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?

[goodwithoutgod]

Ok, quick recap of where we all stand:

Assisigirl has admitted that her belief in the talking donkey of the Bible is just about as reasonable as her nephew's belief in the talking donkey of Shrek

Goose fought tooth and nail to persuade us that a half dozen people did indeed claim to see a flying maggot-infested cadaver, but he mysteriously vanished when asked the question "Ok, assume that half a dozen people did claim to see a flying corpse. Is that reason enough to belief an actual flying corpse existed?"

Scourge99 has kinda vanished.

Keithprosser was playing devil's advocate and seems to understand that belief in X based on an unjustified belief in Y basically amounts to unjustified belief in X.


So, is there anybody else out there who claims to have evidentiary justification for belief in any supernatural claim?

Nothing?

Are we collectively agreeing that there isn't sufficient evidence to justify belief in any supernatural claim?

I will second the motion...ALL in favor!?

I carry the motion!

Case closed, well done!

[no evidence no belief]

Ok, quick recap of where we all stand:

Assisigirl has admitted that her belief in the talking donkey of the Bible is just about as reasonable as her nephew's belief in the talking donkey of Shrek

Goose fought tooth and nail to persuade us that a half dozen people did indeed claim to see a flying maggot-infested cadaver, but he mysteriously vanished when asked the question "Ok, assume that half a dozen people did claim to see a flying corpse. Is that reason enough to belief an actual flying corpse existed?"

Scourge99 has kinda vanished.

Keithprosser was playing devil's advocate and seems to understand that belief in X based on an unjustified belief in Y basically amounts to unjustified belief in X.


So, is there anybody else out there who claims to have evidentiary justification for belief in any supernatural claim?

Nothing?

Are we collectively agreeing that there isn't sufficient evidence to justify belief in any supernatural claim?

I will second the motion...ALL in favor!?

I carry the motion!

Case closed, well done!

Great. So from now on, every time a theist alleges that evidence for the supernatural exists, all we have to do is direct him to this page wherein he has tacitly acknowledged that there is no evidence.

Thanks everybody. Now that we're done abolishing religion, what should we do next? Work on world peace? Develop a cure for cancer using stem cell research? All tasks will be much easier now that religion is a thing of the past.

[Overcomer]

I was asked to post a comment in this thread by its originator. I have not read all 234 pages as its just too time-consuming so forgive me if I am making statements that have already been made. Based on what I have read, these are my comments:

If a person subscribes to scientism, that is, the belief that the only truths we can know are arrived at through the exercise of science, he will reject the supernatural outright. He has set the rules for the game and will play by no other even if there are other rules by which the game can be played -- and there are!

Therefore, I think the key to the whole issue lies with scientism and the naturalistic worldview. The first question is " is this worldview capable of dealing with the supernatural? No, it isnt. Science has no way of dealing with the numinous. This, however, does not mean that the supernatural realm does not exist. It only means that science is limited in what it can do and tell us. For one thing, it cant deal with things like peace, joy, beauty, evil, goodness or the meaning of life. These things are not physical or tactile.

Nor can science deal with ideas and human consciousness. As J. P. Moreland put it in his book, Kingdom Triangle, you cant get mind from matter. I think even the most diehard naturalist will admit that all of these non-physical things are real even though we cannot see them or test them scientifically. And when you get right down to it, if you can believe that human consciousness is real, is it really that hard to picture God as the ultimate consciousness?

Moreover, if the proponent of scientism says that only those things proven by science can be true, he has a problem with that very statement. It itself cannot be proven by science. Yet he believes it. In other words, he does indeed believe some things that cannot be proven by science to be true. This means he is selective about what he will believe that is unproven scientifically. It must be based is something other than naturalism " personal bias perhaps?

Of course, there is a tremendous danger in making science ones religion and scientists ones gods. I have already pointed out the limitations of science. Its obvious that scientists are also limited. They are not infallible. They make mistakes. They will hold to a belief for centuries and insist it is true only to have someone discover that it is false and the whole structure built on that belief collapses.

A simple example is that of Descartes and his explanation of how pain registers in the brain. He said that, if you stick your finger in the fire, the pain message shoots from your finger to your brain. Two centuries later, scientists discovered all pain messages go to the dorsal horn which is located in the spine. From there, they go to the brain.

For centuries now, the epistemological basis of science has been the observation of repeatable events. This is one of the reasons some give for not believing in miracles. They happen infrequently (thats another defining aspect of them) and they cant be reproduced and studied in the lab. However, once again the naturalist has a problem. If he believes in the big bang, the spontaneous generation of first life and macroevolution, then he believes events that have not been observed repeatedly either in the lab or out. Again, he is selective about what he is going to believe that cannot be proven through the scientific methodology of repeated observation. Again, I must attribute it to simple bias.

