Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And, of course, Lumpy's special pleading completely ignores the fact that there would have been millions of claims of miracle healing going on every single day in regard to everyone's pet gods, which is why they all believed in such gods. The fact that they weren't necessarily written down would not have changed that fact anymore than the millions of personal claims about prayer that millions of Muslims, Christians and the thousands of splinter cults that exist today are making on a daily basis all around the world.

If it isn't written down--and then only within a randomly acceptable century Venn that just magically coincides with the dating of the "gospels"--then somehow it doesn't count. So the hundreds of thousands of Romans that attributed their healing to Aesculapius--or his father, Apollo, or Angitia, the snake goddess associated with healing from which the Caduceus (the symbol of modern medicine) comes from; or Bona Dea, goddess of fertility, healing, virginity, and women; or Cardea, goddess of health, thresholds and door hinges and handles believe it or not; or Carna, goddess who presides over the heart and organs; or Diana, the goddess of the hunt, childbirth, fertility, plague and good health; or Endovelicus, god of public health and safety; or Febris, goddess who embodied and protected people from fever and malaria; or Vejovis, god of healing; or Verminus, god who protected cattle from disease; etc., etc.,etc.--only they were believing in false miracles because....they didn't write down every time they prayed or offered a sacrifice to one of these many many gods of healing and their prayers were "answered" or their sacrifice rewarded?

It's just so fucking stupid I can't believe grown men and women STILL argue this horseshit.

 

[Rhea]

Finally got a chance to watch this video. You assume so incredibly much from it, Lumpy.

All it says about the 11 months is, “he pulled himself up and began playing this little melody.”
That’s it. That is ALL it ever says about his 11mo old self.

So “this little melody.”
She also said, “he heard it”
How much of a miracle are we talking about here.
It’s not no training at all, like someone who learns to read without ever having seen letters, you know?
There was a keyboard in the house, on, and in reach. You think no one ever played it in front of the kid, they just left it on for a year without touching it?

His talents are amazing. But they are not miraculous.
My son played me a little tune on the piano at his little toddler play class. It was the cutest little melody ever and came with a story about a dinosaur. It was at that time I decided to get him piano lessons. Very charming. He had never touched a piano before, but he knew where the high notes and the low notes were, and he knew to add dynamics and beat, just because he had heard someone else play. Cutest melody ever to mom.

But not a miracle.

I’ll go on to say that he taught himself to read and I heard him read his first word, a store sign, before he was 3. How do I know he “read” it and didnt just memorize? Because he read it backwards. Every time _I_ mentioned the store, I would call it the “FOOD MART”. But he looked at that sign and read out, “DOOF.” Meaning he read it himself.

Again, charming as all get out, but not a miracle.

He also learned how to ice skate when he was 15months old. He had only just learned to walk when I decided to strap on a pair of skates and give him one glide around the rink and then a hot chocolate, just to introducee him to the idea. But that kid would not let me take him off the ice. He wanted to skate. Obviously, he had never received instruction in this. He was enamored - absorbed!

Again, charming as can be - no miracle.

So - an 11 month old who tickles out a melody on a piano? It’s wonderful and vey precocious, but not a miracle. His continuing love of it is wonderful and amazing, but not a miracle.

And for you to write so many paragraphs about this “sign from god” based on the phrase, “he pulled himself up and began playing this little melody.” is credulous indeed!

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The question is: DID JESUS DO THAT STUFF OR NOT?

The evidence we have says it happened, however you want to slice and dice it.

What skepticalbip said above about magic, yes.

And the answer is that we don't have reported descriptions of magical performances from the 1st century (before 90 AD?), except that there were some magicians. Their particular acts were not important enough to be recorded in writing, like the Jesus miracles were.

So what is the ***strongest*** adjective---the ***most extraordinary*** claim---that the witnesses of Jesus's various activities used to describe those activities, in the original languages?

Maybe the answer is that we don't know, depending on how close you want to get to the direct witnesses and their exact words, probably in Aramaic. With most ancient written accounts the connection to the original characters or witnesses is INdirect. But we still can rely on our indirect accounts as sources to determine generally what happened and what was spoken.

Did they describe it as being (in their languages) a miracle, being a supernatural event, a superhuman event?

They mostly did not describe it in those terms, but simply related the particular events which happened. I.e., they just tell us what happened without labeling it as "miracle" or "supernatural" or "superhuman" etc.

