120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[atrib]

In the case of Jesus, we have 4 or 5 accounts which relate the miracle acts he performed.

This is untrue. You have been corrected in this matter dozens of times, but you keep repeating this untruth. This does not speak well for the character of your testimony here.

It's not good enough to say "these events were no more the result of actual magic than . . ." -- tell us what these events were caused by. What caused the Jesus miracle healing stories to get started and spread and be believed and recorded?

The events never happened. Somebody made them up. People make up shit all the time. This too has been pointed out to you many times, but you persist with your untrue claims.

The Jesus miracle accounts were circulating in the 50s AD. They are mentioned in the Q document, which is earlier than the official date of Mark and the others.

Another untruth. There is no Q document. Prove us wrong, produce this document.

Yes, that people generally do not believe miracle claims without evidence -- that's the reality.

Another whopper. People believe all kinds of shit without a shred of evidence. Over a billion people on this planet believe in the Hindu gods. Well over a billion people believe Allah is god and Mohammed was his messenger. There is not a shred of evidence to support these beliefs, but people still believe them.

They didn't back then and they don't today. And you cannot cite examples to prove otherwise. It's only a tiny minority who believe without any evidence, and any examples you have are atypical and reflect a tiny minority of kooks only, and 2000 years ago such kooks did not get their claims published.

Are your pants on fire yet?

Not the vast majority. It's only a tiny minority who believe something for no reason.

Untrue.

And again, if anyone came even close, let's have the example. Or, just give us the best example of a parallel to the Jesus case, i.e., a reputed historical figure who reportedly performed miracle acts.

We have given you plenty of examples in this thread. You are pretending like we haven't. Again, this does not speak well for the character of your testimony here.

What accounts are there of a hoax perpetrated on large numbers of people? You can't give any example that is comparable to the case of the Jesus miracle acts reported in the gospel accounts. Your repeated failure to give any examples proves the point that there are no comparable cases.

Untrue. And you know it to be so.

Once again, anonymity is not evidence that a report is false or less credible.

Once again, if you make the claim that someone rose up from the dead and flew up into the sky without the aid of any mechanical devices, anecdotal anonymous hearsay simply does not cut it. I believe you understand this, but you pretend not to so you can keep repeating your untruths.

That makes sense, IF you start out with the fundamental dogmatic premise that the "extraordinary claim" must be false. But if one does not begin with this premise, but rather, leaves open the possibility that the miracle reports could be true, and that truth is to be judged based on the evidence rather than the dogmatic premise that a miracle event ipso facto can never be true regardless of any evidence, then there is nothing wrong with the above quoted words "that you may believe" etc., and it's not an unreasonable basis for believing.

There is no evidence of people rising up from the dead and flying up into the sky. Not one recorded incident in human history. So no, we are not open to your claims that Jesus did anything like that.

Our best guide for evaluating the miracle claims and other content in the gospel accounts is to consider the evidence and apply reason to the claims made, not impose onto it a dogmatic ideology which blindly condemns all miracle accounts as necessarily false and intolerantly exclude these documents from the historical record based on this doctrinaire ideology.

There is no evidence. That is why we reject the supernatural claims of the Bible. An anonymous account based on hearsay and far removed in space and time from alleged events does NOT count as evidence. Not 4 or 5 as you keep claiming, not a single eyewitness, or the name of someone who was a witness. The shit does not pass muster.

 

[DBT]

Yes, that people generally do not believe miracle claims without evidence -- that's the reality.

Many people believe what is written in 'holy books,' which they themselves, whether consciously or unconsciously, endow with authority through the action of underlying fears, hopes and desires. The fear of death, the hope of eternal life....

 

[Atheos]

Examples of people who believe miracles without evidence? I suppose I could start by pointing out the millions upon millions of people today including yourself who believe Jesus performed miracles but have no evidence to support that belief, but what would be the point? There is no evidence Jesus performed miracles, and there is no reason to believe any such evidence ever existed in Rome (for example) where this story was first published. You are welcome to produce such evidence, otherwise cease with the claims that these people who believed these stories had supporting evidence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Our best guide for evaluating the miracle claims and other content in the gospel accounts is to consider the evidence

Anonymous accounts, written at unknown dates, some distance from the events, without corroboration.

and apply reason to the claims made,

People make shit up all the time. Just look at your participation in this thread!

not impose onto it a dogmatic ideology which blindly condemns all miracle accounts as necessarily false

Is it better the way you do it? To dogmatically apply a belief in the miracle accounts just because there are miracle accounts?

and intolerantly exclude these documents from the historical record based on this doctrinaire ideology.

They don't qualify as historical documents.
Historians do not report divine events as having actually happened. Ever.
And historical records kind REQUIRE knowing who wrote them, when and why.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It doesn't mean Jesus did NOT do healings. In fact, these healers you're talking about claim to get their power from Jesus.

Man, you are such a myopic little fuzzbutton, aren't you?
No, Lumpy, not all healers working alleged miracles today are washed in the blood of the Christ.

