Evidence of miracles

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Evidence of miracles

If it can be demonstrated scientifically how Christ was able to resurrect from the dead, then it would no longer be a miracle.  It would just be a scientific phenomenon which could have conceivably happened to anyone.

If it can't be demonstrated scientifically how Christ was able to resurrect from the dead, then atheists will not accept that it happened.

If we have legitimate accounts of the resurrection written by eye witnesses, atheists will say that historical documents are not sufficient evidence for miracles.  See the following:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXCARLJ7qMU

So what would be acceptable evidence? 


Di66en6ion
Di66en6ion's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
 Hearsay and personal

 Hearsay and personal testimony (especially in an age where the population was illiterate and/or ignorant) is one of the lowest forms of evidence usable. It's not even usable in scientific standards.

 

The point is that it can't be scientifically demonstrated how Christ was able to resurrect and that's why it's considered BS. No one ever considers the dozens of other possibilities for someone surviving torture because then it would make their religion null.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Sleepy wrote:So what would

Sleepy wrote:

So what would be acceptable evidence? 

What would you find as acceptable evidence that Santa Claus delivers presents to all good children at Christmas?

We pretty much use the same standard.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Sleepy (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:What would you

EXC wrote:

What would you find as acceptable evidence that Santa Claus delivers presents to all good children at Christmas?

We pretty much use the same standard.

I would take that to mean that unless you personally witness Santa coming through the door on Christmas eve, you will not believe it to be true.

But the resurrection is a historical event.  I would assume that you've also never personally witnessed the Peloponnesian War.  Do you deny that it happened?


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Sleepy wrote:So what would

Sleepy wrote:

So what would be acceptable evidence? 

When my foreskin grows back.

Should be easy for a god that can raise people from the dead.

I'm still waiting....

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Sleepy wrote:EXC wrote:What

Sleepy wrote:

EXC wrote:

What would you find as acceptable evidence that Santa Claus delivers presents to all good children at Christmas?

We pretty much use the same standard.

I would take that to mean that unless you personally witness Santa coming through the door on Christmas eve, you will not believe it to be true.

But the resurrection is a historical event.  I would assume that you've also never personally witnessed the Peloponnesian War.  Do you deny that it happened?

So you believe in Santa Claus as well as Jesus? Why or why not?


There are no extrodonary claims of events that violate the observed rules for biology, physics and chemistry surrounding the Peloponnesian war. The historians also have no known motivation to lie and misrepresent the events. Also I'm not 100% sure the historical accounts are accurate. Even non-miracle accounts can be misrepresented.
 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Sleepy (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:There are no

EXC wrote:

There are no extrodonary claims of events that violate the observed rules for biology, physics and chemistry surrounding the Peloponnesian war. The historians also have no known motivation to lie and misrepresent the events. Also I'm not 100% sure the historical accounts are accurate. Even non-miracle accounts can be misrepresented.

Let me ask you a question: 

Do you have any credentials in the field of natural science?


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Sleepy wrote:Let me ask you

Sleepy wrote:

Let me ask you a question: 

Do you have any credentials in the field of natural science?

As opposed to unnatural science, and super-natural science?

 

What Would Kharn Do?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

75 million years ago, a ruler of a Galactic Confederacy rounded up billions of his own citizens and shipped them to Earth (then called Teegeeack), tied them to volcanoes and used hydrogen bombs to blow up their bodies.

 

 

 

This is a historical event. It isn't something you can discount.

 

 

 

 

Scientology is just as valid as your religion. Think about that.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Sleepy (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:As

The Doomed Soul wrote:

As opposed to unnatural science, and super-natural science?

As opposed to computer science or social science.

"Science" is an umbrella term nowadays.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Sleepy wrote:

The Doomed Soul wrote:

As opposed to unnatural science, and super-natural science?

As opposed to computer science or social science.

"Science" is an umbrella term nowadays.