But when they do label it, the Greek terms are:

σημεῖον, semeion -- "sign" (the most commonly used word)

δύναμις, dunamis -- "power"

τέρας, teras -- "wonder"

σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα, semeia kai terata -- "signs and wonders"

In some translations the English "miracle" is used, but more recent translations use mostly the above terms.

For all these words one meaning is that it's an act which God does, or only God can do. Or a supernatural act or superhuman act. BUT that meaning is not exclusively necessary, because it can also just mean a very powerful act, without requiring that it could only be done by God. It always has to mean something not normal, or not possible for normal humans to do, or at least something very difficult or amazing. Maybe something "divine" is usually intended, but the writers don't say that. It's only an interpretation which says that has to be their intended meaning. No one's interpretation of what they meant is mandatory for all.

What we know is not the mindset of the writer using this language, but what he claims happened. So we're told of the event which happened, and sometimes these labels are used.

We can't know what the philosophical understanding was of the writer using the term. The meaning or definition of these terms is not discussed in the NT writings. We can only assume they accepted the standard meanings, such as we have in our Greek lexicons today, which all give the above meanings.

It isn't necessary to understand the writer's particular concept of the "supernatural" or of "God" and other terms in order to understand what they're saying happened.

What's necessary to understand is
What happened and does it matter?

Perhaps there are versions of the "argument from miracles" which greatly emphasize the writer's understanding of the "miracle" words, or the "signs and wonders" and whether it has to be caused by God.

But a Christ-belief argument does not have to focus on the word meanings or the writer's mindset. The argument can simply be that the event happened, showing that Jesus had power, and this power could mean the possibility of eternal life, which is good, and hopefully it's true. Probably "God" is in the picture somehow, as being the cause of the power, but if some philosopher says that can't be, then it doesn't really matter, because the power itself still matters, even if "God" is not the cause of it according to this or that version of what "God" is.

Or did they mellow it down a bit and say it was just inexplicable to them at their present time? Or maybe even explicable and comprehensible, but still just unusual?

Probably all the above, depending on which "they" you're talking about. There were many direct and indirect witnesses to the acts of Jesus, and there's no reason to assume they all understood it the same way. What's important is that he did those acts, showing life-giving power which normal humans don't have, and hopefully this power can produce eternal life.

Before proceeding further in this discussion, it seems that is a pretty core area to clarify.

Everything should be clarified as far as possible. But there is no one understanding that "they" all had about the miracle acts, except that he did them, and it was something unusual and something good. So, hopefully it's true and there is this possibility of resurrection and eternal life, instead of annihilation when we die.

There's plenty to discuss, and to believe, and to hope for, even if we don't clarify everything the Gospel writers -- or direct witnesses -- thought about the nature of "miracles" or about "God" or theology.

The early Christians or Christ-believers, including those who produced the Gospel accounts, did not all think the same about philosophy and about the "supernatural" and God's nature. Some of the different Christian factions even accused each other of apostasy.

 

[skepticalbip]

The question is: DID JESUS DO THAT STUFF OR NOT?

We have as much evidence to believe so as we do that Mithra did 'that stuff' credited to him... and more evidence to believe that Joseph Smith did miraculous things. We even have damned good evidence that Smith actually existed.

It would be interesting to come back in a few hundred years to see what the Church of the Jedi has evolved into.
https://www.jedichurch.org/
and a rival sect:https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/

The early Christians or Christ-believers, including those who produced the Gospel accounts, did not all think the same about philosophy and about the "supernatural" and God's nature. Some of the different Christian factions even accused each other of apostasy.

Now this is true. For instance the idea of the trinity was a compromise between early mono-theists and poly-theists among the church. The first group insisted that there was only one god and Jesus was only a prophet. The other group declared Jesus a god like Jehovah that sent him. The council of bishops gave us a compromise that was so fucking confusing that the church still can't clarify for the congregation so just declare it as being so... accept it or go to hell.

An offshoot a few hundred years later, Islam, returned to monotheism and Jesus to prophet status then added Muhammad as a superior prophet.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The evidence we have

Once again and forever, it isn't "evidence;" it is anecdotal claims from unknown sources written decades after any alleged events at the very least, which have been tampered with and subject to immeasurable changes over the past two thousand years by excessively biased cult members acting in extreme self-interest and depicting fantastical events and historical realities that did not happen (such as a Roman Prefect allowing a crowd of Jews to determine the fate of a convicted insurrectionist leader against Rome).

says it happened, however you want to slice and dice it

We have sliced and diced it. It's identical to Joseph Smith's claims or L. Ron Hubbard's claims. If you dismiss either, then you must dismiss them all.

