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.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 10 by 1213]

These are irrelevant arguments; they're non-starters.

One could use the arguments you're trying to make to explain why it's not unreasonable to believe his cousin defied gravity this one time, or how this one guy managed to cast a fireball spell in real life.

You are effectively saying "it's ok if they break established laws, so long as they only do it a little bit and only when it has religious connotations for me personally".

[Freddy_Scissorhands]

But is there any good reason to assume that virgin births should occur regularly?

Well...
Is there any good reason that virgin births should occur... AT ALL?

[atheist buddy]

"Matching with what we know about reality" is the definition of real.

"Not matching with what we know about reality" isn't just the definition of miracles, it's also the definition of fantasy.

Actually, that's not true.
I've chosen my words carefully to avoide this error.

"Matching with reality" would be the definition of "real".
But reality doesn't necessarily match what we (think to) know about reality... Or it might match what we know about reality, but our knowledge is incomplete.

Maybe the term that tipped you off was "know". Because I don't think we truely KNOW (with 100% certainty, absolutly doubtless) anything about this reality, therefore "think we know" might be more accurate.

But either way:
If there is something about reality that doesn't match our knowledge about reality, then our knowledge would be the thing that was wrong, not reality itself. Therefore, there is always the possibility (even though it's not a usefull concept) that reality doesn't match the model we have about it.

Freddy, I absolutely appreciate what you're saying here. You are making sophisticated and correct arguments about Theory of Knowledge.

Here's the thing: You're posting on a thread where somebody just said he believes in magical kidneys that materialize before surgeries.

I would be delighted to have a stimulating debate with you about the intricacies of subjectivity, theory of mind, and conciousness generated models of the universe as compared with a potential reality outside of our ability to perceive which may or may not exist, and may or may not match our perception.

This is all very interesting. But we're dealing with people who believe in talking donkeys and flying horses. Literally.

Let's deal with that first.

Thanks anyway for your interesting post.

[ttruscott]

Andthen there is this:

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/newly-f ... g-miracle/

Newly-Found Document Holds Eyewitness Account of Jesus Performing Miracle

Preface:

Asia, History, Middle-East, Religion
4 October, 2014

Rome:
An Italian expert studying a first century document written by the Roman historian Marcus Velleius Paterculus that was recently discovered in the archives of the Vatican, found what is presumed to be the first eyewitness account ever recorded of a miracle of Jesus Christ. The author describes a scene that he allegedly witnessed, in which a prophet and teacher that he names IÄ“sous de Nazarenus, resuscitated a stillborn boy and handed him back to his mother.

Peace, Ted

[atheist buddy]

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

But is there any good reason to assume that virgin births should occur regularly? No one is claiming that virgin births are basic thing that should occur all the time. Your idea would be ok, if someone would claim that it is common thing and not rare event.

I think we have many things that happen only one time. For example I think I will not be born several times in future. Does it mean that I could have not been born even one time?

Here we go again. Is this post deserving of anything other than ridicule?

I don't think there's any way to make this poster change his mind. But if every time he expresses his ideas, everybody laughs at him, then he'll at least keep his ideas to himself, and avoid polluting the marketplace of ideas with his inane concepts.

Hey, it works for bigfoot enthusiasts, flat-earthers and "Elvis-is-still-alive" folks. They aren't on street corners distributing pamphlets, right? Let's try it out with the "this impossible thing that cannot happen ever, happened only once, not twice, therefore it happened once" crowd.


1213, if something is impossible, it can happen ZERO times. It cannot happen three times, it cannot happen two times, it cannot happen one time.

Do you understand the difference between "zero" and "more than zero"?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 12 by Freddy_Scissorhands]

Well to be fair I worship komodo dragons which are known to have virgin births, in fact many reptiles do this its called parenthogensis.

In humans and most mammals I am unsure if this has occurred, although possible. Not so sure god need be the explanation

[atheist buddy]

Andthen there is this:

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/newly-f ... g-miracle/

Newly-Found Document Holds Eyewitness Account of Jesus Performing Miracle

Preface:

Asia, History, Middle-East, Religion
4 October, 2014

Rome:
An Italian expert studying a first century document written by the Roman historian Marcus Velleius Paterculus that was recently discovered in the archives of the Vatican, found what is presumed to be the first eyewitness account ever recorded of a miracle of Jesus Christ. The author describes a scene that he allegedly witnessed, in which a prophet and teacher that he names IÄ“sous de Nazarenus, resuscitated a stillborn boy and handed him back to his mother.

Peace, Ted

Wow! This changes everything. This makes the eyewitness testimony of Jesus's miracles almost as strong as the eyewitness tesitmony for Elvis sightings, alien abductions and bigfoot!


