanding of physics that allows your phone to work and your pacemaker to work, and your GPS to work, and the internet to work, shines a light as powerful as the sun itself on this simple fact: Inside our universe, it's physically impossible for matter to come into existence from nothing. The chemical components of a human being that would ordinarily come from a sperm, simply cannot appear in the absence of a sperm. It's physically impossible.

Historical/anthropological evidence
There are countless stories of virgin births throughout history, many predating the story of Jesus. It seems evident that ancient tribes found it necessary to claim their favorite folk heroes were born of virgins to lend them an aura of exceptionality. Much like in modern times for a starlet to end up on the tabloids it seems necessary that she either has a sex video or a public emotional breakdown, or a DUI, it seems that in the bronze age, for someone to become a celebrity, his mother needed to be a virgin. In any case, the fact that humans at the time seemed to have a propensity for making up stories about virgin births, fatally undermines the proposition that on one particular instance, they happened to be telling the truth.

Historical/literary evidence
It is an irrefutable fact that whoever wrote that Mary was a virgin, was not monitoring Mary's sex life 9 months before Jesus's birth. Historians agree that the first statements about Mary's virginity were made long after Jesus's and Mary's death. Furthermore, the earliest available copies of those texts are copies of copies of copies of dubious originals written by anonymous authors, each copy also being made by anonymous authors with dubious agendas informed by the sociopolitical realities of the time, and the necessity to consolidate political power through a unified religion. Mary could have made the story up. The guy who claims Mary told him the story could have made it up. The guy who claims the guy who Mary told the story to, could have made it up. The first guy to write it down could have made it up. The first guy to make a copy of that original text could have added it and thus made it up. The guy who made the copy of that copy could have made it up. Any ONE of these people could have made it up for any number of reasons ranging from avoiding being stoned to death for adultery, to consolidating power of the priesthood by tieing in the popular mythical theme of virgin birth to the figurehead of a rising religion, and their fabrication would be no less consistant with the evidence we have today than an alleged true claim would be.

Linguistic evidence.
Ooof, I'm getting so bored. "Mary was a virgin" is actually a mistranslation of "Mary was a young woman". Nobody refutes this. The OT makes the prophecy that the Messiah would be born of a young woman, whoever wrote that Mary was a virgin mistranslated the passage in the OT, and therefore felt it necessary to say Mary was a virgin to match an OT prophecy that actually was never made. Look it up, and if you contest this, we can discuss.

Common sense
Let's say for the sake of argument that it is true that Mary never had sex with a man. Isn't it more likely that she had a bath in a tub where some guy had previously masturbated and got pregnant that way, than that everything we know about medicine, biology, chemistry, physics is wrong?


Evidence for the virgin birth
Some guy we don't know wrote it down. Period.



Conclusion: As expected, the evidence against the virgin birth is overwhelming, and the evidence for it is nil.

I look forward to responses.

[atheist buddy]

Right, but one must first believe that such an event is at least possible

Of course. In a philosophical sense, I'm open to the possibility that Mohammed ascended to heaven on his flying horse, that Frosty the Snowman occasionally comes to life, and that Mary was a virgin. I'm open to all these possibilities. Now make an argument for one of them being true that couldn't be made for the others being true

Ah, so you have abandoned your earlier position that virgin births and similar events are not just extremely rare, but impossible. Good.

Well spoken. I need to clarify my position here. For all intents and purposes all of these crazy fairy tales are impossible. We are pretty much certain that not only they did not happen, but that they could not have happened. this is because, as I said, there is overwhelming evidence agains tthem, and no verifiable evidence for them.

While this is mos definitely my position when it comes to describing reality, I can have a slightly more nuanced position when philosophizing in the abstract. Philosophically, as a thought experiment, I can muse that it's ultimately impossible to completely rule out anything. It's possible that in a parallel universe the very fabric of reality is so different that a bachelor's wife can exist. But that's an abstract philosophical musing. When I said that I'm "open to the possibility" about the flying horse, frosty the Snowman and the Virgin birth, I didn't mean that I think there is a possibility in the practical sense of the word that they happened or may happen. I meant that I'm open to argument for them being possible. Sorry that I wasn't clear.

Other examples you could have thrown in for good measure might include: that the entire universe popped into existence from, well, nothing whatsoever; that the first living creature emerged on earth when lightning struck a suitable mix of inorganic chemicals at just the right moment; that this unicellular baby life form somehow decided that its own survival, and moreover its own posterity, was terribly important and thus began to reproduce and evolve; and that snakes and donkeys – talking or not – have some cause to be disappointed at not receiving an invite to your last family reunion, because they are your cousins.

No. absolutely not. False parallel. These rare and unlikely things that you're erroneously trying to link to Frosty the Snowman and Jesus's virgin birth, as well as being improbable, share one additional CRUCIAL attribute, which Frosty and Jesus do not possess:

We have evidence that they happened, and we don't have evidence that they couldn't have happened.

Instead, for Frosty, Mohammed's horse and Jesus's virgin birth, the opposite is true. There is overwhelming empirical evidence that they didn't happen, and no verifiable evidence that they didn't.

My take is basically this: If thinkers as intelligent as yourself can evolve from mindless collections of base elements then a virgin can easily give birth.

Well, your take is wrong. It's like saying "If it's possible for a bird to fly, then a horse can fly as well".

Wat's wrong with that statement? we have overwhelming evidence that birds can fly, and no evidence that they cannot, whereas we have overwhelming evidence that horses CANNOT fly, and no verifiable evidence that they can.

It's astaggeringly simple concept, I cannot fathom why you would have difficulty seeing the flaw in your argument.

That which is demonstrably true, doesn't constitute evidence of that which is demonstrably untrue.

Can you give me ONE example of anything you do not believe happened, and which you disbelieve based on something OTHER THAN frequency data?

For example, do you believe that I was born of a virgin? Please list all reasons you don't believe it, which couldn't be construed as frequency data.

You didn't answer this question. Please do.

Please give me an example of ANYHTING which you don't believe is true. Anything.

Then give me all the reasons you don't believe it's true, which are NOT frequency data.

You said that it's wrong for me to disbelieve in Jesus's virgin birth, because the evidence against it just constitutes frequency data.

So please list all the evidence against my virgin birth which doesn't constitute frequency data.

Because if you can't, then there's only frequency data against Jesus's virgin birth, and frequency data against my birth, which means it's equally wrong to disbelieve both.

[Fundagelico]

I need to clarify my position here. For all intents and purposes all of these crazy fairy tales are impossible.

I would agree with you that crazy fairy tales by definition do not depict reality. The question is whether the story of Mary's conception by the Holy Spirit is a crazy fairy tale. Arbitrarily associating it with Frosty the Snowman for rhetorical effect won't answer that question.

