John has asked me to reply to his three major posts. They are the posts about if a historical religion can be believed, if Jesus was born of a virgin, and if miracles are possible. I'm trying to be fair and not read other responses until I'm done, though I am interested in what others have to say. The basic thing is that we're all ultimately on a quest for truth together. We're not really opponents but allies.

However, in pondering them, I came to the conclusion that they do tend to overlap. Talk about history leads to miracles and talk about miracles leads to history. I have copied them all onto a Word document I have here, that is, the first post on each thread. I did so simply to really read each for the first time without other opinions interfering.

Before starting though, I think it's important to see if God is in the equation. If God is in the equation, then who are we to say miracles cannot happen? God cannot interfere with nature? Then God is bound by nature and nature is not bound by God. In that case, nature is greater than God and the created is greater than the creator.

My case for miracles begins with Genesis 1:1. If Genesis 1:1 is true everything else is child's play. For instance, a virgin birth. I think we'd all have to grant that if God can create a universe, he can certainly enable a virgin to get pregnant without sexual intercourse.

There are many great proofs for the argument for God's existence. There is the Kalam Cosmological. There is the argument from logic. THere is the argument from truth. There is the argument from design. There is the argument from aesthetics. (I phrase that this way and you either get it or you don't. Beautiful women exist. Therefore, God exists.)

My personal favorite though is the argument from Desire. I encourage every Christian especially to look at the argument from desire as it not only gives you a strong argument for God's existence, but also gives you motivation. Stand To Reason has some great audio files on Heaven and Peter Kreeft is an excellent writer in this field.

I'm not going into all of these. I know Doubting John prays. He has said so in the post about his wife for wish, I must send my condolences and prayers also. I am a young single man myself, but I cannot imagine the horror that I would feel if my wife could die from cancer. I'm not going to say I understand what you're going through there. I really don't. No more than you can understand my struggles entirely unless you've been there.

However John, if what you say in all of these is true, what hope does your wife have? If there are no miracles, then what is to happen if it is beyond medical treatment? If there are no miracles, can your wife really live again in any way? If there are no miracles, then if the worst happens, there is no chance of ever having a reunion.

Is the argument emotional? Granted, it is. I use it though because your own statements show a hope that this is true. While you write against miracles, you pray that a miracle could happen. If one miracle happens, then everything is overturned. Atheism is false, Hume is totally refuted, and God does exist. We can then safely say the biblical miracles could have happened.

I choose at this time to not argue for God's existence. All the arguments are there and I really think it's a matter of the will. It's also a matter of getting past feelings. We live in an age where our feelings are more often the standard for the truth than anything else, ESPECIALLY AMONG CHRISTIANS! Ergh. I get so sick of Christians who just say "Well God makes me so happy to get up every morning." Sorry folks, but when morning comes, I just want to go back to sleep. As Greg Koukl says "Before for my first cup of coffee in the morning, I'm an atheist."

But let's look at something basic with miracles and history. This is from the thread of John on history.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

“Miracles, which I see with my own eyes, and which I have opportunity to verify for myself, are one thing; miracles, of which I know only from history that others say they have seen them and verified them, are another.” “But…I live in the 18th century, in which miracles no longer happen. The problem is that reports of miracles are not miracles….[they] have to work through a medium which takes away all their force.” “Or is it invariably the case, that what I read in reputable historians is just as certain for me as what I myself experience?”

My question is, Why? Why shouldn't I accept the average person's testimony on a miracle? For instance, I was out driving yesterday and pulled in at a Laundromat to see if I could get the Watchtower magazines. There are four police cars outside as this is a shopping center area and an ambulance and a man in handcuffs and a tow truck has just towed a car away.

Now I knew the police were busy so I didn't ask them and no one else had really seen what had happened. However, what if I had come to someone and he said "Oh the guy in handcuffs was on drugs and ran into one of the brick pillars. That's why the front of the car towed away was caved in and the bricks were strong enough to take it." (That might have happened. I don't know.)