I do realize that your qualifications in comparative religion resemble "The World As Seen From New York's 9th Avenue" but even you should have noticed that plenty of people are claiming to perform miracle healing these days in almost every cult and tradition out there. So if the Christain healers maybe sorta validate Christ, do Hindu healers validate their religious assumptions? If not, why not?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And what about the atheist healers? Do they validate the so-called "scientific method" or the "bacterial theory of disease" or whatever other pop culture fad is considered stylish on a given week?

 

[Kharakov]

And what about the atheist healers? Do they validate the so-called "scientific method" or the "bacterial theory of disease" or whatever other pop culture fad is considered stylish on a given week?

Like your witchcraft would fool a Christian. You cast out demons in the name of Satan!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And what about the atheist healers? Do they validate the so-called "scientific method" or the "bacterial theory of disease" or whatever other pop culture fad is considered stylish on a given week?

Like your witchcraft would fool a Christian. You cast out demons in the name of Satan!

Dude ... Satan is the guy in charge of the demons. Why would you use anybody else's name to cast them out?

It's like if an Apple employee is giving you shit and you have the phone numbers for both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, which one do you call to deal with the guy who works for Apple? I'd call Steve Jobs.

That's even more effective these days now that Jobs is dead because not only does the Apple guy have to deal with an angry boss yelling at him, but he's also on the receiving end of a zombie invasion.

 

[Atheos]

IF you start out with the fundamental dogmatic premise that the "extraordinary claim" must be false. But if one does not begin with this premise, but rather, leaves open the possibility that the miracle reports could be true, and that truth is to be judged based on the evidence rather than the dogmatic premise that a miracle event ipso facto can never be true regardless of any evidence, then there is nothing wrong with the above quoted words "that you may believe" etc., and it's not an unreasonable basis for believing.

That is neither a dogmatically held premise nor is it a premise held by me or anyone I know in this thread. The premise is not that extraordinary claims are FALSE, it's simply that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thousands of people can be deceived into believing an extraordinary claim. Their independent testimonies that the claim is true is evidence of nothing more than the fact that people can be convinced to believe really stupid shit. Without extraordinary evidence to corroborate the claim reasonable people then dismiss the claims as (at best) spurious.

The nature of the claim also has a lot to do with the conclusion reached by reasonable people upon hearing an extraordinary claim unsubstantiated by equally extraordinary evidence. If someone claims they saw someone let go of an 80 pound lead weight and it began floating off into the sky, a reasonable person would want to see some extraordinary evidence to back that story up. This is true whether only one person said they saw it or 100. There are dozens of scenarios that could explain why 100 people are making this claim, all of them infinitely more plausible than that the lead weight actually levitated off into the sky. The least likely scenario of all is that the lead weight floated.

Similarly, the ancient claims made by anonymous people repeating stories about this "Jesus" figure performing magical tricks is consistent with dozens of plausible scenarios, not the least of which is a few (or one) very charismatic storyteller making shit up. The least likely scenario is that a dude actually healed neurological disease such as blindness, raised dead people, turned water to wine, walked unassisted on storm-tossed water and levitated off into the sky. That is simply being reasonable. It is not being dogmatic. These stories are insane. Believing them in spite of that fact is (if anything) dogmatic.

Millions of people believe Joseph Smith performed miracles.
Millions of people believe Muhammad performed miracles.
Millions of people believe L Ron Hubbard's insanity.
Millions of people believe J.Z. Knight channels "Ramtha," a 30,000 year old warrior.
Millions of people believe alien butt-probing abduction stories.

All of this in spite of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate any of it.

So don't try to sell the "people generally do not believe miracle claims without evidence" BS here. The evidence directly contradicts this statement in spades. And reasonable people hang out here, not people who are eager to swallow idiotic tales of ancient superheroes uncritically.

 

[James Brown]

Reminds me of the Christian apologist who complained about comparisons between belief in Jesus and belief in Santa Claus.

"It's not the same!" he thundered. "No reasonable person believes in Santa Claus!"

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Whether it's called "miracle" or "shmiracle" there's evidence that Jesus performed the healing acts.

But there is no Absolute Scientific Decree that a "miracle" event cannot ever happen.

Actually, that's been offered many times as THE definition of miracle, . . .

This isn't about someone's definition of a word. We're talking about whether something happened 2000 years ago. You cannot determine whether something happened by defining it out of existence. Only a historical investigation can deal with this, not someone's definition of a word. We're talking about "miracle" and "sign" etc. used in the New Testament, such as in the following:

It was declared at first through the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him, while God added his testimony by signs and wonders and various miracles, . . .
(Hebrews 2:3-4)

1) "by signs" -- σημείοις

2) "wonders" -- τέρασιν

3) "miracles" -- δυναμεσίν


The meanings of these words are as follows:

1) semeion: sign, mark, token, a sign from the gods, an omen, a sign or signal to do a thing

2) teras: a sign, wonder, marvel, sign in heaven, a monster

3) dunamis: power, ability to do a thing, strength, might, authority, a force for war

from Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon.