By the way, why is the single most important finding in the last 2000 years, this earthshattering revelation that will shape the course of human history for the next 2000 years at least.... nowhere?

Why isn't this news on CNN, FOX, BBC, and every other single channel in the world?

Why isn't it on the vatican's home page?

Why does NOTHING come up when you google "Ignazio Perrucci" the professor that made the discovery, and who will make St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinus pale when compared to his fame in Christiandom?

Why is it alleged that Marcus Velleius Paterculus was in the middle east in in 31AD, when he died in rome in 31AD?

Why is this earthshattering revelation tucked away in a corner of the internet, on a dubious website, right next to an article entitled "German scientists prove there is life after death"?


How is it possible that you take this seriously. How?

[dianaiad]

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

But is there any good reason to assume that virgin births should occur regularly? No one is claiming that virgin births are basic thing that should occur all the time. Your idea would be ok, if someone would claim that it is common thing and not rare event.

I think we have many things that happen only one time. For example I think I will not be born several times in future. Does it mean that I could have not been born even one time?

Here we go again. Is this post deserving of anything other than ridicule?

I don't think there's any way to make this poster change his mind. But if every time he expresses his ideas, everybody laughs at him, then he'll at least keep his ideas to himself, and avoid polluting the marketplace of ideas with his inane concepts.

Hey, it works for bigfoot enthusiasts, flat-earthers and "Elvis-is-still-alive" folks. They aren't on street corners distributing pamphlets, right? Let's try it out with the "this impossible thing that cannot happen ever, happened only once, not twice, therefore it happened once" crowd.


1213, if something is impossible, it can happen ZERO times. It cannot happen three times, it cannot happen two times, it cannot happen one time.

Do you understand the difference between "zero" and "more than zero"?

Moderator Warning


Address the substance of a post, and the ideas in it. Do not address, analyze the motives of, or ridicule the writer of a post.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 17 by atheist buddy]

My question is, how do we know the baby was stillborn? Was there a doctor there who was able to determine whether the baby was actually dead? More likely it was unconscious/asleep and regained consciousness/woke up. I don't see why people would suggest this a miracle.

Could there be important information missing from this story? Could it have been exagerated? What if the story is a lie? There's just no way to know for sure.

[atheist buddy]

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

But is there any good reason to assume that virgin births should occur regularly? No one is claiming that virgin births are basic thing that should occur all the time. Your idea would be ok, if someone would claim that it is common thing and not rare event.

I think we have many things that happen only one time. For example I think I will not be born several times in future. Does it mean that I could have not been born even one time?

Here we go again. Is this post deserving of anything other than ridicule?

I don't think there's any way to make this poster change his mind. But if every time he expresses his ideas, everybody laughs at him, then he'll at least keep his ideas to himself, and avoid polluting the marketplace of ideas with his inane concepts.

Hey, it works for bigfoot enthusiasts, flat-earthers and "Elvis-is-still-alive" folks. They aren't on street corners distributing pamphlets, right? Let's try it out with the "this impossible thing that cannot happen ever, happened only once, not twice, therefore it happened once" crowd.


1213, if something is impossible, it can happen ZERO times. It cannot happen three times, it cannot happen two times, it cannot happen one time.

Do you understand the difference between "zero" and "more than zero"?

Moderator Warning


Address the substance of a post, and the ideas in it. Do not address, analyze the motives of, or ridicule the writer of a post.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Sigh...

Dear 1213, please allow me to retract my earlier affirmation that believing that "zero" is the same as "more than zero", is ridiculous.

Allow me nonetheless to reiterate that zero is NOT the same as more-than-zero.

If the total number of times something can happen is zero, then the total number of times it can happen is NOT more than zero. One, is more than zero. Therefore the virgin birth, being impossible, cannot have happened once. It can only have happened zero times.

You cannot say "Well, come on, this impossible thing that can never happen, only happened once". One is more than zero. An impossible thing can happen zero times. Not one time.

Common things happen many times. Rare things happen few times. Impossible things happen zero times.

Births where egg cells are involved but sperm cells aren't, are impossible. Therefore they happen zero times. Therefore virgin births don't happen many times, they don't happen few times. They happen zero times.

If you wish to argue that the virgin birth happened, you cannot say "It couldn't have happened at all, but it happened only once, so give me a break, what's the big deal". If you wish to argue that the virgin birth happened, please start by refuting all the evidence that it's impossible for it to happen, and then present all the evidence that it did happen.


If nothing else, please understand this: ZERO and ONE are different numbers.

If evidence shows conclusively that something happened ZERO times, then it cannot happen ONE time.