A miracle is, by definition, something that breaks the laws of nature. When someone says the laws of nature cannot be broken, my response is -- how do you know? Look at it this way: Parents set rules for their children re: what they eat, when they go to bed, etc. But parents can, at any time, step in and change those rules for the blessing of their kids " like allowing them to have a bowl of ice cream for a snack instead of fruit or allowing them to stay up an extra half hour because they have company. Why is it unreasonable to assume that God is not able to do the same, that is, step into the world and break the rules that he himself established?

It certainly isnt enough for a person to say that he has never seen it happen and, therefore, it CANNOT happen. For one thing, if hes a God-hater, why would God ever perform a miracle for him? Secondly, God might have performed a miracle, but the God-hater grasps at anything to explain it naturally " no matter how far-fetched the natural explanation might be " like saying were here because somebody from another planet put us here. Thats just science fiction!

Lets face it. The Pharisees saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead. Did that make them rush to Jesus in awe? No, it made them hurry up their plans to dispose of him because people were starting to follow Christ instead of them. In other words, it was all about their own self-interests " specifically their desire to have the power and be in control which, I might add, is a stumbling block for atheists as well. We are all born in rebellion to God and it isnt easy to overcome it.

Personally, I have seen several miracles including several healings, one of which was my own, following prayer -- and the lab reports are there to prove them. There are also many recorded miracles down through the centuries. Lets start with the gospels and the Book of Acts. They are all dated in the first century within a generation of Christs crucifixion. That means there were plenty of eye witnesses around to see Jesus following his resurrection.

Secondly, the names given as their authors were all recorded by the early church fathers. The writers were all people who either knew Jesus personally or knew people who knew Jesus personally. I find it interesting that people today like to argue that the authorship of these books is in question. They werent in the first and second century. Why would I trust a 21st-century scholar over people who probably read the originals and even talked, if not with the authors, the people who knew the authors?

I have heard some say that the people back then were primitive and gullible and thats why they believed miracles so readily. Thats just silly! They were no more used to seeing people raised from the dead or the paralyzed walk at the command of Christ or one of the apostles than we are today and they would have reacted the same way people do today when they experience something amazing.

All of the dead who were resurrected with Christ would have had friends and family members to attest to the fact that they had been dead and now were alive. Thats the difference between a zombie and a resurrected human being " a zombie is a fictitious being reanimated and is nothing but the walking dead. Christ was brought to life again and still lives as do all of those who came out of the grave.

The second problem people seem to have is the reliability of the New Testament. Just because it mixes theology and history it is suspect. Just because it is written by people who knew and loved Jesus, it is suspect. But its important to note that even those who were non-believers commented on the fact that Jesus worked wonders " including the historian Josephus (that statement is NOT considered by historians to be an interpolation, but part of the original) and the Greek philosopher Celsus who hated Christians and Christianity.

ALL history comes to us from people on both sides of an issue or event. If we followed what atheists want, we would ONLY consider information that is anti-Christian and thats bad history. Mainline historians, who have no vested interest in proving whether Christ was God or not, dont have that hang-up.

I recommend a couple of books. One is C. S. Lewis Miracles in which he outlines why it philosophically logical to accept the reality of supernatural events. The other is Craig Keeners Miracles. Both men are ex-atheists. Keener spent two years researching his book. He went all around the world collecting information from people who had witnessed a miraculous event.

Keener describes several resurrections including that of his sister-in-law. He also lists a number of healings. For example, media in the U.S. reported the miraculous healing of a girl with a brain tumour. It covered a quarter of her brain so we're not just talking about a tiny speck of a thing. Two days following intensive prayer, before she was scheduled to begin treatment, the doctors took another MRI and the tumour was gone. All they could say was that the tumour had miraculously disappeared.

Re: reliability of the Bible, I recommend Craig Blombergs work and that of F. F. Bruce. For information about the resurrection, I recommend Gary Habermas material. Hes one of the foremost scholars in the field. His website is here:

http://garyhabermas.com/

I also recommend Richard Bauckhams Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. He differentiates between oral history and oral tradition. The former refers to contemporary accounts from the participants of events while the latter refers to information passed along by those who themselves were not witnesses, but merely purveyors of material given to them at a later date. Ancient historians such as Thucydides, Polybius, Josephus and Tacitus agreed that true history could be written only while events were still within living memory. Therefore, they went out of their way to get it. That includes the authors of the gospels and the Book of Acts. Lukes introduction to both his gospel and Acts grounds them in historical reality as he follows the rules of writing history in that era. Bauckham also points to Papias, whose life bridged the first and second centuries, as one of those people with living memory that was passed on to the next generation.