Would I have responded, "You silly fool. Do you realize how unlikely it is that this man would make it through a parking lot and hit something like that? I've never seen that happen. Have you?" No. We accept the testimony of man. In fact, if we didn't think a man's testimony had any credibility, why should we even have a court system?

Why do I accept the claim of a miracle then? The same reason I accept the other claim. These are not mystical types who are prone to have strong visions and interpret everything in an unusual way. These are ordinary people who are relating what they have seen.

But how can we accept them? The question is really, why should we not? If we are honest people looking at evidence, we will come to the evidence first and then shape our dogma as a result of the evidence. The problem today is that people form a dogma against miracles and then look at the evidence in light of that.

Imagine if I read your book John and then said "Ah! This man has written a brilliant apologetic for the truth of Christianity!" You would think I was foolish for you had written just the opposite. "Ah! But I have my beliefs and I interpreted your work in light of what I believe." No. I should interpret it in light of what YOU believe. I can then take your beliefs and compare them to my beliefs and that is when we begin the challenge.

But miracles never happen today! Says who? Does any of us have absolute knowledge of every event that goes on in the world? Can we interview every family out there to know that no miracle has happened? Of course not. Now there are many claims. If just one is right, then the counter-claim is false. How is it that so many know that so many others are false? The truth is the skeptic has his own dogma in place that miracles cannot occur. The believer is open to the possibility and then looks at the evidence and trusts the evidence for he is not bound by any such dogma. It is after he approaches the evidence that the believer shapes his dogam. The skeptic shapes his beforehand.

But so many miracle claims are false! And that proves what? Suppose I went to a store and was buying something and I paid with a $20. Lo and behold, the cops show up because my $20 is fake. Now what have I learned? I've learned that counterfeit $20 bills exist. Have I said anything about real $20 bills? Not at all. In fact, the existence of the counterfeit can only be stated by the existence of the real.

I don't deny there are many claims that are false, but there could be many that are real. I'm not bound by dogma though so I can be open. Furthermore, there could be miracles that happen that we don't realize are miracles because such is not explicitly stated.

When I was around 19 or so, I wrecked my first car. I came over a hill too fast and hit a guardrail. My car bounced several times and still landed right-side up. I began honking my horn as loudly as I could shouting in extreme pain. Throw in two other facts. I'm a guy that weighed about 110 then. (I'm about 120 now) I also had and still have a steel rod on my spine. I am not built for tough hits.

I rode in an ambulance to the hospital where I stayed without medication or food or drink for three hours. When the doctor got back from the X-rays, I just wanted to know how many bones were broken and how long it'd be. It was incredible but not a one was broken. I didn't even have a scratch. My parents, however, seeing the car, thought there was no way I could have walked away. The policelady photographing it thought so as well. I'd give my input but to this day, I never saw pictures of the car crash. I do know I never saw that car again either so I have good reason to believe it was totaled.

Who am I to say that this was not a miracle? Does God need to write in big letters in the sky, "NICK! I HAVE PERFORMED A MIRACLE!" You might think it wasn't. Maybe not, but maybe it was. Maybe the events were so guided and my body preserved in such a way that I could run the next day even.

Now this will bring us to history. I wonder about these problems with history. Would I stake my life on Alexander the Great? Maybe not, but I'd quite sure he did what he did. Why? What reason do I have not to? Well all we have is human testimony. Excuse me, but what other kind of testimony do you want? Would it be better if we could get some squirrel writings from that period to testify?

And I'd say there are things you can believe with varying intensity. The more evidence you have for a claim, the more likely it is that you can believe it. If you have only one writing, you have to decide based on the evidence and the writer as well. Is the writer someone you can trust? Could there be any alterior motive for making up a story? How close is the writing to the actual events? In the case of the NT, if we reject it, we have to throw out most of ancient history.

The virgin birth? It's only mentioned in two gospels. Only two explicitly I'd say. (Some see a reference in Mark 6 and Spiros Zodhiates sees it in the prologue of John) What's the problem? The Sermon on the Mount is only mentioned in Mark and Luke and not in the Pauline epistles either, but I still believe it was given.

