C
Cathoholic
Guest
Blindseeker04 . . .
The testimony of reliable witnesses.
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The question of miracles - Are there convincing miracle cases?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Blindseeker04
Guest
How is it more credible than thousands attesting to Sai Baba’s miracles today? Or do you believe in those too?
E
EndTimes
Guest
As another pointed out - Faith has naught to do with ‘rational’…Isn’t faith rational? That’s what I thought. Isn’t it supposed to present some evidence?
You’re seeking evidences according to your demands which are steeped in Doubt… or DisBelief…
If you really want to know more about the Teachings of Jesus -
Jump into the Gospels // NT
And from that - then make your decision.
_
N
nadieteescribe
Guest
I sympathize with you because I was in your place many years ago.
I think what you want to ask is “Is there any miracles that could convince even a reluctant agnostic or atheist?”. And the answer is “no”, but not for the reasons you may be thinking.
(It is not that miracles do not happen today. Somebody said that the Bible is full of miracles, but if you take into account that the period described in the Bible is about 1800 years, the amount of miracles per year is underwhelming and not higher than today. For today’s miracles, read " Miracles : 2 Volumes: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, by Craig S. Keener")
Theism (belief in God), like atheism (not belief in God) are worldviews. Worldviews are descriptions of the world that are based on a series of tenets that cannot be verified by empirical evidence. So worldviews cannot be verified by empirical evidence, such as miracles.
Imagine God makes a private appearance to you (very few people have had this special privilege, but let’s imagine). He tells you that He exists and you should pray.
If you are a theist, you will begin to pray more. If you are an atheist, you will go to the psychiatrist and ask for pills against hallucinations.
The empirical evidence is the same in both cases. It is your worldview that interprets the experience in a way or another. So worldviews cannot be verified by empirical evidence because they are the set of beliefs through which we interpret empirical evidence.
If a miracle happens to other people, it is even worse. You can doubt about if the report is accurate, if the original fact took place or if an (unknown) natural cause could be the reason.
In short, there are not convincing miracle cases for an atheist, because atheism causes miracle cases to be unconvincing.
Speaking for myself, when I was an atheist, a breakthrough was realizing that no empirical evidence could change my mind about the non-existence of the supernatural. Even if the supernatural existed, I could always explain it away in many ways.
— follows----
I think what you want to ask is “Is there any miracles that could convince even a reluctant agnostic or atheist?”. And the answer is “no”, but not for the reasons you may be thinking.
(It is not that miracles do not happen today. Somebody said that the Bible is full of miracles, but if you take into account that the period described in the Bible is about 1800 years, the amount of miracles per year is underwhelming and not higher than today. For today’s miracles, read " Miracles : 2 Volumes: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, by Craig S. Keener")
Theism (belief in God), like atheism (not belief in God) are worldviews. Worldviews are descriptions of the world that are based on a series of tenets that cannot be verified by empirical evidence. So worldviews cannot be verified by empirical evidence, such as miracles.
Imagine God makes a private appearance to you (very few people have had this special privilege, but let’s imagine). He tells you that He exists and you should pray.
If you are a theist, you will begin to pray more. If you are an atheist, you will go to the psychiatrist and ask for pills against hallucinations.
The empirical evidence is the same in both cases. It is your worldview that interprets the experience in a way or another. So worldviews cannot be verified by empirical evidence because they are the set of beliefs through which we interpret empirical evidence.
If a miracle happens to other people, it is even worse. You can doubt about if the report is accurate, if the original fact took place or if an (unknown) natural cause could be the reason.
In short, there are not convincing miracle cases for an atheist, because atheism causes miracle cases to be unconvincing.
Speaking for myself, when I was an atheist, a breakthrough was realizing that no empirical evidence could change my mind about the non-existence of the supernatural. Even if the supernatural existed, I could always explain it away in many ways.
— follows----
Last edited:
N
nadieteescribe
Guest
What to do, then? If worldviews cannot be validated by empirical evidence, what are we to do? Choose a worldview at random and stick to it? This is very unsatisfactory for truth seekers.
