Why not amputees?

[The_Augustinian]

A father sits down with his 5 sons to eat. Each has a roll, some meat, some fruit, and candy for after dinner. Now, a bird comes down and snatches up one the kids candy. The kid turns to his father and says “that’s depressing, I don’t want to impose on you too much, but can I at least have an extra piece of bread to replace my candy, you always said you would give of me what I ask”. In response, sometimes the father gives the kid a piece of bread, sometimes the father gives the kid nothing, sometimes the father gives him double desert, sometimes the father punches the kid in the face and doesn’t tell him why, sometimes the father overturns the table and no one gets to eat, sometimes he takes the food of the kid who asks and gives it to another kid. Sounds like the most psychotic father ever. Pretty soon he’d have to be explaining to social services “my ways are mysterious, but trust me!”

Don’t you think that the problem is that the sons are not at the table in the first place? Perhaps I stretched the father analogy too far, but it seems to me that we need to factor in the fact that we have been cut off from God. So, picture the five sons in various degress of estrangement. Would they treat their father fairly? It depends; I’m sure that some would be blinded by their rage against him.

I guess it would be good for God to be as close to us as a regular human father is. I think He is, but we aren’t able to sense Him. I guess you want a seemingly silent God to explain Himself, which is understandable. At any rate, it’s beyond the scope of this thread. All I can do is depend on the infinite mercy of God, because I know for a fact that merely depending on myself gets me nowhere.

 

[Nullasalus]

…surpasses all known human or natural powers

that sounds like violating the laws of physics to me.

So quantum physics and the measurement problem are miraculous? After all, the quantum and classical world still have yet to be reconciled - two ‘different physics’.

Really, equating miracles with what you are is just a semantics game. ‘There’s no such thing as miracles, because miracles are things that violate the laws of physics, and if anything happens it’s operating according to the laws of physics.’ And if someone does have an inexplicable healing, well, that’s not a miracle - there’s a physical explanation that, while beyond our known human and natural powers at present, will be found someday - and finding it would somehow prove that God was not involved.

Well, I think you can still answer the gist of it, but I think you won’t because you don’t have a good answer Why won’t god heal amputees?

There have already been examples given in this thread regarding supposed miraculous cures of amputees. So now the question becomes, ‘If that’s true, why hasn’t God cured amputees recently?’ But we don’t know if that’s the case - perhaps there have been such healings and they’re simply not reported, or they lack direct evidence. So we get down to the real question: Why hasn’t God healed an amputee in a documented environment with a photo/paper trail from reliable third parties that could back up the miracle?

Putting aside the fact that miracles are, going by the typical (and in my view flawed, but let’s stick with it) understanding, let’s assume it happened. Not only is an amputee miraculously cured, but they have documented evidence that the person was a prior amputee, that they didn’t receive any kind of new treatment, etc. The person testifies that they prayed for a miracle, and lo and behold, it did.

We’d still get objections.

1. If it was a miracle, how come one amputee’s prayers were answered and millions’ aren’t?
2. How do we know it was God? Couldn’t it have been any number of deities or forces? Couldn’t it have been a fluke genetic/physical occurrence?

And last of all…

1. Why doesn’t God bring back people who have died?

In other words: The unspoken suggestion that the curing of an amputee would be undeniable proof of God is nonsense. The question would simply advance, because questions are never in short supply - whether or not you’re dealing with miracles.

I stand by what I said at the start of the thread: ‘Miracles’ and ‘Supernatural’ are weak terms at best. They’re filler words - and it’s worth pondering, ‘If God does exist, is anything miraculous to Him?’

 

[Mersenne]

So quantum physics and the measurement problem are miraculous? After all, the quantum and classical world still have yet to be reconciled - two ‘different physics’.

Well, first of all, last time I took a class on quantum mechanics, the two were perfectly reconciled. Classical mechanics is exactly what you expect when you apply quantum mechanics to a macro scale. The law of large numbers kicks in when you have trillions of particles and uncertainty problems begin to disapear. And again, something mysterious is not the same as something paranormal or supernatural.

