email debate with Ed (anon) page 6

I am convinced that you have determined to enter eternity lost. I ask you to tell me

Tell you what?

Am I to believe that these disciples died some of the most brutal deaths for something they knew to be a lie? Is that what you would ask me to believe? Is that reasonable?

Am I to believe that the Muslims that crashed into the WTC on 911 died some of the most brutal and chilling deaths for something they KNEW to be a lie? Is that what you're asking me to believe? Same thing, get it? It doesn't PROVE their claim, it only PROVES they believed it themselves. Do you understand the difference?

You make my point, Buckster. They believed it to be true. But they were not claiming that Jesus rose from the dead. And they did not die a brutal death. They died before they had a chance to feel anything. Pretty easy way to go. However, let someone crucify you upside down or boil you in oil or fillet you like a fish and let's see how long you continue to say Jesus rose from the dead when you know you made it up. Now, apply that to all of Jesus' disciples. They seen Him after His resurrection. They were given a choice, deny the resurrection or be skinned alive. We know from history what they chose. Such dimented minds could not have written a book as spectacular as the NT.

Believing something is true doesn't make it true.

Please tell me, where is this play by play account of each of the disciples torture?

Please for once, do not ignore this request for information. I would like to read it for myself.

Buckster,

Admit it, I could give you all the evidence and records of this in the world, and you will NOT accept it. You will claim that it was written by someone with a Christian bias and that they were only being sympathetic to them.

Besides, are you telling me that you have investigated the claims of Christianity and have not even bothered to examine the martyrs of Christ? That is not very good investigative work now is it.

I have heard these claims about the disciples being tortured without giving up their faith before, but have been unable in all my years to find the source material for it. Until I can find it, it is not very convincing for you to simply say it to me as others have. I'm hoping you can do more than those who've preceded you in this course of action by actually providing the source of the claim. So, you see, I have been attempting to research it, but keep hitting a stone wall in my research.

The account of the scripture says Jesus rose from the dead. The disciples wrote of it and died for it. So tell me, where is your proof from that time that refutes this claim. You must have some documents from history that are reliable and that refute these claims, yes? Or are you discounting them based on your presupposition that God does not exist, cannot be known, and that miracles do not exist. Why kind of method is that? Do you realize that if I accept your method, I cannot believe in cerain modern events that only happened once, are not likely to ever be repeated, and only come to me via, an eyewitness account, most of the time removed by several people.

Quite simply, it is never incumbent on the skeptic to provide evidence of a negative, it is incumbent on the claimant to provide evidence of his positive claim. YOU are the one claiming the things you assert to be true, so YOU are required to prove your claim's veracity.

If I claim there are invisible poodles with gills living at the bottom of the ocean that care deeply about your sex life, it is up to ME, the claimant, to provide the proof to you, the skeptic. You have no requirement to disprove my claim at all. I have to either put up or shut up, so to speak, and you have no obligation to believe my outlandish claim unless I do.

I didn't make the rules of evidence, but we all have to follow them.

Buck

I am going to ask you again, so I may understand your methodology for accepting historical records, do you believe that Alexander the Great existed? What about Ceaser?

Yes and yes. The reason, once again, that I believe these individuals existed, is that there is nothing fantastic or outside the known boundaries of the physical properties of the universe to suppose they didn't. Historical documents and EXPERTS AGREE that they did exist. Similarly, I have no reason to believe that Jesus did not exist. I THINK he probably did exist, just as I THINK Alexander the Great and Caesar existed. There simply is no reason for me to suspect that they did not. This addresses ONLY their possible existence, not supernatural events attributed to any of them.

I am attempting to determine why it is you deny the miracles of the NT. Is it a lack of reliable historically reliable evidence OR is it a philosophical presupposition against the possiblity of miracles.

It is for both of these reasons that I do not believe miracles have occurred.

