Is forgiveness without a price a virtue?

[Justin108]

Is it a good thing to be able to forgive without any price?

If so, is God imperfect for being unable to forgive sin without Jesus' sacrifice?

[The Tanager]

The 500 witnesses.

If Paul was lying about this, how does it "fit the facts" and explain away the actual resurrection? We still have Jesus' appearances to the others, which was a very early creed dated by most scholars to within 5 years of Jesus' death. We still have the empty tomb. We still have the Christian movement.

Why do you keep pointing to the Christian movement as though that proves Christianity somehow? You realize there are thousands of different religions? Every one of them started somewhere. Do all of them have a supernatural origin?

It's not the fact that it is a movement, but what it teaches and what it does. It's message is divorced from Judaism, out of which it comes, in a very novel way. The idea of a dying Messiah, the idea of Resurrection happening now and not just at the end of time, those sort of things. The resurrection actually occuring best explains why the disciples of Jesus had the experiences of a risen Jesus and spread the exact message they did.

The same applies to the lengths they go spreading their message. Many religions go to great lengths to spread their beliefs. There have been cults committing suicide, religions committing war... are all religions whose followers are prepared to die necessarily true?

People aren't going to die for something that they know is not true. Assuming the theory that the disciples made this all up, then you don't get them sacrificing their life for this movement.

Except it doesn't fit the facts. The fact is, people do not come back from the dead. Your theory ignores this fact.

It's a fact that people can't come back from the dead...or that the usual person's experience of reality is that people normally don't come back from the dead (i.e., an a priori probability kind of comment)?

If I cared enough about what happened to a man named Jesus 2000 years ago, I would probably be able to come up with a comprehensive theory about what happened. The thing is... I don't. To me, he is just a man who died 2000 years ago. I don't care to investigate his life and death any more than I care to investigate the life and death of Genghis Khan.

Then you would be rejecting the theory out of blind faith and laziness rather than because of reason or rationality.

So if you were to tell me that Genghis Khan came back from the dead, will I need to extensively research his life and death in order to doubt your claim? Will I need to come up with an alternate explanation in order to doubt your claim?

You would need to look at the evidences presented and maybe put some effort into it if you wanted to rationally doubt it. You would need to hold a belief that better explains the facts to rationally maintain a belief against it.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

The OP is not about history. There are other threads for that.

It is about whether God could have forgiven mankind without the death and resurrection of his son.

It is a good question: Christianity itself does not approve of conditional forgiveness: "I will forgive you if you....".

And if we stick to the medieval theory of redemption as a payment, then yes, it would seem that God is quite inconsistent with the spirit and tenor of Christianity. However, N.T. language of forgiveness seem more interested in the reformation of individuals.

As George MacDonald puts it: Jesus died not so that we may escape death, but that our death might be like his. Or Paul, who says that we die to sin in Jesus, and are raised to righteousness in his resurrection.

[Elijah John]

The 500 witnesses.

If Paul was lying about this, how does it "fit the facts" and explain away the actual resurrection? We still have Jesus' appearances to the others, which was a very early creed dated by most scholars to within 5 years of Jesus' death. We still have the empty tomb. We still have the Christian movement.

Why do you keep pointing to the Christian movement as though that proves Christianity somehow? You realize there are thousands of different religions? Every one of them started somewhere. Do all of them have a supernatural origin?

It's not the fact that it is a movement, but what it teaches and what it does. It's message is divorced from Judaism, out of which it comes, in a very novel way. The idea of a dying Messiah, the idea of Resurrection happening now and not just at the end of time, those sort of things. The resurrection actually occuring best explains why the disciples of Jesus had the experiences of a risen Jesus and spread the exact message they did.

The same applies to the lengths they go spreading their message. Many religions go to great lengths to spread their beliefs. There have been cults committing suicide, religions committing war... are all religions whose followers are prepared to die necessarily true?

People aren't going to die for something that they know is not true. Assuming the theory that the disciples made this all up, then you don't get them sacrificing their life for this movement.

Except it doesn't fit the facts. The fact is, people do not come back from the dead. Your theory ignores this fact.