 

Oh I agree, and widely misused and misunderstood.

 

 

 

Like "creation science".

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Sleepy wrote:EXC wrote:There

Sleepy wrote:

EXC wrote:

There are no extrodonary claims of events that violate the observed rules for biology, physics and chemistry surrounding the Peloponnesian war. The historians also have no known motivation to lie and misrepresent the events. Also I'm not 100% sure the historical accounts are accurate. Even non-miracle accounts can be misrepresented.

Let me ask you a question: 

Do you have any credentials in the field of natural science?

I'll answer the question when you tell me your rational method for believing in the resurrection vs. Santa delivering presents. You raised the question, so please tell us what the standards and methods should be for believing something is true or not true.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Sleepy wrote:But the

Sleepy wrote:
But the resurrection is a historical event.

Sure, and Muhammad flew from Mecca to Jerusalem on a winged horse. It is an historical event. I mean, it is written in a book, what more could you want!


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
D:

KSMB wrote:

It is an historical event.

 

 

http://www.compassrose.com/grammar/a-vs-an.html


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Sleepy wrote:EXC wrote:What

Sleepy wrote:

EXC wrote:

What would you find as acceptable evidence that Santa Claus delivers presents to all good children at Christmas?

We pretty much use the same standard.

I would take that to mean that unless you personally witness Santa coming through the door on Christmas eve, you will not believe it to be true.

But the resurrection is a historical event.  I would assume that you've also never personally witnessed the Peloponnesian War.  Do you deny that it happened?

Find me another resource other than the bible that says the resurrection is a historical fact and that wasn't written 100 years after christ died. Go.

Oh btw, some dude named Noah put 2 of every animal on a big ass boat. This is a historical event cause it was written down in a really old book.


Joker (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Real proof

Well proof of an unbelievable event of a person who was followed by wise men and written about would most likely have been written about all over the region accept he wasn't. Even locally no record was kept of his death or life, or his miracle resurrection. Smell fishy to me. So what it would take is real evidence outside of a book that also contains the Adam & Eve story as the explanation for how everything was created. I mean really, are we supposed to take the bible seriously? Lol. I really feel bad for those who do.  


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:KSMB wrote:It

ClockCat wrote:

KSMB wrote:

It is an historical event.

 

 

http://www.compassrose.com/grammar/a-vs-an.html

Dick move.  Perhaps you pronounce the 'h' in historical.  I don't and maybe KSMB doesn't either.  Keep your grammar to yourself.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Sleepy wrote:I would take

Sleepy wrote:

I would take that to mean that unless you personally witness Santa coming through the door on Christmas eve, you will not believe it to be true.

But the resurrection is a historical event.  I would assume that you've also never personally witnessed the Peloponnesian War.  Do you deny that it happened?

You want a quick list of what the initial hurdles a miracle claim will have to overcome for me to investigate it?

 

  1. I do not start with belief and work to evidence. It has to be the other way around.
  2. I do not accept authority or antiquity as reasons for believing.
  3. If an event is explicable in natural terms, I am not going to ascribe supernatural causes to it.
  4. To prevent bias(emotional, personal or otherwise), an anecdote must be corraborated with empirical evidence sufficient to make a determination about the nature of the event.
  5. More generally, any event or item claimed as a miracle has to be open to skeptical investigation, or it is useless as evidence.

1. Present the evidence. Show me independent reports of hostile eyewitnesses confirming it, for example.

2. The Bible would be an appeal to authority. Indeed, a circular appeal. The Peloponnesian war is supported by physical evidence and multiple literary sources.

3. You'll have to demonstrate the resurrection happened like you say it did, and that there is not a possible physical cause.

4. Self explanatory.

5. Self explanatory.

The resurrection story fails all of the above. There is a single source of primary evidence. The writings of Josephus, for example, are not first hand and are only reporting the claims this cult was making anyway.

