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]

How about the fact that we know it's medically impossible? How about the fact that we know it's biologically impossible? How about the fact that we know it's chemically impossible? How about the fact that we know it's physically impossible?

You just don’t know how it could happen. Your lack of knowledge is no proof and does not make anything fact.

So you're saying we don't know how a virgin birth could happen, therefore it happened?

I also don't know how the earth could be flat. Does it mean the earth is flat?


Can I ask you something? Why do you not believe the earth is flat?

[1213]

So you're saying we don't know how a virgin birth could happen, therefore it happened?

I am saying what I wrote earlier. I tried to say that you make false fact claims.

I also don't know how the earth could be flat. Does it mean the earth is flat?

It means you don’t know.

Can I ask you something? Why do you not believe the earth is flat?

According to the Bible, earth meant dry land. Continents are dry land and they are relatively flat according to the modern science, and float on molten material. Yes they are curved, but curved surface is not same as sphere. So in my opinion earth is flat. But it does not mean that planet earth is flat.

[Zzyzx]

.

According to the Bible, earth meant dry land.

Perhaps God didn't get that memo when according to genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Continents are dry land and they are relatively flat according to the modern science,

Correction: Geologists, geographers, engineers, surveyors, physicists, etc do NOT consider the continents to be "relatively flat." Verification -- consult a globe and notice that continents span considerable arc (are curved). Consult topographic maps and notice that continents contain wide variations in elevation.

and float on molten material.

Correction: Less dense continental material is isostatically balanced above more dense mantle material which is NOT molten (except very locally). Where did you study geology?

Yes they are curved, but curved surface is not same as sphere.

Correction: Portions of a sphere are arcs (curves) and do not lend well to being flattened (without distortion). Verify by pealing an orange and attempting to flatten the peal.

So in my opinion earth is flat.

It is not surprising that you would say that.

But it does not mean that planet earth is flat.

Perhaps you will explain how the Earth is flat but the planet (Earth) is not.

[atheist buddy]

Can I ask you something? Why do you not believe the earth is flat?

According to the Bible, earth meant dry land. Continents are dry land and they are relatively flat according to the modern science, and float on molten material. Yes they are curved, but curved surface is not same as sphere. So in my opinion earth is flat. But it does not mean that planet earth is flat.

Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.

This is what religion does to the human mind.

It's irrefutable that the earth is not flat. It's not flat on a global level, it's not flat on a continental level, it's not flat on a topographical level, it's not flat in any sense of the word other than one in which "flat" is the same as "not-flat".

It's only flat from the misguided and incomplete prospective of a bronze age nomadic goatherder standing in the middle of the desert scribbling his first superstitious and ignorant impressions of the world surrounding him.

And that's what religion does. It imprisons the human mind so that we're stuck for millenia making the same misguided statements that were made by bronze age nomads, on the basis of the outrageous and indefensible notion that somehow their words hold some kind of special truth.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, other than religion, could get a person in the 21st century to fumble the answer to the question "Why do you believe the earth isn't flat"?

1213, here is the correct answer to the question:

I believe the earth is not flat because the evidence clearly points to it being a globe.

[Zzyzx]

.

Can I ask you something? Why do you not believe the earth is flat?

According to the Bible, earth meant dry land. Continents are dry land and they are relatively flat according to the modern science, and float on molten material. Yes they are curved, but curved surface is not same as sphere. So in my opinion earth is flat. But it does not mean that planet earth is flat.

Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.

This is what religion does to the human mind.

I would say this is an example of what any ideology followed fanatically can do to some human minds, particularly those inclined to believe what they are told without requiring evidence or substantiation.

The most gullible believe their ideology in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary – and redefine words or warp concepts to "explain" their errors and assumptions.

Perhaps it is understandable that some people would do this if their world-view, because it is based upon irrational beliefs, would be destroyed if reasoning and evidence demonstrated it was faulty.

[atheist buddy]

.

Can I ask you something? Why do you not believe the earth is flat?

According to the Bible, earth meant dry land. Continents are dry land and they are relatively flat according to the modern science, and float on molten material. Yes they are curved, but curved surface is not same as sphere. So in my opinion earth is flat. But it does not mean that planet earth is flat.

Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.

This is what religion does to the human mind.

I would say this is an example of what any ideology followed fanatically can do to some human minds, particularly those inclined to believe what they are told without requiring evidence or substantiation.

The most gullible believe their ideology in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary – and redefine words or warp concepts to "explain" their errors and assumptions.