Historically reliable evidence for a true miracle simply does not exist. Any written account of an alleged miracle is purely subjective by the writer or simply an altercation of the truth. There are many accounts throughout history's writings of miraculous and magical and supernatural events. Many more are attributed to other gods and mythological figures than to yours. While you certainly reject the written accounts and stories of supernatural events by other gods and mythological figures as being unreliable, I reject them all. When you fully understand why you reject all but your own religion's supernatural events and accounts, you will understand why I reject yours along with them.

As for a philosophical presupposition against the possibility of miracles, I lean heavily on the fact that none have ever been indisputably shown to have happened. The laws of physics simply have not been shown to be alterable or breakable in ways that would enable such supernatural occurrences. Human perceptions may be altered to believe things that are not real or to misconstrue actual events in ways that are not entirely factual, as by talented magicians and psychics, or various forms of psychosis, but the laws of physics are not altered or suspended to allow true miracles or magic in any of those cases.

If it is the former, then I can provide you with excellent historical evidence, that, it you deny on those grounds, would force you to accept anything happening in history as realiable.

You are welcome to give it your best shot. But even if you produced the eye-witness accounts of 100 people who all testify that they saw Elvis in K-mart after his death, I will have to dispute the claim as being something other than a reliable account of the truth in the matter, as it is not within the realm of known possibilities according to the laws of our physical world. They may all THINK they saw Elvis, but that doesn't mean they DID. Their perceptions were altered in some way. Perhaps they saw an Elvis impersonator or suffered some mass-hallucination, but I guarantee that what they saw was NOT the true, living, breathing Elvis Presley, King of Rock and Roll, that died on his toilet. Period.

Simply put: Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

However, if it is the later, then we need to discuss why you assert that miracles are not possible. That is, a formal argument against the possiblity of even one miracle ever happening.

You cannot show that one has ever happened. You simply cannot do it. If you could, it would have been done by someone else by now. So, I'm confident that you can't do it either.

As to the mere POSSIBILITY of one happening: If a supernatural occurrence (what you call a miracle) ever ACTUALLY were observed to take place in our physical, natural world, it would need to do so with physical properties in order to be observed. In so achieving this, it would necessarily move from the supernatural to the natural. It would suddenly have physical, natural properties that can be observed, detected, measured, studied and explained. It would then not be able to be termed supernatural or 'miracle', because in order to exist in our physical world in any observable way, it must be bound by the physical laws of the universe to do so.

For example, I have an incurable cancer called Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma. I will die from this disease probably within the next couple of years unless some other calamity gets me first or a cure is discovered. Now then, if I go to my doctor two weeks from now as scheduled and he checks me out and discovers that I no longer have this disease that medical science has no cure for at this time, you might well call that a miracle. However, I believe that on closer scrutiny we would find that there is a perfectly logical, reasonable, physical reason why I no longer have this disease, such as one of the lymph nodes that was removed from my body for biopsy study HAPPENED TO BE the one with the cancerous tumor in it that WAS turning my immune system into a useless conglomeration of cells that no longer fight disease and infection. While it would defy the odds, be a reason for celebration and cause much joy to myself and those that love me, it would not be a miracle. It would be a physical reaction with physical properties that occurred for a physical reason WITHIN the laws of physics, precluding it from being termed 'supernatural' in occurrence.

Do you understand at all what I'm saying? We live in a physical world dictated by the laws of physics. Just as apples do not suddenly fling themselves from the tree skyward into space against the laws of gravity without some physical force being applied to them to make that happen, so it is with the rest of the physical laws in nature. They exist as a part of our universe in ways that cannot be altered without some physical property, that must also be defined and exist within those same laws and properties, being applied in physical ways. There is simply no way to get around this, no matter how much you wish or pray for it.

Buck

There is a fundamental flaw in your argument against the possiblity of miracles. It is that physical laws are prescriptive. This is absolutely NOT true. Laws of physical properties are descriptive only. They are not found in the realm of 'oughts', but rather in the realm of what. Natural laws are general. Sometimes, they are excepted in amazing events.