Really, equating miracles with what you are is just a semantics game. ‘There’s no such thing as miracles, because miracles are things that violate the laws of physics, and if anything happens it’s operating according to the laws of physics.’ And if someone does have an inexplicable healing, well, that’s not a miracle - there’s a physical explanation that, while beyond our known human and natural powers at present, will be found someday - and finding it would somehow prove that God was not involved.

That’s not the arguement I made at all.

In other words: The unspoken suggestion that the curing of an amputee would be undeniable proof of God is nonsense. The question would simply advance, because questions are never in short supply - whether or not you’re dealing with miracles.

It would be pretty good evidence for some kind of intelligent god, but none of what you said is relevent to my point. The idea that it wouldn’t prove god does nothing to refute that it is proof of his inexistence. Let’s say someone has been accused of murder. A dead body by itself is not proof that he is definately the murderer, but if the person he supposedly killed is still alive, well, obviously he did not murder that person. If the prosecution responded with “well, even with a body, that wouldn’t be proof, therefore, this doesn’t prove he’s innocent!” everyone would consider them nutty. I don’t know why you think you can make the same kind of arguement about god.

 

[Nullasalus]

Well, first of all, last time I took a class on quantum mechanics, the two were perfectly reconciled. Classical mechanics is exactly what you expect when you apply quantum mechanics to a macro scale. The law of large numbers kicks in when you have trillions of particles and uncertainty problems begin to disapear. And again, something mysterious is not the same as something paranormal or supernatural.

I’d agree to the last, of course. As far as ‘perfectly reconciled’ goes, that’s getting beyond the scope of the thread - but I really suggest you read up on it more before you claim such. There’s a lot of work to be done with QM as it relates to classical mechanics - it doesn’t mean that the QM world is supernatural because it operates by very different rules than the classical world seems to. But then, that was the point.

That’s not the arguement I made at all.

I didn’t attribute it to you - I’m just showing where the logic can go, and in fact must go considering what’s been cited in the thread. The question ‘Why not amputees?’ has been answered - even before getting into serious, worthwhile questioning of what is and is not supernatural/miraculous.

It would be pretty good evidence for some kind of intelligent god, but none of what you said is relevent to my point. The idea that it wouldn’t prove god does nothing to refute that it is proof of his inexistence. Let’s say someone has been accused of murder. A dead body by itself is not proof that he is definately the murderer, but if the person he supposedly killed is still alive, well, obviously he did not murder that person. If the prosecution responded with “well, even with a body, that wouldn’t be proof, therefore, this doesn’t prove he’s innocent!” everyone would consider them nutty. I don’t know why you think you can make the same kind of arguement about god.

Sorry, but I think it’s proof of God’s non-existence only insofar as you… well, want it to be. If curing an amputee would be good evidence, why isn’t curing someone with cancer, or with any other number of afflictions? It’s an arbitrary measure. Along the lines of, ‘If there’s a God, make a yellow convertible drive past my house right now.’ If it doesn’t happen, aha! Proof against God. If it does… well, what a coincidence. Same goes for the reverse.

 

[quasimodo]

excuse me?

pwned:

pwned  	
3517 up, 644 down

A corruption of the word “Owned.” This originated in an online game called Warcraft, where a map designer misspelled “owned.” When the computer beat a player, it was supposed to say, so-and-so “has been owned.”

Instead, it said, so-and-so “has been pwned.”

It basically means “to own” or to be dominated by an opponent or situation, especially by some god-like or computer-like force.

“Man, I rock at my job, but I still got a bad evaluation. I was pwned.”

OR

“That team totally pwned us.”

from the urban dictionary

 

[Mersenne]

I’d agree to the last, of course. As far as ‘perfectly reconciled’ goes, that’s getting beyond the scope of the thread - but I really suggest you read up on it more before you claim such. There’s a lot of work to be done with QM as it relates to classical mechanics - it doesn’t mean that the QM world is supernatural because it operates by very different rules than the classical world seems to. But then, that was the point.

