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]

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?

Yes.

Does your GPS work? It works thanks to Einsteinian Relativity.

I bet you didn't know that, did you?

[atheist buddy]

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 cant 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 Einsteins 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

I just want to make sure that everybody that 1213 just backed himself into a corner. Now, in order to justify his belief that the Bible cannot possibly be improved, he had to contest the validity of Einsteinian Relativity, one of the most certain things ever.

Surely, it doesn't come as a surprise, since he already denied the earth is globe shaped to justify his Biblical literalism.

But it really makes you wonder, doesn't it? is there ANYTHING 1213 will not say in defense of his belief?

And if the evidence clearly points to the answer that, no, there's NOTHING he wouldn't say, no matter how ridiculous, to justify his faith, then another question comes to mind:

Is there anything he wouldn't do to defend his faith?

I mean, if you don't draw the line at "the earth is globe-shaped" and "E=mc2", if you're even willing to contest those if they conflict with your Biblical views, then where do you draw the line?

This is EXACTLY what the problem with religion is.

[Zzyzx]

.

Is there anything he wouldn't do to defend his faith?

I mean, if you don't draw the line at "the earth is globe-shaped" and "E=mc2", if you're even willing to contest those if they conflict with your Biblical views, then where do you draw the line?

This is EXACTLY what the problem with religion is.

I will respond without pointing at anyone personally.

In these debates and elsewhere I have observed that SOME religionists appear willing to say or do ANYTHING, no matter how irrational, to defend or promote their religious beliefs.

That IS a problem with religion AND it is probably related to the decline of religion in technological, educated, prosperous nations. As literacy and education increase the public tends to become more informed and astute (slow though that may be) and less gullible or inclined to accept irrational statements.

In debate I welcome (and value) opponents who degrade their "side" (or theological position) by repeated illogical / irrational statements. Perhaps they are not aware that readers who view these threads are very capable of evaluating what is presented and deciding what is silly. Maybe they just don't know any better????

[atheist buddy]

.

Is there anything he wouldn't do to defend his faith?

I mean, if you don't draw the line at "the earth is globe-shaped" and "E=mc2", if you're even willing to contest those if they conflict with your Biblical views, then where do you draw the line?

This is EXACTLY what the problem with religion is.

I will respond without pointing at anyone personally.

In these debates and elsewhere I have observed that SOME religionists appear willing to say or do ANYTHING, no matter how irrational, to defend or promote their religious beliefs.

That IS a problem with religion AND it is probably related to the decline of religion in technological, educated, prosperous nations. As literacy and education increase the public tends to become more informed and astute (slow though that may be) and less gullible or inclined to accept irrational statements.

In debate I welcome (and value) opponents who degrade their "side" (or theological position) by repeated illogical / irrational statements. Perhaps they are not aware that readers who view these threads are very capable of evaluating what is presented and deciding what is silly. Maybe they just don't know any better????

I kind of feel that while in many ways we're thankfully getting rid of religion slowly but surely in the developed world, there is a counter-tendency that is alarming.

What do I mean by this? Back in the bronze age, when we didn't know about viruses and bacteria, when we didn't know about DNA, when we didn't know about mitosis and myosis, when we throught the earth was flat, when the wisest among us basically knew less than any 6 year old knows today, it wasn't so crazy for people to believe that curses cause disease, and gods cause rain, and demigods are born of unions between people and gods and all that.

But to believe in virgin births and zombie invasions and talking snakes today, when we are able to perform heart transplants and go to the moon and videochat for free from a mobile device with somebody on the other side of the world... that's truly incredible.

It takes SO MUCH more gullibility to believe in these fairy tales today than it did back then.

So, again, while I'm relieved that religiosity is steadily diminishing under the inevitable scrutiny borne of the scientific revolution of the last couple centuries, it's alarming to me that those who do still believe are gulliable and irrational beyond the scope of any bronze age man, who believed in these untrue stories just out of an innocent ignorance of reality.

[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?

Yes.

Does your GPS work? It works thanks to Einsteinian Relativity.

I would like to see how you demonstrate it.

[1213]

Now, in order to justify his belief that the Bible cannot possibly be improved, he had to contest the validity of Einsteinian Relativity, one of the most certain things ever.

I think that is contested by scientists like Nikola Tesla and those who claim that photon has no mass.

Surely, it doesn't come as a surprise, since he already denied the earth is globe shaped to justify his Biblical literalism.

It seems to me that you dont read or understand what I have said.

I dont claim that planet Earth is not globe shaped. I think that Is not what the Bible claims.

I would also like you to answer, what plate means?

If you agree with this definition: Plate may refer to a range of objects, which have in common being thin and flat relative to their surroundings or context, are continents relatively flat?

If you answer no, as I think you earlier said. Why do you think people use term plate tectonics, if they are not speaking of relatively flat plates?

Should you correct their misleading teachings about flat continental plates?

