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]

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.

Sure, as long as by flat you mean "Not flat, curved".

Also, if the "earth is flat" by your definition, so is the sea flat. Combine the flat earth and the flat sea, and what do you get? A flat planet.

Nonsensical.

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

It is illuminating to have a religionist description of the Earth and it components and processes to compare to scientific (or common sense or real world) viewpoints. One can apparently say whatever it takes when attempting to make bible tales appear to be truthful and accurate. None of it has to make sense.

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 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.

Is a clay pot (one made of clay) NOT a solid?

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

Your definition of solid is interesting -- must be rigid. Is that what was taught in physics where you went to school? Shoes, belts, shirts and coats are not rigid. Are they NOT solids?

Three states of matter are solid, liquid, and gas (with a couple more possible in extremes of temperature and pressure or other condition).

In your (biblical?) scheme of things is wax a solid, a liquid or a gas?

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.

Doesn't the bible tell of supernatural entities and events that we have not or cannot see (such as gods, devils, demons, angels -- and their actions)?

[Fundagelico]

Why is nobody contesting either a) the content of my post, namely the validity of the evidence for and against the virgin birth, or b) the implicit premise that beliefs are only justifiable if supported by evidence?

Because we've been busy doing other things? Because your argument is not quite as interesting or overpowering as you think? In any event I would contest both a) and b).

a) I don’t see why countless occurrences of event N should pass as evidence against a single occurrence of ~N. By that reckoning reports of world records, for the long jump, say, or the largest blue marlin, must be false because all human knowledge accumulated prior to the setting of those records indicates that men do not jump that far and blue marlins do not grow that large. Also by your reasoning we can safely conclude that life never originated on earth, because innumerable observations make it clear that living organisms do not generate apart from reproduction, i.e., through the agency of other, preexisting living organisms.

The law of biogenesis is as firmly established as the law that human impregnation cannot occur apart from both egg and sperm. Yet here we are talking about it!

Bear in mind, the Christian claim is not that virgin births occur routinely and for some reason no one to this point has noticed, but that on one occasion in particular the Son of God was miraculously born of a virgin. If it was a widely held first century belief that virgin births occurred routinely, Joseph would not have been shamed by Mary's pregnancy nor tried to conceal the fact.

b) I have yet to come across any evidence to support the belief that beliefs are only justifiable if supported by evidence. If no such evidence exists, then evidentialism is incoherent.

Either my content is wrong, or the premise that gives weight to my content is wrong, or the virgin birth didn't happen and christianity is a lie.

It would seem that to a Christian who finds it worthwhile to spend time on a Christian debate site, proving me wrong would be their bread and butter.

So why is nobody contesting the heart of my post, and instead either ignoring my post entirely, or wasting time with peripheral (and easily disputed) arguments about zero being the same as one?

Isn't it obvious? It's not that we have other responsibilities, like working jobs or caring for our families and communities. It's that we are afraid to tangle with you because you are the roughest, toughest, rootinest, tootinest atheist to come around these parts since the legendary "no evidence no belief" (a banned former participant here whose arguments and rhetorical style were uncannily similar to yours).

[Zzyzx]

.

I have yet to come across any evidence to support the belief that beliefs are only justifiable if supported by evidence. If no such evidence exists, then evidentialism is incoherent.

When one does not require evidence in their decision-making processes, how do they go about deciding what to accept, believe, follow, etc


Is it a matter of what feels good? what seems right? what everybody thinks? what grownups do? what preachers say? what ancient writers believed?

Do informed decisions have no place in religions or beliefs?

Do you (generic term) use evidence as a basis for important decisions in real life?

[1213]

Nonsensical.

Maybe you should go and tell that to those who use words like "plate tectonics". Apparently you think they don’t know what plate means or that they use it wrongly.

[1213]

Your definition of solid is interesting -- must be rigid. Is that what was taught in physics where you went to school? Shoes, belts, shirts and coats are not rigid. Are they NOT solids?

If you have welded your belt of iron, then it may be relatively solid. Belts for example are combinations of different materials. They may consist of metal that is in common language usually defined as solid. But the complete product is not in my opinion solid if defined certain way. Depending on definition, nothing is probably really solid.