Luckily, there is another way. I said that worldviews are immune to empirical evidence, but I have not said anything about non-empirical evidence. We can examine worldviews using non-empirical evidence. This means philosophy. If you examine modern atheism honestly using philosophy, you quickly realize that it is untenable. It is simply contradictory and cannot be true.
Then you have the work of analyzing different religious traditions to see which one is true. Buddhism and rationality are incompatible. The Qur’an has lots of basic mistakes. In summary, every tradition starts with a private event (Buddha’s enlightenment, Muhammad’s encounter with an angel) except Christianity (starts with a public event, which is the resurrection of Christ). Since it is a public event, you can investigate it with the tools of historical research and reach your own conclusions.
Once you belief that Christianity is true, miracles do not seem impossible to you. You don’t think every miracle is true, mind you. You are open to the possibility of fraud. But you don’t reject a miracle beforehand.
What I have told you is a long and winding path (with many books to read). I don’t recommend it, even if it is the path that brought me to the faith. It is a path only valid for the most skeptic people (such as myself). In my opinion, the best path is going to a Christian community and give it a try for a year or so, with an open mind. You can ask things in this community and progress little by little.
Or you could remain in your atheism, if you want it.
A final say: if you want to study these topics honestly, please don’t ask in a forum. These are complicated topics and you can play the skeptic here with any answer that you receive, because these answers must be short and are written quickly and inaccurately.
You should be willing to read books. In a book, you don’t only have an answer, but the objections to the answer and why these objections are not valid. To consider all these things takes hundreds of well-thought pages and this is what the books are for.
Imagine that you demand proofs of biological evolution in a forum and then play the skeptic with any fast answer you receive. To have an iron-clad proof, you should read a book about evolution and not a forum. You can always find a hole in a fast answer written in a forum
Luckily, there is another way. I said that worldviews are immune to empirical evidence, but I have not said anything about non-empirical evidence. We can examine worldviews using non-empirical evidence. This means philosophy. If you examine modern atheism honestly using philosophy, you quickly realize that it is untenable. It is simply contradictory and cannot be true.
Then you have the work of analyzing different religious traditions to see which one is true. Buddhism and rationality are incompatible. The Qur’an has lots of basic mistakes. In summary, every tradition starts with a private event (Buddha’s enlightenment, Muhammad’s encounter with an angel) except Christianity (starts with a public event, which is the resurrection of Christ). Since it is a public event, you can investigate it with the tools of historical research and reach your own conclusions.
Once you belief that Christianity is true, miracles do not seem impossible to you. You don’t think every miracle is true, mind you. You are open to the possibility of fraud. But you don’t reject a miracle beforehand.
What I have told you is a long and winding path (with many books to read). I don’t recommend it, even if it is the path that brought me to the faith. It is a path only valid for the most skeptic people (such as myself). In my opinion, the best path is going to a Christian community and give it a try for a year or so, with an open mind. You can ask things in this community and progress little by little.
Or you could remain in your atheism, if you want it.
A final say: if you want to study these topics honestly, please don’t ask in a forum. These are complicated topics and you can play the skeptic here with any answer that you receive, because these answers must be short and are written quickly and inaccurately.
You should be willing to read books. In a book, you don’t only have an answer, but the objections to the answer and why these objections are not valid. To consider all these things takes hundreds of well-thought pages and this is what the books are for.
Imagine that you demand proofs of biological evolution in a forum and then play the skeptic with any fast answer you receive. To have an iron-clad proof, you should read a book about evolution and not a forum. You can always find a hole in a fast answer written in a forum
Last edited:
B
Blindseeker04
Guest
Hello and thanks for your thoughtful two part reply,A final say: if you want to study these topics honestly, please don’t ask in a forum. These are complicated topics and you can play the skeptic here with any answer that you receive, because these answers must be short and are written quickly and inaccurately.
You should be willing to read books. In a book, you don’t only have an answer, but the objections to the answer and why these objections are not valid. To consider all these things takes hundreds of well-thought pages and this is what the books are for.