It's a fact that people can't come back from the dead...or that the usual person's experience of reality is that people normally don't come back from the dead (i.e., an a priori probability kind of comment)?

If I cared enough about what happened to a man named Jesus 2000 years ago, I would probably be able to come up with a comprehensive theory about what happened. The thing is... I don't. To me, he is just a man who died 2000 years ago. I don't care to investigate his life and death any more than I care to investigate the life and death of Genghis Khan.

Then you would be rejecting the theory out of blind faith and laziness rather than because of reason or rationality.

So if you were to tell me that Genghis Khan came back from the dead, will I need to extensively research his life and death in order to doubt your claim? Will I need to come up with an alternate explanation in order to doubt your claim?

You would need to look at the evidences presented and maybe put some effort into it if you wanted to rationally doubt it. You would need to hold a belief that better explains the facts to rationally maintain a belief against it.

Moderator Intervention

Can we get back to the topic please? It is about forgiveness, kindly refer to the OP to get back on track. Thank you.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

The OP is not about history. There are other threads for that.

It is about whether God could have forgiven mankind without the death and resurrection of his son.

It is a good question: Christianity itself does not approve of conditional forgiveness: "I will forgive you if you....".

And if we stick to the medieval theory of redemption as a payment, then yes, it would seem that God is quite inconsistent with the spirit and tenor of Christianity. However, N.T. language of forgiveness seem more interested in the reformation of individuals.

As George MacDonald puts it: Jesus died not so that we may escape death, but that our death might be like his. Or Paul, who says that we die to sin in Jesus, and are raised to righteousness in his resurrection.

How does Jesus' death make our deaths like his? And can you explain exactly what Paul meant by what he said?

[Justin108]

That's completely beside the point. My point is that, in both my scenario and yours, people make a priori probability judgments. I don't care how many details you add, the a priori probability judgments is that people coming back from the dead is very very unlikely. If people did not make a priori probability judgments, my claim that I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln would be no different from my claim that I had breakfast with my girlfriend.

My point is that a priori judgments are not enough when talking about what historically happened.

I just explained to you why it is. Technically speaking, me telling you I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln this morning is a historic claim.

history
ˈhɪst(ə)ri/
noun
1.
the study of past events, particularly in human affairs.

"This morning" is a past event.

So again I ask, would you a priori assume it is less likely that I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln than that I had breakfast with my girlfriend? Or are both scenarios equally likely?

If you stick with a priori probability judgments you would conclude in every specific case that Person X did not win the lottery.

"Stick to it"? I'm not hellbent on sticking to anything. All I want is sufficient evidence. If you present me with sufficient evidence that you won the lottery, I would believe you. A priori probability does not mean that these events are impossible. I never suggested that. All it means is that it is far less likely. And because of that, it requires more evidence than most other claims. The claim that I had breakfast with my girlfriend requires less evidence than the claim that I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln. The claim that Julius Caesar was assassinated requires less evidence than the claim that Jesus came back from the dead.

But then you add details that should change that judgment in some cases. Not taking account of the details added to a priori probability is irrational.

The details added to the resurrection account are insufficient to convince me that someone came back from the dead.

Ok I was having breakfast with Abraham Lincoln this morning. Now without using a priori probability, give me a good reason why you would doubt me.

You have given me no evidence to back it up.

If I said I had breakfast with my girlfriend instead, would you also doubt me if I provided no evidence? Do you demand evidence for every claim? Probably not. And that's my point. Some claims require evidence, while others do not. Some claims require a lot of evidence while others do not. That's what a priori probability means.

With the resurrection, we have evidence supporting the claim: the empty tomb, the teachings/actions of the Christian movement. Therefore, it is no longer rational to turn to a priori probability.

So in your mind, any evidence is enough evidence? Or do you recognize that some claims require more evidence than others? You provided evidence, but your evidence is insufficient. Are you familiar with the concept of insufficient evidence?

For example: suppose there was a murder. At the crime scene, they find the murder weapon. The weapon was a baseball bat. Jack works at a store selling sporting goods in the area. Is this sufficient evidence that Jack was the murderer? It is evidence, but the evidence is terribly insufficient. The same applies to the resurrection. There is evidence. It's just not sufficient.