"something that cannot ever happen" is not part of the meaning. It can include notions about "the gods" doing it, but it doesn't have to include this meaning.

In might mean a rare happening, something difficult, improbable, "impossible" for normal humans. But not something that cannot ever happen, and not necessarily something that only the "the gods" could do.

And we're talking about the reported acts that Jesus did, or events described, and whether these events happened cannot be determined by playing around with word meanings.

. . . something that is scientifically impossible, . . .

But "scientifically impossible" only refers to something standard science at its current stage is unable to perform. Like a nuclear bomb was scientifically impossible 500 years ago but not today. Just because it can't be done by humans or by current scientists does not mean it can never happen.

That something was witnessed and was reported to have happened, both orally and in documents, is evidence that it did happen. You can question this evidence and say it's not strong enough, but you cannot disprove this evidence by imposing a definition which decrees that such a thing cannot ever happen. Looking at the evidence is the procedure for judging whether it really happened, not cooking up a definition which pretends to make it impossible by fiat.

. . . therefore the very fact of the event would prove God's hand must be involved.

No, whether God's hand is involved isn't necessary -- that pertains to the cause of the "miracle," which is hypothetical, whereas the "miracle" event is the phenomenon that happens, regardless of the cause of it. Also, any notion of "miracle" as something which could not happen is unnecessary and pointless.

It is possible that the healing acts of Jesus did happen -- there is evidence that they happened. You can argue that this evidence is inadequate and so the events did not happen, but you cannot define these events out of the historical record by philosophical theorizing on your feelings about what the word "miracle" should mean and pretend to disprove these events based on your word theories or semanticising.

I google and find:

. . . a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

But the Greek words used do not necessarily require a conflict with nature or science or involvement of a "divine" agency. Even if "miracles" can be thought of this way, this theory about "miracles" has nothing to do with whether the events did or did not happen. Whether the events actually happened is what matters, not what word applies to them or whether the event properly fits the definition of this or that word.

It isn't necessary to explain the event. Our question is whether the Jesus reported miracle events really happened. If they did, there must have been a power at work to cause the event, but it isn't necessary to have a particular explanation of the source of this power.

The Jesus healings could be explicable by natural or scientific laws and this wouldn't change anything. It isn't necessary to insist that these acts must have been contrary to natural or scientific law. What matters is whether he did these acts or not. It doesn't matter how one explains them, nor whether they fit in with natural or scientific "law" by someone's definition.

A "miracle" event is phenomenological and not theological.

Wrong.

Either it happened or it did not. It doesn't matter what your theology is. Did it happen or didn't it? The rest is babble.

Something simply happens. It's something that usually doesn't happen, . . .

'usually?' So, the Dead Sea sometimes moves aside for pedestrians?

Only at a crosswalk, and only if they wear a proper life jacket.

. . . an event showing some unusual power at work, such as suggested by the Greek word dunamis "power" or teras "wonder" in the N.T.

But it's just the event or act, or demonstration of power, without any necessary theological or cosmological theory of what caused it to happen or why it happened or any condition that God must have caused it.

Incorrect.

It is possible to know something happened without knowing what caused it. It matters that it happened, so the possibility of such an event is known, but how it happened or what caused it might be unknown, and yet it still matters and is still important even if the cause is unknown. The event is not somehow negated simply because one has not yet established what caused it.

A person with leprosy or blindness is cured suddenly, without medical science. The explanation or theology of it is not important.

Wrong again. You're using the miracles of healing that were allegedly performed by Jesus as being something significant. Setting Jesus, and the religion that accept him, aside as different from all the other religions.

The only difference "from all the other religions" is that they do not seem to have connected with any such life-giving power as that which Jesus demonstrated. We have evidence of his power, but we do not have evidence elsewhere of such power being demonstrated.

YOU, Lumpy, are using the miracles theologically, not phenomenologically.

They happened. I.e., it's a reasonable possibility, not a proven absolute certainty that the events happened. It is good if they did happen, because it indicates that there is a power that can give life. Hopefully it's true, no matter how it's explained.

The miracles of Jesus are a phenomenon. These acts were experienced by the victims who were healed, and were seen by some witnesses, then reported to others, and eventually described in writing.

There are probably some cases where a limited power was demonstrated, such as the case of Rasputin, who healed a child. But this was a very limited power. And there are probably some other similar cases. The events happened. One can speculate about the theology or the cause -- but what's primary is the actual events, i.e., did they happen or not?

So once more, you have shot your own argument right in the foot.

No, it's basically phenomenological -- about what was seen and heard and experienced. And what it means that such power exists. Can we benefit from it?

Nothing about theology, or about guns.

It just happened, and presumably some power is at work to cause it. But no explanation of the power is necessary for the act to be recognized as a "miracle."