I could go on, but I hope you see my point. If you wish for me to believe that the resurrection took place, provide the proof.

 

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Sleepy wrote:EXC wrote:There

Sleepy wrote:

EXC wrote:

There are no extrodonary claims of events that violate the observed rules for biology, physics and chemistry surrounding the Peloponnesian war. The historians also have no known motivation to lie and misrepresent the events. Also I'm not 100% sure the historical accounts are accurate. Even non-miracle accounts can be misrepresented.

Let me ask you a question: 

Do you have any credentials in the field of natural science?

 

What would EXC's credentials have to do with the statement he made above?

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
MichaelMcF wrote:Sleepy

MichaelMcF wrote:

Sleepy wrote:

EXC wrote:

There are no extrodonary claims of events that violate the observed rules for biology, physics and chemistry surrounding the Peloponnesian war. The historians also have no known motivation to lie and misrepresent the events. Also I'm not 100% sure the historical accounts are accurate. Even non-miracle accounts can be misrepresented.

Let me ask you a question: 

Do you have any credentials in the field of natural science?

 

What would EXC's credentials have to do with the statement he made above?

Ah, the "you don't believe in my magic sky daddy so I have to question your competence to talk at all" argument.

An oldie but goodie for the believers

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Thomathy wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

KSMB wrote:

It is an historical event.

 

 

http://www.compassrose.com/grammar/a-vs-an.html

Dick move.  Perhaps you pronounce the 'h' in historical.  I don't and maybe KSMB doesn't either.  Keep your grammar to yourself.

 

 

I don't say anything if I only see it a few times. When the same mistake is repeated again and again though, I feel it is my duty to help. :3

 

 

Call it OCD if you want, but I cringe a little when I read something like "an hero".

 

Not knowing is just ignorance.  There is nothing wrong with that and I only want to correct it.

 

I likely don't know as much about science as KSMB, so I would rather he would point out things that I showed repeated misuse of in that area so it would not continue.

 

I don't mean any offence by it. It's not like I'm a grammar nazi here. The only times I have said anything about language happen to be the one instance above, and the guy who typed nothing but moonspeak. Don't take it personally. If you want to say "an hero" feel free, but don't expect anything from me for it.

 

I wuv u <3 We can eat pie later. Key lime.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Sleepy wrote:If we have

Sleepy wrote:

If we have legitimate accounts of the resurrection written by eye witnesses......<SNIP>

 

Well, we don't have any legitimate accounts so the debate is over.

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:MichaelMcF

jcgadfly wrote:

MichaelMcF wrote:

Sleepy wrote:

EXC wrote:

There are no extrodonary claims of events that violate the observed rules for biology, physics and chemistry surrounding the Peloponnesian war. The historians also have no known motivation to lie and misrepresent the events. Also I'm not 100% sure the historical accounts are accurate. Even non-miracle accounts can be misrepresented.

Let me ask you a question: 

Do you have any credentials in the field of natural science?

 

What would EXC's credentials have to do with the statement he made above?

Ah, the "you don't believe in my magic sky daddy so I have to question your competence to talk at all" argument.

An oldie but goodie for the believers

 

Hmmm... Is that where you're going Sleepy?  If it is I have a Masters and a Phd in chemistry, sepcialising in physical chemistry, and I agree with EXC's statement Smiling

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
MichaelMcF wrote:jcgadfly

MichaelMcF wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

MichaelMcF wrote:

Sleepy wrote:

EXC wrote:

There are no extrodonary claims of events that violate the observed rules for biology, physics and chemistry surrounding the Peloponnesian war. The historians also have no known motivation to lie and misrepresent the events. Also I'm not 100% sure the historical accounts are accurate. Even non-miracle accounts can be misrepresented.

Let me ask you a question: 

Do you have any credentials in the field of natural science?

 

What would EXC's credentials have to do with the statement he made above?

