The Tanager wrote:
It should give you pause, but I like to come to conclusions after looking at all the evidence, not just one part and discount the whole thing because it contradicts my worldview.
So your worldview ignores obvious signs of mental illness? I don't need to consult my worldview to know that it's common for mentally ill people to think their deceased loved-ones are still alive. I've seen it. So unlike most Christians, I am able to conclude that stories of zombies are either fabrications or written by mentally ill people.
If one is going to assume it must be mental illness without looking at any other evidence, then you are falling right back into the naturalistic assumption. I thought we were past that.
All we have are stories of Jesus and his alleged resurrection. There is no other evidence to look at.
I said we should not believe their stories simply because they are saying it is true. That doesn't mean we reject everything about their accounts. It means we look at the stories and the evidences more deeply to see what is reliable and what is not.
Again, all we have are stories in which the authors claim truth. And as I demonstrated on my Telling Fact from Fiction: A Test
thread, not one person was able to distinguish true stories from fables. So your claim that you can distinguish what is "reliable" in the gospels has not been demonstrated to be true. There's no way to fact-check the gospels because we have no facts but only stories.
Once again you are confusing saying that a miracle did not happen or that miraculous things would go against what normally happens with saying that a miracle is logically impossible. I thought you agreed they aren't logically impossible.
That's not saying much. We don't know if the Easter Bunny is impossible either, but aside from kids, almost everybody knows better than to believe in the Easter Bunny.
So do you hold out the possibility that there is an Easter Bunny? Are Easter-Bunny skeptics only skeptical because their worldview does not allow for an Easter Bunny? Can you think of other reasons they may be skeptical?
This would still be you just claiming miracles are silly and don't even need to be looked at without giving us rational reasons why.
I've seen miracles faked but never saw one genuine miracle. So I have indeed looked into these tall tales of cures and healings and saw the fakes.
Is that the level of engagement you want with this issue? One that doesn't look at actual evidences?
Go ahead and show us all a miracle. I'd be happy to look at such evidence.
If you want to have a deeper level of engagement, then I need to know what you think about the next step that I see. How would the low probability play into our discussion?
"Low" probability doesn't mean something can't happen, of course. However, if the probability of something is very low, then I think it's not prudent to pursue or consider it. It seems reasonable to me to only take seriously that which has a good chance of being true.