You know this, yet petulantly refuse to act accordingly because you simply don't want to. That's the full extent of it.

 

[Rhea]

Bookmarking because we will need this again...

The evidence we have

Once again and forever, it isn't "evidence;" it is anecdotal claims from unknown sources written decades after any alleged events at the very least, which have been tampered with and subject to immeasurable changes over the past two thousand years by excessively biased cult members acting in extreme self-interest and depicting fantastical events and historical realities that did not happen (such as a Roman Prefect allowing a crowd of Jews to determine the fate of a convicted insurrectionist leader against Rome).

says it happened, however you want to slice and dice it

We have sliced and diced it. It's identical to Joseph Smith's claims or L. Ron Hubbard's claims. If you dismiss either, then you must dismiss them all.

You know this, yet petulantly refuse to act accordingly because you simply don't want to. That's the full extent of it.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There are many ways to say the truth, i.e., that Jesus did the miracle acts, for which we have evidence.

No one has a monopoly on THE GOOD NEWS or how to tell it. The evidence is the same for all, based on written accounts from the time, for anyone who wants to repeat it their way.

What skepticalbip said above about magic, yes.

So what is the ***strongest*** adjective---the ***most extraordinary*** claim---that the witnesses of Jesus's various activities used to describe those activities, in the original languages? Did they describe it as being (in their languages) a miracle, being a supernatural event, a superhuman event? Or did they mellow it down a bit and say it was just inexplicable to them at their present time? Or maybe even explicable and comprehensible, but still just unusual?

Before proceeding further in this discussion, it seems that is a pretty core area to clarify.

Nah.

The Bible does say that the entire PURPOSE of the miracles Jesus performed was so that we would know he was divine.

John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

So then you agree that Jesus did actually do the healing miracles. That's the important point. You're agreeing that he had that power, and that this was evidence for the disciples to believe in him.

So even if SOME miracles may not require a supernatural explanation, denying Jesus's supernatural nature is missing the point of the biblical narrative.

In other words, he did have the power to do those miracle acts, as described in the Gospel accounts, which is evidence for us to believe further in the possibility of eternal life which he offers to us. And to not recognize this misses the point. OK -- Maybe your way of saying it is better than mine.

(I have to say that actually I have some doubts about the particular water-into-wine miracle at Cana, but the same point could be made using the healing miracles as the evidence, which are also in John. Maybe you're right that we should just accept the miracles generally, because of the evidence in written accounts from the time, and not nitpick about certain ones, because the greater point is that these acts he did are evidence of his power, and give us hope for eternal life, which is repeated in John several times.)

And as this is the whole point of Lumpy's efforts to establish the historicity of the healing miracles, you'd think . . .

However you want to put it is fine. Bottom line: the miracle accounts are historical. We both agree that this is the "whole point" of our efforts.

. . . you'd think he'd understand that.

Well I got it now, with your help. Thanks for helping me "understand" even better that Jesus did the miracle acts, showing power and giving us hope for the possibility of eternal life.

Obviously one could expound on this much further, about the "divine" element, the "glory" and "supernatural nature" and what "the Bible does say" and "the point of the biblical narrative." That's enough for about a dozen volumes or a couple thousand more Walls of Text, but maybe your concise language above is sufficient to explain how belief in Christ is based on the evidence from history.

It's OK if you understand it better or say it better than I do. Saying the truth is more important than having a contest over who can say it better.

 

[Rhea]

(I had to go to the way-back machine to notice how old this was...)


HOLY SHIT, Lumpy. You went back to PAGE FOUR to dredge this up and pretend it never got explained to you?

Nah.

The Bible does say that the entire PURPOSE of the miracles Jesus performed was so that we would know he was divine.

So then you agree that Jesus did actually do the healing miracles. That's the important point. You're agreeing that he had that power, and that this was evidence for the disciples to believe in him.

No, that is not what Kieth's post says at all. Why would you even say that?
If we are discussing a work of fiction and evaluating the plot-line and how it contradicts your interpretation, we are not saying that the book is true. Kieth is saying that YOUR book makes this claim, and it contradicts YOUR interpretation of YOUR book.