But that's not the way you're trying to use the miracles.

The miracles indicate a power Jesus had which hopefully goes beyond that of curing this or that particular illness. The power to raise the dead, plus his own resurrection, indicate a power to overcome death. I hope that's the ultimate use of this power.

So, yeah, science does say miracles don't happen.

No it doesn't. Science is not dogmatic as you're suggesting. It OBSERVES what happens, determines the probabilities, does not dictate that this must happen or that must not happen. Science can only tell us the difficulty of it or the improbability of it.

No.

IF you want to quibble, then there is the prefix of 'by all we currently know' or 'as far as science can tell us' something is impossible.

But the definition of 'miracle' that was at the top of Google's list say it's something science doesn't allow.

You're probably changing the wording there. It cannot be defined as "something science doesn't allow." Google would not give a definition like that.

Here are two more Google definitions:

https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=Yha3Vb-KGISE8QekhZToAg&gws_rd=cr&fg=1#q=miracle+definition

a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences.

an amazing product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something.

Neither of these says a "miracle" has to be something only God or the gods or a divine agency can do, or that it's something "impossible" -- only that it's improbable. Nor do they say it's something contrary to science or something that could never be explained.

If you want to claim that science may some day have an explanation for it, go ahead, but then it won't be a miracle any more.

Yes it would still be, by the above Google definition, which does not say it's something that could never be explained.

And your whole point doesn't matter. The word "miracle" and other semantics is not what's important. What's important is whether it's true that Jesus showed this power, and how great this power is. It doesn't matter what the babbling theologians or philosophers or semanticists or sophists or definitionarians do with it.

Even so, if an event happens that seems to violate such a law, then that only means a further explanation is needed.

Yes. And if it's offered as a 'miracle,' the divine power is the offered explanation.

But there's no need to get bogged down in explaining it. The phenomenon of the event, the actual happening per se, is all that matters, not the explanation of it.

Or 'fraud.' Hoax. Tall tale. Made-up shit. Those also apply as explanations.

But these explanations are just a way of saying there was no such event. We don't need definitions or semantics for that. What is the evidence? Did the events happen or not? What's the probability? Is it a reasonable hope?

Answering these question is all that matters, or all we need -- not an explanation HOW the miracle event happened if it happened. Explaining how it happened is not necessary.

And perhaps the law has to be rewritten in order to account for this new phenomenon that seems to violate that law of nature. Perhaps that law of nature is still valid in general but has to be amended in order to allow for this new phenomenon.

Yes, that's been historically true.

Of course, the only way that a law gets amended, amplified or abandoned is with actual evidence.

You seem to have skipped that step.

But I'm not proposing that any such law be amended. I'm suggesting that the miracle acts of Jesus did happen, but this does not require amending any known laws of science or laws of nature. But if someone has formulated such "laws" to make miracle acts impossible by fiat, then that person needs to go back to the drawing board.

The miracle events in the gospels are simply something that happened, or you can believe they did not happen.

And the easiest to imagine is that they did not.

One can reasonably believe and hope that they did happen. If they did not, it's difficult to explain how we have such a singular case in history of someone reportedly doing such acts. I.e., how we have such written accounts as evidence which is totally lacking for any other reputed miracle legend historic figure.

If such questions become difficult to answer beyond a point, it becomes plausible that the reported events really did happen.

There are some very strange events that have happened, so saying such a thing doesn't generally happen does not mean it did not happen in this instance.

But science has no imaginable authority to decree that such an event never happened or could never happen.

If you're calling it a miracle, then you've just said that there's no scientific explanation for it.

Perhaps no KNOWN scientific explanation, i.e, no currently known scientific explanation. But calling it a "miracle" does not mean it's contrary to science or will never have a scientific explanation.

And most important, It's not about what you call it, it's about whether the events happened or not. Science cannot decree that a reported event did not happen. And it's not important whether science can explain it. Some things do happen which science cannot explain. Just because it cannot be explained does not mean it didn't happen.

YOu're saying that 'according to science,' it could never have happened.

No, you're the only one saying that. The Greek words, like dunamis do not contain that meaning. You can't impose your definition of "miracle" onto others. Even if that definition is offered in some places, it cannot be imposed onto everyone who uses the word. The Greek words, which I listed above, plus also the Google definition above, do not contain that as a necessary part of the meaning.

Historians can make a judgment that it either did or did not happen based on the evidence, but history too cannot dictate that such a thing CAN NEVER happen. Where does history or science get any authority to dictate that?

By having a basic grasp of vocabulary.

No, historians do not make up their own language and definitions. The Greek words used in the New Testament do not have that as part of the meaning. You can theologize them into being interpreted that way, but the basic meaning does not require that.

Such acts or events are said to have happened, so to put "can never happen" into the definition contradicts how the word is used in many cases.

To say it's IMPROBABLE is fine. But that's all that history or science can proclaim.

Not if you're going to apply labels that mean 'impossible without divine power.'