In your Michael Jackson scenario all you have is a claim with no other facts. Therefore, the rational belief rests on prior probability between at least two theories: a resuscitated King of Pop or a human serial killer. The rational person chooses the human serial killer UNLESS facts come into play that change the balance. You don't have additional facts in your scenario; the history of Jesus' death and possible resurrection does.

If it turns out that Michael Jackson's grave was empty, would this fact be enough to support the theory that Michael Jackson came back from the dead and started killing people? We have the additional facts you asked for.

The 500 witnesses.

If Paul was lying about this, how does it "fit the facts"

Simple. The "facts" is that Paul said there were 500 witnesses. Him lying about this still fits the fact that he said it. The fact is not that there were 500 witnesses. The fact is that he claimed there were 500 witnesses.

and explain away the actual resurrection?

What exactly do you mean by "explain away the resurrection"?

It's not the fact that it is a movement, but what it teaches and what it does. It's message is divorced from Judaism, out of which it comes, in a very novel way. The idea of a dying Messiah, the idea of Resurrection happening now and not just at the end of time, those sort of things. The resurrection actually occuring best explains why the disciples of Jesus had the experiences of a risen Jesus and spread the exact message they did.

Your opinion is noted. I disagree. I do not need to rely on someone coming back from the dead in order to fathom the start of a new religion. Religion does not require supernatural origins.

People aren't going to die for something that they know is not true. Assuming the theory that the disciples made this all up, then you don't get them sacrificing their life for this movement.

Conjecture

Except it doesn't fit the facts. The fact is, people do not come back from the dead. Your theory ignores this fact.

It's a fact that people can't come back from the dead...or that the usual person's experience of reality is that people normally don't come back from the dead (i.e., an a priori probability kind of comment)?

I've already made several arguments justifying a priori probability.

If I cared enough about what happened to a man named Jesus 2000 years ago, I would probably be able to come up with a comprehensive theory about what happened. The thing is... I don't. To me, he is just a man who died 2000 years ago. I don't care to investigate his life and death any more than I care to investigate the life and death of Genghis Khan.

Then you would be rejecting the theory out of blind faith and laziness rather than because of reason or rationality.

Do I have to investigate in depth every single claim ever made in order to avoid being called lazy? Did you investigate every historic claim ever made that you can call me lazy? Did you investigate every religious claim ever made? Or are you just being a self-righteous hypocrite? How much time have you spent investigating the claims of Islam? Of Hinduism? Buddhism? Taoism? Scientology? Mormonism? Hellenism? Can you tell me the exact origin of every hero in Hellenism? Can you name every god in Hinduism? Contrary to what you might think, Christianity does not hold some kind of unique privilege where we are forced to contemplate it above all other religions.

So if you were to tell me that Genghis Khan came back from the dead, will I need to extensively research his life and death in order to doubt your claim? Will I need to come up with an alternate explanation in order to doubt your claim?

You would need to look at the evidences presented and maybe put some effort into it if you wanted to rationally doubt it. You would need to hold a belief that better explains the facts to rationally maintain a belief against it.

I have said this countless times already. One does not need to come up with a substitute explanation in order to doubt a given explanation.

[KenRU]

No it doesn’t. It proves that a person can be healed by no known method. You throw in the word “natural� to suit a preconceived bias.

I could say the same of you, that you removed the word natural to suit a preconceived bias.

Sure, if you apply that logic to ALL areas of things you don't understand. Is that your default? If you don't know the explanation for something the supernatural and the natural are equally plausible answers?

That doesn't seem like a smart way to think to me.

Sure, once you unnecessarily start eliminating natural explanations. No need to do so.

I have not done so.

Sure you have. Once you leap to a supernatural explanation before all natural ones are discounted, you have done just that.

I agreed that in some cases the human error was the cause. In others it was not.

Once again, you do not know that human error was not the cause for all of those links you provided. You had as much info from the article as I or anyone else (except the parties involved).

I did no such thing. Your conclusion is not necessarily the truth here. I will even admit that my explanations may not be the truth. I would need more evidence and data to claim I have the truth.