He's saying the book is not true and you're not even interpreting it according to it's own stated interpretation.
He's saying you're just making shit up.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, that is not what Kieth's post says at all. Why would you even say that?

Same reason he values the healing miracles but ignores most of the rest of the gospel. He takes what he wants from the reading and ignores context, purpose, intent, and the overall validity of the gist in order to prop up his own ticket to salvation.

And for some reason, he desperately needs someone else to validate his interpretation. He cannot just have his own thoughts and ignore naysayers.

Kieth is saying that YOUR book makes this claim, and it contradicts YOUR interpretation of YOUR book.

That is the weird part, though. In order to get the healing miracles accepted by science-minded people, he has to downplay the 'by divine hand' part of the usual interpretation, and pretend miracles are just events. Expectable, acceptable events. May or may not require god(s). So, not that extraordinary. Therefore the proof for them need not be so extraordinary.

But at the same time, the reason he is desperate to get these miracles accepted, to get this flimsy pseudo-testimony taken as evidence, is to prove Christ's divinity. Exactly as the Bible says, by knowing THESE miracles are true, the only possible interpretation must be that Jesus had a line to divine power, thus his promise of eternal life must also be true.

So it's kind of a bait-and-switch. Believe that miracles CAN happen, sometimes, somehow, therefore being Christain means Paradise awaits.

 

[Rhea]

therefore being Christain means Paradise awaits.

Which definitely never means that they expect god to do it all for them. No, really. Paradise, but not on a silver platter. Except, yeah, on a silver platter.

 

[atrib]

Nah.

The Bible does say that the entire PURPOSE of the miracles Jesus performed was so that we would know he was divine.

So then you agree that Jesus did actually do the healing miracles. That's the important point. You're agreeing that he had that power, and that this was evidence for the disciples to believe in him.

So even if SOME miracles may not require a supernatural explanation, denying Jesus's supernatural nature is missing the point of the biblical narrative.

In other words, he did have the power to do those miracle acts, as described in the Gospel accounts, which is evidence for us to believe further in the possibility of eternal life which he offers to us. And to not recognize this misses the point. OK -- Maybe your way of saying it is better than mine.

(I have to say that actually I have some doubts about the particular water-into-wine miracle at Cana, but the same point could be made using the healing miracles as the evidence, which are also in John. Maybe you're right that we should just accept the miracles generally, because of the evidence in written accounts from the time, and not nitpick about certain ones, because the greater point is that these acts he did are evidence of his power, and give us hope for eternal life, which is repeated in John several times.)

And as this is the whole point of Lumpy's efforts to establish the historicity of the healing miracles, you'd think . . .

However you want to put it is fine. Bottom line: the miracle accounts are historical. We both agree that this is the "whole point" of our efforts.

. . . you'd think he'd understand that.

Well I got it now, with your help. Thanks for helping me "understand" even better that Jesus did the miracle acts, showing power and giving us hope for the possibility of eternal life.

Obviously one could expound on this much further, about the "divine" element, the "glory" and "supernatural nature" and what "the Bible does say" and "the point of the biblical narrative." That's enough for about a dozen volumes or a couple thousand more Walls of Text, but maybe your concise language above is sufficient to explain how belief in Christ is based on the evidence from history.

It's OK if you understand it better or say it better than I do. Saying the truth is more important than having a contest over who can say it better.

Do you have problems with reading comprehension? Or are you deliberately bearing false witness about what Keith had said?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Or are you deliberately bearing false witness

This is unquestionable and has been abundantly demonstrated repeatedly throughout this thread, but then he appears to be a Paulinist who actually thinks it his duty to lie in service of his cult.

 

[Lion IRC]

What skepticalbip said above about magic, yes.

So what is the ***strongest*** adjective---the ***most extraordinary*** claim---that the witnesses of Jesus's various activities used to describe those activities, in the original languages? Did they describe it as being (in their languages) a miracle, being a supernatural event, a superhuman event? Or did they mellow it down a bit and say it was just inexplicable to them at their present time? Or maybe even explicable and comprehensible, but still just unusual?

Before proceeding further in this discussion, it seems that is a pretty core area to clarify.

Nah.
The Bible does say that the entire PURPOSE of the miracles Jesus performed was so that we would know he was divine.