Imagine that you demand proofs of biological evolution in a forum and then play the skeptic with any fast answer you receive. To have an iron-clad proof, you should read a book about evolution and not a forum. You can always find a hole in a fast answer written in a forum
Let me begin by saying that I’m not predisposed against the possibility of miracles a priori. I don’t adopt a metaphysical worldview that rules out the possibility of miracles. I’m agnostic towards the existence of God, so in case He exists, he could perform miracles. But the metaphysical defense of the possibility of miracles that sophisticated theists take is irrelevant. I’m not skeptical of Jesus’ miracles and Resurrection because of that. It’s because I don’t see the strong case for it. Where is it? All we have is the Gospels. We have so many different miracle stories from different religious books, like those of the Buddhists or in modern days we have thousands of people witnessing Sathya Sai Baba’s miracles, although it’s easy to see that he was a fraud. Yet, people who want to believe will testify for his miracles in the thousands! It’s not a methodological naturalism that’s holding me back. It’s that I don’t see the strong case for it. What makes these miracle claims more credible than so many others?
Yes, I’m aware of the various philosophical arguments for God’s existence, I’m not an ignorant new atheist. Some of those are interesting and impressive, but on the other hand you can craft impressive philosophical arguments for the thesis that we live in a simulation as well. Even if it were true that some of these arguments worked, to get from that to God having anything to do with us, you’d still need something earthly like what religions CLAIM to have, but I don’t see it.
continued
Last edited:
B
Blindseeker04
Guest
Second part
Concerning miracles in general, yes the period in the Bible is long, but I’m not saying they were very frequent back then, although you have dozens of those. I’m saying they were of a different kind. You had the seas parting, fire from the sky, rivers turned into blood, the sun and the moon standing still, dead men raising, etc. Totally different beasts than apparitions and stigmata. Did God decide to become much less impressive in his miracles for some reason? And then during history we have impressive miracles that get less and less impressive as we approach modern times. At some point you had saints killing Dragons (St George) or levitating (Joseph of Cupertino). As we come to the modern era, we don’t have anyone flying anymore. We get stigmata and cases of people being healed. Things unlikely, but also usually hard to verify and at least possible.
Finally, let me note that I do read books. And I don’t “want” to be an atheist, that’s why I’m here, discussing. In fact I read much more theistic writing, both in terms of Philosophy and now in terms of Aplogetics but I’m also evaluating it. I have read books on the existence of God and some of those like Edward Feser’s have interesting arguments, but as I said Philosophy is complex and difficult. I am agnostic and not atheist due to the merit of some of those, but the issue comes with the claims of religion. There, all the philosophical rigor is lost and I only see weak cases. Elaborate defenses for the possibility of miracles, sure. Actually powerful evidence for the specific historical claims, not so.
Concerning miracles in general, yes the period in the Bible is long, but I’m not saying they were very frequent back then, although you have dozens of those. I’m saying they were of a different kind. You had the seas parting, fire from the sky, rivers turned into blood, the sun and the moon standing still, dead men raising, etc. Totally different beasts than apparitions and stigmata. Did God decide to become much less impressive in his miracles for some reason? And then during history we have impressive miracles that get less and less impressive as we approach modern times. At some point you had saints killing Dragons (St George) or levitating (Joseph of Cupertino). As we come to the modern era, we don’t have anyone flying anymore. We get stigmata and cases of people being healed. Things unlikely, but also usually hard to verify and at least possible.
Finally, let me note that I do read books. And I don’t “want” to be an atheist, that’s why I’m here, discussing. In fact I read much more theistic writing, both in terms of Philosophy and now in terms of Aplogetics but I’m also evaluating it. I have read books on the existence of God and some of those like Edward Feser’s have interesting arguments, but as I said Philosophy is complex and difficult. I am agnostic and not atheist due to the merit of some of those, but the issue comes with the claims of religion. There, all the philosophical rigor is lost and I only see weak cases. Elaborate defenses for the possibility of miracles, sure. Actually powerful evidence for the specific historical claims, not so.
Last edited:
M
MPat
Guest
Why would we expect you to believe the miracles happened after being presented with evidence?I’m just trying to point out that first, not every Catholic believes in these Eucharistic miracles. Virtually no Protestants believe in them and almost zero other religions believe in them. You are free to accept and believe all you want but if the evidence doesn’t even convince all or almost all Catholics, how can you expect me to believe in it?