So although you do not have sufficient evidence to reject the results of medical professionals, you still seem to insist that a person cannot die and come back to life.

Absolutely. And I would argue that so should you. Until sufficiently more evidence is gathered and the assertion duplicated, there is no reason to think this the case.

Once again, the motive for the medical professionals is to show that they did not make a mistake. A very natural and expected motive, I might add.

You espouse multiple references to the law of nature. Can you please stipulate the law which says a person that has died cannot come back to life.

I was speaking colloquially, but, how about that inanimate matter doesn't suddenly animate? For no reason?

To me, that seems what you are doing: “the doctors said the person is dead, now he isn’t. It must be a miracle!�

Nope. It goes more like this:

The doctors said person X is dead. Some days later, person X comes back to life and gives an account of what they experienced postmortem. (I have even read instances where the person describes the procedure the doctor was performing at the time they died, which they could not have known).

Sure they could. The anesthetic could have been wearing off. It happens, and is far more believable then the person being dead.

The doctor then searches for how this could have occurred. The doctor even ask's colleagues to review. None of the experts can explain how the person knows what took place in the operating room, nor how the person could be alive. The doctors themselves declare it impossible.

At this point I recognize a miracle, because it is beyond the possibilities of man.

No, it is beyond the possibilities of THOSE men. The leap here to a miracle (which creates far more questions than it answers, btw) is still a greater leap then to admit those persons involved do not know or were making an error.

Do you contend that the dead in the articles you provided were resurrected? Like Christ? If not, what are you contending then?

No, there is a difference between being brought back to life and being resurrected. Even the bible makes a clear distinction between Lazarus who was brought back to life and Jesus who was resurrected.

This is not the appropriate forum to engage in a lecture on what the resurrection is, and what a person in a resurrected body will entail.

The assertion earlier was that the dead do not come back to life. You say they do, so, if you assert that there is a distinction, it is reasonable to ask what that distinction is, and why it is important. No?

Just out of curiosity, do you find it more likely that people did come back from being dead (like Christ), or that they were incorrectly assumed to be dead?

I think both are likely.

Why?

I believe I already answered this. I stated "In some cases the doctors were initially wrong. In other cases, the evidence of a person being in the morgue for multiple days, dead cold, is enough to substantiate that they did in fact die."

That is still not an answer, is it?

If your argument is that it was a miracle, and that the dead came back to life, then one must necessarily ask why? Saying God Did It, is no explanation, because you don’t know why god did it. And that makes it no different than chance, or human error. Because you are still no closer to knowing what happened, how and why.

This assumes that everything is knowable and the cause is determinable by us. This is not the case.

Which is no reason to supply an answer when (as you just admitted) the answer is unknowable. Seems you made my point for me right here.

There are things which we can understand, and an honest person would realize that there are some things we just don't know.

Exactly. Which is what I have been arguing since the beginning. You don't know. Which is the right position to hold when you (or I) clearly can't know the answer.

Making up one (which is what you are doing when you ascribe a miracle to the explanation) is not the answer.

Ask most doctors and they will agree, because unlike a laboratory environment, there is no control or ability to replicate the same thing 100%. Most science that we rely on assumes that things will remain the same. Once something changes the rules typically no longer apply. Medical professionals experience this more than other fields which is why they are more comfortable with the miraculous than other branches of science.

The moment my doctor resorts to the supernatural as an explanation is the moment I no longer employ him.

(please don't think i am arguing against science or knowledge, I am just pointing out what sometimes takes place)

Understood, thanks for the clarification.

Nope, it shows I am willing to consider more likely scenarios than farfetched ones. I have no confirmation bias.

This statement in and of itself shows bias. You bias is to try and remain as unbiased as possible. A person who remains neutral has in fact chosen a side. They have chosen their own side.

And now you have invalidated all forms of critical thinking and neutrality. I do not subscribe to this faulty logic. You may feel it is impossible for you to be open-minded and neutral on issues, but I believe it is possible. And I strive to achieve it. Sometimes I am successful, others not so much. But you've just nullified you're own ability for critical thinking.

Do you know where these hospitals were? What credentials the doctors have? There are a lot of factors to consider before we discard the laws of nature.