Such as? Please cite examples.

I give you the bumblebee's ability to fly. For years it was scientifically unexplainable as to how the little critter managed to fly. We now know that because of the discovery of the power packs in the bee's cells called mitochondria, flight can be achieved with rapid wing motion.

You just described a physical, natural cause. This is exactly what I have been arguing! While it may have been thought a 'miracle' in the past that the bumblebee could fly at all, once we found the true cause, it turned out to be entirely natural, NOT supernatural. There is no miracle here! It was only perceived as a miracle by those who did not want to face the POSSIBILITY that there was a natural, physical explanation for it. The bumblebee flight argument was used for many, many years by you fundamentalists as one of the PROOFS of miracles, but you were WRONG AGAIN. Thanks for bringing it up.

1. What is scientifically unexplained is not necessarily scientifically unexplainable.

EXACTLY what I have been saying! The same is true for the cause of the universe. It is likely to have a thoroughly natural, physical explanation that does not require a supernatural deity.

2. Miracles are scientifically unexplained.

WHAT miracles????????

3. Miracles are not scientifically unexplainable.

4. Miracles are not scientifically documented.

5. Miracles are not scientifically feasible.

6. Miracles are not scientifically possible.

7. Miracles are not scientifically supportable.

Miracles are a deception of someone's perception or an outright lie. You say miracles are real. That's a positive claim about miracles. Again, I say to you, "prove your claim". Show me a miracle.

You have, by your scientific naturalism, dismissed the possibility for miracles by holding to a view that is indeed, as unscientific as they come. You have made your conclusion, without an objective investigation. Before you open your mouth you have determined that even if it appears to look like a miracle, it cannot be one. That is not very objective.

Show me a miracle if you can. Until then, it is just another claim you have made without ANY evidence to back it up.

I dismiss your claims of miracles and other's claims of miracles because NO ONE OF YOU has ever been able to show ANY evidence to back up your claim that they exist or have happened. Do you understand? Blink once for "yes".

Here is your argument:

1. Whatever actually occurs in the natural world is a natural event.

2. Some so-called "miracles" have occurred.

3. Therefore, these miracles are really natural events.

That is not my argument. Try this:

#1. is correct.

#2 is impossible because of #1.

#3 is a moot point because you can't get past #1.

I realize that you have not accepted the minor premise, but even if you did, based on your statements, this is exaclty where you would end up.

A miracle is, by definition, a SUPERnatural event or occurrence. It therefore is outside the possible realm of NATURAL events. Period. You can't get there (supernatural) from here (natural), get it? If you still think you can, then do so. PROVE your claim is possible.

You believe that the universe had a beginning.

Yes, that's what I said.

You believe that something came from nothing.

No, I did not EVER say that. NOT ONCE, and I'm really tired of you claiming that I did. YOU are the one that claims an invisible, undetectable being created all that IS visible and detectable from NOTHING. It's YOUR argument that something can come from nothing, not mine.

You believe that this happened without a cause.

I never said THAT, either. You keep accusing me of it, but I NEVER ONCE SAID IT. I said many times now that I believe the cause was NATURAL, rather than SUPERNATURAL.

I do not understand how you reconcile this with your denial of the possiblity of miracles.

I don't wonder, since it's obvious you haven't read a thing I've written, as evidenced by your complete lack of knowledge on what I've written time and again to you about "something from nothing" and the "cause". How in the world did you ever graduate from high school, let alone get a degree, with such incredibly poor reading and comprehension skills?!!

It seems to me that your view of origins is pretty miraculous.

That's easy for you, as you believe miracles are not only possible, but real occurrences, even though you have nothing to substantiate the claim.

Not to mention, your views on evolution.

All it took was an honest look at the actual evidences, and I came to the same conclusion as tens of thousands of men and women much smarter than you; That changes in organisms occur over time.