I'm afraid that's all I have time for, but I hope I have given people food for thought.

[keithprosser3]

I hope I have given people food for thought.

You haven't mentioned anybody on the sceptical side of the debate so I doubt anyone will get mental indigestion.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 2337 by Overcomer]

The effects of something that happened in the past can be studied scientifically, even if the event itself can't be recreated. Why can't the effects of the supernatural or miracles or divine intervention or whatever you want to call it be studied scientifically? Why does God hide from science? Is God trying to fool people?

[no evidence no belief]

I was asked to post a comment in this thread by its originator. I have not read all 234 pages as its just too time-consuming so forgive me if I am making statements that have already been made. Based on what I have read, these are my comments:

If a person subscribes to scientism, that is, the belief that the only truths we can know are arrived at through the exercise of science, he will reject the supernatural outright. He has set the rules for the game and will play by no other even if there are other rules by which the game can be played -- and there are!

Therefore, I think the key to the whole issue lies with scientism and the naturalistic worldview. The first question is " is this worldview capable of dealing with the supernatural? No, it isnt. Science has no way of dealing with the numinous. This, however, does not mean that the supernatural realm does not exist. It only means that science is limited in what it can do and tell us. For one thing, it cant deal with things like peace, joy, beauty, evil, goodness or the meaning of life. These things are not physical or tactile.

Nor can science deal with ideas and human consciousness. As J. P. Moreland put it in his book, Kingdom Triangle, you cant get mind from matter. I think even the most diehard naturalist will admit that all of these non-physical things are real even though we cannot see them or test them scientifically. And when you get right down to it, if you can believe that human consciousness is real, is it really that hard to picture God as the ultimate consciousness?

Moreover, if the proponent of scientism says that only those things proven by science can be true, he has a problem with that very statement. It itself cannot be proven by science. Yet he believes it. In other words, he does indeed believe some things that cannot be proven by science to be true. This means he is selective about what he will believe that is unproven scientifically. It must be based is something other than naturalism " personal bias perhaps?

Of course, there is a tremendous danger in making science ones religion and scientists ones gods. I have already pointed out the limitations of science. Its obvious that scientists are also limited. They are not infallible. They make mistakes. They will hold to a belief for centuries and insist it is true only to have someone discover that it is false and the whole structure built on that belief collapses.

A simple example is that of Descartes and his explanation of how pain registers in the brain. He said that, if you stick your finger in the fire, the pain message shoots from your finger to your brain. Two centuries later, scientists discovered all pain messages go to the dorsal horn which is located in the spine. From there, they go to the brain.

For centuries now, the epistemological basis of science has been the observation of repeatable events. This is one of the reasons some give for not believing in miracles. They happen infrequently (thats another defining aspect of them) and they cant be reproduced and studied in the lab. However, once again the naturalist has a problem. If he believes in the big bang, the spontaneous generation of first life and macroevolution, then he believes events that have not been observed repeatedly either in the lab or out. Again, he is selective about what he is going to believe that cannot be proven through the scientific methodology of repeated observation. Again, I must attribute it to simple bias.

A miracle is, by definition, something that breaks the laws of nature. When someone says the laws of nature cannot be broken, my response is -- how do you know? Look at it this way: Parents set rules for their children re: what they eat, when they go to bed, etc. But parents can, at any time, step in and change those rules for the blessing of their kids " like allowing them to have a bowl of ice cream for a snack instead of fruit or allowing them to stay up an extra half hour because they have company. Why is it unreasonable to assume that God is not able to do the same, that is, step into the world and break the rules that he himself established?

It certainly isnt enough for a person to say that he has never seen it happen and, therefore, it CANNOT happen. For one thing, if hes a God-hater, why would God ever perform a miracle for him? Secondly, God might have performed a miracle, but the God-hater grasps at anything to explain it naturally " no matter how far-fetched the natural explanation might be " like saying were here because somebody from another planet put us here. Thats just science fiction!

Lets face it. The Pharisees saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead. Did that make them rush to Jesus in awe? No, it made them hurry up their plans to dispose of him because people were starting to follow Christ instead of them. In other words, it was all about their own self-interests " specifically their desire to have the power and be in control which, I might add, is a stumbling block for atheists as well. We are all born in rebellion to God and it isnt easy to overcome it.

Personally, I have seen several miracles including several healings, one of which was my own, following prayer -- and the lab reports are there to prove them. There are also many recorded miracles down through the centuries. Lets start with the gospels and the Book of Acts. They are all dated in the first century within a generation of Christs crucifixion. That means there were plenty of eye witnesses around to see Jesus following his resurrection.