I'm not applying such a label. You cannot sledge-hammer your dogmatic definition into every sentence where the word "miracle" is used.

Our topic is not about "divine power" semantics and labels. The question is: Did Jesus really perform healing acts such as described in the Gospel accounts or did he not? Science and history can address such a question and might judge it as improbable. But they cannot hand down edicts proclaiming such a thing to be "impossible."

These acts of Jesus cannot be defined out of the historical record with psycho-babble. These acts may have happened or maybe not. There is no way to determine this with certainty. We have some evidence that these events did happen and which offers reasonable hope. This evidence cannot be negated with jargon and semantics and sophistry to define it away, such as by quibbling over the definition of "miracle" or other words or "labels" or symbols you want to get bogged down in.

Did those events happen or not? This is what matters, not the babble about the true divinely-ordained definition of some word.

That's the whole point of the word 'miracle.' It's meant to label an event that could not have taken place without magic, supernatural, divine, occult intervention.

Perhaps, but the event is simply a phenomenon which either happened or did not happen, with only the evidence before us to enable us to judge the likelihood.

No. The likelihood of a miracle is zero. That's the whole point of a miracle.

You can't impose your theological theories about the meaning of "miracle" or the "point" of a miracle on the New Testament writers or others. We're talking about whether these reported events happened or not.

You cannot babble out of existence these events with your subjective revelations about what this or that word is supposed to mean. Do you have something to say about what did or did not happen 2000 years ago? All the rest is babble.

It's a 'wonder.' Because no one can explain feeding 5000 with half a picnic basket UNLESS magic is involved.

It doesn't matter how it happened. There could very well be an explanation, and no one happens to know it. There are many events that cannot be explained. They are not negated by the fact that the explanation is unknown. (Besides, it was a Peter Pan lunch bucket, not a picnic basket -- get your facts straight!)


(to be continued)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Actually, that's been offered many times as THE definition of miracle, . . .

You're still answering posts from last december?
And i think you already answered this one, once.

WTF?

 

[Keith&Co.]

To say it's IMPROBABLE is fine. But that's all that history or science can proclaim.

Not if you're going to apply labels that mean 'impossible without divine power.'

I'm not applying such a label. You cannot sledge-hammer your dogmatic definition into every sentence where the word "miracle" is used.

This twisty stance has come up before, lumpy.
You ARE applying the same definition to the 'miracles.'

You say you can believe Jesus has the power of everlasting life in Heaven because he healed and raised people from the dead.

If it was just an improbable event, you couldn't draw a line from that to an eternal afterlife that can only be sponsored by the divine. You HAVE to see Jesus as offering godly power in order to believe in him as offering paradise.

Why you niggle at what the discussion is about makes no sense.

But then, why you only answer posts from last year makes less and less sense as this year drags on....

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Reports that the "impossible" happened are EVIDENCE that it did happen. Extra reports = extra evidence.

(continued)

We can seek the explanation, or the scientific principle, but lacking the explanation or science does not then dictate that it must not have happened. Rather, if the evidence says it happened, then it did and the explanation remains unknown.

But there's never evidence that the miracles actually happened.

There are stories.... But when asked for 'evidence,' there's never any provided.

Virtually ALL known history is based on "stories" of what happened. Those "stories" are the evidence. Name any event in history we know from anything other than "stories" of what happened.

We have more evidence for the miracle acts of Jesus than we do for many events that we accept from the historical record. Many reported events are derived from one source only, whereas for the miracles of Jesus we have at least four sources. So there is evidence, just as for other historical events that we routinely accept.

There is no scientific explanation today of the phenomenon of the savants who have abilities or knowledge that defies our common sense and experience. How they do it is a mystery.

So....because we can't explain one thing today, then that makes ancient stories of impossible things....what? More credible?

Yes, because in either case all you can say is that science cannot explain it. You cannot say it's impossible or could never happen. The savant phenomenon is just as unexplainable and "impossible" as the miracle events described in the gospel accounts. The only difference is that the savant phenomenon is known for certain to be happening, from current verifiable experience, whereas the events 2000 years ago are known from the historical record only and are less certain.

So in judging whether the Jesus miracle acts really happened, we can only go by the evidence, the accounts, and not by theories about what is "impossible" or what is contrary to natural law. We may require a higher measure of evidence, but we cannot rule it out simply based on theories that it's "impossible" or against the "laws" of physics or defies "common sense" and so on. The savant phenomenon forces us to rethink these abstractions about what is "impossible" or unscientific.

This is an argument from ignorance.

So, we're ignorant. And when we don't know, what is wrong with admitting we don't know? Why isn't that better than pronouncing something "impossible" when there are reports saying it happened? Why isn't it better to say we simply don't know?

If we can't explain it, just hold out hope that one day there will be evidence for it?

No -- hold out hope that one day we'll find the explanation for it. We already have some evidence that it's true.