John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

So even if SOME miracles may not require a supernatural explanation, denying Jesus's supernatural nature is missing the point of the biblical narrative.

And as this is the whole point of Lumpy's efforts to establish the historicity of the healing miracles, you'd think he'd understand that.

Miracle - an event so extraordinary that its observers think it's worth documenting (historically).

Whether or not a supernatural event actually took place is the first question. The second question is why observers thought the event was sufficiently inexplicable to warrant retelling over and over and over.

And as Lumpenproletariat rightly points out, you have to accept that in order for the disciples to think a miracle (a miraculous sign of Jesus' Messianic status) had occurred, Jesus must have done something along the lines of a miracle.

 

[abaddon]

Miracle - an event so extraordinary that its observers think it's worth documenting (historically).

Whether or not a supernatural event actually took place is the first question. The second question is why observers thought the event was sufficiently inexplicable to warrant retelling over and over and over.

And as Lumpenproletariat rightly points out, you have to accept that in order for the disciples to think a miracle (a miraculous sign of Jesus' Messianic status) had occurred, Jesus must have done something along the lines of a miracle.

miracle | ˈmirək(ə)l |
noun
• 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: the miracle of rising from the grave.
• a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences: it was a miracle that more people hadn't been killed or injured.
• an amazing product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something: a machine which was a miracle of design | [as modifier] : a miracle drug.

Whether or not a supernatural event actually took place is the first question.

No. The first question is what evidence there is that anything in the story took place.

 

[bilby]

Miracle - an event so extraordinary that its observers think it's worth documenting (historically).

Whether or not a supernatural event actually took place is the first question. The second question is why observers thought the event was sufficiently inexplicable to warrant retelling over and over and over.

And as Lumpenproletariat rightly points out, you have to accept that in order for the disciples to think a miracle (a miraculous sign of Jesus' Messianic status) had occurred, Jesus must have done something along the lines of a miracle.

miracle | ˈmirək(ə)l |
noun
• 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: the miracle of rising from the grave.
• a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences: it was a miracle that more people hadn't been killed or injured.
• an amazing product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something: a machine which was a miracle of design | [as modifier] : a miracle drug.

Whether or not a supernatural event actually took place is the first question.

No. The first question is what evidence there is that anything in the story took place.

Indeed. A discussion of whether Harry Potter actually performed magical feats, or whether in fact he was an expert in misdirection who fooled both the staff and fellow students at Hogwarts, misses the point that the entire Potter universe is simply a set of fictional tales.

There's absolutely nothing to indicate that the stories about Jesus don't fall into the exact same category. There's no certainty that the Jesus character represents a real human being. To discuss the feats performed by a probably fictional character is an activity often indulged in by fans, but isn't something that has the slightest bearing on non-fiction.

We need not revise our understanding of the conservation of mass, due to the tales of Harry Potter magically transforming small objects into large ones, or vice versa. Equally, the legendary miracles of Jesus can have no bearing on our understanding of reality. If he is alleged to have done the physically impossible, the smart money is on the explanation that this is because the feat is fictional, rather than supernatural.

 

[Rhea]

Miracle - an event so extraordinary that its observers think it's worth documenting (historically).

Like the stories told in hieroglyphs on he pyramid walls?
Like Donald Trump’s book, “The Art of the Deal”?
Like Grimm’s fairy tales?

Whether or not a supernatural event actually took place is the first question. The second question is why observers thought the event was sufficiently inexplicable to warrant retelling over and over and over.

Like memes that go viral?

And as Lumpenproletariat rightly points out, you have to accept that in order for the disciples to think a miracle (a miraculous sign of Jesus' Messianic status) had occurred, Jesus must have done something along the lines of a miracle.

remember that Christian who was here and told us about the miracle of the bees nest? How she and her friends played volleyball under it, unbeknownst, all evening and night, with no one getting stung, only to find the next day there was a huge nest in the tree?

Remember her disappointment when we pointed out that nests are usually dormant in evening and night?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

A few miracle claims are probably true (the Jesus miracle acts). 99% (or 99.9%) are fiction.

Only in cases where there's serious evidence is the claim credible.

Nah.

The Bible does say that the entire PURPOSE of the miracles Jesus performed was so that we would know he was divine.

So even if SOME miracles may not require a supernatural explanation, denying Jesus's supernatural nature is missing the point of the biblical narrative.

