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.

[1213]

[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

Yes I know. I tried to tell that in earlier post. E = mc^2 is not good, unless you make all kind of additions to it. And even then it may be stupid.

[1213]

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.

Sounds much like brainwashing.

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.

But apparently you dont realize that Bible means with earth dry land, not the whole planet.

God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:10

And the death was for those that lived on earth, not for all water creatures, if we believe what the Bible tells.

All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, of all that was on the dry land, died.
Genesis 7:22

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?

Bible seems to tell that there was just one continent before the flood and it collapsed and one result of that is for example Mount Everest.

I think the level of the water didnt have to rise, if it was the dry land that was sunken in many parts.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/Kuvat/Flood.jpg

[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.

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

Many things are relative. Because in some cases it is enough to know relative positions, GPS can work. I dont disagree with that.

I disagree with E=mc^2. GPS can work well without E=mc^2, because there seems to be nothing that would need E=mc^2.

[1213]

Relativity is a fact.

Yes, many things are relative, like the flatness of a plate.

The Bible is wrong in stating the earth is flat,

And where in the Bible is said that earth is flat?

[atheist buddy]

Relativity is a fact.

Yes, many things are relative, like the flatness of a plate.

Nope. Tectonic plates are not flat. They are curved. Period.

[Zzyzx]

.

Yes, many things are relative, like the flatness of a plate.

Perhaps you read in post #68 the part from knowledgeable people that says, "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."

That rather destroys your contention that tectonic plates are flat, doesn't it?

Does it take religious belief to claim that large portions of a spheroid are flat? Did you miss the example of trying to flatten an orange peel without distortion?

[Fundagelico]

Two answers:

First: The time when it becomes reasonable to believe not just that it's possible for man to jump longer than the world record, but that somebody actually did it, is when evidence for the event has been presented.

Right, but one must first believe that such an event is at least possible; otherwise evidence of the event will never overcome one's bias against its occurrence (reference your own second answer below). Your "evidence" against the virgin birth is basically lots of frequency data. But frequency data would also tell us not only that the virgin birth could not possibly have happened, but that life could not possibly have originated on earth (a point you failed to address), and yes, that a man cannot possibly jump beyond 8.95 meters. Therefore on your concept of evidence all claims contrary to these data can be safely dismissed as contrary to "the evidence" we already have.

Second: Your argument is a red herring, borne of the fact that you seem unable to distinguish between rare events and impossible events. In other words, you cannot tell the difference between events which don't have evidence AGAINST them or FOR them, but which it's reasonable to believe in principle that they may happen, and events which not only have no evidence FOR them, but also have overwhelmingly strong evidence AGAINST them.

The world record for long jump is 8.95 meters.

To believe that 2000 years ago somebody jumped 14 meters, on the basis of multiple layers of hearsay testimony, recorded by anonymous scribes centuries later, who had sociopolitical reasons for saying somebody jumped 14 meters, is a magnificient display of gullibility.

But that's not what believing the virgin birth story is like.

Believing the virign birth story is analogous to believing that somebody jumped 14 meters, and did so while holding a martini glass without spilling a singe drop, while simultaneously juggling three watermelons with his left hand, despite the fact that he had just gotten shot in both knees, hadent eaten for 10 days, and drank a bottle of vodka 30 minutes before jumping. AND, believing this on the basis of multiple layers of hearsay testimony, recorded by anonymous scribes centuries later, who had sociopolitical reasons for saying somebody did all that.

No, it's more like believing that a single miracle account is true. That's all. No martinis, watermelons, violent injuries or vodka. Now I would happily concede that miracles like the virgin birth cannot occur within the mindless-yet-rational universe described by scientific naturalism. But whether a view of the world like scientific naturalism is true or not is just the question before us. Asserting the virgin birth to be an "impossible" event merely begs that question, your own sociopolitical reasons and psychological inclinations notwithstanding.

If we witness only one virgin birth, that makes for only one virgin birth along with a much, much larger number of non-virgin births. So what? All that would mean is raising our prior probability very slightly for future estimates of a virgin birth's probability in light of incoming evidence. Saying that a virgin birth cannot occur because countless non-virgin births have occurred is a bit like saying I could not have taken a detour down Elm Street to get to the office this morning because for the past thousand mornings I have taken Main Street instead.