Ah, the "you don't believe in my magic sky daddy so I have to question your competence to talk at all" argument.

An oldie but goodie for the believers

 

Hmmm... Is that where you're going Sleepy?  If it is I have a Masters and a Phd in chemistry, sepcialising in physical chemistry, and I agree with EXC's statement Smiling

Well, as he doesn't have legitimate sources written by eyewitnesses...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:I don't say

ClockCat wrote:
I don't say anything if I only see it a few times. When the same mistake is repeated again and again though, I feel it is my duty to help. :3
I was trying to point out that it wasn't a mistake.  It's perfectly valid.  The word is pronounced both with and without an 'h'.  Perhaps in your dialect you pronounce it with an 'h'.  Perhaps in KSMB's dialect (as it happens to be in mine) it is not.

Quote:
Call it OCD if you want, but I cringe a little when I read something like "an hero".  Not knowing is just ignorance.  There is nothing wrong with that and I only want to correct it.
Not knowing it's a mistake?  It's not a bloody mistake!  Cringe all you like, just don't thrust your notion of grammatical correctness at people, especially when you don't seem to be able to tell a mistake from a dialectual difference and in particular when it doesn't impede understanding.

Quote:
I don't mean any offence by it. It's not like I'm a grammar nazi here. The only times I have said anything about language happen to be the one instance above, and the guy who typed nothing but moonspeak. Don't take it personally. If you want to say "an hero" feel free, but don't expect anything from me for it.
It's not personal and I'm not taking offence; It's an annoyance and it's really annoying to have you throw out the word ignorance here.  KSMB wrote 'an' instead of 'a', neither of which is strictly correct.  Even according to the website to which you linked, it's dependant on whether the 'h' is pronounced.  Take herbal, for instance.  Find someone who speaks a dialect from Britian.  The word will undoubtedly be pronounced with a very audible 'h'.  Go to Canada and (depending on where you are) the word sounds like it begins with a 'u'.  In one case 'a' would sound better and in another 'an' would.

Quote:
I wuv u <3 We can eat pie later. Key lime.
We may eat key lime pie ...later.  Thank you for assuming that I am able to eat it.  I'd be flattered were the alternative not that I would not.

 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Sleepy (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
MichaelMcF wrote:What would

MichaelMcF wrote:

What would EXC's credentials have to do with the statement he made above?

I was actually going to make a legitimate point regarding the fact that most people who lend such creedence to scientific fact have never actually been in a lab themselves.  They simply take at face value what is said by their science teachers.  Most of what they've learned come from science books, themselves second hand accounts of discoveries made by other scientists.  I've personally no problem with learning in this manner.  It's just the inconsistency that I find amusing.  Textual accounts of miracles are automatically disqualified yet claims of things like Big Bang, Lucy, transitional forms, bubble universes, Schrodinger's cat, etc. are automatically accepted.

I'm aware that this forum probably does contain real scientists.  But I'm also aware that it contains a lot of 17 year old kids who just appeal to the authority of their teachers.  I'm assuming EXC falls into the latter category.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Sleepy wrote:MichaelMcF

Sleepy wrote:

MichaelMcF wrote:

What would EXC's credentials have to do with the statement he made above?

I was actually going to make a legitimate point regarding the fact that most people who lend such creedence to scientific fact have never actually been in a lab themselves.  They simply take at face value what is said by their science teachers.  Most of what they've learned come from science books, themselves second hand accounts of discoveries made by other scientists.  I've personally no problem with learning in this manner.  It's just the inconsistency that I find amusing.  Textual accounts of miracles are automatically disqualified yet claims of things like Big Bang, Lucy, transitional forms, bubble universes, Schrodinger's cat, etc. are automatically accepted.

I'm aware that this forum probably does contain real scientists.  But I'm also aware that it contains a lot of 17 year old kids who just appeal to the authority of their teachers.  I'm assuming EXC falls into the latter category.