Secondly, the names given as their authors were all recorded by the early church fathers. The writers were all people who either knew Jesus personally or knew people who knew Jesus personally. I find it interesting that people today like to argue that the authorship of these books is in question. They werent in the first and second century. Why would I trust a 21st-century scholar over people who probably read the originals and even talked, if not with the authors, the people who knew the authors?

I have heard some say that the people back then were primitive and gullible and thats why they believed miracles so readily. Thats just silly! They were no more used to seeing people raised from the dead or the paralyzed walk at the command of Christ or one of the apostles than we are today and they would have reacted the same way people do today when they experience something amazing.

All of the dead who were resurrected with Christ would have had friends and family members to attest to the fact that they had been dead and now were alive. Thats the difference between a zombie and a resurrected human being " a zombie is a fictitious being reanimated and is nothing but the walking dead. Christ was brought to life again and still lives as do all of those who came out of the grave.

The second problem people seem to have is the reliability of the New Testament. Just because it mixes theology and history it is suspect. Just because it is written by people who knew and loved Jesus, it is suspect. But its important to note that even those who were non-believers commented on the fact that Jesus worked wonders " including the historian Josephus (that statement is NOT considered by historians to be an interpolation, but part of the original) and the Greek philosopher Celsus who hated Christians and Christianity.

ALL history comes to us from people on both sides of an issue or event. If we followed what atheists want, we would ONLY consider information that is anti-Christian and thats bad history. Mainline historians, who have no vested interest in proving whether Christ was God or not, dont have that hang-up.

I recommend a couple of books. One is C. S. Lewis Miracles in which he outlines why it philosophically logical to accept the reality of supernatural events. The other is Craig Keeners Miracles. Both men are ex-atheists. Keener spent two years researching his book. He went all around the world collecting information from people who had witnessed a miraculous event.

Keener describes several resurrections including that of his sister-in-law. He also lists a number of healings. For example, media in the U.S. reported the miraculous healing of a girl with a brain tumour. It covered a quarter of her brain so we're not just talking about a tiny speck of a thing. Two days following intensive prayer, before she was scheduled to begin treatment, the doctors took another MRI and the tumour was gone. All they could say was that the tumour had miraculously disappeared.

Re: reliability of the Bible, I recommend Craig Blombergs work and that of F. F. Bruce. For information about the resurrection, I recommend Gary Habermas material. Hes one of the foremost scholars in the field. His website is here:

http://garyhabermas.com/

I also recommend Richard Bauckhams Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. He differentiates between oral history and oral tradition. The former refers to contemporary accounts from the participants of events while the latter refers to information passed along by those who themselves were not witnesses, but merely purveyors of material given to them at a later date. Ancient historians such as Thucydides, Polybius, Josephus and Tacitus agreed that true history could be written only while events were still within living memory. Therefore, they went out of their way to get it. That includes the authors of the gospels and the Book of Acts. Lukes introduction to both his gospel and Acts grounds them in historical reality as he follows the rules of writing history in that era. Bauckham also points to Papias, whose life bridged the first and second centuries, as one of those people with living memory that was passed on to the next generation.

I'm afraid that's all I have time for, but I hope I have given people food for thought.

Thank you very much for your response. It's 1:30 am, and your post merits more than a quick response. I'll get to it tomorrow.

Thanks again.

[FarWanderer]

If a person subscribes to scientism, that is, the belief that the only truths we can know are arrived at through the exercise of science, he will reject the supernatural outright. He has set the rules for the game and will play by no other even if there are other rules by which the game can be played -- and there are!

Like what? Scripture?

Therefore, I think the key to the whole issue lies with scientism and the naturalistic worldview. The first question is " is this worldview capable of dealing with the supernatural? No, it isnt. Science has no way of dealing with the numinous. This, however, does not mean that the supernatural realm does not exist.

Nor that it does.

It only means that science is limited in what it can do and tell us. For one thing, it cant deal with things like peace, joy, beauty, evil, goodness or the meaning of life. These things are not physical or tactile. Nor can science deal with ideas and human consciousness. As J. P. Moreland put it in his book, Kingdom Triangle, you cant get mind from matter.

Rather than the wording "it can't deal with", I'd prefer "it doesn't deal with". Or maybe, "we can't use it to deal with".

I think even the most diehard naturalist will admit that all of these non-physical things are real even though we cannot see them or test them scientifically.

I'm something of a double aspect theory person. From the introspective perspective I'd say those are as real as real can be, but from the extrospective perspective (the perspective science makes use of) they're not even intelligible.