Perhaps it is understandable that some people would do this if their world-view, because it is based upon irrational beliefs, would be destroyed if reasoning and evidence demonstrated it was faulty.

I agree completely.

Dogmatism makes it impossile for a human mind to process empirical data, and to extract logical conclusions from that data.

Basically, when you're under the influence of dogmatism, you cannot think straight.

Consider these questions: Is the earth a globe, can donkeys talk, how many legs do insects have, is it ever ok to kill a child in cold blood, is it ever ok to stone somebody for being gay, is it ever ok to force a woman to marry her rapist, are zombies real.

These are questions that anybody would answer correctly without a moment's hesitation had they not been under the influence of dogmatism. But when under the influence, these questions become difficult, because answering them correctly would cast doubt upon the validity of the dogma, and the dogma is mor eimportant than the truth to these people.

Imagine there was a drug which made it impossible for users to properly discern fact from fiction, and which would make the users so convinced of their hallucinations that they would be willing to kill and die over them, even to sacrifice the life of their children.

If such a drug existed, it would be considered the most dangerous drug ever, and it would be illegal in every country.

Well, the drug exists, it's called religion, and there are 6 billion addicts in the world.

[geometer]

Hello,

I only joined this forum to say: wow! just wow!

I am a surveyor, and I can tell you the ONLY answer to the question "is the world flat?" is, simply, no. The world is not flat.

I can make measurements over a distance of several hundred yards that will confirm that the world is not flat.

My own experience with christian fundamentalism comes from working with a young earth creationist. He is normally a sensible and considered human until the subject of religion comes up. Then he transforms into a jibbering, illogical kind of WLC parrot. He trots out the usual fundamentalist and ID arguments one-by-one. He actually tried the hurricane-through-a-junkyard-creating-a-jumbo-jet argument on me. I haven't been able to look at him the same since then.

[1213]

Perhaps God didn't get that memo when according to genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Thanks for good scripture. They were destroyed with earth (=dry land). The one continent was destroyed in that event and at the same all of those who were on earth.

Correction: Geologists, geographers, engineers, surveyors, physicists, etc do NOT consider the continents to be "relatively flat." Verification -- consult a globe and notice that continents span considerable arc (are curved). Consult topographic maps and notice that continents contain wide variations in elevation.

Ok, I don’t see any reason to argue about this. However, I think our planet consists of crust that is divided to multiple continental plates. If we take one plate, it is like shell and in my opinion it is flat, when the thickness is much smaller than the length. But I agree that maybe nothing is really absolutely plain, because every surface has roughness, if we look precisely.

And then we can’t tell that Bible claims earth to be flat, because it tells there was a mountain. And so the whole idea that Bible claims earth to be flat is ridiculous.

Correction: Less dense continental material is isostatically balanced above more dense mantle material which is NOT molten (except very locally). Where did you study geology?

That is interesting claim, because Finnish Wikipedia claims that earth has molten iron-nickel core and I believe it is not written by some religious people. But obviously Wikipedia is not necessary the most trustworthy source, so I looked also to book named Geologica (Original text: Geologica earth's geological past) and it tells the same. Unfortunately I have only Finnish translation of it so it is possible that the Finnish translation is rubbish, maybe the whole original book is also.

Interesting thing is that English Wikipedia claims that Earth has rigid outer layer that consists of plates. (In my opinion plate describes of piece that is relatively flat. Else it would be called something else). And that layer is on top of “solid� part, mantle.

“The tectonic plates ride on top of the asthenosphere, the solid but less-viscous part of the upper mantle that can flow and move along with the plates�
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

The outer layers of the Earth are divided into the lithosphere and asthenosphere. This is based on differences in mechanical properties and in the method for the transfer of heat. Mechanically, the lithosphere is cooler and more rigid, while the asthenosphere is hotter and flows more easily.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

In my opinion material that is viscous and flowing is not solid. And if the mantle is solid, then the crust is on top of solid material and can’t “float� to anywhere. I can’t see how people can accept these contradictory claims. But this is just my problem. The point is, that I am sorry, I believed the wrong texts. But that, is it molten was not really the point. The point was that according to science Earth has crust that is on top of some other layer and allegedly the crust moves on top of that. But the whole thing is based on some studies that may be wrong. People have not really seen what there is.

[Zzyzx]

.

And then we can’t tell that Bible claims earth to be flat, because it tells there was a mountain. And so the whole idea that Bible claims earth to be flat is ridiculous.

Okay, then your "flat Earth" ideas come from sources other than the bible? Is the flat concept taught in Finnish schools?