There is probably an explanation for every case, but they seem to defy the rules of what is possible and what is impossible, and for now they cannot be explained.

Yep. Argument from ignorance....

Yes, there are some things that happen that cannot be explained -- we don't know.

You don't agree? You think we know everything and can explain everything? or if we can't explain it then it must not have happened? No, some events have happened which are not yet explained.

You can't brush aside all unusual or unexplainable events as hoaxes simply because there have been some hoaxes. We have to rely on whatever evidence is available, on what was reported or witnessed -- to help us decide what happened. Even if we can't explain it.

The power to heal is in this category.

Come up with evidence for it happening, or it's just a story.

The accounts or reports that it happened are evidence, i.e., "stories" of what happened are the evidence for most of our history. Some "stories" turn out to be true, others not. If there are enough accounts/reports/"stories" to corroborate it, it's likely true.

Our common sense and experience and "science" say such things are not possible.

You DID say, earlier in the thread, that science NEVER says things are impossible.

Science does sometimes say something is impossible. But science does not say that certain reported events of history are impossible and could not have happened. Such as the reported healing acts of Jesus. Science does not say these events are "impossible." But some scientists say it's improbable.

On the other hand, some "science" does say it's impossible. There's a difference between "science" and science. We should generally trust what science tells us, but not always what "science" tells us.

And yet it happened, just as known cases of savants today show real events or acts which by every understanding would seem to be impossible and contrary to our "science" which says some things are impossible.

Just out of curiosity, i googled 'idiot savant.' The wiki does NOT say that there are no explanations for the syndrome.

There is no explanation known. If you know otherwise, then tell us the explanation. These are good examples of very strange phenomena, contrary to all common sense, for which there is no known explanation. They are just as baffling as healing miracle claims. But they are factual and documented beyond doubt.

It does not say that the syndrome is considered impossible by science.

It is the sort of thing that pop "science" would say is "impossible." Not science. Science accepts the empirical facts without pretending they don't exist if they cannot be explained. Or if the empirical evidence is limited, like for some historical events, then science puts it in the unknown or doubtful category. But not the "impossible" category.

It does say that there are no 'widely accepted cognitive theories.'

I.e., the savants phenomena cannot be explained. With current science. But with future research explanations might be found. Maybe also the healing miracles of Jesus will eventually be explained.

Science has no way to decree that this documented event did not happen.

You know, you said science says idiot-savant syndrome is impossible.

Once again, the savant phenomenon is the kind of thing that pop "science" says is impossible. Pop "science" says certain reported events really did not happen because such a thing is "impossible." Like the miracles of Jesus and other claims that something unusual happened.

But science, without the " " marks, does not make such arrogant claims. Rather, legitimate science simply says we don't know, and sometimes will say such a thing is improbable. Also repeatability is emphasized, but even if it cannot be duplicated, the only judgment is "improbable" rather than "impossible" as to whether the event really happened.

There is nothing wrong with demanding a higher quantity of evidence for reported events that are highly improbable. In the case of the Jesus miracles, we do have extra evidence.

So apparently science HAS a way to make decrees like that.

Except when it doesn't.

Legitimate science cannot decree that a certain reported event did not happen. It can only judge that it's improbable.

Science has to be adjusted to accomodate these events, not proclaim that they did not happen.

Um, only when science is given scientific evidence that the event happened. Not before then.

OK. But in the meantime, while historical inquiry tries to determine what happened, the scientist can only say what's probable. The scientist cannot judge that the event did not happen or is impossible.

Which is why there's a greater burden upon the believer to show that this impossible event really, truly happened.

You mean "impossible" event, with quote marks, or "improbable" would be a better word.

No, i did not mean that.

But how can you demand someone show that something impossible happened? You're wrong -- there is no burden on anyone to show that something impossible happened.

If anything, i would have meant 'impossible without god' because that's the whole point of the word 'miracle.'

A believer can provide the evidence that Jesus performed miracle healing acts, i.e., the acts described in the gospel accounts, and can do this without needing to show any connection to God. I.e., that the events happened, or the evidence for it, does not depend on any particular theology or religious belief. This evidence is just as valid for an atheist as for a theist.

Saying 'someone wrote it down so it probably happened' doesn't work.

It is evidence that it happened, . . .

No, it's not. No more than any other tall tale offered without evidence.

The existence of the report is evidence that it happened. For something highly improbable, extra reports are required. A "tall tale" is rejected if and when there is not enough corroboration. However, if there is extra evidence for the "tall tale," then it gains more credibility. Some strange events have actually happened. Not ALL "tall tales" are false.

. . . especially if there are extra sources which confirm it . . .

You continue to abuse the idea of 'separate' source material.

No one has given any reason to deny that the 4 gospel accounts are "separate sources." This rejection of the New Testament writings as evidence is totally arbitrary. All documents from any period are evidence for what happened during that period.

Once again, that Matthew and Luke quoted from an earier source does not change the fact that they are "separate sources." You cannot conflate these sources into one source simply by banging your fist on the table and screaming that they are only one source.