Well, I would suggest you be careful what you read, there’s a lot of misinformation out there. I’m getting most of mine from people who study QM for a living, and though I’m aware of problems between QM and general relativity, last I checked the connection between QM and Newtonian Physics was pretty solid, but I’ll admit I can’t exclude the possibility that I’m wrong.

I didn’t attribute it to you - I’m just showing where the logic can go, and in fact must go considering what’s been cited in the thread.

I see no reason why it must go there. Again, I’ve already given examples where that will likely not happen, where divine intervention would be the best explanation and would likely remain so.

The question ‘Why not amputees?’ has been answered - even before getting into serious, worthwhile questioning of what is and is not supernatural/miraculous.

I haven’t seen it get answered, but I guess that puts us at in impase.

Sorry, but I think it’s proof of God’s non-existence only insofar as you… well, want it to be. If curing an amputee would be good evidence, why isn’t curing someone with cancer, or with any other number of afflictions? It’s an arbitrary measure.

Because we know those things go away on their own by natural means, it’s not an arbitrary measure, it’s a noticable inverse coorelation. If god heals cancer then why not amputees? The more something would lend credence to his existence, the more he avoids it, either he’s hiding, or he’s not there.

Along the lines of, ‘If there’s a God, make a yellow convertible drive past my house right now.’ If it doesn’t happen, aha! Proof against God. If it does… well, what a coincidence. Same goes for the reverse.

That’s not the same at all. Asking for an arm to regrow has a purpose besides seeking proof or disproof of his existence, and I don’t think anyone would respond to regrowing a limb with “well, what a coincidence”. Equating regrowing a limb and raising the dead with headling a cold sore seems to be the crux of your arguement, and I’m not buying it. It’s not an arbitrary difference.

 

[tdgesq]

…surpasses all known human or natural powers

that sounds like violating the laws of physics to me…

Demonstrate how “surpasses all known human or natural powers” = “violating the laws of physics.” Not everything is known about physics. Something could still occur that surpasses our knowledge about physics without it being a violation of the laws of physics. Looks like you’ve just proven my point with the definition of “miracle” that you provided.

Pretty well the same definition or used in a different context, such as “a miracle of modern engineering”.

Not even close. First, you can’t define a word with the word itself. This looks to be an example of the word “miracle” used in context. What is highly amusing to me is that it implies the exact opposite of what you are arguing. Please demonstrate how the word “miracle” in this context implies a violation of the laws of physics.

Point, but I see no reason to define the term differently. Seems to me like a somantic way to avoid the obvious. Divine intervension doesn’t happen.

So far, you are the one who has defined the word differently from your own source material. If it’s just semantics, then why are you arguing with me about it? You obviously think there is a substantive difference. You argue that if it can’t be shown that a law of physics is violated, then we can conclude that divine intervention doesn’t happen. Even if I accept your definition, how does this follow? It looks to me like you’ve already concluded that God doesn’t ever intervene in human events and have fashioned a definition to fit your conclusion. Not a good definition mind you, because your conclusion doesn’t follow.

If the hand of god is indestinguishable from the hand of fate then the hand of god is indestinguishable from the hand of fate.

Nice tautology.

There’s no reason to assume they aren’t the same thing, there’s no reason to assume the hand of fate can hear what you say or cares how you feel. If there is a creator out there who has any human qualities, he would have to be cold and uncaring and really like empty space and black holes, cause that’s mostly what’s he made.

I’m not sure how to answer this. It looks like the problem of evil - kind of. Maybe you are asking how we know when a miracle occurs and when it is just a pure consequence of the laws of nature without any divine intervention. Let’s take the changing of the water into wine by Jesus Christ at Cana as an example. I think you would admit that given time and resources, modern chemists could change the chemical composition of water into something akin to the chemical composition of wine. Yet no one would say that they had violated the laws of physics (or nature) by doing so. It’s just that water in it’s native state doesn’t just turn into wine without some outside force acting on it. Since there weren’t any chemists around to do this, but it did happen, we conclude that God intervened and did it.