And when you get right down to it, if you can believe that human consciousness is real, is it really that hard to picture God as the ultimate consciousness?

Yes it is. I have no idea what "the ultimate consciousness" even means.

Moreover, if the proponent of scientism says that only those things proven by science can be true, he has a problem with that very statement. It itself cannot be proven by science. Yet he believes it. In other words, he does indeed believe some things that cannot be proven by science to be true. This means he is selective about what he will believe that is unproven scientifically. It must be based is something other than naturalism " personal bias perhaps?

Science takes the uniformity of nature as an axiom. Whether or not that axiom is true is not something that science can tell us about.

But I don't think you'll find many who'd deny the uniformity of nature, if anyone. Theists believe it's by design, and non-theists believe it's a brute fact; but everyone believes it, so theists don't really have any grounds to deny science its necessary axiom.

As for someone who might make a claim that "only those things proven by science can be true" I would suspect that they are expressing their own worldview poorly or imprecisely (for brevity's sake). They are assuming the uniformity of nature, whether they know it or not.

Of course, there is a tremendous danger in making science ones religion and scientists ones gods. I have already pointed out the limitations of science. Its obvious that scientists are also limited. They are not infallible. They make mistakes. They will hold to a belief for centuries and insist it is true only to have someone discover that it is false and the whole structure built on that belief collapses.

A simple example is that of Descartes and his explanation of how pain registers in the brain. He said that, if you stick your finger in the fire, the pain message shoots from your finger to your brain. Two centuries later, scientists discovered all pain messages go to the dorsal horn which is located in the spine. From there, they go to the brain.

Neat. Is your point that Descartes had good scientific intuition?

For centuries now, the epistemological basis of science has been the observation of repeatable events. This is one of the reasons some give for not believing in miracles. They happen infrequently (thats another defining aspect of them) and they cant be reproduced and studied in the lab. However, once again the naturalist has a problem. If he believes in the big bang, the spontaneous generation of first life and macroevolution, then he believes events that have not been observed repeatedly either in the lab or out. Again, he is selective about what he is going to believe that cannot be proven through the scientific methodology of repeated observation. Again, I must attribute it to simple bias.

A miracle is, by definition, something that breaks the laws of nature. When someone says the laws of nature cannot be broken

Do people say that? Most non-believers on this forum probably wouldn't.

, my response is -- how do you know?

We don't. Do you somehow know that the laws of nature can be broken?

Look at it this way: Parents set rules for their children re: what they eat, when they go to bed, etc. But parents can, at any time, step in and change those rules for the blessing of their kids " like allowing them to have a bowl of ice cream for a snack instead of fruit or allowing them to stay up an extra half hour because they have company. Why is it unreasonable to assume that God is not able to do the same, that is, step into the world and break the rules that he himself established?

It'd be perfectly reasonable to assume God is able to step into the world and break the rules that he himself established IF we assumed a personal God existed and that the rules were established by him.