The gospels are four separate documents from separate authors/editors. That two of them quoted from earlier sources in no way undermines them as separate sources. There is nothing inappropriate about quoting from an earlier source.

. . . and if those sources are not a part of the standard mythologizing process we're familiar with whereby a human legendary hero is transformed into a god over a few generations or centuries.

"Standard" mythologizing? Your argument from incredulity over how long it takes to make shit up is laughable.

How to myths form? There is a process. One common pattern is that of the passage of time, such as we see clearly with the Santa Claus myth, which evolved over centuries. This one is easy to recognize, because it began late enough that we have a record of the beginning of this myth, and then later accounts showing how elements were added to the original. This myth did not pop up within only a few years or decades. It required centuries, even more than 1000 years.

The miracles of Gautama and of Apollonius of Tyana are other examples, but going back farther it becomes more difficult to identify the original legendary figure or event and compare it to the later myths. But there is obviously a need for this passage of time, at least 100 years and usually longer.

But another common pattern is the reverence for a widely-known celebrity with status and a long impressive career, during which he acquired followers who were quick to believe miracle claims about him. Without that wide public recognition, the mythologizing could not have happened.

These patterns are the case for ALL mythic heroes who were deified. If you cannot give a single exception to these rules or patterns, it's reasonable to conclude that they are necessary in order for someone to be mythologized into a deity hero. You cannot pretend that a mythic hero can pop up overnight without these prerequisite conditions first taking place.

You want magic to be taken seriously, you need some serious documentation that magic happened.

The savant phenomenon is "magic." And these cases are scientifically documented.


(to be continued)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Reports that the "impossible" happened are EVIDENCE that it did happen. Extra reports = extra evidence.

But people copying one report are not extra reports. That's a lie you're trying to flog as a substantive truth.

It'd be laughable, but only if anyone really expected better from you at this point.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You want magic to be taken seriously, you need some serious documentation that magic happened.

The savant phenomenon is "magic." And these cases are scientifically documented.

No, it isn't magic, and this lie was addressed the first time you brought it up.
You claimed that no one in science could explain it and several posters came up with current explanations, and no one just shrugging and saying 'It's scientifically inexplicable.'

Jeeze, catch up with the thread/

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There is historical evidence that the "impossible" sometimes happens. Despite some pop "science"

(continued)

But as for miracle healing events, I have given the example of Rasputin for which there is serious documentation that he did perform those healing acts. The only question is HOW he did it, not that he did it.

You have repeated a story, but not offered actual 'historical documentation' for his healing. There is some dispute about exactly what he did. Regarding Rasputin:

Accounts are often based on dubious memoirs, hearsay and legend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Rasputin

The "dubious memoirs, hearsay and legend" quote was not a reference to the healing events.

Everything published on Rasputin seems to say that he apparently had healing power, in connection with this one child, and there are speculations on the cause of it. There's a reluctance to say bluntly that he did in fact heal the child, but the child did recover somehow, and it's a puzzle how this happened.

An historian on a History Channel program said bluntly that somehow Rasputin did have power to heal the child, noting that this case is an exception to the general rule that such claims are usually discounted.

The above Wiki page has a section on Rasputin's apparent healing ability. Here are two excerpts:

Pierre Gilliard,[45] the French historian Hélène Carrère d'Encausse[46] and Diarmuid Jeffreys, a journalist, speculated Rasputin's healing practice included halting the administration of aspirin, a pain-relieving analgesic available since 1899.[47][48] Aspirin is an antiaggregant and has blood-thinning properties; it prevents clotting, and promotes bleeding which could have caused the hemarthrosis. The "wonder drug" would have worsened Alexei's joints' swelling and pain.[49][50]

This is an obvious attempt to explain the apparent healing power of Rasputin.

Gilliard was close to the Czar's family and this child, being their tutor. Jeffreys produces documentaries and is an expert on aspirin. d'Encausse is an expert on Russia and Czar Nicholas II. These three find it necessary to come up with an explanation how Rasputin was able to heal this child. They assume he did it but that there must be a natural explanation for it.

Withholding aspirin might explain something, but how did Rasputin know something that the medical doctors did not know? And can we really believe that the cause of the child's illness was the doctors? Doesn't the patient have to become ill in the first place?

Here's another excerpt:

Court physician Botkin believed that Rasputin was a charlatan and his apparent healing powers arose from his use of hypnosis, . . .

"apparent healing powers"?

. . . but Rasputin was not interested in this practice before 1913 and his teacher Gerasim Papandato was expelled from St. Petersburg.[56][57] Felix Yusupov, one of Rasputin's enemies suggested that he secretly drugged Alexis[27] with Tibetan herbs which he got from the quack doctor Peter Badmayev, but his drugs were politely rejected by the court.[26][58] For Maria Rasputin, it was magnetism.[59] For Greg King, these explanations fail to take into account those times when Rasputin healed the boy, despite being 2600 km (1650 miles) away.