Honestly John, for me, the virgin birth is child's play. All it involves is creating a microscopic sperm. Did the ancients fully understand childbirth medically? Maybe not, but what difference does that make? I don't fully understand computers, but I'm here on the internet.

THe prophecy? It's called Pesher. It was something common in those days. Robert Reymond has a wonderful interpretation of this prophecy in his book "Jesus: Divine Messiah."

John. I really don't know much what else to say. You might think this was brief and I didn't answer many points. Maybe I didn't go into details, but I choose to stick with the foundation before going to the second story. If the foundation stands, then so can everything built on it.

I'm praying for you and your wife. There are answers. It just depends on if they're really wanted or not.

I’ll try to be gracious here, since you are an honest believer who seriously tried to wrestle with the questions of my post. This I appreciate. And you’ve come to some answers. I just hope they satisfy you. But they don’t satisfy me. I won’t try to answer your points too forcefully, but I will make a few forceful comments. Yours is the kind of response I don’t try to trash—too much. I believe your response was heartfelt. But you're in over your head.

The basic thing is that we're all ultimately on a quest for truth together. We're not really opponents but allies.


Cool!

Before starting though, I think it's important to see if God is in the equation. If God is in the equation, then who are we to say miracles cannot happen?


They might occur, if God exists.

My case for miracles begins with Genesis 1:1. If Genesis 1:1 is true everything else is child's play. For instance, a virgin birth. I think we'd all have to grant that if God can create a universe, he can certainly enable a virgin to get pregnant without sexual intercourse.


You know of course, that in Genesis 1:1 we find that a formless earth existed first, and only later, on day four, the sun moon and stars were created.

There are many great proofs for the argument for God's existence. There is the Kalam Cosmological.

My mentor, William Lane Craig resurrected this argument and is the leading defender of it. As his student in the class I took with him titled: “Theism” I fully understand it, and it’s powerful, but it can be doubted.

There is the argument from aesthetics. (I phrase that this way and you either get it or you don't. Beautiful women exist. Therefore, God exists.)

Wow! I agree, beautiful women exist. Oh My God! Yes they do. (I believe!)
“I’m a girl watcher.
I’m a girl watcher.
Here comes one now.
Mmm, Mmm, Mmm”
[From a song.]

If one miracle happens, then everything is overturned. Atheism is false, Hume is totally refuted, and God does exist. We can then safely say the biblical miracles could have happened.


I think you wildly overstate these conclusions, if a miracle happens. For instance, if one true miracle happens, then I still would revert back to Hume’s standard’s for other purported claims of the miraculous. And, Hume can not be refuted. William Lane Craig even agreed. [see my post on this].

My question is, Why? Why shouldn't I accept the average person's testimony on a miracle?

Because they are Legion, and they come from people who conclude differing and even contradictory religious things from those miracle claims.

In fact, if we didn't think a man's testimony had any credibility, why should we even have a court system?

Was O.J. Simpson truly guilt of killing two people?

Why do I accept the claim of a miracle then? The same reason I accept the other claim. These are ordinary people who are relating what they have seen.

Maybe you’re right about this criteria. Come to think of it, I think you are. We use the same criteria to determine what historically happened, whether evaluating a miraculous claim, or not. But certainly you question ordinary people when they say, for instance, that they found a finger in their Wendy’s chili? That recently happened, you know. They did it in order to get some money out of Wendy’s, but they were caught.

But how can we accept them? The question is really, why should we not?

Because we would be naïve and gullible people suspending our critical faculties too much to know what’s right from what’s wrong in life, and what’s true from what’s false.

But miracles never happen today! Says who? Does any of us have absolute knowledge of every event that goes on in the world? Can we interview every family out there to know that no miracle has happened? Of course not. Now there are many claims. If just one is right, then the counter-claim is false.

Says me, at least from my experience, and that’s all I have to go on. Besides, I never said that they cannot happen, only that I approach them with skepticism. By the way, look at my latest post in the thread: “Can A Historical Religion Be Believed?”