No, we expect, we predict that you will not change your mind. And that it does not matter what we will say, what evidence, what arguments we will offer. We predict that you will find some excuse to dismiss everything. Or, should that fail by any chance, that you will pay no attention.
We expect that evidence that is already available would persuade someone who is reasonable, unbiased, willing to make an effort to investigate. But such men are rare here on Earth.
Then go and investigate. You say it is simple, so it is not a great burden.What is it that’s better than Sai Baba’s? It’s a simple question.
No. We know Jesus resurrected, because all alternative explanations fail. But you won’t see that, unless you actually investigate them. At least you have to try to formulate a hypothesis and see where it leads.That’s circular. Jesus story is credible because he was resurrected and we know that he was resurrected because his story is credible.
There is no other way: you will have to make an effort. Yes, I know: you would prefer if we would make all the work and you would have to do none. But investigations do not work that way.
For example, you have mentioned Sai Baba as someone with miracle claims many times in this thread. But you haven’t given a single specific example. A single example would have show you have made at least some effort to investigate. And yet…
And how many of them were in position to know if the miracle is genuine, and died rather than deny that?in modern days we have thousands of people witnessing Sathya Sai Baba’s miracles, although it’s easy to see that he was a fraud. Yet, people who want to believe will testify for his miracles in the thousands!
What makes these miracle claims more credible than so many others?
You also seem to think that we must believe that miracle claims of other religions are false. But we don’t have to. We have many possible explanations to choose from: not just fraud or mistake, but also demonic activity. Or, in some cases, even a genuine miracle (God is free to do something miraculous benefiting someone who does not believe in Him). It does not make much difference to us, so we can say that we do not know which of them applies. And we do not really care all that much.How is it more credible than thousands attesting to Sai Baba’s miracles today? Or do you believe in those too?
B
Blindseeker04
Guest
Your tone is condescending for no reason, look at the civilized discussion I’m having with Nadia. Stop assuming that I’m trying to find excuses to dismiss it, you don’t know me. I’m actually very attracted to Christianity and I want it to be true. But it’s not gonna be true because I like it. So, cut it off with the ad hominems and the attempts at psychoanalysis and focus on the argument. Attack my points, not me. I’m not saying anything about your intentions, I don’t see why you would about mine.
The alternative explanations fail IF you take the claims of the Gospels as true, which is what’s at question here. Hence I talked about circular reasoning. The explanation argument is also based on the minimal facts that “75% of scholars agree on” which on the one hand is repeated without a source and on the other in cases where the majority of the scholars agree that the Gospels have erred like in the case of Luke and the Census of Quirinius, then the majority of scholars doesn’t matter.
As for Sai Baba, it is well known and reported that thousands of Indians claim to have witnessed his miracles. No, they haven’t written Gospels about it, neither have they died for it, but nobody is trying to kill them for believing in his miracles. I don’t see how that’s so relevant. Anyhow, his movement already has millions of followers, so who knows what they’re gonna do in the future. Let’s give them some decades too.
The alternative explanations fail IF you take the claims of the Gospels as true, which is what’s at question here. Hence I talked about circular reasoning. The explanation argument is also based on the minimal facts that “75% of scholars agree on” which on the one hand is repeated without a source and on the other in cases where the majority of the scholars agree that the Gospels have erred like in the case of Luke and the Census of Quirinius, then the majority of scholars doesn’t matter.
As for Sai Baba, it is well known and reported that thousands of Indians claim to have witnessed his miracles. No, they haven’t written Gospels about it, neither have they died for it, but nobody is trying to kill them for believing in his miracles. I don’t see how that’s so relevant. Anyhow, his movement already has millions of followers, so who knows what they’re gonna do in the future. Let’s give them some decades too.
Last edited:
N
nadieteescribe
Guest
Look, Blindseeker, you seem a nice guy but I don’t want this to be a long conversation and debate. I have had one with my beloved brother-in-law (which is my best friend) with questions and answers by e-mail.