It's obvious that this Rasputin character was doing something that appeared to everyone as a healing act which caused the child to recover, when the doctors had failed. And there are various attempts to explain how he did it.

Whatever the skepticism, the general historical report on Rasputin is that he apparently did something that caused the child to recover.


from Rasputin, the Saint Who Sinned by Brian Moynahan:

Rasputin's mysterious ability to stop the bleeding attacks of their hemophiliac only son, Alexis, sealed the approval of the domineering Alexandra. [from the front flap]

He had apparent psychic powers, attested to but lacking medical explanation. [from the Preface]

Also from the preface (I'll give this whole paragraph, to avoid possible confusion from the term "fairy tale"):

Rasputin bewitches because his life is both romantic and repulsive. It can be seen as an actual fairy tale. Born in a Siberian cabin, he makes his way to the distant capital of a great empire and there wins the trust and affection of the tsar and empress. He has gifts of healing and saves the life of their hemophiliac son. Or he can be read as a study in wickedness; he is a hypnotist, who casts his spell over the innocent women he seduces and who leads Russia and its besotted rulers to revolution and ruin.

This biography is not about Rasputin's healing power, but the author mentions it as a fact, possibly leaving open the possibility that there must be a scientific explanation somewhere that is not known. But it's taken as a given that Rasputin did something which either was an actual healing, for real, or appeared to be to everyone, so that the apparent healing act is historical fact.

This may not be "proof." However, if one leaves open the possibility of such a healing power, without excluding it dogmatically based on the ideological premise that no such thing can be, then it is reasonable to conclude from this historical record that Rasputin possessed such an ability, for this one child, and such a healing power is possible in some cases, however rare it may be. The historical or empirical factual basis does exist, consistent with science.

And it is incorrect to insist that science has disproved the possibility of such an ability. At least the case of Rasputin indicates the possibility of it. And of course there are many other similar cases that are less well documented.

So...you appeal to Cayce and Rasputin as supporting your stories of Jesus performing magic, . . .

Cayce also was a topic on the History Channel, which said that he was visited by many famous persons, Nelson Rockefeller being one, who learned of his unique ability to diagnose illness even though he had no medical background. This seems to be an historical fact. Cayce had a very high batting average in diagnosing illnesses which the professional practitioners could not treat. His information was used to successfully treat the patients.

He also prescribed remedies which had a high degree of success and were not known to medical science at the time. But he did not perform "cures" -- he only diagnosed the illnesses and prescribed herbs or treatments which were successful beyond random chance.

The debunkers poke fun at Cayce, but they do not dispute the high success rate of his diagnoses and prescriptions, and instead focus on his "misses" -- Which doesn't change the fact that he easily beat the odds overall, though maybe he had more "misses" in some other areas like prophecy and ESP.

The "Amazing Randi" pretends to debunk him ( http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/ReinSkp4.htm ) but does not disprove Cayce's high success rate, which is best explained by his having connection to some kind of medical knowledge acquired from outside institutional medical science.

The evidence is there: some element of medical knowledge and healing ability does seem to exist, outside standard medical science. You can say the evidence is inconclusive and that there must be some "natural" explanation and so on, or speculate something fraudulent going on. But you cannot say there is no evidence or that such claims are contrary to science.

So it's a reasonable possibility, based on empirical evidence, that such healing power or knowledge has been exercised by some persons with no official medical training. However you try to explain it.

. . . but try to pretend that the Christian tradition say that it was NOT connected to Jesus' divinity, or as proof he was divine.

Why?

There are probably hundreds of Christologies which try to explain the divine nature of Christ's power to heal. Maybe some of them have merit. But one can believe in Christ without being bound to any one particular interpretation or Christology concerning the miracles.

The miracle acts, if they happened, prove that he had/has power, and hopefully this power goes beyond particular illnesses that he healed and is a life-giving power that extends to the possibility of eternal life.

Maybe this power comes from "God," but one can believe without claiming to have figured out the source of the power or the connection to "God" or divine entity. Getting bogged down in theology or metaphysics or universal Ultimateness is not a necessary part of "faith" in Christ.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You've brought up Rasputin before.
What is this, Lumpy's Greatest Hits?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Maybe this power comes from "God," but one can believe without claiming to have figured out the source of the power or the connection to "God" or divine entity. Getting bogged down in theology or metaphysics or universal Ultimateness is not a necessary part of "faith" in Christ.

Hilarity.
You want to have dependable, proven faith (an oxymoronic idea) in Jesus' miracles as a way to get eternal life, but you don't want to bog the discussion down with theology.

Theology is WHAT YOU ARE DOING, Lumpy.

Learn to speak English, maybe?

 

[James Brown]

It's a new one for the list:

1. Rasputin healed a child.
2. Therefore God exists.

Skeptic Dictionary: Edgar Cayce
The Straight Dope: What's the Scoop on Edgar Cayce?