Solid can be defined in many ways, for example, firm, fixed, steady, stationary… These are quite relative words and can be understood in common life differently, but now that you want me to give accurate answer, I have to go to this…

Metal for example is usually seen as solid, but if we believe what is said about atoms and smaller particles, nothing is really solid = fixed = steady, except maybe in absolute zero temperature. But does this mean they are liquids? No, because liquid is only less solid form of some material same way as gas is less solid form of material that is called liquid. I think solid, liquid and gas is only describing the state of material. They don’t actually define material, because same material can be different in different situation. For example H20 (water) is “solid� (actually slower), in certain environment. It is not correct to say that H20 is “solid�, because it can be “liquid� or “gas�. And those words are really relative and depend for example of pressure and temperature.

Solid, liquid and gas are relatively and that is why I think it is ok when scientific book of geology says that below earth’s crust is “liquid� layer of “molten� material. It acts like liquid, because it is heated to temperature where it can move more easily than in “normal� temperature. (Because of the alleged pressure, it is not as liquid as it could be in less pressure). If we compare it to water in “normal� temperature, it is not very liquid, because it does not move as easily.

Three states of matter are solid, liquid, and gas (with a couple more possible in extremes of temperature and pressure or other condition).

Yes, they are states of material and so not really accurate definitions for material.

Doesn't the bible tell of supernatural entities and events that we have not or cannot see (such as gods, devils, demons, angels -- and their actions)?

If we have not seen something, it is not any proof that something does not exist or that something is not real.

For example God is defined in the Bible by these:

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

And that spirit is love:

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:16

How could I say that God Is not real, if I have seen acts of love?

[atheist buddy]

Why is nobody contesting either a) the content of my post, namely the validity of the evidence for and against the virgin birth, or b) the implicit premise that beliefs are only justifiable if supported by evidence?

Because we've been busy doing other things? Because your argument is not quite as interesting or overpowering as you think? In any event I would contest both a) and b).

a) I don’t see why countless occurrences of event N should pass as evidence against a single occurrence of ~N. By that reckoning reports of world records, for the long jump, say, or the largest blue marlin, must be false because all human knowledge accumulated prior to the setting of those records indicates that men do not jump that far and blue marlins do not grow that large.

Two answers:

First: The time when it becomes reasonable to believe not just that it's possible for man to jump longer than the world record, but that somebody actually did it, is when evidence for the event has been presented.

Second: Your argument is a red herring, borne of the fact that you seem unable to distinguish between rare events and impossible events. In other words, you cannot tell the difference between events which don't have evidence AGAINST them or FOR them, but which it's reasonable to believe in principle that they may happen, and events which not only have no evidence FOR them, but also have overwhelmingly strong evidence AGAINST them.

The world record for long jump is 8.95 meters.

To believe that 2000 years ago somebody jumped 14 meters, on the basis of multiple layers of hearsay testimony, recorded by anonymous scribes centuries later, who had sociopolitical reasons for saying somebody jumped 14 meters, is a magnificient display of gullibility.

But that's not what believing the virgin birth story is like.

Believing the virign birth story is analogous to believing that somebody jumped 14 meters, and did so while holding a martini glass without spilling a singe drop, while simultaneously juggling three watermelons with his left hand, despite the fact that he had just gotten shot in both knees, hadent eaten for 10 days, and drank a bottle of vodka 30 minutes before jumping. AND, believing this on the basis of multiple layers of hearsay testimony, recorded by anonymous scribes centuries later, who had sociopolitical reasons for saying somebody did all that.

b) I have yet to come across any evidence to support the belief that beliefs are only justifiable if supported by evidence. If no such evidence exists, then evidentialism is incoherent.

Oh! I have evidence for that! For the purpose of this example, let's assume you're a gun expert.

Here is the way the experiment would work:

You walk into a room where I'm sitting at a table. Two guns are on the table. One is loaded, the other is not. You don't know which is which. You have to pick one of the guns, point it to your temple, and fire.

Now, you have two options. You can either open the gun's clip and determine which one of the two is loaded and THEN pick the one you will aim at your temple and fire, or you have the option of picking a gun and shooting without checking first which one is loaded.

So, would you examine the evidence, and determine which gun is loaded, or would you just shoot?

If you go for the first option, you are implicitly admitting that beliefs supported by evidence are more reliable than beliefs based on something other than evidence.

Either my content is wrong, or the premise that gives weight to my content is wrong, or the virgin birth didn't happen and christianity is a lie.

It would seem that to a Christian who finds it worthwhile to spend time on a Christian debate site, proving me wrong would be their bread and butter.

So why is nobody contesting the heart of my post, and instead either ignoring my post entirely, or wasting time with peripheral (and easily disputed) arguments about zero being the same as one?