I wrote about 400 pages in about three years mixing philosophy (methaphisics and epistemology), science, theology, and family stories before he started being convinced that God exists. It was exhausting. I used some books translated into Spanish but I couldn’t use English books because he does not read English. Now we are starting with Christ’s resurrection and let me tell you that I fear it. I have been about a year without writing about this topic because I know that once I start, I am going to be writing like crazy. And I have a life to live.
Now, I have been very weak and sick these days and producing long chains of text keeps me exhausted (take into account that English is not my native tongue). I will write for the last time.
When I told you that you should read books, it was in this sense. I didn’t mean to say that you don’t read books. I only wanted to emphasize that we cannot explain things in a forum as well as in a book. If you want to learn molecular biology, you cannot learn it in a forum. The same if you want to investigate these topics with the level of detail you want to investigate.
In my humble opinion, you are putting the cart before the horse. The first step is being convinced that God exists. Going from agnostic to theist. Until you do that, it does not make sense investigating Christianity. This is the same as every other topic. Before knowing which theory of continental drift is true, we should know that continental drift is true in the first place. (I guess you remember that it was considered ridiculous for some time). We make decisions in a structured way.
If you don’t know if God exists, it does not make sense to investigate which theory about God (religion) is true. So, if I were you, I would read apologetics book until I was convinced. I would make a small prayer every day, something like “Dear God, if you exist, please reveal yourself to me”. God could answer or not but it does not hurt to try (for me, God took a really long time to answer).
– follows—
I wrote about 400 pages in about three years mixing philosophy (methaphisics and epistemology), science, theology, and family stories before he started being convinced that God exists. It was exhausting. I used some books translated into Spanish but I couldn’t use English books because he does not read English. Now we are starting with Christ’s resurrection and let me tell you that I fear it. I have been about a year without writing about this topic because I know that once I start, I am going to be writing like crazy. And I have a life to live.
Now, I have been very weak and sick these days and producing long chains of text keeps me exhausted (take into account that English is not my native tongue). I will write for the last time.
When I told you that you should read books, it was in this sense. I didn’t mean to say that you don’t read books. I only wanted to emphasize that we cannot explain things in a forum as well as in a book. If you want to learn molecular biology, you cannot learn it in a forum. The same if you want to investigate these topics with the level of detail you want to investigate.
In my humble opinion, you are putting the cart before the horse. The first step is being convinced that God exists. Going from agnostic to theist. Until you do that, it does not make sense investigating Christianity. This is the same as every other topic. Before knowing which theory of continental drift is true, we should know that continental drift is true in the first place. (I guess you remember that it was considered ridiculous for some time). We make decisions in a structured way.
If you don’t know if God exists, it does not make sense to investigate which theory about God (religion) is true. So, if I were you, I would read apologetics book until I was convinced. I would make a small prayer every day, something like “Dear God, if you exist, please reveal yourself to me”. God could answer or not but it does not hurt to try (for me, God took a really long time to answer).
– follows—
Last edited:
N
nadieteescribe
Guest
Well, the short answer is “we don’t know”. My dog does not understand my reasons, because my intelligence is far superior to his. The same way, I cannot understand God, who is infinitely more intelligent than me.Did God decide to become much less impressive in his miracles for some reason?
This does not forbid us to speculate and people have speculated for millennia. Maybe God did a lot of miracles because it was the time that the faith was established. In the Gospels, Jesus says that the Pharisees are guilty because they have seen the miracles and they have not believed. Of course, if you claim that you are the Son of God, some miracles come in handy to prove your claim (being the resurrection the ultimate miracle). By contrast, Muhammad was unable to produce miracles, even when he was asked to do to prove that he was the messenger of God (see Qur’an 2:118, 6:37, 10:20, 13:7 - attention! these are Qur’an verses not Bible verses).
But this is only a theory. At the end of the day, we don’t know. We only need to know three things regarding God: 1) God does exist 2) Jesus is the Son of God 3) The Bible and Tradition are the message of God. Anything that is beyond 1, 2 and 3 and is not contained in the Bible and Tradition, the good answer is “we don’t know”. You don’t believe 1), 2) nor 3) so please start with 1) and forget about 2) or 3).