And yes, I would examine every possible explanation before I assumed the laws of nature were subverted. That seems a wise course of action to me.

I provided some links. There are more available if you would like to find out. If you want to examine all information, go ahead. Since you are the skeptic, the floor is yours to research.

I have and will. I asked if you were open to the idea. As you've indicated above, you believe that you are biased, and so, considering what you have just admitted (and ignored my query to find out more info), you clearly have your answer and have no need for more information or data. In essence, you have heard what you wanted to hear.

I meant no disrespect. But I am curious why you choose to include the words “self-proclaimed� in your post above.

I did so to show that each person is making a decision. Often, some proclaim that they didn't choose to be a non-theist. I believe Justin108 was one of these in a prior thread where we discussed is belief a choice. So by writing self-proclaimed it was to demonstrate the willful action required.

Ah, understood, thanks. I'm not sure where I stand on choice used in this context, but in my case, I choose to learn more about religions and science, and that led to my disbelief.

If that were the only argument for the Lordship of Christ, or that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, or God in the flesh, then this point could be argued, but it is not the only thing the bible points to.

[So, in your view, it does cheapen it? I never said anything about other evidence, I’m just curious if you are willing to admit that if this happens more often than we know (as your posts and links indicate) then it does indeed lessen the impact of Christ’s resurrection.

If it doesn’t, why?/quote]
No it does not cheapen it. It instead strengthens it because since people coming back to life does occur even in our present day and age, then the records of a resurrected Christ are not far fetched or impossible. Some try to argue that Christ could not have been resurrected because we don't see people coming back to life today. I refuted that thought, and provided links to support.

Understood, but I respectfully disagree. If miracles were commonplace, then they wouldn't be so miraculous, would they?

In addition, if one were truly unbiased as you stated earlier, then why would there be any effort in trying to "lessen the impact" of Christ's resurrection.

I was holding your position, acting as a devil's advocate so to speak.

There is a bias already present which desires to repudiate any information that may support the resurrection.

No, there is a bias to be accurate - that is it. the rest is your bias. It is not unreasonable to want to be as accurate as possible. And a healthy dose of skepticism prevents one from being fooled or conned, no?

If not, why try and lessen it?

Don't think of it as being lessened. Think of it as it trying to be falsified - which is what scientist do, before they accept something as fact or a truth.

If it could stand up to scrutiny that way, it would only banner god's word and message even more : )

Please explain how human error is LESS LIKELY an explanation than spontaneous or godly resurrections.

In some cases, where human error was guarded against by following established procedures, one can deem human error to be a less likely cause. In addition, when the facts of how much time passed after the person was declared dead and the state of their body, all add up to more than human error.

A human can make an error and declare a person dead. That error does not result in a person's body becoming cold, pale and cessation of organ activity.

Sure it does, there are toxins that can make a body appear dead which would easily fool people and doctors (and has). There are any number of natural explanations (even far-fetched ones) that are possible. And far-fetched ones are still less far-fetched then miracles. BY DEFINITION.

A time of death on a chart does not impact bodily function. When you have the corroborating evidence of what was recorded as bodily function or lack there of, this can lead to an acknowledgement that human error was not the cause of the death.

I respectfully disagree. For the reasons stated above.

Yes, if any “expert� says something incredulous, I become skeptical. So should you. It’s one thing for an expert to say, we found microbial life on mars. I would be mildly skeptical, but might believe it.

But if that same “expert� says we found golden cities created by aliens, then yes, I become very doubtful. You seem to be saying I shouldn’t be.

Let’s forget the fact that these same doctors (experts) have a vested interest in showing that they didn’t mess up and incorrectly pronounce the patient’s death.

That is a pretty serious motive to lie, fabricate or otherwise blur the truth, wouldn’t you say?

This is why I do not believe human error to always be more likely. The same vested interest can also prefer to declare a person "near death" than actually died and come back to life.

Imagine you are a heart surgeon and you have to give an account of how a patient you were operating on died during surgery and a couple days later came back to life. After review, the doctor has no explanation, but realizes if he writes the patient was near death, it will be accepted more than if he wrote what actually took place.