Now is it possible that through some freak and improbable consequence of nature that water could turn instantly into wine? Maybe I should ask, is it logically impossible? I don’t know that it is. Of course this resolves nothing, because you would choose the freak improbable explanation while I would choose God. That’s because people who don’t believe that God exists will never accept any event that occurs on Earth as due to divine intervention.

If only because they wouldn’t understand “laws of physics”. I think they would understand that the gods use “magic” which is to say they do things that are beyond our normal understanding.

Exactly, not because it could be demonstrated that some physical law was violated.

Understandably so. It’s hard to defend the faith when it’s obviously wrong. One good way is to just define everything that happens ever as proof of god’s existence, no matter how obcenely silly that is. Sorry, no violation of the laws of physics, no miracle.

You have shown nothing of the kind. Although you have shown that you know how to make up definitions and not read your own source material. You’ve demonstrated that you know how to construct arguments where the conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises. You’ve shown that you know how to dismiss as silly the arguments of learned theologians that you clearly have not taken the time to understand. Very convincing.

 

[tdgesq]

Well, I think you can still answer the gist of it, but I think you won’t because you don’t have a good answer Why won’t god heal amputees?

Why doesn’t God ride a tricycle? Why doesn’t God replace my ****** office chair with a nice one? Why doesn’t God . . . . .? I don’t know that God hasn’t healed an amputee. I don’t know that he ever has either. And if He hasn’t, I don’t know why He hasn’t. Now how does this disprove miracles again? What I do know is that if I could show you an amputee who had regenerated a limb, you would chalk it up to some kind of biological improbability, because you’ve already decided that there is no God that could intervene.

 

[Nullasalus]

Well, I would suggest you be careful what you read, there’s a lot of misinformation out there. I’m getting most of mine from people who study QM for a living, and though I’m aware of problems between QM and general relativity, last I checked the connection between QM and Newtonian Physics was pretty solid, but I’ll admit I can’t exclude the possibility that I’m wrong.

I’m certain that ‘quantum mechanics and classical mechanics have been perfectly reconciled’ is wrong. That’s all.

I see no reason why it must go there. Again, I’ve already given examples where that will likely not happen, where divine intervention would be the best explanation and would likely remain so.

Like what? The moon being made of cheese? The route I’ve gone down is showing what happens if there was an exceptional, modern, fully documented case of a limb growing back. It does nothing. It can’t do anything for the argument, because when your view of the world is wholly naturalist and materialist, that’s that. If you find something that runs contrary to such a world view, all you can assume is that either your senses are faulty, the evidence is faulty, or there’s something you’ve just plain missed.

Because we know those things go away on their own by natural means, it’s not an arbitrary measure, it’s a noticable inverse coorelation. If god heals cancer then why not amputees? The more something would lend credence to his existence, the more he avoids it, either he’s hiding, or he’s not there.

Like I said - we’ve had posts in this thread where miracles of amputees being cured have been alleged. Now we’re asking for better documentation, because those reports are going to be disbelieved (despite being, apparently, first-hand accounts.) We’ve had other incidents of reported miracles - that’s why the argument centers on a very specific type of miracle, and one that is usually targeted at faith healers in particular. Because claims of the other types of miracles exist, and many people would rather not talk about those.

And ‘by natural means’? We still don’t understand what’s going on with spontaneous remission (and we don’t fully understand the placebo effect, for that matter) - if we did, we’d be doing our best to induce it in people medically. The assumption is that it is entirely natural, sure. I don’t see a perfect wall where the natural breaks down into the supernatural, personally.

That’s not the same at all. Asking for an arm to regrow has a purpose besides seeking proof or disproof of his existence, and I don’t think anyone would respond to regrowing a limb with “well, what a coincidence”. Equating regrowing a limb and raising the dead with headling a cold sore seems to be the crux of your arguement, and I’m not buying it. It’s not an arbitrary difference.