Here is macro evolution, never observed by anyone, one species becoming a completely different kind, and even with the most flimsy of evidence, you hold that it is a scientific fact.

How you can deem tens of thousands of evidences that all work together to support the theory "flimsy" is beyond me. Especially in light of the FACT that 'creationism' has NONE. By the way, define a "kind".

And then out of the other side of your mouth, you deny God exists, and that miracles cannot occur.

No, I claim both out of the whole of my mouth simultaneously, as they are both subject to the same rules of EVIDENCE. You know what EVIDENCE is, right? It's that stuff YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OF.

You must see the violent contradiction that you are holding in terms of this subject. You are very inconsistent with your methodology.

Evidence. Where's your evidence to support your claims? I keep asking, and you keep dodging. I think that's evidence that you don't have any. Care to refute that claim I just made by providing some evidence of your claims?

You said that extraordinary occurences require extraordinary evidence. Where is your extraordinary evidence for evolution? Macro-evolution, that is?

Mostly in museums, DNA, studies in biology, experimentation, documentation and so forth. Tens of thousands of evidences that are available to you if you only look with your own eyes OPEN, instead of closed by your dogma. I'm serious. Go here http://www.talkorigins.org and read, read, read, read, read, read. If you think you can dispute THAT evidence DO IT. YOU WILL WIN A NOBEL PRIZE IF YOU ARE SUCCESSFUL!!!! DO IT! DO IT NOW!!!

OR suck on the fact that you CAN'T successfully refute the TRUTH of the mountain of evidence FOR evolution. Period.

You see Buckster, your standards for testing and believing are not applied equally. You apply one standard to God and the NT documents and miracles, and yet a different one to your views.

No I don't. I apply the same standards to ALL:

Is it consistent with the known properties of the universe?

Does it fall within the known laws of physics?

Does it have physical properties?

Can it be detected?

Is there evidence?

I say we examine these things on the merits of the evidence, without regard to philosophical bias.

Well, it's about time! I've been saying that all along!!! Good grief!!!

There are numerous matters in history that were extraordinary, though not miraculous, that we accept and you as well, without question.

Cite them, and I will be glad to examine them with you to test the veracity of your claim.

Let's reverse this. Take, for instance, a man on the moon. Instead of taking history and moving to today, let's reverse it. What do you think the scientists of the 10th century would have said about the idea of man flying or going to the moon or space.

They would have dismissed it as impossible and, in their day, it WAS impossible. They did not have the technology nor the knowledge to achieve that goal. HOWEVER, when we DID achieve it, it was NOT a miracle. It was a physical action accomplished entirely with the knowledge and application of physics. It was achieved through natural means, NOT supernatural. Likewise any goals we achieve in the future, regardless of ANYONE's BELIEF TODAY that it is impossible, will be achieved in the same way; Through the knowledge and application of physics WITHOUT ANY supernatural causes. They will not be miracles.

There was a time when flying was an extraordinary occurrence. If I were to apply your logic, I would dismiss it as foolishness.

No, if you apply my logic, you would consider the FACT that you can see birds and insects fly every day. You would therefore conclude that it IS WITHIN THE REALM of possibility. It obviously does not violate any laws of nature to fly, or birds and insects would be grounded.

What about a hole-in-one?

There is nothing about the physical properties or laws of the universe that preclude it from happening. In fact, they define HOW it is possible to hit a ball with a stick in such a way as to make it fly through the air towards a predefined target. They define how to shape a ball with dimples to enable it to maintain a path after leaving the stick that is more predictable. They define how gravity will act upon the ball to bring it down to the turf again. They define how the wind will act on the ball during it's flight. They define how the surface shape and density of the green will act upon the ball as it rolls toward the hole after landing. They define how gravity will act upon the ball if it encounters a hole in the ground as it rolls along the green.