All you are doing is dodging the question Sleepy by trying to attack the questioner instead of answering the questions. What is the standard by which you use to judge if a story is true or not? Why do you consider some stories to be myths and legends(I'm assuming you don't believe every fairy tale) and others to be historical facts? If we're wrong to put the ressurection story in the catagory of myth, tell us why.

P.S There are stories of cold fusion, cars fueled with water, homepathic cures, etc.. that I don't accept as fact because they conflict with the accepted scientific understanding of how the world works.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Sleepy wrote:MichaelMcF

Sleepy wrote:

MichaelMcF wrote:

What would EXC's credentials have to do with the statement he made above?

I was actually going to make a legitimate point regarding the fact that most people who lend such creedence to scientific fact have never actually been in a lab themselves.  They simply take at face value what is said by their science teachers.  Most of what they've learned come from science books, themselves second hand accounts of discoveries made by other scientists.  I've personally no problem with learning in this manner.  It's just the inconsistency that I find amusing.  Textual accounts of miracles are automatically disqualified yet claims of things like Big Bang, Lucy, transitional forms, bubble universes, Schrodinger's cat, etc. are automatically accepted.

I'm aware that this forum probably does contain real scientists.  But I'm also aware that it contains a lot of 17 year old kids who just appeal to the authority of their teachers.  I'm assuming EXC falls into the latter category.

'Claims' of things like the big bang appear in peer reviewed journals where they are scrutinized.  They are claims packed with bodies of evidence.  They are studied and can be studied.  These are not things on the same order as accounts of miracles, for which there is no study, no peer reviewed journal where the evidence is scrutinized.  Indeed, there is no evidence except the account.  There is no scientific inquiry of the claims and how could there be if they are indeed miracles?

Science is not merely eye witness account of an event or phenomenon, it is the systematic study of this universe subject to principles of reasoning that is so far the only way in which knowledge is known to be gained.  It is evidence of a particularly ignorant (or wilfully stupid) individual to equate even good eye witness accounts with the methodology of science and 'claims' like the big bang.  If you can add two and two and understand the principle reasoning behind the conclusion, you are potentially capable of performing equations such as those which lead us to the big bang.  There is absolutely no one who could ever say to have knowledge or to understand a miracle and there is no method by which any understanding or knowledge of it could be gained if one were to happen if it were indeed a miracle.

Take your fail elsewhere.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Sleepy wrote:I was actually

Sleepy wrote:

I was actually going to make a legitimate point regarding the fact that most people who lend such creedence to scientific fact have never actually been in a lab themselves.  They simply take at face value what is said by their science teachers.  Most of what they've learned come from science books, themselves second hand accounts of discoveries made by other scientists.  I've personally no problem with learning in this manner.  It's just the inconsistency that I find amusing.  Textual accounts of miracles are automatically disqualified yet claims of things like Big Bang, Lucy, transitional forms, bubble universes, Schrodinger's cat, etc. are automatically accepted.

I'm aware that this forum probably does contain real scientists.  But I'm also aware that it contains a lot of 17 year old kids who just appeal to the authority of their teachers.  I'm assuming EXC falls into the latter category.

Textual accounts of miracles rarely have anything at all to back them up. For example, a claim that the Curé of Ars levitated while praying in front of the altar is just that, a claim. No proof offered, just a story to be believed or not. A claim that a supernatural element raised a man fro the dead after necrosis sat in is just that, a claim. Back it up with some empirical evidence, and you'll have something to examine. Without proof, it's as pointless as debating about the ramifications of Odin's time hung on the World Tree.