No, they’d regard it as a freak occurrence - but if they were atheists for whom it was important to remain atheists, they would not ascribe it to a miracle. Why would they bother? It would, at most, be a mystery - and mysteries alone never convinced people who already arrived at their conclusion of choice.

Take a look at the miracle of the sun at Fatima. I’m pretty sure James Randi himself responded to it with ‘Well, given how many so-called prophets make predictions, it shouldn’t be a surprise if once in a great while one of their predictions come true.’ And I’m willing to bet, in 200 years, many Catholics will still look to it as a sign from God, and atheists will explain it away as they will (‘Pure luck’, ‘Mass hallucination’, ‘It never really happened.’) It simply does not work out the way you’re claiming.

 

[Nullasalus]

Demonstrate how “surpasses all known human or natural powers” = “violating the laws of physics.” Not everything is known about physics. Something could still occur that surpasses our knowledge about physics without it being a violation of the laws of physics. Looks like you’ve just proven my point with the definition of “miracle” that you provided.

Just to jump in here…

By physical laws, if you throw a baseball at a wall, there is a chance it will pass through the wall and pop out on the other side. The chance is unbelievably, mind-bogglingly tiny. The point is it’s greater than zero.

That’s one of the reasons I end up at the crossroads where I think ‘supernatural’ and ‘miracle’ are abused words. What is naturally ‘possible’ alone is mind-boggling, despite being terribly improbable.

 

[tdgesq]

Just to jump in here…

By physical laws, if you throw a baseball at a wall, there is a chance it will pass through the wall and pop out on the other side. The chance is unbelievably, mind-bogglingly tiny. The point is it’s greater than zero.

That’s one of the reasons I end up at the crossroads where I think ‘supernatural’ and ‘miracle’ are abused words. What is naturally ‘possible’ alone is mind-boggling, despite being terribly improbable.

An excellent point, and one that I did think about bringing up. The problem is that it would have just encouraged him given the definition that miracles are a violation of the laws of physics. I thought it better to just trash the definition. A personal choice.

 

[Maryam]

Re: why not amputees?.. yes, that is the topic… Not whether Issac Newton’s noggin’ hit by an apple theory is compatible with this or that.

My noggin’ is hurting just from having actually read through the posts. LOL And the miracle here is that I actually didn’t fall asleep in the process.

God bless

 

[Reepicheep]

methinks thou art pwned OP

excuse me?

Pwned- Leetspeak for “owned”, meaning the poster has refuted the OP.

 

[Evan]

Miracles… they are signs for those who believe, they have no effect for those who do not.

Lk 16 30-31
He said, ‘Oh no, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ Then Abraham said, ‘If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.’"

Would not rising from the dead be more of a miracle than restoring a lost limb? Yet there are those who do not believe the people who saw the resurrection. Why? Because

1. The body was missing, nobody really saw it
2. Mass hypnosis (is there such a thing?)
3. They are all liars
4. They thought it was Jesus they saw, but it was just someone who claimed to be him and looked like him
   etc. there are a million reasons.

 

[Mersenne]

etc. there are a million reasons.

Such as, no one ever saw it happen. They don’t have to be liars, we don’t have their testimony, we have the testimony of one person who obviously wasn’t there.

The question becomes, why don’t you believe in Zues or Thor? We have far far more testimonial evidence that outdoes your so-called evidence by a mile. We have dozens of testimonies from people claiming to have had direct dealings with Zues and Thor, not just 3rd hand accounts 100 years after the fact. Most important figures throughout history had supernatural things associated with them, we reject the supernatural claims even if we accept the normal claims for one really good reason, they are supernatural. Plus, with Jesus we have archeological evidence directly contridicting many of the stories associated with him.

 

[Mijoy2]

The question becomes, why don’t you believe in Zues or Thor? We have far far more testimonial evidence that outdoes your so-called evidence by a mile. We have dozens of testimonies from people claiming to have had direct dealings with Zues and Thor, …

Plus, with Jesus we have archeological evidence directly contridicting many of the stories associated with him.