And as this is the whole point of Lumpy's efforts to establish the historicity of the healing miracles, you'd think he'd understand that.

Interesting. So what are we to believe of the many evangelical faith healers around today (and over the last couple thousand years)?

(Note: Skepticalbip here is interpreting Keith&Co. as saying the Jesus miracles really happened.)

2000 years ago there were probably as many such miracle claims as there are today, as a % of the population. And yet there are virtually no accounts of any of them (before 100 AD). So, why was Jesus reported in 4 accounts of the time, but no other faith healers are to be found in the written record? The best answer: he actually did perform the healing acts, in which victims were really cured, while 99% of such faith healer claims were recognized as false, just wishful thinking, products of superstition, and were not taken seriously enough to be recorded in any written account.

I've seen them make the lame walk, the deaf hear, the blind see, etc.

No you haven't. You don't believe they were healed of an affliction they had when they went in but was gone when they left the evangelist. Whereas those who wrote the Gospel accounts believed the claims because there was evidence which persuaded them, even though they usually rejected such claims, as you reject them.

Your reaction is the same as the Gospel writers 2000 years ago, who usually just ignored such claims because there was no evidence. Because they knew these were just religious superstitions and false hopes and fraudulent claims by some charismatic charlatans pretending to have power, who gained worshipers over time with their charisma, and who had strong influence over worshipers who already believed in those healing gods and in the long-established religious rituals performed and prayers addressed to the ancient healing deities.

Since it's obvious what caused those religionists or devotees to believe the priests or prophets, including the modern cases, then there's little reason to believe the miracle claims made by those worshipers, who prayed and maybe recovered the next day, who are promoting the particular ancient religious tradition. So no one saw any reason to record those in written accounts. But there's no explanation why anyone believed the Jesus miracle claims, taking them seriously enough to record them (but no others), unless those miracles actually did happen.

I suppose from Lumpy's claims, they must be divine too.

No, there's no good evidence in those cases, as such claims are an obvious result of the mythologizing which commonly took place, and still does today. The stories they report are part of the popular religious culture they were taught, and so are easily explained even though no actual miracle happened. The many miracle claims throughout all cultures are based on the healers' power and influence over worshipers, due to their popularity or status or charisma, and on the popular culture which promotes the ancient religious traditions practiced by the guru(s).

But in the case of Jesus we have evidence not originating from the popular culture or from only disciples promoting the ancient religious tradition, but from people other than his disciples, who witnessed his acts done in public, healing people who did not know him or belong to his group of disciples. And the acts are reported in documents of the time by writers who did not generally record such claims because they did not take them seriously, just as today most such claims are not taken seriously (even though they are published because today everything is published).

So -- there's a big difference between these two:

• familiar claims of established religious traditions, which are/were the norm and are explained as due to mythologizing in the pop culture, and

• the unexplained reported miracles of Jesus in the 1st century which popped up suddenly in history, not produced by the popular religious traditions and their devotees.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Miracle - an event so extraordinary that its observers think it's worth documenting (historically).

Joseph Smith. L. Ron Hubbard.

Whether or not a supernatural event actually took place is the first question.

That never gets answered.

The second question is why observers

Airnt! Wrong. It wasn’t the “observers” that were retelling any stories. We don’t have their version. We have Paul’s (who wasn’t an observer) and we have unknown authors writing decades after any such events who could not possibly have been witnesses to any of the events they describe (such as the words spoken or the events they weren’t present to witness).

YOU KNOW THIS

So why are you being deliberately intellectually dishonest the way “Paul” instructed you to be?

Jesus must have done something along the lines of a miracle.

Joseph Smith. L. Ron Hubbard. ALL OF EVERY OTHER CULT THAT HAS EVER EXISTED.

And the irony is, doing “something along the lines of a miracle” to profoundly ignorant first century fishermen wouldn’t be a difficult magic trick to pull off. Look at you. You’re in the twenty first century and you’re just as easily duped.

That ol’ Dunning Kruger has you in its spell.
That ol’ Dunning Kruger that you think you know so well.
Round and round you go
Where you stop, we already know.
In a spin, wanting to spin the spin you’re in.
Under the old black magic called CULT.

 

[Lion IRC]

Someone isn't thinking clearly if they think posting an example of a fake miracle means all miracles are fake.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Someone isn't thinking clearly if they think posting an example of a fake miracle

Which would that be?