Subsequent human error or ego's can also lead to the conclusion I am stating is possible.

You don't think the doctor's colleagues are thinking human error is the cause when he cites a miracle? I think you are mistaken.

I’m not ignoring the facts, I’m saying the facts are in dispute. Big difference.

If that is your position, I cannot argue with you. I can only implore you to look for yourself.

As I have already asked you to do. : ) I can easily admit to keeping an open mind, which is what I am doing when I ask for more data when I am confronted with extraordinary assertions.

You seem to be reluctant to do so, and readily settle on a miracle as an answer and explanation.

I am quite willing to say that I do not know what happened to those individuals from your links. I have an opinion, but I don’t know.

Rather than invent my own theory, in certain cases I accept the testimony of the individuals in which these events occurred.

Even if they contradict what you believe and know to be true or if it is seemingly far-fetched? In those cases, why do you not request more information?

And, if those same doctors stated that once they placed the statue of Buddha with the patient's corpse, they re-animated, would you still be willing to accept these "miracles"? And would you attribute it to Buddha?


Thank you for taking the time to engage and discuss this topic with me.

-all the best

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 356 by KenRU]

In summary, you disagree with my assertions that there have been instances where the dead have come back to life. I suggested that you conduct additional research, which you stated you would. As of now, you are skeptic (which is your right, and is reasonable) and I am not. I don't think stating it over and over will change anything, so we will just have to allow the evidence to speak for itself.

Understood, but I respectfully disagree. If miracles were commonplace, then they wouldn't be so miraculous, would they?

I disagree. A miracle is not limited to occurring only once or so rare, that we never see it again. Lets suppose people coming back from the dead occurs at a rate of 100 people per year world wide. In a population of over 7 billion people, where 55+ million people die each year, a rate of 100 out of 55,000,000 or 0.00000018% frequency.

This suggested rate would be frequent enough to document a few instances, but not enough to be considered routine or normal.

There is no limitation to how frequent a miracle can or will occur. Do you suggest that miracles cannot occur more than once?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 356 by KenRU]

In summary, you disagree with my assertions that there have been instances where the dead have come back to life. I suggested that you conduct additional research, which you stated you would. As of now, you are skeptic (which is your right, and is reasonable) and I am not. I don't think stating it over and over will change anything, so we will just have to allow the evidence to speak for itself.

Understood, and thanks for taking the time to engage with me on this topic. I would have liked to explore more the reasons why you are not skeptical, but I understand and respect your concerns.

Understood, but I respectfully disagree. If miracles were commonplace, then they wouldn't be so miraculous, would they?

I disagree. A miracle is not limited to occurring only once or so rare, that we never see it again. Lets suppose people coming back from the dead occurs at a rate of 100 people per year world wide. In a population of over 7 billion people, where 55+ million people die each year, a rate of 100 out of 55,000,000 or 0.00000018% frequency.

This suggested rate would be frequent enough to document a few instances, but not enough to be considered routine or normal.

There is no limitation to how frequent a miracle can or will occur. Do you suggest that miracles cannot occur more than once?

No, I am simply likening its value to its extraordinarily rare (supposedly) occurrence, like a precious metal. The more abundant, the less value to us humans. Seems a reasonable position to hold.

Even in your example above, we can see our differing points of view. I find even those numbers extremely doubtful. Miracles are often attributed to god (by definition), so if god performs just one, its rare and wondrous. But have it happen every day (not saying you are saying this) and it becomes less surprising and less "miraculous" for lack of a better word. It is still a miracle, by definition, but the luster and rarity is clearly lessened. If we can agree with those two ends of the pendulum, I hope then you can see my point about the frequency being important.

All the best, KnP

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 356 by KenRU]

In summary, you disagree with my assertions that there have been instances where the dead have come back to life. I suggested that you conduct additional research, which you stated you would. As of now, you are skeptic (which is your right, and is reasonable) and I am not. I don't think stating it over and over will change anything, so we will just have to allow the evidence to speak for itself.

Understood, and thanks for taking the time to engage with me on this topic. I would have liked to explore more the reasons why you are not skeptical, but I understand and respect your concerns.