How is it that so many know that so many others are false? The truth is the skeptic has his own dogma in place that miracles cannot occur. The believer is open to the possibility and then looks at the evidence and trusts the evidence for he is not bound by any such dogma. It is after he approaches the evidence that the believer shapes his dogam. The skeptic shapes his beforehand.

But the believer’s “dogma” (or assumptions?) bind you too! The question is who’s “dogma” has priority. Which “dogma” is preferred?

But so many miracle claims are false! And that proves what? Suppose I went to a store and was buying something and I paid with a $20. Lo and behold, the cops show up because my $20 is fake. Now what have I learned? I've learned that counterfeit $20 bills exist. Have I said anything about real $20 bills? Not at all. In fact, the existence of the counterfeit can only be stated by the existence of the real.

Nope. Counterfeit “miracles” have nothing whatsoever to do with the conclusion that there must be real ones, no more than false understandings about a particular event in history means that someone today has a correct understanding about that event. We may all be wrong.

I don't deny there are many claims that are false, but there could be many that are real.

Yes, there could.

When I was around 19 or so, I wrecked my first car. I came over a hill too fast and hit a guardrail. It was incredible but not a one was broken. I didn't even have a scratch. Who am I to say that this was not a miracle?

Does this event “require” a supernatural cause? A fortuitous event is just that, a fortuitous event. In fact, I would be surprised if we didn’t have a few lucky events in our lifetimes, since there are so many events in our lives. They should happen once in a while. But the additional question is why were you spared when five kids in a car last night in our area were crushed to death by a semi-truck while driving home? That was a freak accident, a “lucky” (or unlucky) event too!

Now this will bring us to history. I wonder about these problems with history. Would I stake my life on Alexander the Great? Maybe not, but I'd quite sure he did what he did. Why? What reason do I have not to? Well all we have is human testimony. Excuse me, but what other kind of testimony do you want? Would it be better if we could get some squirrel writings from that period to testify?

Hmmm. If the criteria for you is “what reason do I have not do?” then I have a piece of land I want to sell you in South America. It’s a steal. Only $10,000. Why not?

And I'd say there are things you can believe with varying intensity. The more evidence you have for a claim, the more likely it is that you can believe it. If you have only one writing, you have to decide based on the evidence and the writer as well. Is the writer someone you can trust? Could there be any alterior motive for making up a story? How close is the writing to the actual events?

Okay, I’ll accept that. But what is the criteria for someone you “trust,” especially when it’s about a miraculous event among superstitious people in the ancient past?

In the case of the NT, if we reject it, we have to throw out most of ancient history.

Really? This is a non-sequitur fallacy—it does not follow.

The virgin birth? It's only mentioned in two gospels. Only two explicitly I'd say. What's the problem? The Sermon on the Mount is only mentioned in Mark and Luke and not in the Pauline epistles either, but I still believe it was given.

The sermon on the mount never took place as stated in one sermon of Jesus. It was a compilation of sayings that Matthew and then Luke gathered together to represent the teaching of Jesus.

Honestly John, for me, the virgin birth is child's play. All it involves is creating a microscopic sperm. Did the ancients fully understand childbirth medically? Maybe not, but what difference does that make? I don't fully understand computers, but I'm here on the internet.

Really? Do you realize that Luke saw an inherent problem in Matthew’s geneology when he traced Jesus’ lineage back through Joeseph? Joeseph wasn’t even involved. So Luke traces it back through Mary. Sounds like, well, that they were correcting things as they went along.

I'm praying for you and your wife. There are answers. It just depends on if they're really wanted or not.

Thank you, and I’ll keep people posted in the Chaplain’s Office.”

By the way. You can now make it "Doubting John's Big Four," and later "five", "six" and "seven"..... I've started a new thread called: "Four Conceptual Problems With An Incarnate God."

Originally posted by A Cup of Apologia

Would I have responded, "You silly fool. Do you realize how unlikely it is that this man would make it through a parking lot and hit something like that? I've never seen that happen. Have you?" No. We accept the testimony of man. In fact, if we didn't think a man's testimony had any credibility, why should we even have a court system?