Mary's story is embedded in a carefully composed text purporting to convey historical events. Luke's version was written with the explicit purpose of reconstructing a coherent narrative based on various extant eyewitness accounts of the apostles (Luke 1:4). For that reason the author takes care to mention specific Roman authorities, civil proceedings, customs, landmarks and monuments, etc., to establish specific historical contexts for his narrative. In principle the author of Luke could be lying or deluded, I suppose, but his Gospel simply doesn't fit the genre of fairy tale.

We are pretty much certain that not only they did not happen, but that they could not have happened. this is because, as I said, there is overwhelming evidence agains tthem, and no verifiable evidence for them.

While this is mos definitely my position when it comes to describing reality, I can have a slightly more nuanced position when philosophizing in the abstract. Philosophically, as a thought experiment, I can muse that it's ultimately impossible to completely rule out anything. It's possible that in a parallel universe the very fabric of reality is so different that a bachelor's wife can exist.

Okay. I will assume from this, then, that a parallel universe in which a virgin birth may occur is equally possible. Now one of the standard rebuttals to the fine-tuning argument is that there is only one observable universe, and therefore we have no baseline against which to measure the probability of its coming into existence just as it did. In empirical terms our actual universe may be as likely as any other parallel universe, so that the most we can say to explain fine tuning is that our universe clearly exhibits life-permitting properties because otherwise we would not be here to comment on the fact. But by that same reasoning a universe whose properties are such that life eventually emerges and a single virgin birth occurs sometime later, is no more antecedently improbable than a universe in which life eventually emerges but no virgin births occur ever.

But that's an abstract philosophical musing. When I said that I'm "open to the possibility" about the flying horse, frosty the Snowman and the Virgin birth, I didn't mean that I think there is a possibility in the practical sense of the word that they happened or may happen. I meant that I'm open to argument for them being possible. Sorry that I wasn't clear.

Thanks for that. But the explanation on offer is not much clearer. If x is possible, then x could actually happen. If x could not actually happen, on the other hand, then clearly x is impossible. I think you need to decide which of these positions you would like to defend.

These rare and unlikely things that you're erroneously trying to link to Frosty the Snowman and Jesus's virgin birth, as well as being improbable, share one additional CRUCIAL attribute, which Frosty and Jesus do not possess:

We have evidence that they happened, and we don't have evidence that they couldn't have happened.

Instead, for Frosty, Mohammed's horse and Jesus's virgin birth, the opposite is true. There is overwhelming empirical evidence that they didn't happen, and no verifiable evidence that they didn't.

Again I think you need to stake out a consistent position here. Your cited reason for dismissing the "practical" possibility of a virgin birth was basically lots of observations of non-virgin births, i.e., an appeal to inductive reasoning based on the presumed regularity of operations of nature. Because neither you nor I nor anyone we know has ever witnessed a virgin birth, the argument goes, well then neither has Mary or Joseph or anyone else.

But notice that the same "evidence" – observations of regularity in nature – that would presumably disconfirm the virgin birth would also disconfirm all the examples I cited: the birth of the universe, the origin of life, and evolutionary history. To my knowledge no one has ever seen, nor has anyone moderately reputable even claimed to have seen, any of these events. By your standards of evidence, not mine, those events are impossible fairy tales. It may be a law of nature that human reproduction requires both egg and sperm, but it is just as much a law of nature (the law of biogenesis) that life can only originate through reproduction in the first place. So what are we doing here?

My take is basically this: If thinkers as intelligent as yourself can evolve from mindless collections of base elements then a virgin can easily give birth.

Well, your take is wrong. It's like saying "If it's possible for a bird to fly, then a horse can fly as well".

What a terribly inappropriate analogy. The point is that there is no a priori reason, and no evidence, whatsoever to think that mindless collections of base elements can produce intelligent thinkers – which probably helps explain why neither you nor I nor anyone else we know has ever witnessed such an event, nor even claimed to have witnessed such an event. The purported evolution of intelligence from inanimate matter is ("practically") impossible, at least by your own standards of evidence. On the other hand, I can't think of a day when I went outside my house for more than a few minutes and did not personally witness a bird flying.

Can you give me ONE example of anything you do not believe happened, and which you disbelieve based on something OTHER THAN frequency data?

For example, do you believe that I was born of a virgin? Please list all reasons you don't believe it, which couldn't be construed as frequency data.

You didn't answer this question. Please do.

Actually I did – in four paragraphs. Either you missed it altogether, or you are suggesting that I didn't "really" answer it because you are not satisfied with the answer (which should come as no surprise, since I disagree with your contention that frequency data is the only kind of evidence there is).

[atheist buddy]

I need to clarify my position here. For all intents and purposes all of these crazy fairy tales are impossible.

I would agree with you that crazy fairy tales by definition do not depict reality. The question is whether the story of Mary's conception by the Holy Spirit is a crazy fairy tale. Arbitrarily associating it with Frosty the Snowman for rhetorical effect won't answer that question.

The association is not arbitrary. I associate the virgin birth with Frosty the Snowman on the basis of the fact that there is no more evidence in favor of one than there is in favor of the other, and on the basis that there is equally overwhelming evidence against one as there is against the other.

Mary's story is embedded in a carefully composed text purporting to convey historical events. Luke's version was written with the explicit purpose of reconstructing a coherent narrative based on various extant eyewitness accounts of the apostles (Luke 1:4). For that reason the author takes care to mention specific Roman authorities, civil proceedings, customs, landmarks and monuments, etc., to establish specific historical contexts for his narrative. In principle the author of Luke could be lying or deluded, I suppose, but his Gospel simply doesn't fit the genre of fairy tale.

I'm trying to decide whether you're just not interested in a serious debate and are making meaningless satements on that basis, or whether you actually think you're making a valid point and expecting me to refute it.

Clearly, in comparing the virgin birth to fairy tales, I'm making reference to the equivalent lack of evidence for both and to the equivalent preponderance of evidence against both. I'm not making reference to the literary style.

It seems to me that you're attempting to obfuscate and change the subject, much in the same way that you previously attempted to do so with my loaded vs unloaded gun analogy. I really need you to decide whether you're taking this seriously or not.

We are pretty much certain that not only they did not happen, but that they could not have happened. this is because, as I said, there is overwhelming evidence agains tthem, and no verifiable evidence for them.

While this is mos definitely my position when it comes to describing reality, I can have a slightly more nuanced position when philosophizing in the abstract. Philosophically, as a thought experiment, I can muse that it's ultimately impossible to completely rule out anything. It's possible that in a parallel universe the very fabric of reality is so different that a bachelor's wife can exist.

Okay. I will assume from this, then, that a parallel universe in which a virgin birth may occur is equally possible.

Yes, a PARALLEL universe (not THIS universe) in which virgin births happen, is as possible or impossible as a PARALLEL universe (not THIS universe) in which bachelors' wives exist.