– follows –
Last edited:
N
nadieteescribe
Guest
(First, although you didn’t like the tone of MPat, he is right that, as Catholics, we don’t necessarily deny the miracles of other religions. But MPat explained this well and I will not repeat it).We have so many different miracle stories from different religious books, like those of the Buddhists or in modern days we have thousands of people witnessing Sathya Sai Baba’s miracles, although it’s easy to see that he was a fraud.
Each miracle case has to be analyzed by its own merits. Saying that all miracle cases are a fraud because many of them are a fraud is a fallacy. The existence of counterfeit notes does not mean that all notes are counterfeit. You have to analyze any miracle (from Christianity or from any other religion) by its own merits.
For example, when Muhammad was asked to produce miracles, he said that the Qur’an is enough miracle. This is something that we can investigate. Is the Qur’an miraculous? Spoiler: the Qur’an is a f___ mess, even in the grammar, let alone in the content. But you have to investigate the Qur’an by its own merits.
You can investigate more Christianity than any other religion because the resurrection is a historic event that can be investigated by historic method. If Muhammad spoke with the angel in a cave or Buddha achieved Enlightenment under the tree, there was nobody there (except Muhammad or Buddha).
But, as I said, this is putting the cart before the horse. If you don’t know if God exists, why should you investigate if Jesus is the Son of God? If you don’t know if the Amazons existed, why should you investigate who the Queen of the Amazons was? It makes no sense.
Peace and all the best.
Last edited:
B
Blindseeker04
Guest
I didn’t say that because one is a fraud the other is too. I’m saying that you can’t establish the real one with similar levels of evidence that the fraudulent one has. Because then, how do you know it’s not a fraud too? That’s why, my question is very simple. What makes the Christian historical claim more credible? And all I’m getting is general answers about the possibility of miracles.Each miracle case has to be analyzed by its own merits. Saying that all miracle cases are a fraud because many of them are a fraud is a fallacy. The existence of counterfeit notes does not mean that all notes are counterfeit. You have to analyze any miracle (from Christianity or from any other religion) by its own merits.
For example, when Muhammad was asked to produce miracles, he said that the Qur’an is enough miracle. This is something that we can investigate. Is the Qur’an miraculous? Spoiler: the Qur’an is a f___ mess, even in the grammar, let alone in the content. But you have to investigate the Qur’an by its own merits.
You can investigate more Christianity than any other religion because the resurrection is a historic event that can be investigated by historic method. If Muhammad spoke with the angel in a cave or Buddha achieved Enlightenment under the tree, there was nobody there (except Muhammad or Buddha).
But, as I said, this is putting the cart before the horse. If you don’t know if God exists, why should you investigate if Jesus is the Son of God? If you don’t know if the Amazons existed, why should you investigate who the Queen of the Amazons was? It makes no sense.
Peace and all the best.
I am investigating it. That’s what I’m doing currently. But I don’t see. What is the strong case?
If I didn’t know whether the Amazons existed but considered it a real possibility, someone claiming he had evidence for the existence of their Queen and their life would be interesting to me. I’m saying that I’m open to the idea of God existing, which is to say I don’t dismiss the miraculous a priori, which is all I need to examine the case. All I want is a convincing case.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
Sure you can…I didn’t say that because one is a fraud the other is too. I’m saying that you can’t establish the real one with similar levels of evidence that the fraudulent one has
It requires FAITH - of which e.g. such as the Jewish Leadership who rejected Jesus - do not possess.
IMHO - You evidence a complete void of understanding of what FAITH is…
You parrot the same inappropos ‘argument’ w/o realizing that it’s completely N/A
_
B
Blindseeker04
Guest
How can I possibly have faith before I actually have it? To have Faith I need first to know that Jesus is the Son of God so that I can have Faith in him. Also, from what I’m aware, Catholicism condemns fideism, so your position is not Catholic.
Last edited:
N
nadieteescribe
Guest
I forgot to say one thing and it is getting late. Blindseeker, do not waste your life looking for a convincing case (as you define “convincing”), since there is none.