In other words, your argument is so circular it makes me .

~~~

The rest of your post after this is outside of my area of expertise/interest. It's mostly a barrage of claims about very specific topics that would take a mountain of research to properly refute. I'm going to ignore them, but fortunately there are people on this forum (such as NENB) who are quite well-researched and adept at refuting these kinds of claims.

I'm afraid that's all I have time for, but I hope I have given people food for thought.

Food indeed. Your post was meaty and you're in a lion's den.

You are quite welcome here.

[no evidence no belief]

I was asked to post a comment in this thread by its originator. I have not read all 234 pages as its just too time-consuming so forgive me if I am making statements that have already been made. Based on what I have read, these are my comments:

If a person subscribes to scientism, that is, the belief that the only truths we can know are arrived at through the exercise of science, he will reject the supernatural outright. He has set the rules for the game and will play by no other even if there are other rules by which the game can be played -- and there are!

Therefore, I think the key to the whole issue lies with scientism and the naturalistic worldview. The first question is " is this worldview capable of dealing with the supernatural? No, it isnt. Science has no way of dealing with the numinous. This, however, does not mean that the supernatural realm does not exist. It only means that science is limited in what it can do and tell us. For one thing, it cant deal with things like peace, joy, beauty, evil, goodness or the meaning of life. These things are not physical or tactile.

Nor can science deal with ideas and human consciousness. As J. P. Moreland put it in his book, Kingdom Triangle, you cant get mind from matter. I think even the most diehard naturalist will admit that all of these non-physical things are real even though we cannot see them or test them scientifically. And when you get right down to it, if you can believe that human consciousness is real, is it really that hard to picture God as the ultimate consciousness?

Moreover, if the proponent of scientism says that only those things proven by science can be true, he has a problem with that very statement. It itself cannot be proven by science. Yet he believes it. In other words, he does indeed believe some things that cannot be proven by science to be true. This means he is selective about what he will believe that is unproven scientifically. It must be based is something other than naturalism " personal bias perhaps?

Of course, there is a tremendous danger in making science ones religion and scientists ones gods. I have already pointed out the limitations of science. Its obvious that scientists are also limited. They are not infallible. They make mistakes. They will hold to a belief for centuries and insist it is true only to have someone discover that it is false and the whole structure built on that belief collapses.

A simple example is that of Descartes and his explanation of how pain registers in the brain. He said that, if you stick your finger in the fire, the pain message shoots from your finger to your brain. Two centuries later, scientists discovered all pain messages go to the dorsal horn which is located in the spine. From there, they go to the brain.

For centuries now, the epistemological basis of science has been the observation of repeatable events. This is one of the reasons some give for not believing in miracles. They happen infrequently (thats another defining aspect of them) and they cant be reproduced and studied in the lab. However, once again the naturalist has a problem. If he believes in the big bang, the spontaneous generation of first life and macroevolution, then he believes events that have not been observed repeatedly either in the lab or out. Again, he is selective about what he is going to believe that cannot be proven through the scientific methodology of repeated observation. Again, I must attribute it to simple bias.

A miracle is, by definition, something that breaks the laws of nature. When someone says the laws of nature cannot be broken, my response is -- how do you know? Look at it this way: Parents set rules for their children re: what they eat, when they go to bed, etc. But parents can, at any time, step in and change those rules for the blessing of their kids " like allowing them to have a bowl of ice cream for a snack instead of fruit or allowing them to stay up an extra half hour because they have company. Why is it unreasonable to assume that God is not able to do the same, that is, step into the world and break the rules that he himself established?

It certainly isnt enough for a person to say that he has never seen it happen and, therefore, it CANNOT happen. For one thing, if hes a God-hater, why would God ever perform a miracle for him? Secondly, God might have performed a miracle, but the God-hater grasps at anything to explain it naturally " no matter how far-fetched the natural explanation might be " like saying were here because somebody from another planet put us here. Thats just science fiction!

I disagree with everything you say above. It makes no sense to me. But let's just agree to disagree, because the opinions you're expressing are beyond the scope of the thread. I ask for evidence, and you're not providing any. Nor are you making any claims that can be supported or disproved by evidence. I just hear white noise.

Let's look at the second half of your post, where at least you make some tangible claims

Lets face it. The Pharisees saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead.

Let's face it. The Seven Dwarfs saw Prince Charming wake Snow White from a come with a kiss.

Let's face it. Luke Skywalker saw Darth Vader kill Obi wan Ken obi.

Let's face it. My nephew saw Santa place presents under the Christmas tree.

Let's face it. Roadrunner saw Wile E Coyote fall down a cliff in slow motion.

What are you talking about man. How can you state as FACT some story, just because somebody wrote it down?

Personally, I have seen several miracles including several healings, one of which was my own, following prayer -- and the lab reports are there to prove them.

I'm sure there are lab reports showing that you were sick and then got better. Those are evidence that.... you were sick and then got better.

They are not evidence that you were sick and then got better thanks to Leprechauns, or thanks to Jesus, or thanks to Zeus.

It COULD BE that you got better thanks to your praying to Jesus, or it could be that it's because a witch had put a curse on you and then felt sorry and removed it. It could be. But the medical reports simply show that you were sick and then got better. In fact, I bet that the medical reports show that you got better thanks to MEDICINE the doctors gave you.