Now one of the standard rebuttals to the fine-tuning argument is that there is only one observable universe, and therefore we have no baseline against which to measure the probability of its coming into existence just as it did. In empirical terms our actual universe may be as likely as any other parallel universe, so that the most we can say to explain fine tuning is that our universe clearly exhibits life-permitting properties because otherwise we would not be here to comment on the fact. But by that same reasoning a universe whose properties are such that life eventually emerges and a single virgin birth occurs sometime later, is no more antecedently improbable than a universe in which life eventually emerges but no virgin births occur ever.

Sure. It's conceivably possible that in a PARALLEL universe (not THIS universe) life emerged, and one virgin birth took place.

It's also conceivably possible that in a PARALLEL universe (not THIS universe) life emerged, and a snowman occasionally comes to life when a silk hat is placed on its head.

I was kind of hoping we would discuss the posisbility of virgin births and ambulant snowmen in THIS universe, not in PARALLEL hypothetical universes.

But that's an abstract philosophical musing. When I said that I'm "open to the possibility" about the flying horse, frosty the Snowman and the Virgin birth, I didn't mean that I think there is a possibility in the practical sense of the word that they happened or may happen. I meant that I'm open to argument for them being possible. Sorry that I wasn't clear.

Thanks for that. But the explanation on offer is not much clearer. If x is possible, then x could actually happen. If x could not actually happen, on the other hand, then clearly x is impossible. I think you need to decide which of these positions you would like to defend.

I'm not sure. I would say that the likelihood that a virgin birth happens, is approximately equal to the likelihood of a snowman coming to life when a silk hat is placed on its head. I don't know if you want to use the word "possible" or the word "impossile" to describe that. I'l defer to you, as long as we agree on the equivalency between the two.

These rare and unlikely things that you're erroneously trying to link to Frosty the Snowman and Jesus's virgin birth, as well as being improbable, share one additional CRUCIAL attribute, which Frosty and Jesus do not possess:

We have evidence that they happened, and we don't have evidence that they couldn't have happened.

Instead, for Frosty, Mohammed's horse and Jesus's virgin birth, the opposite is true. There is overwhelming empirical evidence that they didn't happen, and no verifiable evidence that they didn't.

Again I think you need to stake out a consistent position here. Your cited reason for dismissing the "practical" possibility of a virgin birth was basically lots of observations of non-virgin births

No I didn't. No I didn't. No I didn't. Let me rephrase that: NO I ABSOLUTELY DIDN'T.

That was your attempt at a bait and switch.

The reason we dismiss virgin births and magical snowmen is NOT on the basis of lots of observations of non-virgin births.

Although the complete absence of evidence FOR something is definitely a good reason not to believe that thing, that's not the only consideration on the table.

There's also the presence of direct empirical evidence AGAINST that thing.

i.e., an appeal to inductive reasoning based on the presumed regularity of operations of nature. Because neither you nor I nor anyone we know has ever witnessed a virgin birth, the argument goes, well then neither has Mary or Joseph or anyone else.

That's not the argument at all. It's not just that nobody has seen evidence for the virgin birth. It's also that eveyrbody has seen overwhelming evidence AGAINST the virgin birth.

But notice that the same "evidence" – observations of regularity in nature – that would presumably disconfirm the virgin birth would also disconfirm all the examples I cited: the birth of the universe, the origin of life, and evolutionary history.

Here's the thing: The birth of the universe, the origin of life, evolution... HAPPENED. We have irrefutable evidence that they happened.

It's reasonable to believe in something which happened according to irrefutable evidence.

It's not reasonable to believe something which did NOT happen according to irrefutable evidence.

To my knowledge no one has ever seen, nor has anyone moderately reputable even claimed to have seen, any of these events.

So what? Visual inspection is not the only form of evidence.

To say that only that which has been sighted can be reasonably claimed to exist, is a laughable proposition.

By your standards of evidence, not mine, those events are impossible fairy tales.

Actually that's not my standard of evidence. It's your deliberately reductionist standard of evidence. If visual inspection were the only standard of evidence of something's existence, then a blind man would be justified in believing that nothing exists.

This is a bait and switch you will not get away with. There are many ways of aquiring empirical evidence, through direct sensory interaction with the environment, and through countless interactions aided by specialized machinery. Nobody's ever seen the universe's microwave background radiation, but we can surely measure it, and it constitutes empirical evidence of the big bang.

It may be a law of nature that human reproduction requires both egg and sperm, but it is just as much a law of nature (the law of biogenesis) that life can only originate through reproduction in the first place. So what are we doing here?

False. There's no such thing as the "law of biogenesis". Life does NOT originate through reproduction. Life PERPETUATES through reproduction.

Life originates through abiogenesis, as clearly indicated by empirical data such as the Miller-Urey Experiments.

My take is basically this: If thinkers as intelligent as yourself can evolve from mindless collections of base elements then a virgin can easily give birth.

Well, your take is wrong. It's like saying "If it's possible for a bird to fly, then a horse can fly as well".

What a terribly inappropriate analogy. The point is that there is no a priori reason, and no evidence, whatsoever to think that mindless collections of base elements can produce intelligent thinkers

Actually there is irrefutable evidence that this is the case. The emergence of intelligence from simpler forms of replicating life is fully understood, fully documented, irrefutably evidence-based. It's called Evolution by Natural Selection, and it's a scientific fact. The emergence of replicating molecules from simpler materials is also well understood, just not completely understood at this time.

which probably helps explain why neither you nor I nor anyone else we know has ever witnessed such an event, nor even claimed to have witnessed such an event.

Actually, no. The reason you never witnessed the formation of complex molecules from simpler ones, and the evolution of those self replicating molecules into intelligent life forms, is that they happened before you were born. Much like World War One. But we have evidence of all those things nonetheless.

The purported evolution of intelligence from inanimate matter is ("practically") impossible, at least by your own standards of evidence.

Nope. It's impossible by your fabricated standard of evidence whereby "only that which is front of my face when I have my eyes open exists".

On the other hand, I can't think of a day when I went outside my house for more than a few minutes and did not personally witness a bird flying.

It's good that you're not blind, otherwise you'd be claiming birds do not exist.

Can you give me ONE example of anything you do not believe happened, and which you disbelieve based on something OTHER THAN frequency data?

For example, do you believe that I was born of a virgin? Please list all reasons you don't believe it, which couldn't be construed as frequency data.

You didn't answer this question. Please do.

Actually I did – in four paragraphs. Either you missed it altogether, or you are suggesting that I didn't "really" answer it because you are not satisfied with the answer (which should come as no surprise, since I disagree with your contention that frequency data is the only kind of evidence there is).

Name one thing which you don't believe exists, or which you don't believe happened.

[Clownboat]

But notice that the same "evidence" – observations of regularity in nature – that would presumably disconfirm the virgin birth would also disconfirm all the examples I cited: the birth of the universe, the origin of life, and evolutionary history. To my knowledge no one has ever seen, nor has anyone moderately reputable even claimed to have seen, any of these events. By your standards of evidence, not mine, those events are impossible fairy tales. It may be a law of nature that human reproduction requires both egg and sperm, but it is just as much a law of nature (the law of biogenesis) that life can only originate through reproduction in the first place. So what are we doing here?