There is a bit of a difference between things that are entirely possible without godly intervention, and things that are not. Your entire argument falls over when this is pointed out.

Why do I accept the claim of a miracle then? The same reason I accept the other claim. These are not mystical types who are prone to have strong visions and interpret everything in an unusual way. These are ordinary people who are relating what they have seen.

You must be a sucker for alien abduction stories. Or bigfoot, the loch ness monster, etc etc. After all, these are just ordinary people who are relating what they have seen.

Now this will bring us to history. I wonder about these problems with history. Would I stake my life on Alexander the Great? Maybe not, but I'd quite sure he did what he did. Why? What reason do I have not to? Well all we have is human testimony.

False. We have coins, statutary, inscriptions - a huge amount of contemporary evidence that follows Alexander's trail across the ancient world. Human testimony is only a part of it. The evidence for Alexander is much stronger than the evidence for Jesus.

In the case of the NT, if we reject it, we have to throw out most of ancient history.

Most bizarre statement ever.

Originally posted by Doubting John

[b][color=DarkRed]I’ll try to be gracious here, since you are an honest believer who seriously tried to wrestle with the questions of my post. This I appreciate. And you’ve come to some answers. I just hope they satisfy you. But they don’t satisfy me. I won’t try to answer your points too forcefully, but I will make a few forceful comments. Yours is the kind of response I don’t try to trash—too much. I believe your response was heartfelt. But you're in over your head

Now I'm curious. Why would you hope they satisfy me? If I thought someone was believing a lie, I would not want them to believe it. Yet if you really want us to believe, and you see that we have reasons, then what is really wrong with these reasons?

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

They might occur, if God exists

If God exists, they already have occurred. After all, what do you call creation? What do we call the existence of life itself? Why is there something rather than nothing at all?

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

You know of course, that in Genesis 1:1 we find that a formless earth existed first, and only later, on day four, the sun moon and stars were created.

I'm curious if you've ever read the OEC view of Genesis. First off, Genesis 1:1 says that God created the Heavens and the Earth. Secondly, Gleason Archer has done some great work for the OEC indicating that the word for creation on day 4 indicates a revealing, which would fall in line with modern science. The plants show up and take in the carbon dioxide from the air, thus removing the barrier from seeing the sun and the moon. The Genesis 1 account is spoken as one observing from the point of Earth. Remember, one must establish the point of view and the setting of Genesis 1:2 is Earth.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

My mentor, William Lane Craig resurrected this argument and is the leading defender of it. As his student in the class I took with him titled: “Theism” I fully understand it, and it’s powerful, but it can be doubted

Anything can really be doubted. There are some people out there who actually doubt their own existence. That's not the issue. The issue is, "Is it true?" Is the doubt really rational?

There is the argument from aesthetics. (I phrase that this way and you either get it or you don't. Beautiful women exist. Therefore, God exists.)

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Wow! I agree, beautiful women exist. Oh My God! Yes they do. (I believe!)
“I’m a girl watcher.
I’m a girl watcher.
Here comes one now.
Mmm, Mmm, Mmm”
[From a song

Yes. Then please try to explain beauty without God. If God is not there, then all there is is matter and matter does not innately contain the property of beauty. If it did, we would consider a pile of dung as beautiful as the female.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

I think you wildly overstate these conclusions, if a miracle happens. For instance, if one true miracle happens, then I still would revert back to Hume’s standard’s for other purported claims of the miraculous. And, Hume can not be refuted. William Lane Craig even agreed. [see my post on this

If a true miracle happens, then miracles happen, and Hume is refuted.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Because they are Legion, and they come from people who conclude differing and even contradictory religious things from those miracle claims

Miracles are events. They are not self-interpreting. For instance, the resurrection of Christ as a freak event in history could be miraculous, but what would it mean? However, when we have propehcy fulfilled and Christ's own speaking of what it would mean and his own predictions, then it makes sense.