Can you elaborate on either of these?

 

[Mersenne]

Demonstrate how “surpasses all known human or natural powers” = “violating the laws of physics.” Not everything is known about physics. Something could still occur that surpasses our knowledge about physics without it being a violation of the laws of physics. Looks like you’ve just proven my point with the definition of “miracle” that you provided.

The laws of physics represent our current understanding of natural powers, if something surpasses all known human or natural powers then it violates the laws of physics.

Not even close. First, you can’t define a word with the word itself.

That’s not what I was doing at all.

What is highly amusing to me is that it implies the exact opposite of what you are arguing. Please demonstrate how the word “miracle” in this context implies a violation of the laws of physics.

That was the point, but obviously it went over your head.

So far, you are the one who has defined the word differently from your own source material. If it’s just semantics, then why are you arguing with me about it? You obviously think there is a substantive difference. You argue that if it can’t be shown that a law of physics is violated, then we can conclude that divine intervention doesn’t happen. Even if I accept your definition, how does this follow? It looks to me like you’ve already concluded that God doesn’t ever intervene in human events and have fashioned a definition to fit your conclusion. Not a good definition mind you, because your conclusion doesn’t follow.

I didn’t pick the somantics to argue over, you did, I put out quite a few arguements that you could have addressed and you decided to avoid all of them. For the record, none of my arguements were “a law of physics has not been violated therefore divine intervention doesn’t happen”

Nice tautology.

But an important point. You can explain why the actions of god are indistinguishable from the actions of a cold godless uncaring world but that just means you’ve proven that our world is indistinguishable from a world that is cold godless and uncaring.

I’m not sure how to answer this. It looks like the problem of evil - kind of. Maybe you are asking how we know when a miracle occurs and when it is just a pure consequence of the laws of nature without any divine intervention. Let’s take the changing of the water into wine by Jesus Christ at Cana as an example. I think you would admit that given time and resources, modern chemists could change the chemical composition of water into something akin to the chemical composition of wine. Yet no one would say that they had violated the laws of physics (or nature) by doing so. It’s just that water in it’s native state doesn’t just turn into wine without some outside force acting on it. Since there weren’t any chemists around to do this, but it did happen, we conclude that God intervened and did it.

Now is it possible that through some freak and improbable consequence of nature that water could turn instantly into wine? Maybe I should ask, is it logically impossible? I don’t know that it is. Of course this resolves nothing, because you would choose the freak improbable explanation while I would choose God. That’s because people who don’t believe that God exists will never accept any event that occurs on Earth as due to divine intervention.

Yes, nothing is ever provably totally completely has to come from god, but nothing is ever provable totally completely anything. As I’ve pointed out in my other posts, there is a coorelation to notice. The more something would lend credence to god’s existence, the less he does it. He’s either hiding or not there. How hardened skeptics would respond to a change in this behavior is rather irrelevent.

 

[Mersenne]

Can you elaborate on either of these?

Sure, for example, mass slaughterings of babies in a specified area would be easy to find. Jesus supposedly had dozens of scribes in his following yet none of them wrote down what happened. Romans kept records of everything yet no record of this supposed Jesus exists.

As far as Zuess and Thor, people make such claims all the time: seeing gods, demons, mononoke, dragons, yettis; the particular figures I picked are irrelevent, point being that it’s obviously a bad reason to believe in something; you’d have to start believing in EVERYTHING by the standards of “anything that I hear 4th hand is automatically true” Check out snopes.com some time, or here’s a few links on Caeser being god and indestructible.

unrv.com/fall-republic/caesar-the-god.php

roman-emperors.org/auggie.htm

 

[Nullasalus]

Sure, for example, mass slaughterings of babies in a specified area would be easy to find. Jesus supposedly had dozens of scribes in his following yet none of them wrote down what happened. Romans kept records of everything yet no record of this supposed Jesus exists.