Understood, but I respectfully disagree. If miracles were commonplace, then they wouldn't be so miraculous, would they?

I disagree. A miracle is not limited to occurring only once or so rare, that we never see it again. Lets suppose people coming back from the dead occurs at a rate of 100 people per year world wide. In a population of over 7 billion people, where 55+ million people die each year, a rate of 100 out of 55,000,000 or 0.00000018% frequency.

This suggested rate would be frequent enough to document a few instances, but not enough to be considered routine or normal.

There is no limitation to how frequent a miracle can or will occur. Do you suggest that miracles cannot occur more than once?

No, I am simply likening its value to its extraordinarily rare (supposedly) occurrence, like a precious metal. The more abundant, the less value to us humans. Seems a reasonable position to hold.

Even in your example above, we can see our differing points of view. I find even those numbers extremely doubtful. Miracles are often attributed to god (by definition), so if god performs just one, its rare and wondrous. But have it happen every day (not saying you are saying this) and it becomes less surprising and less "miraculous" for lack of a better word. It is still a miracle, by definition, but the luster and rarity is clearly lessened. If we can agree with those two ends of the pendulum, I hope then you can see my point about the frequency being important.

All the best, KnP

So when another branch of academic study suggest an event occurred and the likely hood of said occurrence was a 0.00000018% or greater, you doubt it occurred, even if we know for a fact this rare event did occur?

Do you realize that there are rarer events which take place than the example I gave above. Just because something is rare, does not mean it does not occur. If I am not understanding what you suggested above, please correct me, but it seems as though you write" I find even those numbers extremely doubtful." Is it the rate of 100 in 55 million you find doubtful, or something else?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 356 by KenRU]

In summary, you disagree with my assertions that there have been instances where the dead have come back to life. I suggested that you conduct additional research, which you stated you would. As of now, you are skeptic (which is your right, and is reasonable) and I am not. I don't think stating it over and over will change anything, so we will just have to allow the evidence to speak for itself.

Understood, and thanks for taking the time to engage with me on this topic. I would have liked to explore more the reasons why you are not skeptical, but I understand and respect your concerns.

Understood, but I respectfully disagree. If miracles were commonplace, then they wouldn't be so miraculous, would they?

I disagree. A miracle is not limited to occurring only once or so rare, that we never see it again. Lets suppose people coming back from the dead occurs at a rate of 100 people per year world wide. In a population of over 7 billion people, where 55+ million people die each year, a rate of 100 out of 55,000,000 or 0.00000018% frequency.

This suggested rate would be frequent enough to document a few instances, but not enough to be considered routine or normal.

There is no limitation to how frequent a miracle can or will occur. Do you suggest that miracles cannot occur more than once?

No, I am simply likening its value to its extraordinarily rare (supposedly) occurrence, like a precious metal. The more abundant, the less value to us humans. Seems a reasonable position to hold.

Even in your example above, we can see our differing points of view. I find even those numbers extremely doubtful. Miracles are often attributed to god (by definition), so if god performs just one, its rare and wondrous. But have it happen every day (not saying you are saying this) and it becomes less surprising and less "miraculous" for lack of a better word. It is still a miracle, by definition, but the luster and rarity is clearly lessened. If we can agree with those two ends of the pendulum, I hope then you can see my point about the frequency being important.

All the best, KnP

So when another branch of academic study suggest an event occurred and the likely hood of said occurrence was a 0.00000018% or greater, you doubt it occurred, even if we know for a fact this rare event did occur?[/

Do you realize that there are rarer events which take place than the example I gave above. Just because something is rare, does not mean it does not occur. If I am not understanding what you suggested above, please correct me, but it seems as though you write" I find even those numbers extremely doubtful." Is it the rate of 100 in 55 million you find doubtful, or something else?

Two points of clarification: One) The situations you linked to (unexplained recoveries) are (imo) more rare than you speculated. That was what I meant. As I have stated in the past, I believe a very natural explanation is the cause and that cause is simply unknown at the time. It is not a "miracle" by the normal definitions and as you believe. That is my opinion, of course. I maintain that not knowing what happened does not mean it has a supernatural explanation.

Second)