For me... I hope I'm acting rational.
I don't know how the universe came to be, nor how life originated, nor do I have a complete understanding of evolutionary history. Nor have I claimed to have the answers for these questions.

Your turn...
Was Jesus born of a virgin?

Oddly enough, the only people that claim to have answers for the questions you posed above (creation of the universe and life) are the same people I observe believing the virgin birth story of Jesus (and other competing religions). Not something I personally find to be rational.

[Fundagelico]

I need to clarify my position here. For all intents and purposes all of these crazy fairy tales are impossible.

I would agree with you that crazy fairy tales by definition do not depict reality. The question is whether the story of Mary's conception by the Holy Spirit is a crazy fairy tale. Arbitrarily associating it with Frosty the Snowman for rhetorical effect won't answer that question.

The association is not arbitrary. I associate the virgin birth with Frosty the Snowman on the basis of the fact that there is no more evidence in favor of one than there is in favor of the other, and on the basis that there is equally overwhelming evidence against one as there is against the other.

Yes, and again the approach is rhetorically powerful. I just don't think it's a thoughtful argument, especially for one who professes to desire only SERIOUS debates.

But it's not like I couldn't do the same thing: You believe that amphibians evolved into human beings? Read The Frog Prince by the Brothers Grimm for a fairy tale version of the same basic story. You believe in General Relativity and time dilation? Then you'll probably enjoy "Back to the Future," a powerful and inspiring science documentary based on the life and research of Dr. Emmett L. Brown. Etc.

Of course anyone can claim to have "overwhelming" evidence against a certain belief, but it hardly makes for a valid premise in an argument. Consider the argument below:

• 1. There is absolutely no evidence in favor of the belief that life can originate from nonliving matter, and overwhelming evidence against that belief.
  2. There is absolutely no evidence in favor of the belief that a snowman can talk, and overwhelming evidence against that belief.
  3. Beliefs for which there is absolutely no evidence, and against which there is overwhelming evidence, are crazy fairy tales.
  4. Abiogenesis theories and "Frosty the Snowman" are crazy fairy tales.

Most atheists would dispute the first premise, just as I would dispute your assessment of evidence related to the historical veracity of the Gospel narratives ("Some guy wrote it down. Period.") But without the first premise the argument fails miserably.

I'm trying to decide whether you're just not interested in a serious debate and are making meaningless satements on that basis, or whether you actually think you're making a valid point and expecting me to refute it.

I'm one step ahead of you. I have already decided that you are not interested in serious debate – not only because of your overblown rhetoric (see my first reply above), but because you have specifically declared that your intention in posting here is to embarrass and ridicule theists into submission.

Clearly, in comparing the virgin birth to fairy tales, I'm making reference to the equivalent lack of evidence for both and to the equivalent preponderance of evidence against both. I'm not making reference to the literary style.

Right, I am the one making reference to the literary style. That's because the content of carefully composed historical accounts is generally more reliable than the content of children's bedtime stories.

It seems to me that you're attempting to obfuscate and change the subject, much in the same way that you previously attempted to do so with my loaded vs unloaded gun analogy. I really need you to decide whether you're taking this seriously or not.

You're still smarting from that exchange? Goodness.

Look, your fantasy scenario stipulated that I would have to pick up either of two guns – one loaded and one unloaded – and "fire." I merely pointed out that unloaded guns do not fire, and you apparently got upset that I didn't interpret your phrasing more charitably – as if you weren't in the habit of consistently misinterpreting the arguments of theists like me as uncharitably as possible.

Sure. It's conceivably possible that in a PARALLEL universe (not THIS universe) life emerged, and one virgin birth took place.

It's also conceivably possible that in a PARALLEL universe (not THIS universe) life emerged, and a snowman occasionally comes to life when a silk hat is placed on its head.

I was kind of hoping we would discuss the posisbility of virgin births and ambulant snowmen in THIS universe, not in PARALLEL hypothetical universes.

But that's just it. A universe in which life emerged once – just once – and then so many years later one – just one – virgin birth took place, would appear an awful lot like the universe we inhabit, so much so that it may as well be THIS universe (not a PARALLEL universe) for all we know otherwise.

I would say that the likelihood that a virgin birth happens, is approximately equal to the likelihood of a snowman coming to life when a silk hat is placed on its head. I don't know if you want to use the word "possible" or the word "impossile" to describe that. I'l defer to you, as long as we agree on the equivalency between the two.

Okay, in deference to me we'll go with "antecedently improbable" – which is how I would describe not only a virgin birth and a snowman coming to life, but a universe emerging from nothing, life emerging unaided from inanimate chemicals, and intelligent humans emerging naturally from mindlessly replicating unicellular beings.

And with that I'll have to drop this for now. Happy Halloween.

[atheist buddy]

I need to clarify my position here. For all intents and purposes all of these crazy fairy tales are impossible.

I would agree with you that crazy fairy tales by definition do not depict reality. The question is whether the story of Mary's conception by the Holy Spirit is a crazy fairy tale. Arbitrarily associating it with Frosty the Snowman for rhetorical effect won't answer that question.

The association is not arbitrary. I associate the virgin birth with Frosty the Snowman on the basis of the fact that there is no more evidence in favor of one than there is in favor of the other, and on the basis that there is equally overwhelming evidence against one as there is against the other.

Yes, and again the approach is rhetorically powerful. I just don't think it's a thoughtful argument, especially for one who professes to desire only SERIOUS debates.

Let's set aside the power of my rhetoric and just look at the substance of my argument.

I'm simply saying that there is no more verifiable evidence for (and no less evidence against) the virgin birth of Jesus, than there is in the case of:

- The virgin birth of any number of other historical and mythical characters
- The supernatural claims in any number of other religious texts
- The events described in fairy tales and fables

I appreciate your admiration for my skills at rhetoric, but beyond that, if you wish to counter my argument, there is only one way you can do it: Present some evidence for the virgin birth of Jesus that doesn't exist for any of the other claims I listed, and present evidence against the other claims that doesn't exist against the virgin birth.

If I claim that there is as little evidence for X as there is for Y, the only way to refute that is by presenting evidence for X that doesn't exist for Y.

Go ahead.

But it's not like I couldn't do the same thing: You believe that amphibians evolved into human beings? Read The Frog Prince by the Brothers Grimm for a fairy tale version of the same basic story. You believe in General Relativity and time dilation? Then you'll probably enjoy "Back to the Future," a powerful and inspiring science documentary based on the life and research of Dr. Emmett L. Brown. Etc.

What an extraordinarily weak argument. Wow. IF, and only IF I used the Frog Prince as my ONLY evidence for evolution, then you'd be entirely justified in claiming that there is no more evidence for evolution than there is for Frosty the Snowman.