Try looking at it like this: Among all the possible physical arrangements constituting the various and countless universes within a vast multiverse, one such universe would feature lots and lots of routine non-virgin births along with just one virgin birth of a Messiah named Jesus (another possible universe would be one in which virgin births are themselves routine). And we just happen to be living in that universe! Think of the virgin birth, then, as a repudiation of fine-tuning arguments if it helps you come to grips with the actual question of whether or not it may possibly have occurred.

b) I have yet to come across any evidence to support the belief that beliefs are only justifiable if supported by evidence. If no such evidence exists, then evidentialism is incoherent.

Oh! I have evidence for that! For the purpose of this example, let's assume you're a gun expert.

Here is the way the experiment would work:

You walk into a room where I'm sitting at a table. Two guns are on the table. One is loaded, the other is not. You don't know which is which. You have to pick one of the guns, point it to your temple, and fire.

What a fantasy. Here I was ready to examine some tangible evidence, and you present me this disturbingly self-serving thought experiment instead.

First, if one of the guns on the table is not loaded, then one of the guns will not fire. So why do you tell me I have to fire one of them? (To put it another way, why do I get the impression that you would prefer to see me die in this scenario?) More importantly, nothing about walking into a room where you are sitting in front of two guns on a table would compel me to point either gun at my temple and pull the trigger in the first place. Why should I believe that I "have" to do something so stupid as to pick up one of the guns, point it at my temple, and pull the trigger? (For a non-suicidal person pointing a gun, loaded or not, at one's own temple and pulling the trigger is not exactly the height of wisdom.)

Now, you have two options. You can either open the gun's clip and determine which one of the two is loaded and THEN pick the one you will aim at your temple and fire, or you have the option of picking a gun and shooting without checking first which one is loaded.

So, would you examine the evidence, and determine which gun is loaded, or would you just shoot?

Funny that between the two of us, the only one who believes that one could be shot with an unloaded gun is evidently you " the one who subscribes to the "no evidence no belief" philosophy. We have about as much evidence for unloaded guns firing as we have for multiple universes and abiogenesis events.

If you go for the first option, you are implicitly admitting that beliefs supported by evidence are more reliable than beliefs based on something other than evidence.

Yes, I am happy to "admit" that beliefs supported by evidence are more reliable than beliefs based on no evidence. But I'm not sure what you mean by "something other than evidence" forming a basis for belief. To me a rational belief is either based on evidence, or it's properly basic. As you may have already heard properly basic beliefs are self-evident or incorrigible and thus require no proof (which is good, because they cannot be proven) " like belief in other minds, belief in an external world beyond our own immediate sense perceptions, belief that propositional logic is a reliable means of deriving truth from a set of propositions, and for Christians like me, belief in God. The belief that only evidence-based beliefs are reliable, on the other hand, is neither supported by evidence nor self-evident.

[atheist buddy]

Two answers:

First: The time when it becomes reasonable to believe not just that it's possible for man to jump longer than the world record, but that somebody actually did it, is when evidence for the event has been presented.

Right, but one must first believe that such an event is at least possible

Of course. In a philosophical sense, I'm open to the possibility that Mohammed ascended to heaven on his flying horse, that Frosty the Snowman occasionally comes to life, and that Mary was a virgin. I'm open to all these possibilities. Now make an argument for one of them being true that couldn't be made for the others being true

; otherwise evidence of the event will never overcome one's bias against its occurrence (reference your own second answer below). Your "evidence" against the virgin birth is basically lots of frequency data.

It SO isnt't just frequency data.

Let me put it this way: Can you give me ONE example of anything you do not believe happened, and which you disbelieve based on something OTHER THAN frequency data?

For example, do you believe that I was born of a virgin? Please list all reasons you don't believe it, which couldn't be construed as frequency data.

But frequency data would also tell us not only that the virgin birth could not possibly have happened, but that life could not possibly have originated on earth (a point you failed to address), and yes, that a man cannot possibly jump beyond 8.95 meters. Therefore on your concept of evidence all claims contrary to these data can be safely dismissed as contrary to "the evidence" we already have.

You're making this argument in defense of the virgin birth of Jesus.

Give me an example of one thing for which you could NOT make this argument.

Second: Your argument is a red herring, borne of the fact that you seem unable to distinguish between rare events and impossible events. In other words, you cannot tell the difference between events which don't have evidence AGAINST them or FOR them, but which it's reasonable to believe in principle that they may happen, and events which not only have no evidence FOR them, but also have overwhelmingly strong evidence AGAINST them.

The world record for long jump is 8.95 meters.