And because reports are legion they are to be disbelieved? I'd say the greater number of reports, the more likely at least one is true. I have no doubt that some are counterfeit miracle claims as there is Satan going to and fro in the world. Many such reports come from people already deeply involved in the occult anyhow.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Was O.J. Simpson truly guilt of killing two people?

And why do you believe or not believe he did? I'm quite certain you weren't in the room when his wife and her friend were murdered. I don't remember seeing you at the trial. Did you read the testimony of newspaper writers and the accounts of what the police said? Even if you discount what O.J. and his lawyers said, you do so itself on the basis of human testimony. It seems that you're selective in what testimony to believe BEFORE approaching the evidence instead of after.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Maybe you’re right about this criteria. Come to think of it, I think you are. We use the same criteria to determine what historically happened, whether evaluating a miraculous claim, or not. But certainly you question ordinary people when they say, for instance, that they found a finger in their Wendy’s chili? That recently happened, you know. They did it in order to get some money out of Wendy’s, but they were caught.

After we researched it we found that out. At the beginning, I and many others did think it was entirely possible. The question is not, is the occurrence unusual? After all, who will testify of unusual events but people themselves? I heard the testimony first, and then looked at the other evidence, and then made a judgment.

But how can we accept them? The question is really, why should we not?

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Because we would be naïve and gullible people suspending our critical faculties too much to know what’s right from what’s wrong in life, and what’s true from what’s false

Do you really believe what you type? Are you saying that all Christians are naive and gullible people and they don't have their critical faculties right in life? It is only the skeptic that is truly approaching life in the right? When someone comes up to me with any unusual claim, am I to say right off, "Ah. I believe that you are a liar. You'll need more to convince me."

Now I'll grant on some cases, it will depend on the person. If it's the boy who's cried wolf, then I will probably be suspicious. However, what about the writers of the NT? Are they trying to make money? Are they trying to win power? How many of them died for what they believed? If Matthew had written an account without miracles, it would be accepted today. The only reason he's questioned is because his account has miracles, and then we return to questioning the text beforehand simply because it has miracles. Obviously, Matthew was naive and gullible and had lost his critical faculties.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Says me, at least from my experience, and that’s all I have to go on. Besides, I never said that they cannot happen, only that I approach them with skepticism. By the way, look at my latest post in the thread: “Can A Historical Religion Be Believed?”

Really John, why should God do a miracle for you? I hope he would, but why should he? Look at how you've answered. "If a true miracle happens, I'll go back to Hume." Or "The people in the past were superstitous." (JP calls it APAS. Ancient People are Stupid.)

You know what would happen if God performed a miracle for you? I guarantee you you'd explain it away somehow. You're already committed to fitting everything into a naturalistic basis and you'd do so again. In fact, you'd only harden your heart more, so why should he?

The believer on the other hand, will readily accept that God has acted in his life and will praise God for it and have a greater trust in him. I am reminded of Pharaoh who hardened his heart despite all the wonders that had been done. Since God wants all men to be saved as 1 Tim. 2:4 says, and yet at the same time, wants it to be a choice, why should he do something for you that will only push you against him?

Truth be told, you may have already had some miracles in your life, but you decided to always go for naturalistic interpretations. Now I have no problem with those per se. If a tree falls in this forest outside my house now, could an angel have knocked it down? It's possible. Could it also though generally be things like decay or something simpler? Probably. However, that doesn't mean that angels could never knock trees down.

By the way, you don't just have your experience to go on. You have other people's. "Learn from experiences. Preferably other people's." It is from other people that you can learn things like "What to do in a heart attack," or "How to handle your car if it skids on ice." (Even if you know these kinds of things now, you had to learn them from someone.) If other people's experiences don't matter even, I'm wondering why you asked someone like Dan Barker to come here as well. Does his experience make a difference? How could it if it's not your own.

So what is the experience today of humanity in general? Are there any characteristics we all share that we can learn from? Are not those who don't learn from history condemned to repeat it? (This gets also into the argument from desire) The general experience has been there is some form of deity and miracles are possible.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

But the believer’s “dogma” (or assumptions?) bind you too! The question is who’s “dogma” has priority. Which “dogma” is preferred?