But because the truth of evolution is ascertained by empirical measurable objective repeatable evidence with predictive power, converging from multiple sources onto the same conclusion, then your argument about the Brothers Grimm makes ZERO sense whatsoever.

It doesn't even BEGIN to make sense. We have a scientific fact, based on conclusive empirical evidence and contradicted by zero empirical evidence, and you wish to discount it, because, completely separate from - and having nothing to do with - the fact of evolution, there is a fairy tale that touches upon a theme tangentially related to evolution?

If we were to apply your same logic to geography, we'd have to come to the conclusion that New york doesn't exist. After all, it appears in a fictional comic called Spiderman. By your logic, if it appears in a fictional tale, then it's fictional, and the actual empirical evidence for the existence of New York doesn't matter. Right?

Of course anyone can claim to have "overwhelming" evidence against a certain belief, but it hardly makes for a valid premise in an argument. Consider the argument below:

Of course. Claiming to have overwhelming evidence doesn't mean much. You have to actually be able to present the evidence which you claim to have. I've presented the evidence for and against the virgin birth above. Which portions of it do you disagree with?

• 1. There is absolutely no evidence in favor of the belief that life can originate from nonliving matter, and overwhelming evidence against that belief.

False. The evidence that life originated from nonliving matter is conclusive. We don't know the exact mechanism by which life emerged from nonlife (although several elements of it are indicted empirically), but the emergence itself is beyond dispute.

It's similar to how a person who is not a mechanic might not understand exactly what it is that makes a car move, but the fact that cars move is indisputable.

2. There is absolutely no evidence in favor of the belief that a snowman can talk, and overwhelming evidence against that belief.]

True

3. Beliefs for which there is absolutely no evidence, and against which there is overwhelming evidence, are crazy fairy tales.

True

4. Abiogenesis theories and "Frosty the Snowman" are crazy fairy tales.

False. While Frosty the snowman meets the criteria of premise 3, abiogenesis does not.
[/list]

Most atheists would dispute the first premise, just as I would dispute your assessment of evidence related to the historical veracity of the Gospel narratives ("Some guy wrote it down. Period.") But without the first premise the argument fails miserably.

I agree. If the first premise of this argument (or any argument) is false, then the conclusions are false.

So let's discuss the evidence itself. Let's compare all the evidence for and againts these 5 claims: The earth is approximately globe shaped, life emerged from non-life, Jesus was born of a virgin, Mohammed ascended to heaven on the wings of a flying white horse, Frosty the snowman comes to life when a silk hat is placed on its head.

You'll find that some of those claims are indeed supported by nothing more than "some guy wrote it down, period", and contradicted by a lot of empirical evidence, whereas others are supported by a convergence of multiple indipendent streams of empirical evidence and contradicted by nothing.

Guess in which category the virgin birth lands? Hint: It's the same one that Frosty the Snowman lands in.

I'm trying to decide whether you're just not interested in a serious debate and are making meaningless satements on that basis, or whether you actually think you're making a valid point and expecting me to refute it.

I'm one step ahead of you. I have already decided that you are not interested in serious debate – not only because of your overblown rhetoric (see my first reply above), but because you have specifically declared that your intention in posting here is to embarrass and ridicule theists into submission.

Well, we have a fundamental disagreement on whether crushing theists into submission is or isn't a serious endevor. I find it a very serious endevor, one by which I contribute to the betterment and emancipation of the human race from the scurge of dogmatic belief.

Clearly, in comparing the virgin birth to fairy tales, I'm making reference to the equivalent lack of evidence for both and to the equivalent preponderance of evidence against both. I'm not making reference to the literary style.

Right, I am the one making reference to the literary style. That's because the content of carefully composed historical accounts is generally more reliable than the content of children's bedtime stories.

You must believe that The Diary of Bridget Jones is an account of reality, then.

Your statement is patently false. There are millions of books that make claims similar to those of the Virgin Birth using a similar literary style.

It's called fiction.

It seems to me that you're attempting to obfuscate and change the subject, much in the same way that you previously attempted to do so with my loaded vs unloaded gun analogy. I really need you to decide whether you're taking this seriously or not.

You're still smarting from that exchange? Goodness.

Look, your fantasy scenario stipulated that I would have to pick up either of two guns – one loaded and one unloaded – and "fire." I merely pointed out that unloaded guns do not fire, and you apparently got upset that I didn't interpret your phrasing more charitably – as if you weren't in the habit of consistently misinterpreting the arguments of theists like me as uncharitably as possible.

Give me an example of somewhere that I deliberately misunderstood you for the purpose of dodging a difficult question.

Go ahead.

Sure. It's conceivably possible that in a PARALLEL universe (not THIS universe) life emerged, and one virgin birth took place.

It's also conceivably possible that in a PARALLEL universe (not THIS universe) life emerged, and a snowman occasionally comes to life when a silk hat is placed on its head.

I was kind of hoping we would discuss the posisbility of virgin births and ambulant snowmen in THIS universe, not in PARALLEL hypothetical universes.

But that's just it. A universe in which life emerged once – just once – and then so many years later one – just one – virgin birth took place, would appear an awful lot like the universe we inhabit, so much so that it may as well be THIS universe (not a PARALLEL universe) for all we know otherwise.

No it would not. That would be a universe in which the laws of physics were suspended once. There is no evidence that the laws of physics are ever suspended in our universe, so there is no reason to believe otherwise.

Furthermore, the universe has existed for 409,968,000,000,000,000 seconds and is 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 cubic centimeters in volume. To believe that the laws of physics ever get suspended (without any evidence in support of it) is already loony. But to believe, without any evidence whatsoever, that of those 409,968,000,000,000,000 seconds and 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 cubic centimeters, it was specifically in one second and one cubic centimeter in Israel, about two weeks after Mary had her period, and 9 months after jesus was born, that the laws of physics were suspended, is truly worthy of an insane asylum.

I would say that the likelihood that a virgin birth happens, is approximately equal to the likelihood of a snowman coming to life when a silk hat is placed on its head. I don't know if you want to use the word "possible" or the word "impossile" to describe that. I'l defer to you, as long as we agree on the equivalency between the two.

Okay, in deference to me we'll go with "antecedently improbable" – which is how I would describe not only a virgin birth and a snowman coming to life, but a universe emerging from nothing, life emerging unaided from inanimate chemicals, and intelligent humans emerging naturally from mindlessly replicating unicellular beings.

Ok, so finish your argument.

1) Everything, including frosty the snowman, Santa, Spiderman, the law of Gravity, Relativity, the shape of the Earth, the virgin birth of Jesus, the virgin birth of Alexander the Great, the Virgin birth of Atheist Buddy, the alien spaceship behind the Hale-Bopp comet, the existence of the sun, the existence of the universe, the existence of Fundangelico, that I win the lottery tomorrow, that you win the lottery 85 times in a row, that my husband sneezes tomorrow, that anything exists, is antecedently improbable.
2) Therefore.... What? Therefore there wasn't sperm in Mary's uterus 9 months before Jesus was born?