This is so exaggerated, it’s ridiculous. It wasn’t until fairly recently that we turned up concrete evidence of Pontius Pilate, and he was far more likely to be known. I’m not sure where you’re getting ‘dozens of scribes in his following’ from - at least the implication that it’s suggested Christ had a stenographer on hand constantly - but Josephus (controversial) and Tacitus (In his Annals) mention Christians and Jesus both.

Going by your logic, the only things that were ever written down are things we have written records of.

As far as Zuess and Thor, people make such claims all the time: seeing gods, demons, mononoke, dragons, yettis; the particular figures I picked are irrelevent, point being that it’s obviously a bad reason to believe in something; you’d have to start believing in EVERYTHING by the standards of “anything that I hear 4th hand is automatically true” Check out snopes.com some time, or here’s a few links on Caeser being god and indestructible.

So ‘We have far more evidence that people have had direct dealings with Thor and Zeus than there is proof that Jesus existed’ has become ‘Well, some people had visions of those guys, so that sorta counts. Check out this Urban Legends site.’

Since we’ve already gone off-topic, let’s cut to the heart of the matter: You apparently do not like Christianity or some facet of it, and you’ll throw any argument at the belief in the hopes that something will stick. So Christ did not exist, and if He did then He didn’t do what He was recorded as doing, and if He did then it wasn’t really a miracle anyway.

 

[Mersenne]

This is so exaggerated, it’s ridiculous. It wasn’t until fairly recently that we turned up concrete evidence of Pontius Pilate, and he was far more likely to be known.

How does this make anything I said an exaggeration?

I’m not sure where you’re getting ‘dozens of scribes in his following’ from - at least the implication that it’s suggested Christ had a stenographer on hand constantly -

"Nicodemus and Gamaliel were scribes and Hillel also for that matter. The young ruler who came to Jesus asking questions was no doubt a Scribe and Jesus said to him, “Thou art not far from the kingdom of God,” (Mark 12:32-34) and He referred to some of His followers who would go to proclaim His truth as “scribes” (Matt 23:34). "

but Josephus (controversial) and Tacitus (In his Annals) mention Christians and Jesus both.

Josephus is more then controversial, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt a forgery. We know the time and place and likely person that did it because copies we have before that time are missing the passage and copies after that time have it, and those making the copies had the motive and opportunity and the passages don’t make any sense comming from Josephus and aren’t writen in the same style. The fact that Christians still use Josephus as evidence of Jesus’s existence just goes to show that they’re grasping for straws.

Tacitus is no better then the gospels, he was writing 200 years after the fact and only repeating rumors that he heard, that there was some cult following a guy named Christus. Last I read his work I seem to recall him seemingly being unaware even that Christ was dead. Tacitus is also notorious for speaking alogorically.

Going by your logic, the only things that were ever written down are things we have written records of.

When did I ever use logic like that? I said it was silly to believe that Jesus was divine “because the bible says so”. I noted that we’d never use such logic on anything else, for various reasons that I shouldn’t have to explain. You want me to drag through the internet and prove to you that 2 + 2 = 4. well, sorry, no thanks.

So ‘We have far more evidence that people have had direct dealings with Thor and Zeus than there is proof that Jesus existed’ has become ‘Well, some people had visions of those guys, so that sorta counts. Check out this Urban Legends site.’

That’s nothing similar to what I said at all.

Since we’ve already gone off-topic, let’s cut to the heart of the matter: You apparently do not like Christianity or some facet of it, and you’ll throw any argument at the belief in the hopes that something will stick. So Christ did not exist, and if He did then He didn’t do what He was recorded as doing, and if He did then it wasn’t really a miracle anyway.

Let’s cut to the heart of the matter. I don’t really care if Christ existed or not. You apparently are so hyper-sensitive that anything that could possibly be seen as unsupportive of your beliefs you find personally insulting. Just because you’re insecure about your faith doesn’t mean you need to lash out at other people. Chill.