Earth meant in the Bible dry land and it can be seen as continental plate.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 60 by 1213]

On photons and masslessness (Long story short, they have 0 rest mass and non-zero relativistic mass, e=mc² is only part of a bigger equation;)
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/P ... _mass.html
Wikipedia also has a page on relativistic mass.
See the two articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass


Proof for e=mc² is plentiful - for instance, yields from nuclear reactions (e.g. nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons) are on orders expected from the relevant equations.

The energy released from radioactive decay also fits the pattern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80 ... l_examples

[Zzyzx]

.

It seems to me that you dont read or understand what I have said.

Are you SURE that it is others that do not understand what you have said?

I would also like you to answer, what plate means?

Rather than struggling to re-define or selectively define words in an attempt to make bible tales appear rational, it might be prudent to actually study Tectonic Plates. Here is a starting point:

Tectonic plates are large plates of rock that make up the foundation of the Earth's crust and the shape of the continents. The tectonic plates comprise the bottom of the crust and the top of the Earth's mantle. There are ten major plates on Earth and many more minor ones. They float on a plastic-like part of the Earth's mantle called the asthenosphere. The plates are most famously known for being the source of earthquakes.

The tectonic plates are about 100 km (60 miles) in thickness, with continental plates tending to be thicker than oceanic ones. The composure of the two types of plate is also quite different. Oceanic plates consist of thicker basaltic rocks, compressed by the pressure of kilometers of water. Contintental plates have a lower average density, containing granitic rocks with a heavy composition of aluminum and silica.

The mantle underneath the tectonic plates is constantly recirculating, causing the plates to float around slowly in a process called tectonic drift. This process was described well by the theory of plate tectonics, which solved several scientific dilemmas about the distribution of species when it was introduced. When plates push up against each other, they create mountain ranges and volcanoes. Mt. Everest was created in this way.

Because the plates are so large, each wraps over a considerable portion of the Earth's surface, making them curved. This is a different shape than the flatness the word "plate" suggests.

Over time, plate tectonics has caused the world's continents to be reshaped. Every continent on Earth was once part of an ancient supercontinent known as Pangaea, and Antarctica was once located in a temperate climate. Marine fossils can be found on the peaks of the world's tallest mountains. The tectonic plates continue to move slowly, but it is unlikely that their movement will cause the world's face to change more rapidly than the growing technological influence of mankind will. One day the plates' great momentum and pressure might even be used as a source of geological energy.

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-are-tectonic-plates.htm

Pay particular attention to the text to which bold red font has been added

Should you correct their misleading teachings about flat continental plates?

I spent a couple decades correcting the misleading teachings of religion regarding the Earth, its materials, and its processes. Freshman students often come into university science courses and programs with biblical / religious misconceptions that they un-learn before they can undertake actual learning about Earth sciences.

Earth meant in the Bible dry land and it can be seen as continental plate.

Evidently "God" didn't get that message because "he" referred to flooding the entire Earth and killing all "he had created." Surely "the creator" realized that the Earth was a planet that consists of many areas that are NOT "dry land" (which would also be flooded if waters reached "the tops of mountains" as promised.

Do you (generic term) realize that to flood "to the tops of mountains" REQUIRES that all lakes and oceans ALSO be buried beneath miles deep water? Flooding Mt. Everest "to the tops of mountains" requires water over five miles deep. How does that fit with the bible tale?

[atheist buddy]

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?

Yes.

Does your GPS work? It works thanks to Einsteinian Relativity.

I would like to see how you demonstrate it.

http://physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... 5/gps.html

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/g ... tivity.asp

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... relativity

http://www.wired.com/2011/06/st_equation_gps/

http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/ ... 32969.aspx

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/ ... Ehic_ldWLg

https://perimeterinstitute.ca/store/per ... relativity

[atheist buddy]

Now, in order to justify his belief that the Bible cannot possibly be improved, he had to contest the validity of Einsteinian Relativity, one of the most certain things ever.

I think that is contested by scientists like Nikola Tesla and those who claim that photon has no mass.

Nope. Nobody contests relativity.

Tesla did, but he was not a physicist, and he was just wrong.

Relativity is a fact. Stop it.

Surely, it doesn't come as a surprise, since he already denied the earth is globe shaped to justify his Biblical literalism.

It seems to me that you dont read or understand what I have said.

I dont claim that planet Earth is not globe shaped. I think that Is not what the Bible claims.

I would also like you to answer, what plate means?

If you agree with this definition: Plate may refer to a range of objects, which have in common being thin and flat relative to their surroundings or context, are continents relatively flat?

No, they are not flat. They are curved, which is the opposite of flat.

If you answer no, as I think you earlier said. Why do you think people use term plate tectonics, if they are not speaking of relatively flat plates?

Nobody in the universe says plate techtonics in any way promotes the notion that the plates are flat. They aren't. They are curved, which is the opposite of flat.

Should you correct their misleading teachings about flat continental plates?

The confusion is entirely and exclusively inside your head.

Earth meant in the Bible dry land and it can be seen as continental plate.

Whatever. Continental plates are not flat. They are curved, which is the opposite of flat.

The Bible is wrong in stating the earth is flat, irrespective of whether you interpret that to mean the globe, or any section of the planet, which si curved, which is the opposite of flat.