But how does the believer arrive at the dogma. The believer is told to test all things and hold fast to what is true. The Bereans are noble because they questioned BEFORE accepting. However, when they saw the evidence, then they believed.

The difference again is that the presupposition from the naturalistic worldview is "Miracles cannot occur." Seems like an odd position since you'd have to have infinite knowledge of all history to know that no miracle has ever occurred. Of course, if you had that, you'd be God, and then naturalism would be false.

The honest seeker comes and says "I do not know if a miracle has occurred but it could have." Then he sees the NT, and weighs it on the merits of the writings themselves with ideas like archaeological factors, agreement on basic facts between writers, societal conditions, etc." Then he lists out the pros for why it could be true and the negatives and decides. He doesn't just say "Ah! This contains a miracle. FALSE!"

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Nope. Counterfeit “miracles” have nothing whatsoever to do with the conclusion that there must be real ones, no more than false understandings about a particular event in history means that someone today has a correct understanding about that event. We may all be wrong.

Having there be a true understanding does not mean that someone has to have that understanding. It just means that it exists. There are many questions today science has no answer for yet. It does not necessarily mean an answer does not exist, but it does mean that we don't know it. In fact, to say that an understanding is false is to admit there is a true somewhere that disagrees with it.

As for counterfeit miracles, something had to exist first to be counterfeited. One doesn't have counterfeit blorgs going around and then someone invents real blorgs. Something happened that was often counterfeited. Our Bible itself tells us that some miracles were counterfeited like when the magicians opposed Moses, yet it also tells us that some could not be counterfeited. It also says that many will perform signs that don't know the Lord, which tells us also that not every miracle is from God.

However, it must also be agreed that even if that wasn't accepted, the occurence of fale miracles does not disprove the existence of real ones.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Yes, there could

You know, I have a hard time thinking of going to everyone in the world who claims a miracle past and present, as even the dead have a vote in this matter, and saying "I know you saw a miracle, but you were obviously mistaken. Can you provide an explanation for every single miracle claim out there?

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Does this event “require” a supernatural cause? A fortuitous event is just that, a fortuitous event. In fact, I would be surprised if we didn’t have a few lucky events in our lifetimes, since there are so many events in our lives. They should happen once in a while. But the additional question is why were you spared when five kids in a car last night in our area were crushed to death by a semi-truck while driving home? That was a freak accident, a “lucky” (or unlucky) event too!

But what makes an event lucky? Is this not an unusual event, and yet it happened? Could there have been a miracle going on that I didn't see. It's quite possible. You see John? Every event that someone brings to you that they think is the hand of God in their lives, you explain it away, and then ask why God doesn't do something in your life. Well why should he? You'd explain that away also and only harden your heart more.

Also, someone else not receiving a miracle does not disprove that no one receives a miracle. I'd say there are other factors. God is working in ways I know not and allows all to happen for a reason. The modern skeptic today is like the person who reads the book, gets to a bad part he doesn't like, and then throws it away complaining that the author doesn't have a clue. The skeptic doesn't realize that the author is in control of the story ultimately, and all good authors will give a happy ending to their stories since the ultimate story has a happy ending.

The problem is that too many times, we sit in judgment on God. "Well I don't like this and I don't understand it, so God must not exist." Are we not silly and pretentious? We claim to have all the information right here. How many times have we thought something to be bad, and later found out it was good? How many times have we thought something to be good, and later found out that it really wasn't? I'm leaving myself open to the author of the story and let his pen make the moves as he sees fit, trusting he wants to bring about the best ending possible.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Hmmm. If the criteria for you is “what reason do I have not do?” then I have a piece of land I want to sell you in South America. It’s a steal. Only $10,000. Why not?