Correction: Less dense continental material is isostatically balanced above more dense mantle material which is NOT molten (except very locally). Where did you study geology?

That is interesting claim, because Finnish Wikipedia claims that earth has molten iron-nickel core and I believe it is not written by some religious people. But obviously Wikipedia is not necessary the most trustworthy source, so I looked also to book named Geologica (Original text: Geologica earth's geological past) and it tells the same. Unfortunately I have only Finnish translation of it so it is possible that the Finnish translation is rubbish, maybe the whole original book is also.

Perhaps science works differently in Finland, but I don't think so. A good friend of many years, an electrical engineer and a brilliant man, who was from Finland would be embarrassed to think that countrymen lacked understanding of the Earth that should be taught in grade school (or high school at the latest).

In my opinion material that is viscous and flowing is not solid.

If you have a handful of modeling clay or wax that is pliable at ambient temperatures, do you consider them to be "not solid" or liquid?

And if the mantle is solid, then the crust is on top of solid material and can’t “float� to anywhere. I can’t see how people can accept these contradictory claims.

Those who actually study geology, Earth science, physics, etc LEARN about behavior of materials of differing temperatures, compositions, pressures, etc.

Reading religious literature is not likely to result in understanding of such things – nor is watching television.

Many years ago I taught introductory and advanced university geology and Earth science courses – so I am somewhat conversant with the structure of the Earth. Anyone interested can consult Internet sources (perhaps professional enough to meet with your approval if Wikipedia is inadequately professional):

The mantle is almost 2,900 kilometers thick and comprises about 83% of the Earth's volume. It is composed of several different layers. The upper mantle exists from the base of the crust downward to a depth of about 670 kilometers. This region of the Earth's interior is thought to be composed of peridotite, an ultramafic rock made up of the minerals olivine and pyroxene. The top layer of the upper mantle, 100 to 200 kilometers below surface, is called the asthenosphere. Scientific studies suggest that this layer has physical properties that are different from the rest of the upper mantle. The rocks in this upper portion of the mantle are more rigid and brittle because of cooler temperatures and lower pressures. Below the upper mantle is the lower mantle that extends from 670 to 2,900 kilometers below the Earth's surface. This layer is hot and plastic. The higher pressure in this layer causes the formation of minerals that are different from those of the upper mantle.
The lithosphere is a layer that includes the crust and the upper most portion of the asthenosphere (Figure 2). This layer is about 100 kilometers thick and has the ability to glide over the rest of the upper mantle. Because of increasing temperature and pressure, deeper portions of the lithosphere are capable of plastic flow over geologic time. The lithosphere is also the zone of earthquakes, mountain building, volcanoes, and continental drift.
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156285/

But this is just my problem.

Agreed

The point is, that I am sorry, I believed the wrong texts. But that, is it molten was not really the point. The point was that according to science Earth has crust that is on top of some other layer and allegedly the crust moves on top of that. But the whole thing is based on some studies that may be wrong. People have not really seen what there is.

Yes, people have not visited the mantle or core of the Earth – or the sun, planets, other solar systems and galaxies, etc. Should we therefore consider that scientific people who study such things are wrong and bible writers from thousands of years ago are right (when what they claim contradicts modern understandings)?

[1213]

Okay, then your "flat Earth" ideas come from sources other than the bible?

The idea for flat earth comes from the word Plate tectonics or tectonic plates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tectonic_plates.
Plate is defined as object that is thin and flat relative to their surroundings or context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate
Tectonic means part of our planets crust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonics

If we call those plates earth, as the Bible seems to tell, then earth can be understood as plate, which is flat. Bible tells that dry land meant earth and dry land is plate according to plate tectonics theory.

If you have a handful of modeling clay or wax that is pliable at ambient temperatures, do you consider them to be "not solid" or liquid?

Clay is a fine-grained soil that combines one or more clay minerals with traces of metal oxides and organic matter. Geologic clay deposits are mostly composed of phyllosilicate minerals containing variable amounts of water trapped in the mineral structure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay

Clay consists of solid material and of liquid material. So I think it is combination of solid and liquid. And therefore I wouldn’t call it solid or liquid.

In my opinion wax is not solid, because it is not rigid.

Yes, people have not visited the mantle or core of the Earth – or the sun, planets, other solar systems and galaxies, etc. Should we therefore consider that scientific people who study such things are wrong and bible writers from thousands of years ago are right (when what they claim contradicts modern understandings)?

In my opinion Bible does not contradict that what can really be seen.