To believe that 2000 years ago somebody jumped 14 meters, on the basis of multiple layers of hearsay testimony, recorded by anonymous scribes centuries later, who had sociopolitical reasons for saying somebody jumped 14 meters, is a magnificient display of gullibility.

But that's not what believing the virgin birth story is like.

Believing the virign birth story is analogous to believing that somebody jumped 14 meters, and did so while holding a martini glass without spilling a singe drop, while simultaneously juggling three watermelons with his left hand, despite the fact that he had just gotten shot in both knees, hadent eaten for 10 days, and drank a bottle of vodka 30 minutes before jumping. AND, believing this on the basis of multiple layers of hearsay testimony, recorded by anonymous scribes centuries later, who had sociopolitical reasons for saying somebody did all that.

No, it's more like believing that a single miracle account is true. That's all. No martinis, watermelons, violent injuries or vodka. Now I would happily concede that miracles like the virgin birth cannot occur within the mindless-yet-rational universe described by scientific naturalism. But whether a view of the world like scientific naturalism is true or not is just the question before us.

Ok, let's assume for a second that scientific naturalism is false. Now give me an example of one thing which under our new -non-scientific-naturalistic worldview which we couldn't argue happened on the same basis you argue the virgin birth happened.

If we witness only one virgin birth

right, but we didn't witness one virgin birth. We heard vague myths of hundreds of virgin births for all sorts of mythical creatures, demigods and messiahs. One of those myths comes in this form: Some guy we don't know, 70 years after the event, writes down that he heard from somebody, that Joseph told him that he once had a dream that Mary was a Virgin. Read Matthew. That's what the "evidence" for the virgin birth is. We didn't witness anything.

Saying that a virgin birth cannot occur because countless non-virgin births have occurred is a bit like saying I could not have taken a detour down Elm Street to get to the office this morning because for the past thousand mornings I have taken Main Street instead.

False analogy.

You are just plain wrong in saying it's just frequency data in both cases.

You taking Elm St one day violates ZERO laws of physics, violates NONE of what we know about medicine, none of what we know about biology, chemistry, etc.

The virgin birth, the flying horse, the turtle holding a flat earth on its back, they invisible dragon in my basement, DO.

It's just not frequency data.

Try looking at it like this: Among all the possible physical arrangements constituting the various and countless universes within a vast multiverse, one such universe would feature lots and lots of routine non-virgin births along with just one virgin birth of a Messiah named Jesus (another possible universe would be one in which virgin births are themselves routine). And we just happen to be living in that universe! Think of the virgin birth, then, as a repudiation of fine-tuning arguments if it helps you come to grips with the actual question of whether or not it may possibly have occurred.

b) I have yet to come across any evidence to support the belief that beliefs are only justifiable if supported by evidence. If no such evidence exists, then evidentialism is incoherent.

Oh! I have evidence for that! For the purpose of this example, let's assume you're a gun expert.

Here is the way the experiment would work:

You walk into a room where I'm sitting at a table. Two guns are on the table. One is loaded, the other is not. You don't know which is which. You have to pick one of the guns, point it to your temple, and fire.

What a fantasy. Here I was ready to examine some tangible evidence, and you present me this disturbingly self-serving thought experiment instead.

First, if one of the guns on the table is not loaded, then one of the guns will not fire. So why do you tell me I have to fire one of them? (To put it another way, why do I get the impression that you would prefer to see me die in this scenario?) More importantly, nothing about walking into a room where you are sitting in front of two guns on a table would compel me to point either gun at my temple and pull the trigger in the first place. Why should I believe that I "have" to do something so stupid as to pick up one of the guns, point it at my temple, and pull the trigger? (For a non-suicidal person pointing a gun, loaded or not, at one's own temple and pulling the trigger is not exactly the height of wisdom.)

Now, you have two options. You can either open the gun's clip and determine which one of the two is loaded and THEN pick the one you will aim at your temple and fire, or you have the option of picking a gun and shooting without checking first which one is loaded.

So, would you examine the evidence, and determine which gun is loaded, or would you just shoot?

Funny that between the two of us, the only one who believes that one could be shot with an unloaded gun is evidently you " the one who subscribes to the "no evidence no belief" philosophy. We have about as much evidence for unloaded guns firing as we have for multiple universes and abiogenesis events.

Obviously I'm saying that if you pulled the trigger on the unloaded gun it would NOT fire.