The nice thing about science is that you have to show your work. I don't have to trust someone that a particular vision of a deity was real, or that some text with factual errors and odious morality tales is still somehow inspired by a perfect being. I can mix sodium and chloride and find out what happens. I can dig up fossils and examine the evidence. I can follow the math they present and double check it. I can actually walk in the ruins of Pompeii, or calculate the age of a cloth with carbon dating myself. The analysis of empirical data is a wonderful method for understanding the world. Even theoretical physics is open to examination. This is the difference between peer reviewed science and religion.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


Sleepy (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude wrote:I can mix

thatonedude wrote:

I can mix sodium and chloride and find out what happens. I can dig up fossils and examine the evidence. I can follow the math they present and double check it. I can actually walk in the ruins of Pompeii, or calculate the age of a cloth with carbon dating myself.

Have you ever actually done any of these things?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Sleepy wrote:thatonedude

Sleepy wrote:

thatonedude wrote:

I can mix sodium and chloride and find out what happens. I can dig up fossils and examine the evidence. I can follow the math they present and double check it. I can actually walk in the ruins of Pompeii, or calculate the age of a cloth with carbon dating myself.

Have you ever actually done any of these things?

You haven't? Granted, it is easier to accept what your pastor tells you...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:So what would be

 

Quote:
So what would be acceptable evidence?

...That a dead man came back to life?

Well, if someone were to drop dead - that is, no vital signs and no brain brain activity - and remain in that state for 3 days, then spring back to life, that's pretty much all I'd need.

Evidence isn't some magical thing that is manufactured behind closed doors in laboratories. It's just any old indicator that something has happened. 

 

As you might imagine, it's much easier to come across evidence for contemporary events than it is for events that happened in antiquity. Actually, if you read Dr. Michael Shermer's dissertation, you'll get a much better understanding of how we piece together human history, why some time periods (like the medieval Dark Ages) are much harder for us to build a clear picture of and what evidence would be acceptable in order to build a case for a particular historic event (hearsay, for example, is not good evidence; but corroborated testimony from historians that one can reasonably doubt were in contact with each other is good evidence. An account from just one or two historians is borderline, and otherwise inconclusive (particularly in times of antiquity, when there weren't really well established principles for journalism). 

In general, the greater the scope of the event, the more evidence we'd expect to be able to uncover for it (Vesuvi's destruction of Pompeii was already mentioned; we know it happened because we were able to dig-up the city and victims buried beneath the volcanic rock). Jesus's resurrection should've been of huge scope; he flew into the freakin' sky after it happened, or so goes the tale. We should be able to find accounts from nearly every political office (certainly stacks upon stacks of documents from Rome, given that the Roman beaurocracy maticulously recorded any unusual events that occurred in it's jurisdiction) regarding a man that shot up into the blue yonder in the afternoon, surrounded by an unnatural light.

We don't find any such documents at all. The best that any Christian has ever been able to come up with was the order to execute a man that they absolutely insist must have been the Jesus Christ of the Bible. Rather telling that there are no accompanying documents warning of the national security threat posed by this same man who managed to not only apparently survive being killed but also apparently had the power to fly. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Sleepy (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

Quote:
So what would be acceptable evidence?

...That a dead man came back to life?

Well, if someone were to drop dead - that is, no vital signs and no brain brain activity - and remain in that state for 3 days, then spring back to life, that's pretty much all I'd need.

You are right.

It doesn't typically happen.

That's why it is a MIRACLE.

Why would it have been a big deal that Christ did it if every joe around the corner could simply come back to life?


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Sleepy wrote:thatonedude

Sleepy wrote:

thatonedude wrote:

I can mix sodium and chloride and find out what happens. I can dig up fossils and examine the evidence. I can follow the math they present and double check it. I can actually walk in the ruins of Pompeii, or calculate the age of a cloth with carbon dating myself.

Have you ever actually done any of these things?

All but walking Pompeii. Instead, I've spent time digging for Native American artifacts in two states. Here's another place where science beats religion. I COULD just have faith that a couple of tribes of Israelites plonked down in the new world and had at it, until one tribe killed the other and were cursed with dark skin. Or, I could see that there is absolutely no evidence for this kooky crap despite all of the efforts of the Mormon church to prove otherwise. Which one seems more rational to you? Groundless supposition or a history built on solid archeological evidence?