People get sick and people get better every day. How is that evidence of anything other than that... people get sick and people get better every day.

There are also many recorded miracles down through the centuries. Lets start with the gospels and the Book of Acts. They are all dated in the first century within a generation of Christs crucifixion. That means there were plenty of eye witnesses around to see Jesus following his resurrection.

What are you talking about! Ok. I guess I have to go through basic Bible history... again!

The earliest papyri we have containing fragments of the Bible are from approximately 150AD. We don't really have anything even close to resembling a complete New Testament until about 330AD.

You can view the entire chronology of that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ne ... ent_papyri

This is really important. Please pay close attention. The New Testament you read today is a translation of the Codex Vaticanus, which was written in 330AD. 300 years after Jesus's death. That's about 19 generations later.

That means that the anonymous 330AD scribe who wrote your Bible would have been the
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
grandson of somebody alive at the same time as Jesus.

The Bible you read is the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy of the translation of the copy of the translation of the copy of the translation of the copy of the copy of the copy of words written by somebody who heard a story from someone who heard a story from someone who heard a story from someone who heard a story from someone who may or may not have ever met Jesus.

To call that "eyewitness testimony" is insane. That's the kind of thing a really smart hamster could figure out made no sense.

Seriously. If you put a hamster in a cage and you put in front of it a carrot and a photo of a photo of a photo of a photo of a carrot, the hamster will know to eat the carrot, and not the photo of the photo of the photo of the photo of the carrot.

If a hamster can do that, how can you not be able to make the distinction between eyewitness testimony and the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy of a verbal tale about a verbal tale about a verbal tale which may have been told by a witness? How is this possible?

Secondly, the names given as their authors were all recorded by the early church fathers. The writers were all people who either knew Jesus personally or knew people who knew Jesus personally.

We know for a fact that this is not true.

I find it interesting that people today like to argue that the authorship of these books is in question. They werent in the first and second century.

Nobody argues that the authorship of these books is in question. Everybody except for evangelical literalists understands that the academia unanimously agrees that the Bible we read today is a translation of the Codex Vaticanus, which was written in 325 AD.

Why would I trust a 21st-century scholar over people who probably read the originals and even talked, if not with the authors, the people who knew the authors?

The Bible you read today was written by the
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
grandson of somebody alive at the same time as Jesus.

Please get your facts straight.

I have heard some say that the people back then were primitive and gullible and thats why they believed miracles so readily. Thats just silly! They were no more used to seeing people raised from the dead or the paralyzed walk at the command of Christ or one of the apostles than we are today and they would have reacted the same way people do today when they experience something amazing.

All of the dead who were resurrected with Christ would have had friends and family members to attest to the fact that they had been dead and now were alive. Thats the difference between a zombie and a resurrected human being " a zombie is a fictitious being reanimated and is nothing but the walking dead. Christ was brought to life again and still lives as do all of those who came out of the grave.

The second problem people seem to have is the reliability of the New Testament. Just because it mixes theology and history it is suspect. Just because it is written by people who knew and loved Jesus, it is suspect. But its important to note that even those who were non-believers commented on the fact that Jesus worked wonders " including the historian Josephus (that statement is NOT considered by historians to be an interpolation, but part of the original) and the Greek philosopher Celsus who hated Christians and Christianity.

Right, so a historian allegedly said that "Jesus worked wonders". Michelangelo worked wonders with a canvas. Jimi Hendrix worked wonders with the guitar. Heck, Jenna Jameson works wonders with a 14 inch dildo, if you ask me. None of these things are supernatural.

ALL history comes to us from people on both sides of an issue or event. If we followed what atheists want, we would ONLY consider information that is anti-Christian and thats bad history. Mainline historians, who have no vested interest in proving whether Christ was God or not, dont have that hang-up.

Please name a mainline historian, who teaches history at a major university, who claims there is historical basis for believing in the supernatural.

Keener describes several resurrections including that of his sister-in-law.

Keener tells us that him wife's mom told him that when her daughter was 2, the daughter told the mother that she was bitten by a snake, but then she was fine. HOW IS THAT BEING RAISED FROM THE DEAD???? ARE YOU KIDDING ME????

He also lists a number of healings. For example, media in the U.S. reported the miraculous healing of a girl with a brain tumour. It covered a quarter of her brain so we're not just talking about a tiny speck of a thing. Two days following intensive prayer, before she was scheduled to begin treatment, the doctors took another MRI and the tumour was gone. All they could say was that the tumour had miraculously disappeared.

Name of the patient? Link to medical report?

[WinePusher]

There are also many recorded miracles down through the centuries. Lets start with the gospels and the Book of Acts. They are all dated in the first century within a generation of Christs crucifixion. That means there were plenty of eye witnesses around to see Jesus following his resurrection.

What are you talking about! Ok. I guess I have to go through basic Bible history... again!

Based on everything you've written you clearly don't have any understanding of biblical scholarship. So please, before indirectly insulting the intelligence of other people you should make sure you have your facts correct.

The earliest papyri we have containing fragments of the Bible are from approximately 150AD. We don't really have anything even close to resembling a complete New Testament until about 330AD.

You can view the entire chronology of that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ne ... ent_papyri

This is really important. Please pay close attention. The New Testament you read today is a translation of the Codex Vaticanus, which was written in 330AD. 300 years after Jesus's death. That's about 19 generations later.

That means that the anonymous 330AD scribe who wrote your Bible would have been the
great, [continued...........]

grandson of somebody alive at the same time as Jesus.

The Bible you read is the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy of the translation of the copy of the translation of the copy of the translation of the copy of the copy of the copy of words written by somebody who heard a story from someone who heard a story from someone who heard a story from someone who heard a story from someone who may or may not have ever met Jesus.

To call that "eyewitness testimony" is insane. That's the kind of thing a really smart hamster could figure out made no sense.

Your condescension, along with your apparent misunderstanding, is probably the reason why very few people want to debate you. If you want users to engage with you, you probably shouldn't talk down to them and compare them to hamsters.

And you especially shouldn't talk down to people when you have your own facts wrong. The gospels themselves were written several decades after Jesus' death, which puts the date of authorship around the 70s, 80s and 90s in the first century. There is virtually no scholar that claims the gospels (even John) were written in the second century. Therefore, it would is impossible to rule out eyewitness testimony based on the time at which the gospels were written. Besides, you argument about copying is complete bogus. Show me a historical text that hasn't been copied and translated multiple times throughout the ages. All your arguments thusfar belie any real understanding of historical methodology.

Seriously. If you put a hamster in a cage and you put in front of it a carrot and a photo of a photo of a photo of a photo of a carrot, the hamster will know to eat the carrot, and not the photo of the photo of the photo of the photo of the carrot.

If a hamster can do that, how can you not be able to make the distinction between eyewitness testimony and the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy of a verbal tale about a verbal tale about a verbal tale which may have been told by a witness? How is this possible?

How is it possible that you're trying to debate an issue that you obviously have very little understanding of? Everything you've written here demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of biblical scholarship and ancient historical methodology. And to make matters worse you're mocking somebody who is clearly more knowledgeable about this subject than you are. LOL

Please get your facts straight.

Yes. No evidence no belief, please please please please please please please please please please please please get your facts right.

Please name a mainline historian, who teaches history at a major university, who claims there is historical basis for believing in the supernatural.

This is actually a valid point. And when it comes to debates like this I think it would be prudent to separate what we're actually debating. Many theists here are treating the resurrection as a typical historical event and are applying historical methodology and criterion to determine it's validity. On the otherhand, you have many nonbelievers objecting to it based on an a priori rejection of miracles/a personal bias against miracles. Clearly, the resurrection is historically supported and if it did not contain a supernatural component then there really would be no controversy. As a mere historical event the resurrection has been sufficiently substantiate in terms of historical methodology and criterion. But, the miracle/supernatural aspect causes room for doubt and really requires an in depth, philosophical debate about naturalism/uniformitarianism/the reliability of our perception of the world, etc.

[Danmark]

I was asked to post a comment in this thread by its originator. I have not read all 234 pages as its just too time-consuming so forgive me if I am making statements that have already been made. Based on what I have read, these are my comments:

If a person subscribes to scientism, that is, the belief that the only truths we can know are arrived at through the exercise of science, he will reject the supernatural outright. He has set the rules for the game and will play by no other even if there are other rules by which the game can be played -- and there are!

Therefore, I think the key to the whole issue lies with scientism and the naturalistic worldview. The first question is " is this worldview capable of dealing with the supernatural? No, it isnt. Science has no way of dealing with the numinous. This, however, does not mean that the supernatural realm does not exist. It only means that science is limited in what it can do and tell us. For one thing, it cant deal with things like peace, joy, beauty, evil, goodness or the meaning of life. These things are not physical or tactile.

Nor can science deal with ideas and human consciousness. As J. P. Moreland put it in his book, Kingdom Triangle, you cant get mind from matter. ....

That's about as far as I could get before I realized this line of thought is not just wrong, but demonstrates a staggering absence of acquaintance with basic facts.

Science easily and clearly deals with ideas and human consciousness. It simply does not rely on magic and the resort to the 'supernatural.' 'Magic' and 'supernatural' in many cases are interchangeable. They both reflect escapism from reality; a kind of 'Let's throw up our hands, give up, and say "God did it."'

But the real problem with this abandonment of science is that it allows one to conclude anything one fancies. This theme essentially says, there is something beyond our knowing, the 'numinous' and since this numinous can not be understood by science, science is insufficient. This is essentially saying that if I can conjure up anything my imagination will allow, no matter how absurd or unfounded, if science cannot follow my flight of fancy then it must be science that is to blame, not my unsupported conjecture.

This is perhaps too abstract, so let me use a popular example:
' I conceive of the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster. Your science cannot find my GFSM, so it is your science that is deficient.'
... or...
'I imagine that there are shape shifting reptilians that have taken human form and are in control of the United States government. Your silly 'science' cannot verify these shape shifters exist, therefore it is obvious the problem is with your science, not with my thesis.'

This line of thought is indistinguishable from "Science cannot detect God; therefore, it is science that is the problem, not my idea of God."