There is nothing supernatural about a hole in one. It is not a miracle. It is purely physical in nature and MUST react according to the laws and attributes of physics. You can pray all you want, but if you hit the ball in the opposite direction of the hole using a bowling ball instead of a golf club, the laws and attributes of physics for that action will win EVERY TIME and you will fail to make the hole in one. No amount of prayer can help you with this because you CANNOT overcome the physics involved, the way prayer and miracles are defined to work outside the laws of physics and nature. They simply don't.

Or a man whose parachute did not open and bounced twice and lived, without even breaking a bone. Am I to discount that. I was not there. The only proof we have is an eyewitness or two or three. That would not be considered extraordinary evidence.

There are still physical reasons WHY it occurred the way it did. Without the whole account in detail, I can't tell you what they are, but I assure you with all confidence they do not cross over into the supernatural, bending or breaking any of the natural laws or properties of physics, any more than a hole in one or the space program do.

By the way, I believe that we DO have extraordinary evidence for God's existence. We have the Cosmos and its design.

I have already addressed this claim more than once. Perception of design does not prove intent by an intelligent being. Remember the concentric circles of the puddle? Add snowflakes and tree rings to the list. All defined by physical properties for physical reasons. Nothing supernatural required and no evidence of an intelligent being at work. It is purely your perception of something you THINK looks designed because it has some symmetrical property or is pleasing to your senses in some way. It is a wholly subjective view that does NOT in any way prove an intelligent design at work. The laws and properties of physics alone are enough to define their attributes. That those attributes SEEM beautiful or complex to you prove only that a particular region of your brain seems to be working, not that a supernatural being must have done it. You can continue to think it does if you want to, but that doesn't make it so.

We have the complexitiy of the human body, the mind, the eye, etc.

Have you studied how imperfect the human body really IS? Do you know, for instance that our backbones are designed better for being on all fours, like other mammals, than for walking upright? Do you know that the blind spot in our eye is because of a faulty design that is not incorporated into other types of animals like the squid? Do you know we have the remnants of a tail? Do you have any good reason for those nipples on your chest, Ed? There are hundreds of things about our bodies that do not stand up to the test of being the "most perfect of god's creations".

We have reliable copies of NT documents,

We have reliable copies of The Hobbit too. Does that make it a real event, or does it just mean we have good copies of a story?

unlike any book or records ever written, totally reliable

In what way are they totally reliable? Please define this statement. That they were copied without error? That they are true accounts? Whatever you claim 'reliable' to mean, you will be making another claim. I will, of course, require you to prove that claim. You will then ignore my request YET AGAIN since you have no proof. All you have is your faith. Faith is not proof, Ed.

without contradiction

REALLY?!! Solve the mystery of Easter, Ed. Do it, and get back to me. Here's the page again: http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/stone.html I'll now make a prophesy that you will ignore it, just like you did last time, rather than prove me right by trying.

that God, in His mercy and kindness gave us.

You mean, "that men wrote." Or are you making another claim about god that you can't prove, just like all the other claims you've made without proof? Well, at least you're consistent, Ed. I'll give you that. You consistently have nothing but faith to back you up. No proof, no evidence, no logic that doesn't fall out from under you. Just the assurance of things you hope for, your conviction of things never seen.

When examined with a sincere heart and an open mind, one can easily see that God really gave us some extraordinary evidence that He not only exists, but that He cares for us more than we'll ever be able to comprehend.

Your comprehension skills are pretty bad to begin with Ed, so that's not really saying much. However, some of us readily comprehend that there is no proof or evidence for the supernatural at all, and that would include your god and miracles. I readily comprehend that you have yet to put any meat behind any of your claims. I readily comprehend that even your own bible says you have nothing but your faith to base the whole thing on. Still, you try to surround that faith with what you think is able to support it.

Your biggest problem Ed, is that no matter how hard you try to do it, you are trying to support that which is unsupportable; that you can prove something that, by definition, cannot be detected by any means. You might as well be trying to prove that the tooth fairy exists.

Buck

1 2 3 4 5 6 Go to part 7 8