Finish your argument.



I'm still waiting for you to give me an example of ONE thing which you don't believe exists/happened? Spiderman? My virgin birth? The spaceship behind the Hale-Bopp comet?

Just name one thing you don't believe exists/happened.


If anybody is unclear of why, despite my asking several times, Fundangelico has still refused to do this, here's why: Because the instant he does, I will copy all of his arguments for the virgin birth verbatim, substituting the virgin birth for whatever claim he said he doesn't believe in, and use them to "demonstrate" the existence of whatever it is that he claimed doesn't exist as "succesfully" as he did for the virgin birth, thereby in actuality demonstrating that his argument is meaningless because it leads to a belief in the virgin birth, that is no more justified than a belief in... that which he doesn't believe in.

An argument which supports anything, is an argument which supports nothing.

[Fundagelico]

Let's set aside the power of my rhetoric and just look at the substance of my argument.

I'm simply saying that there is no more verifiable evidence for (and no less evidence against) the virgin birth of Jesus, than there is in the case of:

- The virgin birth of any number of other historical and mythical characters
- The supernatural claims in any number of other religious texts
- The events described in fairy tales and fables

I appreciate your admiration for my skills at rhetoric, but beyond that, if you wish to counter my argument, there is only one way you can do it: Present some evidence for the virgin birth of Jesus that doesn't exist for any of the other claims I listed, and present evidence against the other claims that doesn't exist against the virgin birth.

If I claim that there is as little evidence for X as there is for Y, the only way to refute that is by presenting evidence for X that doesn't exist for Y.

Go ahead.

Okay.

I think it's fair to say that a rationally justified belief in the virgin birth derives from a rationally justified belief in Christian theism generally. Thus if Christian theism is true, then the truth of the virgin birth follows more or less directly. That said, here are some of the main sources of evidence supporting the truth of Christian theism:

- The fine-tuning of life-permitting properties of our universe, along with countless instances of specified (if not strictly "irreducible") functional complexity in nature, suggesting an intelligent designer
- The carefully recorded, preserved and widely published historical accounts of Israel's origin as a nation led by God himself, beginning with Abraham
- The carefully recorded, preserved, and widely published historical accounts of the previously prophesied miraculous ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus
- The birth and rapid growth of the early church in Jerusalem on the preaching of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, a scant few weeks after his crucifixion, in the face of violent persecution, and within walking distance of his tomb
- The unexpected and complete conversion of Saul of Tarsus, previously a leader of the effort to destroy the Christian movement, who along with the other apostles gladly risked (and ultimately lost) his life proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead and appeared to him
- The witness of early church fathers and martyrs like Ignatius to the events as well as the early composition of the New Testament accounts
- The worldwide dispersion and persecution of Israel from her homeland, followed by the physical restoration of Israel to her homeland, as explicitly prophesied in the Old Testament many centuries prior to both AD 70 (the year of the last great act of the Diaspora) and AD 1948 (the year of the restoration)
- The continued prosperity of the nation of Israel since her restoration in 1948 to the present day, despite being surrounded by any number of nations bent on her destruction

I'm pretty sure there is nothing comparable in the way of evidence for the story of "Frosty the Snowman."

IF, and only IF I used the Frog Prince as my ONLY evidence for evolution, then you'd be entirely justified in claiming that there is no more evidence for evolution than there is for Frosty the Snowman.

Okay, then I await your presentation of evidence for evolution beyond its striking parallels with The Frog Prince, with ancient Greek cosmologies, with Hindu creation myths, etc.

But before you present your evidence please explain just what you mean by "evolution." (I suspect you may be trying to sneak a fallacy of equivocation past me from the get-go.)

But because the truth of evolution is ascertained by empirical measurable objective repeatable evidence with predictive power, converging from multiple sources onto the same conclusion, then your argument about the Brothers Grimm makes ZERO sense whatsoever.

It doesn't even BEGIN to make sense. We have a scientific fact, based on conclusive empirical evidence and contradicted by zero empirical evidence, and you wish to discount it, because, completely separate from - and having nothing to do with - the fact of evolution, there is a fairy tale that touches upon a theme tangentially related to evolution?

So far here is the evidence you've provided for evolution: Very strongly worded personal assurances from you that the evidence for evolution is "empirical measurable objective repeatable evidence with predictive power, converging from multiple sources onto the same conclusion;" and that evolution is therefore "a scientific fact, based on conclusive empirical evidence and contradicted by zero empirical evidence." But again very strong claims to having tons of empirical evidence for evolution is not at all the same as actually having tons of empirical evidence for evolution. I shouldn't have to tell you this.

The evidence that life originated from nonliving matter is conclusive. We don't know the exact mechanism by which life emerged from nonlife (although several elements of it are indicted empirically), but the emergence itself is beyond dispute.

Later you will ask me for an example of your deliberate misinterpretation of one of my statements. Your misinterpretation above is certainly a viable candidate, though I can't say for certain whether it was deliberate.

Yes, the evidence that life originated from nonliving matter is conclusive, only if we dismiss the "exact mechanism" of how life might have arisen as a secondary question and merely observe that living organisms are composed of nonliving matter. But on this we agree completely. Even Genesis has God creating man "from the dust of the earth."

In the context of a theism-atheism debate it should have been clear that the question I was addressing was precisely whether life could have possibly arisen from nothing but nonliving matter (i.e., without the aid of a directing intelligence), not simply whether nonliving matter was its working material. In other words the "exact mechanism" which would potentially confirm abiogenesis remains completely beyond anyone's reach in terms of confirming evidence -- whereas the only testable alternative to biogenesis (spontaneous generation) has been repeatedly falsified.

Well, we have a fundamental disagreement on whether crushing theists into submission is or isn't a serious endevor. I find it a very serious endevor, one by which I contribute to the betterment and emancipation of the human race from the scurge of dogmatic belief.

An endeavor being serious doesn't make it the stuff of a serious debate. Throughout history ideologues as serious as yourself have crushed their opponents with violence, intimidation, deception and oppression, without a single word of serious debate.

But to begin the endeavor of emancipating the human race from the presumed scourge of dogmatic belief, you must hold a dogmatic belief of your own, namely that theism is a scourge in need of crushing by whatever means necessary. In short, your mission statement is incoherent.

I'm still waiting for you to give me an example of ONE thing which you don't believe exists/happened? Spiderman? My virgin birth? The spaceship behind the Hale-Bopp comet?

Just name one thing you don't believe exists/happened.

I shouldn't have to do this for you, but here is my original answer to that question:

Frequency data make for good prima facie reason to doubt that you were born of a virgin, and in fact best explain why I do in fact doubt you were born of a virgin. But frequency data are not the only data available to us. Otherwise we would not have such useful sources of information as, say, all of recorded history. How many times did Wellington defeat Napoleon at Waterloo? How often have international terrorists hijacked domestic airliners with box cutters and flown them into the World Trade Center towers?