Isn't it obvious? It's not that we have other responsibilities, like working jobs or caring for our families and communities. It's that we are afraid to tangle with you because you are the roughest, toughest, rootinest, tootinest atheist to come around these parts since the legendary "no evidence no belief" (a banned former participant here whose arguments and rhetorical style were uncannily similar to yours).

First of all, your explanation about people being busy is a justification for not answering my posts at all. It's not a justification for answering them without getting to the heart of the claim and instead engaging in preipheral issues like you did above.

Secondly, for this time, I will interpret your sacrasm as a failed attempt at humor, as opposed to a personal attack, but please know where to draw the line.

[Zzyzx]

.

Your definition of solid is interesting -- must be rigid. Is that what was taught in physics where you went to school? Shoes, belts, shirts and coats are not rigid. Are they NOT solids?

If you have welded your belt of iron, then it may be relatively solid. Belts for example are combinations of different materials. They may consist of metal that is in common language usually defined as solid. But the complete product is not in my opinion solid if defined certain way. Depending on definition, nothing is probably really solid.

Physics must be very different in your part of the world. In the US belts are often made of fabric, leather or plastic – all of which are considered to be solids (not liquids or gasses or plasma).

Is a leather belt NOT a solid where you live and where you went (or go) to school?

Solid can be defined in many ways, for example, firm, fixed, steady, stationary… These are quite relative words and can be understood in common life differently, but now that you want me to give accurate answer, I have to go to this…

Yes, one struggling to defend a faulty position can choose definitions that they think fit their propositions. Perhaps they also believe that their "constructive re-definitions" will convince readers they are making sense. There may be some who are uninformed or gullible.

I prefer to deal with things as they actually occur in the real world. A leather belt or a pair of shoes are examples of solids in my world. They definitely are not liquids or gasses.

However, I encourage you to carry on "explaining" to readers how common items are NOT solids – in an attempt to rescue or necessitate a failed claim relating to the Earth's mantle (which geologists, geophysicists, seismologists consider to be solid – with occasional liquification – but which YOU KNOW BETTER).

Metal for example is usually seen as solid, but if we believe what is said about atoms and smaller particles, nothing is really solid = fixed = steady, except maybe in absolute zero temperature.

Most metals are solids at common ambient temperatures. There are exceptions, such as mercury which is liquid until temperatures of -37.966 Fahrenheit.

Most materials which are liquid at common ambient temperatures and pressures will solidify at some (known) temperature and pressure. Most will also change phase to gaseous at some (higher) temperature.

Some solids can change phase from solid to gaseous without going through the liquid phase (sublimation) – demonstrated by Carbon dioxide ("dry ice" in solid form at temperatures of -109 F at one atmosphere pressure) and by water in some conditions (drying wash on a clothesline in sub-zero temperatures).

But does this mean they are liquids? No, because liquid is only less solid form of some material same way as gas is less solid form of material that is called liquid. I think solid, liquid and gas is only describing the state of material.

Are you aware that the states of matter are related to molecular motion – and that what we measure as "heat" is actually a measure of molecular activity?

If so, how does this information relate to your "new and improved" version of states of matter?

They don’t actually define material, because same material can be different in different situation. For example H20 (water) is “solid� (actually slower), in certain environment. It is not correct to say that H20 is “solid�, because it can be “liquid� or “gas�. And those words are really relative and depend for example of pressure and temperature.

Is it correct to say that ICE is a solid form of H2O and that water vapor is a gaseous form and that water is it liquid form?

Would you care to take the position that ice is not a solid?

Perhaps you are aware that glacial ice can flow (plastically deform) without liquifying (according to glaciologists – people who actually study such things). Geologists and geophysicists understand that rock materials of the Mantle can act in a similar "plastic deformation" manner under suitable conditions of temperature and pressure. Your conjectures, if true, would shatter their understanding.

, liquid and gas are relatively and that is why I think it is ok when scientific book of geology says that below earth’s crust is “liquid� layer of “molten� material.

Exactly WHAT "scientific book of geology" says that below earth's crust is 'liquid' layer of molten material. Cite a reference.

Many geology texts indicate that the OUTER CORE of the Earth is liquid. However, that is approximately 2000 miles below the crust – with the Mantle between. Consult any geology text for verification.

Do you dispute this information? If so, based on what evidence?

It acts like liquid, because it is heated to temperature where it can move more easily than in “normal� temperature. (Because of the alleged pressure, it is not as liquid as it could be in less pressure). If we compare it to water in “normal� temperature, it is not very liquid, because it does not move as easily.

This sounds like "theistic geology" that is quite different from actual "geology."

Have you taken university courses that imparted the ideas you convey here, or are those ideas of your own making, your own mind?

It is not unknown for religionists to study ancient writings and conclude that they know more about nature and the real world than professionals who devote decades or careers to study of specific fields of knowledge.

Three states of matter are solid, liquid, and gas (with a couple more possible in extremes of temperature and pressure or other condition).

Yes, they are states of material and so not really accurate definitions for material.

Perhaps you should share that understanding with geologists who do not recognize that "truth" after decades of study.

Doesn't the bible tell of supernatural entities and events that we have not or cannot see (such as gods, devils, demons, angels -- and their actions)?

If we have not seen something, it is not any proof that something does not exist or that something is not real.

That is correct. Although we have not seen pink unicorns on a planet outside the solar system is NOT proof they do not exist.

However, anyone who maintains that those proposed pink unicorns DO exist is charged with the responsibility of providing compelling, convincing evidence (if they debate honorably).

The same is true for those who propose that invisible, undetectable, supernatural "gods" exist and influence human lives (and supposed "afterlives") – those who claim knowledge of such things have the responsibility of demonstrating that they speak truthfully and accurately.

However, when asked to provide evidence all they seem able to produce is opinion, conjecture, testimonials, folklore, legend, fable and ancient texts by unknown writers expressing their beliefs, stories and opinions -- NONE of which can be verified as truthful and accurate.

For example God is defined in the Bible by these:

How some religion promotional literature defines a favorite "god" is not proof in debate.

How could I say that God Is not real, if I have seen acts of love?

When Non-Believers exhibit love for one another is that proof of a "god?" If so, which "god" and how can that be determined?


Thank you for yet another opportunity to display for readers the contrast between religious and non-religious versions of thinking about the world we inhabit.

[1213]

Would you care to take the position that ice is not a solid?
...
Perhaps you are aware that glacial ice can flow (plastically deform) without liquifying (according to glaciologists – people who actually study such things). Geologists and geophysicists understand that rock materials of the Mantle can act in a similar "plastic deformation" manner under suitable conditions of temperature and pressure. Your conjectures, if true, would shatter their understanding.

Yes, I know that it is claimed that ice can flow.

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

In my opinion something that flows I not very solid, and in my opinion it is not very logical. But perhaps there are better things to do than worry about that.

Exactly WHAT "scientific book of geology" says that below earth's crust is 'liquid' layer of molten material. Cite a reference.

The book is: Geologica (Earth’s Geological past, Dr. Robert R. Coenraads, John I. Koivula). In Finnish translation page 18.

Many geology texts indicate that the OUTER CORE of the Earth is liquid. However, that is approximately 2000 miles below the crust – with the Mantle between. Consult any geology text for verification.

Good that you told that. I didn’t mean to say that the whole core is liquid, just one part of it that is between crust and the inner core (as also the book claims).

[Zzyzx]

.

In my opinion something that flows I not very solid, and in my opinion it is not very logical.

Perhaps it would be prudent to distinguish between the terms "solid" and "rigid." Many materials which are solids are not rigid. That information is very basic physics (or real world experience).

But perhaps there are better things to do than worry about that.

It is wise to avoid making statements that indicate ignorance of basic Earth science, Earth structure, and physics – while attempting to defend some religious point made by ancients who were ignorant of the size, shape, construction of the Earth. .

Exactly WHAT "scientific book of geology" says that below earth's crust is 'liquid' layer of molten material. Cite a reference.

The book is: Geologica (Earth’s Geological past, Dr. Robert R. Coenraads, John I. Koivula). In Finnish translation page 18.

Evidently the Earth is very different under France and Finland (according to the French and Finnish – or maybe the translation was faulty). Among US geologists, geophysicists, Earth scientists, etc the liquid core is separated from the crust by about 1800 miles or 2,900 km.

It might be illuminating to use an Internet search engine to discover current thinking about the Mantle, Crust and Core. Knowledge has increased significantly during the past few centuries.

Many geology texts indicate that the OUTER CORE of the Earth is liquid. However, that is approximately 2000 miles below the crust – with the Mantle between. Consult any geology text for verification.

Good that you told that. I didn’t mean to say that the whole core is liquid, just one part of it that is between crust and the inner core (as also the book claims).

Your cross section description of the Earth is missing the Mantle (which constitutes 84% of the Earth mass). Minor oversight or misleading theology? According to most professionals in the field the Mantle is considered solid, NOT liquid (except very locally).

Do you mind saying where you learned what you present about the structure of the Earth?