Apologetics You're Unlikely to Hear

[unknown soldier]

Can you explain why apologists are unlikely to make the following arguments?

The Argument from the Unique Traits of Evidence for Christianity
Evidence for Christianity is unlike the evidence for other religions in that we write lots of books to defend our faith, we testify to our experiences with God, we have eyewitnesses to verify our beliefs, and we share stories of miracles and answers to our prayers. Heck, some of us even die for our faith, and we couldn't die that way if our religion is untrue. What other religion can offer such evidence?

The Argument From the Character of Christians:
If you skeptics want to see why God is real, then just look at the character of us Christians. Only the indwelling of the Holy Ghost can explain our superhuman honesty, trustworthiness, and sensible behavior.

The Argument From Substantive Presentation (We will show you.):
If a jumble of words does not convince you, and you want to actually see God, then just lookee here--here he is!

The Argument from Knowledge:
I can tell you anything you want to know because I'm talking to God, and he will tell me.

The Argument From Testing Prayer:
God's power is granted through prayer, so go ahead and test prayer to see if what I'm saying is true.

The Argument From Read the Bible and See
We are so confident that the Holy Bible is the word of God, that we ask you to read it and come to your own conclusions regarding its divine authorship. We will accept any conclusion you come to and will treat you with respect even if you disagree with us.

The Argument from Miraculous Demonstration:
1 Corinthians 12 clearly promises us Christians the power to heal miraculously, and I will prove it to be true. Get those TV cameras ready, and assemble the skeptics to be eyewitnesses. Now, see this amputee over here? Just watch me go restore his legs in the name of Jesus!

[Don Mc]

Can you explain why apologists are unlikely to make the following arguments?

The Argument from the Unique Traits of Evidence for Christianity
Evidence for Christianity is unlike the evidence for other religions in that we write lots of books to defend our faith, we testify to our experiences with God, we have eyewitnesses to verify our beliefs, and we share stories of miracles and answers to our prayers. Heck, some of us even die for our faith, and we couldn't die that way if our religion is untrue. What other religion can offer such evidence?

To what seems to be your point, I wouldn't make that argument because those characteristics are not in fact unique to Christianity. Arguing along those lines would be like a scientist contending that his theory is unlike competing theories because it is based on observations, is testable and has not been falsified. Of course those are only the minimal requirements for a theory to be scientific. To be preferable to competing theories it should be simpler, have greater explanatory power, pass more rigorous tests, require fewer ad hoc assumptions, etc., than its competitors.

I think Christianity is unique not only in certain of its metaphysical claims (e.g., the Trinity), but many of its evidentiary claims. For example, while many religious devotees would be willing to die for what they believe is true, few if any would be willing to die for what they know is false. Yet if Jesus had not risen from the dead following his crucifixion, the disciples (having personally peered into his tomb three days later) would have known it. Their insistence on preaching, to the same physically hostile crowd who had crucified Jesus some weeks before and sent them fleeing in panic, that Jesus was no longer in his tomb and had appeared to them, therefore counts as evidence unique to Christianity.

The Argument From the Character of Christians:
If you skeptics want to see why God is real, then just look at the character of us Christians. Only the indwelling of the Holy Ghost can explain our superhuman honesty, trustworthiness, and sensible behavior.

I can't speak for all Christians everywhere, but the man who initially led me to faith in Jesus some thirty-five years ago was indeed honest and trustworthy. He was my supervisor where I worked, in fact, and set a fine example for his crew. My own character is admittedly not superhuman, but those who know me know that I am at least much more honest, trustworthy and sensible than I was before my conversion. And my wife will attest that I am more attentive, patient, and unselfish than when we first married. Given that few who profess Christianity consistently walk the walk, however, I think a more powerful apologetic would be the Argument from the Character of Christ. Jesus was loved by the common people (though not so much by the wealthy and powerful) because he revealed the truth of God to them, healed them, somehow always made time for them, and finally, sacrificed his life for them.

The Argument From Substantive Presentation (We will show you.):
If a jumble of words does not convince you, and you want to actually see God, then just lookee here--here he is!

In principle there was a time when the full reality of God could be seen in the person of Jesus Christ. The problem there, much like the problem of seeking on-demand miracles, is that God is not simply a flesh-and-blood being and cannot rationally be expected to remain incarnated in perpetuity. For God to remain incarnated indefinitely would suggest that God is part and parcel with nature. But a fundamental tenet of any defensible Christian theology is that God transcends nature.

The Argument From Read the Bible and See
We are so confident that the Holy Bible is the word of God, that we ask you to read it and come to your own conclusions regarding its divine authorship. We will accept any conclusion you come to and will treat you with respect even if you disagree with us.

I personally don't have much of a problem with this one. I am confident that the Bible is the Word of God, yes, but not because so many other people do or do not believe it. Presumably people like you and I debate here because we believe some propositions to be true and others false, knowing all the while that some people will disagree with us. If truth were a function of all humans coming to the same conclusion about it, on the other hand, then as a matter of simple observation there would be nothing true whatsoever. That said, I will in fact accept any conclusion you come to about the Bible (even if I don't come to the same conclusion myself) and treat you with respect regardless.

The Argument from Miraculous Demonstration:
1 Corinthians 12 clearly promises us Christians the power to heal miraculously, and I will prove it to be true. Get those TV cameras ready, and assemble the skeptics to be eyewitnesses. Now, see this amputee over here? Just watch me go restore his legs in the name of Jesus!

It's not clear to me that the text of 1 Cor. 12 promises Christians the power to heal miraculously. But even if it did, the problem with the argument from on-demand miracles is much like the argument from God's ongoing empirical accessibility. Once miracles are seen as routine operations of nature they are no longer seen as miracles. Also I'm not convinced that skeptics of miracles would be willing to testify of what they saw even if they did in fact witness a miracle firsthand. Suppose for a moment that an evangelist did just what you asked – got the cameras ready, assembled skeptics like James Randi and Michael Shermer, and then proceeded to heal an amputee to wholeness on live TV. Does anyone really think that these skeptics would simply fall to their knees in worship and repent of their unbelief, without any further questions and without any concern about what their fellow skeptics might think of them?

[DavidLeon]

Actually, I agree with much of what this video is saying. Many atheists are tough skeptics who are not convinced by the evidence and arguments offered for Christianity by apologists. It should then come as no surprise that many Christians become frustrated and even angry when they are unable to convert unbelievers.

Apologetics is for debate. Debate is an art. All art is propaganda. Vanity. It's about ego. Atheists aren't tough skeptics. Tough skeptics aren't looking for a dog and pony show. They aren't looking for debate. The 'tough skeptic' doesn't expect someone else to convince them of truth, they go out and find it themselves. No one with any sense would look to convert anyone without it. You get what I'm saying?

I should point out that mocking skeptics is unlikely to convert them. If Christian apologists ridicule atheists, then many atheists will see that mockery as a cheap substitute for good evidence for Christianity and reasons to believe Christian claims.

So keep on mocking us. You might as well take that route rather than keep making arguments we atheists don't buy.

[laughs] Oh, and by the way . . . it helps to have a sense of humor. To laugh, not just at others but yourself as well.

[Difflugia]

To what seems to be your point, I wouldn't make that argument because those characteristics are not in fact unique to Christianity. Arguing along those lines would be like a scientist contending that his theory is unlike competing theories because it is based on observations, is testable and has not been falsified. Of course those are only the minimal requirements for a theory to be scientific. To be preferable to competing theories it should be simpler, have greater explanatory power, pass more rigorous tests, require fewer ad hoc assumptions, etc., than its competitors.

This is both accurate and concise. It is, in fact, what causes problems for the rest of your post.

I think Christianity is unique not only in certain of its metaphysical claims (e.g., the Trinity), but many of its evidentiary claims. For example, while many religious devotees would be willing to die for what they believe is true, few if any would be willing to die for what they know is false. Yet if Jesus had not risen from the dead following his crucifixion, the disciples (having personally peered into his tomb three days later) would have known it. Their insistence on preaching, to the same physically hostile crowd who had crucified Jesus some weeks before and sent them fleeing in panic, that Jesus was no longer in his tomb and had appeared to them, therefore counts as evidence unique to Christianity.

You're confusing parts of your hypothesis with the facts at hand. The critique applies to much of the rest of your post as well, but here you claim that that the disciples "personally peered into" the tomb of Jesus and insisted on preaching to a hostile crowd, but those haven't been established. There are stories that those happened and one potential explanation for those stories is that they did happen, but there's a great deal of explanatory power in the hypothesis that the stories were partially or entirely fabricated.

Without even approaching Jesus mythicism or questioning the crucifixion, there's still a great deal of uncertainty over which parts of the Gospels and Acts are historical. In most cases, "it tells the right story" has at least as much explanatory power as "it happened that way" and requires fewer ad hoc assumptions.

[unknown soldier]

I think Christianity is unique not only in certain of its metaphysical claims (e.g., the Trinity)...

Just for the record, other religions have triune gods too. They were popular in antiquity.

...while many religious devotees would be willing to die for what they believe is true, few if any would be willing to die for what they know is false.

You'll need to back up this assertion with some evidence. It's always tricky to claim you know what people would do. Human behavior can be difficult to predict.

Yet if Jesus had not risen from the dead following his crucifixion, the disciples (having personally peered into his tomb three days later) would have known it. Their insistence on preaching, to the same physically hostile crowd who had crucified Jesus some weeks before and sent them fleeing in panic, that Jesus was no longer in his tomb and had appeared to them, therefore counts as evidence unique to Christianity.

You'll need to offer evidence that the disciples did in fact act in the way you say they did, and more to the topic, you'll need to demonstrate that people in other religions do not act like that when they preach their beliefs.

I can't speak for all Christians everywhere, but the man who initially led me to faith in Jesus some thirty-five years ago was indeed honest and trustworthy. He was my supervisor where I worked, in fact, and set a fine example for his crew. My own character is admittedly not superhuman, but those who know me know that I am at least much more honest, trustworthy and sensible than I was before my conversion. And my wife will attest that I am more attentive, patient, and unselfish than when we first married.

In what way does your supervisor's behavior and your behavior demonstrate that a God "indwells" him or you? I have stopped drinking, smoking, and using illegal drugs, and I did it all without religion. It seems reasonable to me that if any person has a God in them, then that person should exhibit superhuman qualities. Christians are no better than others. I think that's why Christians don't make the "Argument From the Character of Christians."

In principle there was a time when the full reality of God could be seen in the person of Jesus Christ. The problem there, much like the problem of seeking on-demand miracles, is that God is not simply a flesh-and-blood being and cannot rationally be expected to remain incarnated in perpetuity. For God to remain incarnated indefinitely would suggest that God is part and parcel with nature. But a fundamental tenet of any defensible Christian theology is that God transcends nature.

That's an elaborate justification for why you cannot present anything of substance for your beliefs. It's all a lot of words that anybody can utter about anything that need not be true.

...I will in fact accept any conclusion you come to about the Bible (even if I don't come to the same conclusion myself) and treat you with respect regardless.

In that case you differ from other Christians I have known. If I tell you that the Bible is fiction made up to control people, then you don't mind one bit, and you concede that I know what I'm talking about.

It's not clear to me that the text of 1 Cor. 12 promises Christians the power to heal miraculously.

Well, let's take a look at 1 Corinthians 12 (NRSV):

To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit...

It looks clear to me that at least some Christians are granted the power to heal. What is unclear to you? In any case, almost all Christians won't make "The Argument from Miraculous Demonstration" because they cannot demonstrate miracles. They can talk all day about them, but performing even one is another story.

...the problem with the argument from on-demand miracles is much like the argument from God's ongoing empirical accessibility. Once miracles are seen as routine operations of nature they are no longer seen as miracles.

Well, just one little verified miracle won't ruin all the fun, now will it? And who cares what miracles are seen as?

I'm not convinced that skeptics of miracles would be willing to testify of what they saw even if they did in fact witness a miracle firsthand. Suppose for a moment that an evangelist did just what you asked – got the cameras ready, assembled skeptics like James Randi and Michael Shermer, and then proceeded to heal an amputee to wholeness on live TV. Does anyone really think that these skeptics would simply fall to their knees in worship and repent of their unbelief, without any further questions and without any concern about what their fellow skeptics might think of them?

We simply don't know how skeptics would react to seeing a miracle because they've never seen one! Until then, all we can do is speculate. Speaking for myself, I tend to believe what I actually see and experience. I see no reason why I would react any differently to seeing and experiencing a miracle.

In any case, an apologist would be foolish indeed to claim to be able to demonstrate a miracle. Maybe they're not so sure God will come through.

[Don Mc]

To what seems to be your point, I wouldn't make that argument because those characteristics are not in fact unique to Christianity. Arguing along those lines would be like a scientist contending that his theory is unlike competing theories because it is based on observations, is testable and has not been falsified. Of course those are only the minimal requirements for a theory to be scientific. To be preferable to competing theories it should be simpler, have greater explanatory power, pass more rigorous tests, require fewer ad hoc assumptions, etc., than its competitors.

This is both accurate and concise.

Why, thank you so much!

It is, in fact, what causes problems for the rest of your post.

I should have known it was too good to be true...

I think Christianity is unique not only in certain of its metaphysical claims (e.g., the Trinity), but many of its evidentiary claims. For example, while many religious devotees would be willing to die for what they believe is true, few if any would be willing to die for what they know is false. Yet if Jesus had not risen from the dead following his crucifixion, the disciples (having personally peered into his tomb three days later) would have known it. Their insistence on preaching, to the same physically hostile crowd who had crucified Jesus some weeks before and sent them fleeing in panic, that Jesus was no longer in his tomb and had appeared to them, therefore counts as evidence unique to Christianity.

You're confusing parts of your hypothesis with the facts at hand. The critique applies to much of the rest of your post as well, but here you claim that that the disciples "personally peered into" the tomb of Jesus and insisted on preaching to a hostile crowd, but those haven't been established. There are stories that those happened and one potential explanation for those stories is that they did happen, but there's a great deal of explanatory power in the hypothesis that the stories were partially or entirely fabricated.

Without even approaching Jesus mythicism or questioning the crucifixion, there's still a great deal of uncertainty over which parts of the Gospels and Acts are historical. In most cases, "it tells the right story" has at least as much explanatory power as "it happened that way" and requires fewer ad hoc assumptions.

That's stated fairly, and fairly well. But my point was that the central evidentiary claim of Christianity, the resurrection, is set apart from other religious claims in that it is, or was, falsifiable in principle. If the resurrection story was made up, the authors went to tremendous lengths to make it appear that it took place in a well-documented historical setting, that it was easily falsifiable (by inspecting the tomb), and that they believed it to the core of their being. In other words, the most plausible alternative to the resurrection is a sophisticated and cynical conspiracy, without any clear purpose, yet cooked up by "ignorant fishermen" who had nothing to gain from it and everything to lose.

That said, it's far from evident – if we allow the existence of God as an open question – that such a conspiracy requires fewer ad hoc assumptions than a resurrection that was prophesied by a man who claimed to be the Son of God and was widely reported performing miracles.

[Don Mc]

I think Christianity is unique not only in certain of its metaphysical claims (e.g., the Trinity)...

Just for the record, other religions have triune gods too. They were popular in antiquity.

It's been a while, but yes, I've heard that before. What would you say is the best example of a non-Christian Trinity?

...while many religious devotees would be willing to die for what they believe is true, few if any would be willing to die for what they know is false.

You'll need to back up this assertion with some evidence. It's always tricky to claim you know what people would do. Human behavior can be difficult to predict.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Economics quite successfully predicts, for one counterexample, that humans shopping in a free market will buy more goods when their prices drop, and less goods when their prices rise (other things being equal). One of the more obvious of human universals is a determination to survive. That survival instinct admittedly may be overridden on occasion when someone believes strongly enough in a "higher" cause. But I am unaware of anyone ever having sacrificed themselves for a "lower" cause, something they strongly doubted or believed was false. Non-Muslims will not sacrifice their lives for Allah any sooner than non-Christians will lay down their lives for Jesus, and atheists will not give their lives for either. Far as I know, the number of recorded cases of people with functioning cognitive faculties who have willingly given their lives for a false or fraudulent belief – knowing it to be false or fraudulent – is roughly the same as the number of recorded resurrections from the dead.

Yet if Jesus had not risen from the dead following his crucifixion, the disciples (having personally peered into his tomb three days later) would have known it. Their insistence on preaching, to the same physically hostile crowd who had crucified Jesus some weeks before and sent them fleeing in panic, that Jesus was no longer in his tomb and had appeared to them, therefore counts as evidence unique to Christianity.

You'll need to offer evidence that the disciples did in fact act in the way you say they did, and more to the topic, you'll need to demonstrate that people in other religions do not act like that when they preach their beliefs.

Well, I think the Gospels and the book of Acts are strong prima facie evidence that the disciples acted as described. In other words, apart from some overriding reason to reject them, the NT accounts straightforwardly depict the origin of the church in narrative form in a highly specified historical (temporal and spatial) context. The key players interact with known historical personalities like Pilate, Caiaphas, Porcius Festus and Herod Agrippa, in cities and buildings confirmed by archaeological digs. And there are good reasons to think the early church was persecuted: Josephus confirms the martyrdom of James, while historians generally acknowledge the persecution of Christians in Rome (including Peter and Paul) at the hands of Nero. Collectively the historical contributions of Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius make it clear that Christians were despised throughout the Empire. That persecution continued into the next generation with the martyrdoms of church fathers like Ignatius and Justin Martyr. Etc.

I would suggest that how people in other religions might act in the same situation is not really relevant, because they are not in the same situation as the early disciples. What they preach is not falsifiable.

I can't speak for all Christians everywhere, but the man who initially led me to faith in Jesus some thirty-five years ago was indeed honest and trustworthy. He was my supervisor where I worked, in fact, and set a fine example for his crew. My own character is admittedly not superhuman, but those who know me know that I am at least much more honest, trustworthy and sensible than I was before my conversion. And my wife will attest that I am more attentive, patient, and unselfish than when we first married.

In what way does your supervisor's behavior and your behavior demonstrate that a God "indwells" him or you? I have stopped drinking, smoking, and using illegal drugs, and I did it all without religion. It seems reasonable to me that if any person has a God in them, then that person should exhibit superhuman qualities. Christians are no better than others. I think that's why Christians don't make the "Argument From the Character of Christians."

Given that honesty and trustworthiness are evidence of God's indwelling a person, which seemed to be your premise, a person who either is notably honest and trustworthy (like my old boss) or becomes notably more honest and trustworthy than before his conversion experience (like me) would be evidence of divine influence.

Would God's Spirit indwelling a person make them "superhuman"? Neither Jesus, nor the apostles, nor any Christian I know has suggested that, so even if you personally find the notion reasonable it's not a postulate of Christian doctrine. Why should apologists be expected to defend what they don't believe?

I do, however, agree entirely with this: "Christians are no better than others" – which is why I said this: "Given that not everyone who professes Christianity consistently walks the walk, however, I think a more powerful apologetic would be the Argument from the Character of Christ."

In principle there was a time when the full reality of God could be seen in the person of Jesus Christ. The problem there, much like the problem of seeking on-demand miracles, is that God is not simply a flesh-and-blood being and cannot rationally be expected to remain incarnated in perpetuity. For God to remain incarnated indefinitely would suggest that God is part and parcel with nature. But a fundamental tenet of any defensible Christian theology is that God transcends nature.

That's an elaborate justification for why you cannot present anything of substance for your beliefs. It's all a lot of words that anybody can utter about anything that need not be true.

Not really. A lot of words and justifications could be given to explain why dark matter cannot be seen, but the fact that dark matter cannot be seen doesn't mean that it's completely unsubstantiated. And of course anything that is first discovered – from an ancient city to a subatomic particle – clearly exists, and just as clearly was not visible, nor even detectable at all, prior to its discovery.

Notice also that your rebuttal here consisted not of a logical inference, or a scientific experiment or an empirical finding, but as you say, "a lot of words that anybody could utter about anything."

It's not clear to me that the text of 1 Cor. 12 promises Christians the power to heal miraculously.

Well, let's take a look at 1 Corinthians 12 (NRSV):

To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit...

It looks clear to me that at least some Christians are granted the power to heal. What is unclear to you? In any case, almost all Christians won't make "The Argument from Miraculous Demonstration" because they cannot demonstrate miracles. They can talk all day about them, but performing even one is another story.

Honestly, it wasn't clear by "Christians" that you meant only a few. Will you concede that there is potentially a world of difference between the meanings of "1 Corinthians 12 clearly promises us Christians the power to heal" and "At least some Christians are granted the power to heal"? (If I refer to "us," I include myself by implication.) Paul argued in the very context of 1 Corinthians that the gifts are distributed among the body so that no one has them all; consequently, many Christians do not have the power to heal. I am one of those. However, I have experienced a handful of miracles.

I'm not convinced that skeptics of miracles would be willing to testify of what they saw even if they did in fact witness a miracle firsthand. Suppose for a moment that an evangelist did just what you asked – got the cameras ready, assembled skeptics like James Randi and Michael Shermer, and then proceeded to heal an amputee to wholeness on live TV. Does anyone really think that these skeptics would simply fall to their knees in worship and repent of their unbelief, without any further questions and without any concern about what their fellow skeptics might think of them?

We simply don't know how skeptics would react to seeing a miracle because they've never seen one! Until then, all we can do is speculate. Speaking for myself, I tend to believe what I actually see and experience. I see no reason why I would react any differently to seeing and experiencing a miracle.

For grins, let's imagine Bob the skeptic sees an amputee healed by the power of God following an evangelist's prayer. If he's like most of us, Bob will interpret this new experience in light of his existing beliefs and previous experiences. So he is not likely to interpret the healing as a miracle, but as something else – a magic trick, maybe. Or he could shrug it off as yet another of countless "mysteries of science."

Besides, Bob might reason, what seems to be a miracle could also be the natural outcome of living in a multiverse: given an infinity or ever-growing number of universes, there will be at least one in which the initial conditions and laws of science are such that not only does life emerge and thrive, but also an amputee's leg is restored to wholeness just as an evangelist prays for him and as Bob looks on in amazement. The practical upshot of all this is that because his metaphysical world view allows for any and all phenomena, Bob could witness a bona fide miracle and yet say honestly that he's never seen one.

[brunumb]

For grins, let's imagine Bob the skeptic sees an amputee healed by the power of God following an evangelist's prayer. If he's like most of us, Bob will interpret this new experience in light of his existing beliefs and previous experiences. So he is not likely to interpret the healing as a miracle, but as something else – a magic trick, maybe. Or he could shrug it off as yet another of countless "mysteries of science."

Surely that works both ways. A believer in miracles seeing an elaborate trick which is being passed off as a miracle is likely to see as just that. Isn't that how fraudsters take advantage of receptive audiences?

I don't know what sort of events would cause me to believe in miracles. Whatever it was it would have to somehow bridge the gap between an extraordinary event that seems impossible by our current reckoning and the event clearly having a link to a deity as the cause. The latter part is where most claims of miracles seem to fail for me.

[Tcg]

For grins, let's imagine Bob the skeptic sees an amputee healed by the power of God following an evangelist's prayer.

We have to imagine this outcome because it quite clearly doesn't happen. Do you have anything that actually does happen which you can base your argument on?


Tcg

[unknown soldier]

What would you say is the best example of a non-Christian Trinity?

I don't know what a best example might be. Would you like me to look it up?

Economics quite successfully predicts, for one counterexample, that humans shopping in a free market will buy more goods when their prices drop, and less goods when their prices rise (other things being equal).

Economists know empirically that people will act that way. We have no such theory for human behavior regarding what religious beliefs they will or will not die for. So your comparison is not fair.

...I am unaware of anyone ever having sacrificed themselves for a "lower" cause, something they strongly doubted or believed was false.

I think what you're saying here is correct for most people assuming they are rational. Personally, I wouldn't die for any cause if I could avoid it. Even if I know some claim is true, I would deny that claim if I thought doing so would save my skin. To me it's crazy to die for any belief no matter how true it may seem to be. So if any Christians died for their beliefs when they had the choice to live, then they weren't acting rationally, and I don't normally see irrational people as credible sources of information.

Well, I think the Gospels and the book of Acts are strong prima facie evidence that the disciples acted as described. In other words, apart from some overriding reason to reject them, the NT accounts straightforwardly depict the origin of the church in narrative form in a highly specified historical (temporal and spatial) context.

It looks like your argument rests largely on the historical accuracy of the gospels. It seems to me that almost nothing in the gospels can be confidently said to be historical, and critics have been pointing out these problems for centuries. Your argument that the apostles died for their faith then rests on very shaky ground.

Collectively the historical contributions of Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius make it clear that Christians were despised throughout the Empire. That persecution continued into the next generation with the martyrdoms of church fathers like Ignatius and Justin Martyr. Etc.

Sure, some Christians were martyrs, but to make your case that none of them would die for a belief they thought was false, you need to demonstrate that at least some of them were in a position to know Jesus and what he did. You'll also need to demonstrate that they were in fact martyred and that they had the option to avoid execution by recanting their beliefs. If you fail to do so, then your argument's premises are unproved.

Given that honesty and trustworthiness are evidence of God's indwelling a person, which seemed to be your premise, a person who either is notably honest and trustworthy (like my old boss) or becomes notably more honest and trustworthy than before his conversion experience (like me) would be evidence of divine influence.

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. I stated that people must have superhuman traits to show that they are indwelled by a God. Anybody can be honest and trustworthy without a God, and for that matter anybody can say and do what Christians say and do without a God.

Would God's Spirit indwelling a person make them "superhuman"? Neither Jesus, nor the apostles, nor any Christian I know has suggested that, so even if you personally find the notion reasonable it's not a postulate of Christian doctrine. Why should apologists be expected to defend what they don't believe?

I'm just applying some basic logic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If a God indwells you, then I want to see some good evidence for it.

And you are wrong about Jesus and the apostles not offering superhuman "gifts" to believers. They did make such promises.

...I think a more powerful apologetic would be the Argument from the Character of Christ."

He had a reputation for being a drunkard, and he lashed out at his enemies in public slandering them and turning violent in the temple against people who were doing no harm. Anybody who acts that way is a jerk, in my opinion.

A lot of words and justifications could be given to explain why dark matter cannot be seen, but the fact that dark matter cannot be seen doesn't mean that it's completely unsubstantiated.

Do you have evidence for God and miracles that is comparable to the evidence for dark matter?

And of course anything that is first discovered – from an ancient city to a subatomic particle – clearly exists, and just as clearly was not visible, nor even detectable at all, prior to its discovery.

I will believe in any discovered city, and I will believe in any miracle that has comparable evidence.

Notice also that your rebuttal here consisted not of a logical inference, or a scientific experiment or an empirical finding, but as you say, "a lot of words that anybody could utter about anything."

My logic is that if you make claims of things that are made up of more than thoughts and words, then thoughts and words don't cut it. The "rubber needs to meet the road," and at some point your arguments need to be substantiated.

Will you concede that there is potentially a world of difference between the meanings of "1 Corinthians 12 clearly promises us Christians the power to heal" and "At least some Christians are granted the power to heal"?

There is some difference there, of course, but the actual proportion of Christians who allegedly can heal isn't terribly important to the point I was making. Even if only one Christian is said to be able to miraculously heal people, then we should know of that one actual healer. However, there is not even one Christian who can demonstrate miraculous healing under controlled conditions.

...I have experienced a handful of miracles.

Miracle claims are a dime per dozen. I never said that no Christian can claim that they have experienced miracles. I am well aware of those kinds of stories. I'm looking for a real miracle to substantiate Christian claims of the miraculous.

No Christian has demonstrated or is able to demonstrate a miracle.

The practical upshot of all this is that because his metaphysical world view allows for any and all phenomena, Bob could witness a bona fide miracle and yet say honestly that he's never seen one.

Bob sounds fairly sensible to me. He's not quick to believe something that runs counter to what he knows to be true. He interprets what he does see in light of that knowledge. It is common knowledge, for example, that faith healers are scammers who will fake miracles to bilk people out of their money, and we also know empirically that amputated limbs don't grow back. So Bob's skepticism is well-placed.

What would you do if you saw such a miracle, but it was performed by a Hindu who attributed it to Krishna? Would you just trash your Christian faith and convert to Hinduism? If not, then you are no less stubborn than Bob.

[Don Mc]

For grins, let's imagine Bob the skeptic sees an amputee healed by the power of God following an evangelist's prayer. If he's like most of us, Bob will interpret this new experience in light of his existing beliefs and previous experiences. So he is not likely to interpret the healing as a miracle, but as something else – a magic trick, maybe. Or he could shrug it off as yet another of countless "mysteries of science."

Surely that works both ways. A believer in miracles seeing an elaborate trick which is being passed off as a miracle is likely to see as just that. Isn't that how fraudsters take advantage of receptive audiences?

Yes, I think that's a good point. The fact that the problem of interpretation cuts both ways is one reason the argument from miracles is not the most popular apologetic. Another is that miracles by definition are singular events rather than regularities of nature, so they are not subject to scientific investigation. Those who were not fortunate enough to directly witness the incident must rely on the testimony of those who were present.

For past generations that wasn't overly problematic, given that the witnesses were known to be both credible and numerous. But ever since the Enlightenment testimonial evidence has been considered weak and inconclusive compared to scientific evidence. It seems to me that an oversimplification results, and only persists by ignoring cases of overlap – where a scientist gives testimony of her knowledge in a criminal proceeding to uninformed jurors, for example, or where a student reads a biology textbook and takes its contents to be factually true on the trusted authority of the author.

I don't know what sort of events would cause me to believe in miracles. Whatever it was it would have to somehow bridge the gap between an extraordinary event that seems impossible by our current reckoning and the event clearly having a link to a deity as the cause. The latter part is where most claims of miracles seem to fail for me.

Well said. You're right in that a miracle would not just seem impossible in light of our background knowledge, but would require some sort of immediate religious context. So you might not believe in miracles if you and a friend were at the lake one day and you suddenly noticed the water forming into two sections with the lake bottom appearing in the middle; but I suspect you would be much more inclined to believe in miracles if you and your friend were running for your life from a killer toward that same lake, your friend cried out to God for deliverance, and that previously unheard-of physical circumstance enabled the two of you to escape.