Nor would we have prehistory: Most of us have never witnessed a big bang, an origin-of-life, a Cambrian explosion or even a humble speciation event. Do you doubt that these events have occurred? You clearly should, if the frequency of their occurrence is to decide the question.

Now if a team of reputable doctors were to announce that a baby named "Atheist Buddy" (or maybe "No Evidence No Belief") had been born of a virgin in their hospital many years ago, but they had not said anything until now because they had spent all the intervening years trying to devise a viable alternative explanation, I would have at least one source of evidence that you had been born of a virgin.

It would also help your case had your birth been prophesied centuries beforehand, had your parents attested to having experienced frightening encounters with angels informing them of your pending miraculous birth, and had you then grown up and performed miracles of your own, pronounced yourself the Son of God, and risen from the dead.

If anybody is unclear of why, despite my asking several times, Fundangelico has still refused to do this, here's why: Because the instant he does, I will copy all of his arguments for the virgin birth verbatim, substituting the virgin birth for whatever claim he said he doesn't believe in, and use them to "demonstrate" the existence of whatever it is that he claimed doesn't exist as "succesfully" as he did for the virgin birth, thereby in actuality demonstrating that his argument is meaningless because it leads to a belief in the virgin birth, that is no more justified than a belief in... that which he doesn't believe in.

I have already given you the example of your own non-virgin birth as something I disbelieve (see above in case you have already forgotten again). Even so, there are any number of possible reasons why I might not answer a given question of yours, other than an abject fear of your demonstrating my own arguments to be meaningless. Here are a few of those possible reasons:

- I got bored reading your feeble and thoroughly predictable arguments, and decided to read something more interesting instead.
- I went on a missions trip to Nicaragua and forgot all about this debate.
- I went on a vacation with my family and forgot all about this debate.
- I got banned from the site for repeated rule violations and decided to be honest rather than sneak back in under the name "theist buddy."
- In an act of sheer mercy, I decided not to embarrass you and crush you into submission.

[atheist buddy]

Let's set aside the power of my rhetoric and just look at the substance of my argument.

I'm simply saying that there is no more verifiable evidence for (and no less evidence against) the virgin birth of Jesus, than there is in the case of:

- The virgin birth of any number of other historical and mythical characters
- The supernatural claims in any number of other religious texts
- The events described in fairy tales and fables

I appreciate your admiration for my skills at rhetoric, but beyond that, if you wish to counter my argument, there is only one way you can do it: Present some evidence for the virgin birth of Jesus that doesn't exist for any of the other claims I listed, and present evidence against the other claims that doesn't exist against the virgin birth.

If I claim that there is as little evidence for X as there is for Y, the only way to refute that is by presenting evidence for X that doesn't exist for Y.

Go ahead.

Okay.

I think it's fair to say that a rationally justified belief in the virgin birth derives from a rationally justified belief in Christian theism generally. Thus if Christian theism is true, then the truth of the virgin birth follows more or less directly.

I reject completely the notion that the veracity of a very specific and extraordinary claim that is directly contradicted by everything we know to be true, can be ascertained by assessing the general credibility of a religious tradition. Not only the general credibility of Christianity can easily be refuted (which I will below), but even if it couldn't, general credibility of a book cannot ascertain the truth of one specific claim of that book, which flies in the face of everything we know to be true.

That said, here are some of the main sources of evidence supporting the truth of Christian theism:

- The fine-tuning of life-permitting properties of our universe, along with countless instances of specified (if not strictly "irreducible") functional complexity in nature, suggesting an intelligent designer

It's not the universe that is fine tuned for life. It's life that is fine tuned for the universe. Not one single irreducibly complex example as withstood the scrutiny of science.

But even if the fine tuning argument were true, as you yourself say, it would demonstrate some kind of intelligent designer. Not specifically Yahweh. Could be that the intelligent designer is Zeus or Shiva or Thor, or some entity no book of fairy tales has ever imagined. The fine-tuning argument is no more an argument in support of Christianity and of the Virgin birth of Jesus, than it is an argument in support of Zeus and the miracuolous birth of Dionysus from Zeus's thigh.

- The carefully recorded, preserved and widely published historical accounts of Israel's origin as a nation led by God himself, beginning with Abraham

First of all, the chosen people of Abraham reject Jesus as the Messiah. The OT is as much a point in favor of the virgin birth in the hands of Christians, as it is a point against it in the hand of Jews.

But secondly, and most importantly, are you saying that you believe in the virgin birth despite overwhelming evidence against it, because a bunch of nomadic barbarians butchered their way around the desert for a few hundred years?

Why not believe in the flying horse of Islam, on the basis of the expansion success of early Muslims?

- The carefully recorded, preserved, and widely published historical accounts of the previously prophesied miraculous ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus

What are you talking about. There are no prophecies in the Bible!

Are you saying that you believe in the virgin birth because somebody wrote down that it happened, as well as writing down that he raised from the dead?

- The birth and rapid growth of the early church in Jerusalem on the preaching of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, a scant few weeks after his crucifixion, in the face of violent persecution, and within walking distance of his tomb

False. Patently historically false. The early church didn't happen within weeks of his crucifiction. Nobody even bothered writing anything down about Jesus until 40 to 100 years after his death. Christianity didn't take off as a religion until much much later.

The "rapid" growth of Christianity is NOTHING compared to the rapid growth of Islam or Scientology.

Not only is it absurd to believe in a demonstrably false suspention of the laws of physics based on the popularity of a religion, but even if that were valid, your argument would be better suited to believe in the fying horse of islam or the souls trapped in volacanoes of Scientology.

- The unexpected and complete conversion of Saul of Tarsus, previously a leader of the effort to destroy the Christian movement, who along with the other apostles gladly risked (and ultimately lost) his life proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead and appeared to him

so? Some crazy guy had an episode. Jesus "appeared" to Paul. The Archangel Gabriel "appeared" to Mohammed. Are you saying that you believe in something which goes against everything we know to be true, because some guy claims that something else happened which goes against everyhting we know is true.

As for the willingness to die for beliefs, 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult were willing to die for their belief in a spaceship hiding behind the hale-bopp comet. If willingness to die for your beliefs is an indication of those beliefs being true, then I'm assuming you believe in the alien spaceship as well, right?

- The witness of early church fathers and martyrs like Ignatius to the events as well as the early composition of the New Testament accounts

Ignatius wasn't even born until 15 years after Jesus died. How could he possibly know what Mary was up to 9 months before Jesus was born? How can somebody be a "witness" to something that happened 40 to 50 years before he was born?