And how about you? If you are so keen on knowing the experience of everyone else, feel free to pop up with your curriculum vitae.

 

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Sleepy wrote:You are

Sleepy wrote:

You are right.

It doesn't typically happen.

That's why it is a MIRACLE.

Why would it have been a big deal that Christ did it if every joe around the corner could simply come back to life?

And I can heal amputees with a touch. Do you believe me?

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Wow!  You really can.  I

Wow!  You really can.  I just read it.  Also, in several years I will write it down in an otherwise very poorly written fairy tale (naturally, my bit will be the best written).  Can't beat that kind of truth!

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Sleepy (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude wrote:Sleepy

thatonedude wrote:

Sleepy wrote:

thatonedude wrote:

I can mix sodium and chloride and find out what happens. I can dig up fossils and examine the evidence. I can follow the math they present and double check it. I can actually walk in the ruins of Pompeii, or calculate the age of a cloth with carbon dating myself.

Have you ever actually done any of these things?

All but walking Pompeii. Instead, I've spent time digging for Native American artifacts in two states. Here's another place where science beats religion. I COULD just have faith that a couple of tribes of Israelites plonked down in the new world and had at it, until one tribe killed the other and were cursed with dark skin. Or, I could see that there is absolutely no evidence for this kooky crap despite all of the efforts of the Mormon church to prove otherwise. Which one seems more rational to you? Groundless supposition or a history built on solid archeological evidence?

And how about you? If you are so keen on knowing the experience of everyone else, feel free to pop up with your curriculum vitae.

 

 

You know what?  You are right.  I do not believe in God anymore.


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Sleepy wrote:You know

Sleepy wrote:


You know what?  You are right.  I do not believe in God anymore.

If I thought for a moment that this was anything more than sarcasm, I'd congratulate you on growing past groundless mysticism and embracing reality.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Wow!  You

Thomathy wrote:

Wow!  You really can.  I just read it.  Also, in several years I will write it down in an otherwise very poorly written fairy tale (naturally, my bit will be the best written).  Can't beat that kind of truth!

Make sure you get my words written down clearly. I'd hate for rampant ambiguity and illogical statements attributed to me to result in a Great Schism or a Reformation.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Sleepy wrote:MichaelMcF

Sleepy wrote:

MichaelMcF wrote:

What would EXC's credentials have to do with the statement he made above?

I was actually going to make a legitimate point regarding the fact that most people who lend such creedence to scientific fact have never actually been in a lab themselves.  They simply take at face value what is said by their science teachers.  Most of what they've learned come from science books, themselves second hand accounts of discoveries made by other scientists.  I've personally no problem with learning in this manner.  It's just the inconsistency that I find amusing.  Textual accounts of miracles are automatically disqualified yet claims of things like Big Bang, Lucy, transitional forms, bubble universes, Schrodinger's cat, etc. are automatically accepted.

 

Except there's no inconsistency because scientific writings are independently verifiable, a fact which even 17 year olds can understand.

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Sleepy wrote: MichaelMcF

Sleepy wrote:

MichaelMcF wrote:

What would EXC's credentials have to do with the statement he made above?

I was actually going to make a legitimate point regarding the fact that most people who lend such creedence to scientific fact have never actually been in a lab themselves.  They simply take at face value what is said by their science teachers.  Most of what they've learned come from science books, themselves second hand accounts of discoveries made by other scientists.  I've personally no problem with learning in this manner.  It's just the inconsistency that I find amusing.  Textual accounts of miracles are automatically disqualified yet claims of things like Big Bang, Lucy, transitional forms, bubble universes, Schrodinger's cat, etc. are automatically accepted.

 

Except there's no inconsistency because scientific writings are independently verifiable, a fact which even 17 year olds can understand.

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss