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]

.

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?

Do you think there is anything sufficiently obvious and undeniable that 1213 will NOT deny it if it contradicts with the Bible?

Hey 1213, the Bible says insects have 4 legs. Is 3+3=4?

[Zzyzx]

.

Do you think there is anything sufficiently obvious and undeniable that 1213 will NOT deny it if it contradicts with the Bible?

It is a continuing source of amazement and amusement to observe the outlandish positions bible believers / literalists / fundamentalists are willing to assume in order to attempt a defense of totally irrational stories by ancient writers.

Perhaps it is threatening to beliefs / faith to acknowledge or admit that some or much of what ancients believed and wrote was NOT literal truth and was often written in ignorance of conditions and occurrences in the real world. If gospel writers and bible story tellers were admittedly wrong about some things, they could also be wrong about divinity of Jesus and other bases of Christian beliefs and dogma.

[atheist buddy]

.

Do you think there is anything sufficiently obvious and undeniable that 1213 will NOT deny it if it contradicts with the Bible?

It is a continuing source of amazement and amusement to observe the outlandish positions bible believers / literalists / fundamentalists are willing to assume in order to attempt a defense of totally irrational stories by ancient writers.

Perhaps it is threatening to beliefs / faith to acknowledge or admit that some or much of what ancients believed and wrote was NOT literal truth and was often written in ignorance of conditions and occurrences in the real world. If gospel writers and bible story tellers were admittedly wrong about some things, they could also be wrong about divinity of Jesus and other bases of Christian beliefs and dogma.

I'm afraid I don't share in your amusement.

Not when legislators in Uganda try to pass legislation making homosexuality a crime punishable by life in prison, based on Biblical law, and US legislators consult with them and support that bill.

Not when a Jehovah's witness refuses a life-saving blood transfusion for her child.

Not when the Vatican causes millions of deaths with its campaign of misinformation about condoms.

Not when people who believe in Noah's ark try to introduce biblical fairy tales into the science class here in America.

Amazement, yes. Amusement, not so much.

[1213]

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).

It seems to me that I have not been accurate enough. Sorry about that. If you allow, I would like to rephrase what I tried to tell previously.

Some have told that planet earth consists of layers like in this picture (outer core liquid):

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_(geolo ... poster.svg

That same has been taught in schools that I have been and also in many scientific magazines and books that I have read. According to that there is allegedly liquid part. And it is what I meant apparently with wrong words. However this is what I have read, not what I claim to be true, or not necessary even what I believe.

[1213]

Hey 1213, the Bible says insects have 4 legs. Is 3+3=4?

Hey atheist buddy, do you really believe that people could beat the Bible? Many have tried. I have read even that in Soviet Union there was book called Atheists manual and they did much to end Christianity and failed. Do you really think you could do better?

And about those legs, actually that depends on how insect and leg is defined. Those who wrote the Bible may have taught that the four are legs and rests are arms.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 55 by 1213]

Take the bible, find one false statement, append or remove it.

Or, if you don't believe there is anything false in the Bible, take a statement that is not clear in it's meaning or intent, and rephrase or expand on it with diacritical markings.

You have now created a book that is, by all standards, superior to the Bible.


But incidentally, would you be able to tell the difference between a false Bible claim, and a true Bible claim that is simply mistranslated or misunderstood?

[atheist buddy]

Hey 1213, the Bible says insects have 4 legs. Is 3+3=4?

Hey atheist buddy, do you really believe that people could beat the Bible? Many have tried. I have read even that in Soviet Union there was book called Atheists manual and they did much to end Christianity and failed. Do you really think you could do better?

OF COURSE. There is no question about it!

Any 7 year old could make the Bible better than it is.

Seriously, do you have any doubt whatsoever about this?

Here's an example of how the Bible would be better:

Make it identical to the way it is, but at the end write "P.S. E=MC2"

And about those legs, actually that depends on how insect and leg is defined. Those who wrote the Bible may have taught that the four are legs and rests are arms.

Ah ah ah! Amazing.

So spiders have 4 legs and 4 arms? Centipedes have 4 legs and 96 arms?

Is there any number that they could have come up with, that would be wrong?

What if the authors of the Bible had written "all creatures who hop on one leg"?

That would mean that humans are creatures who hop on one leg and have three arms, one of which looks identical to the leg, but is actually another arm.

A horse would have 1 leg and three arms which look kinda like legs but are actually arms

An insect would have 1 leg and 5 arms

A spider 1 leg and 7 arms

A centipede one leg and 99 arms.

What if the Bible authors had written that all creatures have 6 legs? Well, humans would have two regular legs, the arms would also count as legs, plus the ears would count as vestigial legs which mutated into ears. Total? 6 legs!

Dogs would have 4 legs that look like legs, plus the males would have the testicles which are kinda down facing pretuberances that therefore count as legs. Females would only have 5 legs (the 4 regular legs plus the lopping tongue), the 6th leg was removed by God.


What's my point? You can make excuses and justify anything. But sooner or later you have to realize that if you live your life like that, you're at the complete fancy of whatever beliefs are inculcated in you by happenstance of birth, and become completely impervious to fact, evidence, common sense and logic.

The authors of that Bible passage were too busy trying to stay alive, trying to rape as many women as possible and tyring to prevent men from other tribes raping their women, to actually stop and count how many legs an insect has. That's why the Bible says insects have 4 legs. Get over it.

[1213]

Any 7 year old could make the Bible better than it is.

I meant, do you think you can do better than those atheists in Soviet Union that made the Atheists manual? Many have been against the Bible and failed. Do you think you can beat the Bible? Will your words last longer than the words in the Bible, can you show Bible wrong?

Make it identical to the way it is, but at the end write "P.S. E=MC2"

In my opinion that would prove Bible wrong and silly.

So spiders have 4 legs and 4 arms? Centipedes have 4 legs and 96 arms?

Is there any number that they could have come up with, that would be wrong?

Maybe you should show the scripture that speaks about insects. Then we could see better what it may mean.

[atheist buddy]

Any 7 year old could make the Bible better than it is.

I meant, do you think you can do better than those atheists in Soviet Union that made the Atheists manual?

yes

Many have been against the Bible and failed.

What are you talking about?

Do you think you can beat the Bible?

Yes.

Will your words last longer than the words in the Bible,

Irrelevant. Length of populairty is not an inidcation of the truth of the content

can you show Bible wrong?

yes

Make it identical to the way it is, but at the end write "P.S. E=MC2"

In my opinion that would prove Bible wrong and silly.

So adding a true statement - a statement that is right - makes a document wrong?

do you understand that "wrong" is the opposite of "right"?

So spiders have 4 legs and 4 arms? Centipedes have 4 legs and 96 arms?

Is there any number that they could have come up with, that would be wrong?

Maybe you should show the scripture that speaks about insects. Then we could see better what it may mean.

"All the [j]winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. 21 Yet these you may eat among all the [k]winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth. 22 These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds. 23 But all other [l]winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you" Lev 11

[1213]

So adding a true statement - a statement that is right - makes a document wrong?

Can you prove that E=mc^2 is true in real life? No, and you can’t prove it even in theory correct, because if that would be true, photon would not have energy, because it has no mass at least if we believe what the Wikipedia says: “A photon is massless�. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Yes, you could start to preach about E^2 = p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4 and other corrections for E = mc^2, but I think that would not lead to anywhere, unless you can show me how you weigh a photon.

It seems to me that Nikola Tesla was correct about Einstein’s theory:

Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

"All the [j]winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. 21 Yet these you may eat among all the [k]winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth. 22 These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds. 23 But all other [l]winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you" Lev 11

Thank you that you brought this up. Now anybody can see what was it all about. “winged insects that walk on all fours�. Not all possible insects.