- The worldwide dispersion and persecution of Israel from her homeland, followed by the physical restoration of Israel to her homeland, as explicitly prophesied in the Old Testament many centuries prior to both AD 70 (the year of the last great act of the Diaspora) and AD 1948 (the year of the restoration)

No such prophecy exists. The fact that nations come and go, political names of geographical areas change, is not evidence for virgin births.

- The continued prosperity of the nation of Israel since her restoration in 1948 to the present day, despite being surrounded by any number of nations bent on her destruction

The israeli are a very stoic and strong people, no question about it. The billions in tax dollars we send them every year, sure help. As does the unmitigated support of the mightiest superpower that ever existed, equipped with a nuclear arsenal succifient to destroy the entire world several times over. How you could possibly claim that political alliances and the strength of a people is evidence for zombies, talking donkeys, rains of frogs, and virgin births.

I'm pretty sure there is nothing comparable in the way of evidence for the story of "Frosty the Snowman."

I don't know. I'll have to wait for you to present some evidence for the virgin birth, before I can compare it to the evidence for Frosty the Snowman.

None of what you've given me so far is evidence for the virgin birth to any greater degree than it is evidence for the flying horse, the spaceship behind the comet, and the political realities of alliances to control oil production in the middle east.

IF, and only IF I used the Frog Prince as my ONLY evidence for evolution, then you'd be entirely justified in claiming that there is no more evidence for evolution than there is for Frosty the Snowman.

Okay, then I await your presentation of evidence for evolution beyond its striking parallels with The Frog Prince, with ancient Greek cosmologies, with Hindu creation myths, etc.

But before you present your evidence please explain just what you mean by "evolution." (I suspect you may be trying to sneak a fallacy of equivocation past me from the get-go.)

But because the truth of evolution is ascertained by empirical measurable objective repeatable evidence with predictive power, converging from multiple sources onto the same conclusion, then your argument about the Brothers Grimm makes ZERO sense whatsoever.

It doesn't even BEGIN to make sense. We have a scientific fact, based on conclusive empirical evidence and contradicted by zero empirical evidence, and you wish to discount it, because, completely separate from - and having nothing to do with - the fact of evolution, there is a fairy tale that touches upon a theme tangentially related to evolution?

So far here is the evidence you've provided for evolution: Very strongly worded personal assurances from you that the evidence for evolution is "empirical measurable objective repeatable evidence with predictive power, converging from multiple sources onto the same conclusion;" and that evolution is therefore "a scientific fact, based on conclusive empirical evidence and contradicted by zero empirical evidence." But again very strong claims to having tons of empirical evidence for evolution is not at all the same as actually having tons of empirical evidence for evolution. I shouldn't have to tell you this.

Of course. I restricted myself to just referring to the evidence for evolution, as opposed to listing it, because I assumed it was common knowledge. Here is some info:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... opic_id=46
http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evi ... intro.html
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... ience.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... e/lines_01

The evidence that life originated from nonliving matter is conclusive. We don't know the exact mechanism by which life emerged from nonlife (although several elements of it are indicted empirically), but the emergence itself is beyond dispute.

Later you will ask me for an example of your deliberate misinterpretation of one of my statements. Your misinterpretation above is certainly a viable candidate, though I can't say for certain whether it was deliberate.

Yes, the evidence that life originated from nonliving matter is conclusive, only if we dismiss the "exact mechanism" of how life might have arisen as a secondary question and merely observe that living organisms are composed of nonliving matter. But on this we agree completely. Even Genesis has God creating man "from the dust of the earth."

In the context of a theism-atheism debate it should have been clear that the question I was addressing was precisely whether life could have possibly arisen from nothing but nonliving matter (i.e., without the aid of a directing intelligence), not simply whether nonliving matter was its working material. In other words the "exact mechanism" which would potentially confirm abiogenesis remains completely beyond anyone's reach in terms of confirming evidence -- whereas the only testable alternative to biogenesis (spontaneous generation) has been repeatedly falsified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2% ... experiment

We don't know every single aspect of it, but there is empirical evidence that complex proteins and other molecules can arise through natural processes from simpler building blocks.

Well, we have a fundamental disagreement on whether crushing theists into submission is or isn't a serious endevor. I find it a very serious endevor, one by which I contribute to the betterment and emancipation of the human race from the scurge of dogmatic belief.

An endeavor being serious doesn't make it the stuff of a serious debate. Throughout history ideologues as serious as yourself have crushed their opponents with violence, intimidation, deception and oppression, without a single word of serious debate.

Can you cite an example of skeptics crushing opponents with " violence, intimidation, deception and oppression". We just crush our opponents with logic.

But to begin the endeavor of emancipating the human race from the presumed scourge of dogmatic belief, you must hold a dogmatic belief of your own, namely that theism is a scourge in need of crushing by whatever means necessary. In short, your mission statement is incoherent.

My belief that theism is a scourge is not dogmatic, because it's based on empirical evidence.

I'm still waiting for you to give me an example of ONE thing which you don't believe exists/happened? Spiderman? My virgin birth? The spaceship behind the Hale-Bopp comet?

Just name one thing you don't believe exists/happened.

I shouldn't have to do this for you, but here is my original answer to that question:

Frequency data make for good prima facie reason to doubt that you were born of a virgin, and in fact best explain why I do in fact doubt you were born of a virgin. But frequency data are not the only data available to us. Otherwise we would not have such useful sources of information as, say, all of recorded history. How many times did Wellington defeat Napoleon at Waterloo? How often have international terrorists hijacked domestic airliners with box cutters and flown them into the World Trade Center towers?

Nor would we have prehistory: Most of us have never witnessed a big bang, an origin-of-life, a Cambrian explosion or even a humble speciation event. Do you doubt that these events have occurred? You clearly should, if the frequency of their occurrence is to decide the question.

Now if a team of reputable doctors were to announce that a baby named "Atheist Buddy" (or maybe "No Evidence No Belief") had been born of a virgin in their hospital many years ago, but they had not said anything until now because they had spent all the intervening years trying to devise a viable alternative explanation, I would have at least one source of evidence that you had been born of a virgin.

It would also help your case had your birth been prophesied centuries beforehand, had your parents attested to having experienced frightening encounters with angels informing them of your pending miraculous birth, and had you then grown up and performed miracles of your own, pronounced yourself the Son of God, and risen from the dead.

Ok, I guess I missed this as your response.

Ok, so you disbelieve in my virgin birth. Now list all reasons for this disbelief which are NOT frequency data?

Do you disbelieve it because frequency data from the past indicates that typically people born of virgins then raise from the dead?
Or is it because of frequency data relating to miracles?

Just because frequency data indicates that usually people born of virgins are announced by angels, perform miracles, announce that they are the son of God, rise from the dead, etc, it's no good reason to assume that the rare event of somebody being born of a virgin WITHOUT all those additional attributes.

You just disbelieve in my virgin birth over frequency data. Much like, according to you, I disbelieve in Jesus's over frequency data.

Either this whole frequency data theory is bunk, or I'm born of a virgin.