I think the existence of God is completely proven. Let say 100% of certainty (but you have to study the arguments: modern argument, thomistic arguments, etc). For me, the modern arguments have a 99.99% certainty (of course, this is a way of speaking) but the thomistic arguments have a 100% certainty.
But Christianity does not have this amount of evidence. These things cannot be quantified but, if you have not prejudices against the supernatural (you say that you don’t have but I am not that sure), the certainty is about 70%. This gives you a lot of room to doubt, if you are the doubting type (like me).
This is why faith is necessary. If we could prove Christianity like the Pythagoras theorem, we would not need to believe. We have to make a leap of faith (going from 70% certainty to decide to live as Christian). I did a leap of faith when I married. I could not be 100% sure that my wife loved me and that the marriage was going to be successful. But I had enough evidence to try it. Of course, many men got burned in divorce and all of them married thinking their marriage was going to be great. But each man must assess the evidence by himself.
Why should you waste your time looking for something that is not going to convince you? Whether you decide to be a Christian or a non-Christian, this is a complete waste of time. It is better to enjoy life.
apologeticsguy DOT com SLASH 2011 SLASH 04 SLASH best-easter-books-resurrection SLASH.
(replace DOT and SLASH, since this editor does not allow me to write links)
We cannot explain a book in a combox. And, if we summarized it, it is not convincing enough.
Then, after reading the books, if you think the case is not “convincing”, you can rest in peace and forget about this topic.
Good bye, peace and all the best.
I think the existence of God is completely proven. Let say 100% of certainty (but you have to study the arguments: modern argument, thomistic arguments, etc). For me, the modern arguments have a 99.99% certainty (of course, this is a way of speaking) but the thomistic arguments have a 100% certainty.
But Christianity does not have this amount of evidence. These things cannot be quantified but, if you have not prejudices against the supernatural (you say that you don’t have but I am not that sure), the certainty is about 70%. This gives you a lot of room to doubt, if you are the doubting type (like me).
This is why faith is necessary. If we could prove Christianity like the Pythagoras theorem, we would not need to believe. We have to make a leap of faith (going from 70% certainty to decide to live as Christian). I did a leap of faith when I married. I could not be 100% sure that my wife loved me and that the marriage was going to be successful. But I had enough evidence to try it. Of course, many men got burned in divorce and all of them married thinking their marriage was going to be great. But each man must assess the evidence by himself.
Why should you waste your time looking for something that is not going to convince you? Whether you decide to be a Christian or a non-Christian, this is a complete waste of time. It is better to enjoy life.
Read “Cold case christianity” by Warner Wallace and all these booksWhat makes the Christian historical claim more credible? And all I’m getting is general answers about the possibility of miracles.
apologeticsguy DOT com SLASH 2011 SLASH 04 SLASH best-easter-books-resurrection SLASH.
(replace DOT and SLASH, since this editor does not allow me to write links)
We cannot explain a book in a combox. And, if we summarized it, it is not convincing enough.
Then, after reading the books, if you think the case is not “convincing”, you can rest in peace and forget about this topic.
Good bye, peace and all the best.
Last edited:
B
Blindseeker04
Guest
I never, not once, asked for PROOF as if it was an issue of geometry or metaphysics. I asked what evidence is there that makes this case more credible than other cases. And nobody is giving an answer, other than naming books. I didn’t ask for a diatribe, just to mention what is the extraordinary evidence for those claims.Warner Wallace
N
nadieteescribe
Guest
Blindseeker, now I see you are disingenuous. if you wanted to study molecular biology, you would use a book. Nobody owes you anything. If you don’t want to read a book, stop wasting our time. I don’t care if you believe or not. It’s your problem. My problem is not getting late.
B
Blindseeker04
Guest
So, mentioning the evidence that we have for a specific historic event is similar to learning a science. The analogy would hold if I asked you to give me an overview of the history of the Middle East, which I’m not doing. If you don’t wanna discuss, then don’t, but don’t make accusations against me, or pretend that I have to read your reading list in order to discuss.
N
nadieteescribe
Guest
Bye, Blindseeker, I wish you all the best.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.