There's evidence (not proof) that the Jesus miracle stories are true, and there's no evidence that they were made up.
I am not claiming that the Jesus story is made up.
I am claiming that the story being a made-up fiction is certainly a possibility for which believers have a burden to counter.
Hmmm... I need to unpack this carefully.
So you're not claiming it's actually made up.
You're claiming the possibility that it's (possibly) made up.
And it's that "possibility" of error (untruth) which you think should be the epistemic default position against which everyone else has the persuasive burden of proof - proving that it's impossible the Jesus claims were possibly made up.
It's those who wrote the story, and those who propagate it, who are making the claim here. Asking them to demonstrate that it's true is not "claiming it's made up", it's simply asking for evidence to support the claim.
For us today, the accounts from the 1st century are evidence for what happened. Since these report miracle events it's reasonable to require extra corroboration, but we have that for the Jesus miracle acts, because of the 4 (5) accounts or extra sources reporting this, which puts these in a much higher category for credibility in comparison to other miracle claims.
If your demand for "evidence" rules out any claims about miracle events, then you are imposing the arbitrary dogma that miracle acts are automatically ruled out no matter what, in which case your "asking for evidence" is meaningless.
Reports that events happened are "evidence" that the events happened, unless you eliminate virtually all our historical facts, which are derived mostly from the written documents that have survived and which say the events happened. Except for these documents saying it happened, there is no evidence that the historical events happened.
You are claiming the story is made up and expecting us to believe that without evidence.
That's special pleading. That's effectively the same as getting down on your knees and begging us to believe you because you can't actually prove that all Jesus stories are deliberately made up - fabricated, invented, lies, myths...
No, it's not. It's just asking you to provide evidence for the story
you claim is true.
But the existence of the story in the ancient writings, presented as events which happened, plus the extra sources, IS evidence for the story, just like this is evidence for any facts of history. Virtually all our history is based on the writings which say the events happened. Of course they're all subject to doubt -- all of them have to be questioned and analyzed for discrepancies, etc., but generally it's reasonable to believe the accounts if they are not contradicted by something else.
The mere fact that they contain miracle claims, by itself, does not disprove the writings. It means we need some extra corroboration, some extra sources, something beyond the normal requirement that it is reported in the document(s) and is not contradicted by other documents or evidence.
For the Jesus miracles we have this extra corroboration, because we have the extra sources instead of only one. Also, these sources are relatively close to the time of the alleged events, in comparison to most other historical events, for which it was typical for the earliest reports to appear more like 100 years later rather than as early as 30 or 40 years later.
If I told you my brother can blow flames out of his ears while floating six feet off the floor, would you say "I'd better believe that because I can't prove it's not true" . . .
At four feet off the floor it's possible, but not six feet.
. . . or would you ask me to provide evidence for it . . . or maybe even just dismiss it out of hand as something impossible under the laws of physics?
Assuming your brother is not now available to demonstrate this (perhaps he blew himself up in one of his performances), but you have some evidence, and there are others who make the same claim, then it should not necessarily be dismissed, if it's a serious claim. Depending on how many witnesses there were to it, or on the number of reports from them, it might be reasonable to believe it -- there's no reason to insist that it could not have happened if there's evidence that it did happen.
Of course today there is the high risk of a hoax being played, but if that is ruled out and those reporting this or claiming to have seen it have left us their account of what happened, why couldn't a reasonable person leave it open as a possibility?
The "default" position, barring any evidence other than your one report, would be to dismiss it. But for the Jesus miracle acts we have more than only one report.
It's self-evident that you think your own (skeptical) position as against the historical claims about Jesus should be the default truth position. Why should I believe your special pleading assertion that divine beings can't do supernatural stuff?
Skepticism
should be the default position on claims which defy the laws of physics.
You mean "
disbelief" rather than "skepticism" -- (You can't mean "skepticism" because this is ALWAYS the "default" position no matter what the claim is -- skepticism can never be wrong, so it's a tautology to say "skepticism" is the default position.)
Perhaps disbelief is normally the "default" position, but if there is extra evidence, such as extra testimony that the claim is true, then disbelief is not necessarily the "default" position at that point. It depends on the extra evidence.
And until it's been demonstrated that there is such a thing as "divine beings", there's no real basis for a discussion on what they can or can't do.
The miracle acts of Jesus are what was "demonstrated" -- or that power he had. That's all the demonstration that is necessary. Although it's true that we would be more convinced if a giant FIST from heaven would hammer down and punch flat anyone who says there can be no miracles or divine power, accompanied by a booming Voice, etc. Some kind of overwhelming show of force would help to prove the point with greater certainty. There's much we'd like to be more certain about.
If I told you my 65-foot long green dragon can fly, breathe fire and topple buildings with a swipe of his wings, your first reaction should be to question the very existence of my (or any other) 65-foot long green dragon, not to assume that it probably can because it's a 65-foot long green dragon.
(Let's assume the dragon is not available for inspection for some reason, so we have to rely on reports about it rather than direct observation.)
Any such claim is made more credible if there are others reporting the same phenomenon, as long as we know they're not doing this as a prank. If there are enough such serious reports of the "dragon," at some point the claim has to be taken seriously.