By refusing to address my argument, and instead deliberately misunderstanding it and going on a tangent based on that willful misunderstanding, you're telling me you're not really interested in debating.

If you go for the first option, you are implicitly admitting that beliefs supported by evidence are more reliable than beliefs based on something other than evidence.

Yes, I am happy to "admit" that beliefs supported by evidence are more reliable than beliefs based on no evidence. But I'm not sure what you mean by "something other than evidence" forming a basis for belief. To me a rational belief is either based on evidence, or it's properly basic. As you may have already heard properly basic beliefs are self-evident or incorrigible and thus require no proof (which is good, because they cannot be proven) " like belief in other minds, belief in an external world beyond our own immediate sense perceptions, belief that propositional logic is a reliable means of deriving truth from a set of propositions, and for Christians like me, belief in God. The belief that only evidence-based beliefs are reliable, on the other hand, is neither supported by evidence nor self-evident.

Are you saying that it's properly basic (and thus needs no evidence) that Mary was a virgin?



Look, let me conclude by making a broader point.

Imagine this whole conversation hadn't been between me (a skeptic) and you (somebody who believes the virgin birth happened), but between me (a skeptic) and a member of the Heaven's Gate group (who believed that by committing suicide, they get teleported to an alien spaceship hiding behind that Hale-Bopp comet).

Now, can you please tell me one argument you made for the virgin birth during our exchange, that couldn't have been made by the Heaven's Gate guy in support of his beliefs?

In support for the concept of teleportation to outer space, couldn't he have said that all we have against it is just frequency data? Couldn't he have said that denying one teleportation on the basis of billions of reported non-teleportations is just as nonsensical as denying you taking Elm St once, on the basis of thousands of reported instances of you taking Main st?



If your argument for the virgin birth can equally well be used to justify belief in Heaven's Gate, then either Heaven's Gate is true as well, or you're not making a very good argument.

[atheist buddy]

Does nobody have any refutation of this OP? Are we all in agreement that it's not reasonable to believe the virgin birth happened?

[Fundagelico]

Right, but one must first believe that such an event is at least possible

Of course. In a philosophical sense, I'm open to the possibility that Mohammed ascended to heaven on his flying horse, that Frosty the Snowman occasionally comes to life, and that Mary was a virgin. I'm open to all these possibilities. Now make an argument for one of them being true that couldn't be made for the others being true

Ah, so you have abandoned your earlier position that virgin births and similar events are not just extremely rare, but impossible. Good.

Other examples you could have thrown in for good measure might include: that the entire universe popped into existence from, well, nothing whatsoever; that the first living creature emerged on earth when lightning struck a suitable mix of inorganic chemicals at just the right moment; that this unicellular baby life form somehow decided that its own survival, and moreover its own posterity, was terribly important and thus began to reproduce and evolve; and that snakes and donkeys " talking or not " have some cause to be disappointed at not receiving an invite to your last family reunion, because they are your cousins.

My take is basically this: If thinkers as intelligent as yourself can evolve from mindless collections of base elements then a virgin can easily give birth.

Can you give me ONE example of anything you do not believe happened, and which you disbelieve based on something OTHER THAN frequency data?

For example, do you believe that I was born of a virgin? Please list all reasons you don't believe it, which couldn't be construed as frequency data.

Frequency data make for good prima facie reason to doubt that you were born of a virgin, and in fact best explain why I do in fact doubt you were born of a virgin. But frequency data are not the only data available to us. Otherwise we would not have such useful sources of information as, say, all of recorded history. How many times did Wellington defeat Napoleon at Waterloo? How often have international terrorists hijacked domestic airliners with box cutters and flown them into the World Trade Center towers?

Nor would we have prehistory: Most of us have never witnessed a big bang, an origin-of-life, a Cambrian explosion or even a humble speciation event. Do you doubt that these events have occurred? You clearly should, if the frequency of their occurrence is to decide the question.

Now if a team of reputable doctors were to announce that a baby named "Atheist Buddy" (or maybe "No Evidence No Belief") had been born of a virgin in their hospital many years ago, but they had not said anything until now because they had spent all the intervening years trying to devise a viable alternative explanation, I would have at least one source of evidence that you had been born of a virgin.

It would also help your case had your birth been prophesied centuries beforehand, had your parents attested to having experienced frightening encounters with angels informing them of your pending miraculous birth, and had you then grown up and performed miracles of your own, pronounced yourself the Son of God, and risen from the dead.