No. The point is "Why should I approach ancient texts assuming doubt just because the people are ancient people? If I can find other evidence that corroborates it, excellent. If not, I could be suspicious, but I don't have any reason entirely to disavow it. We only have Plato saying that Socrates drank Hemlock, and I seriously doubt we can send detectives down to his execution place and search for traces of hemlock.

Still, we accept it. On what basis? Human testimony.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Okay, I’ll accept that. But what is the criteria for someone you “trust,” especially when it’s about a miraculous event among superstitious people in the ancient past?

And here show up APAS. Do you see? You're already condemning the people before getting to their works. The way I see this as something I can trust comes from an ex-atheist I knew years ago who has sadly gone on now to be with the Lord or else I'd invite him here. "The Bible is trustworthy on the things I can trust. I'll trust it on the things I can't." For instance, I can see if Bethlehem really existed, but I can't test to see if Jesus was virgin born there.

Do we have reason to believe miracles are added in? Not at all, because the whole writings themselves depend on miracles. All scholars I know of accept that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. Yet in 1 Cor. 15, he has the earliest Christian creed and the centrality that Christ was raised from the dead, all within one generation of the events.

What does that tell me? If Paul did not believe that a resurrection had occurred, 1 Corinthians would not have been written. And yet, isn't it generally believed that the Pauline epistles tend to pre-date the gospels? In that case, then there was a belief in the resurrection before the gospels were written.

Many writings that happen centuries after the fact when eyewitnesses are alive will add miracles no doubt, but this is not the case. The earliest reports of Christianity depend on miracles. In other words, no belief that a miracle happened, no writings. The NT itself then is evidence that there was a strong reason to believe a miracle occurred. Remember, even in the NT, people were suspicious. As was said at Pentecost "They have had too much wine", as well as doubting Thomas and the doubting disciples in Matthew 28 and those doubting the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15. Doubt was just as real back then as it is now.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Really? This is a non-sequitur fallacy—it does not follow

There's only one reason the NT is questioned today. It contains miracles. If it did not contain miracles, then based on the dating between the writing and the earliest copies as well as the number of manuscripts and the archaeological evidence, it would be seen as the most trustworthy work in all of history. We accept all other ancient writings on far less. It's only miracles that bring into question the NT, which returns us to simply the false assumption of "Ancient People Are Stupid."

By the way, I'd say ancient people were a lot smarter than we are. Oh we may have more facts and knowledge, but few people know how to think. Most of us have become computers that simply spit out data. Is it any wonder that modern philosophers today often wonder if there's any real difference between computers and humans?

Yet the ancients had systems of thought worked out that we're still referring to today. If ancient people are stupid, why listen to Plato or Aristotle? Why believe even Jesus was a good moral teacher? Why accept ANY work of ancient history? The ancients had more wisdom than we do by far and knew how to think and ask questions on all things and learn.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

The sermon on the mount never took place as stated in one sermon of Jesus. It was a compilation of sayings that Matthew and then Luke gathered together to represent the teaching of Jesus.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were an eyewitness to the facts that would know better than a real eyewitness. Actually, the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew most definitely is a real event meant to show the people what is going on with Jesus. He leaves the wilderness and comes to the mountain and in Matthew 5:2 it says "Opening his mouth, he began to teach them." That's the only place in Matthew that terminology is used. What does Matthew see in this extraordinary event?

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Really? Do you realize that Luke saw an inherent problem in Matthew’s geneology when he traced Jesus’ lineage back through Joeseph? Joeseph wasn’t even involved. So Luke traces it back through Mary. Sounds like, well, that they were correcting things as they went along

Wow. Are some people using this objection still? You've said it yourself. Luke goes through Mary and Matthew through Joseph. Unless they were brother and sister, which I certainly hope they weren't!, they have different relatives.



[

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Thank you, and I’ll keep people posted in the Chaplain’s Office.”
By the way. You can now make it "Doubting John's Big Four," and later "five", "six" and "seven"..... I've started a new thread called: "Four Conceptual Problems With An Incarnate God."

And we could spend so much time there instead of investing in these areas which I believe are the main foundation. However, are you really open still to a miraculous healing? What if that's the only way she can be healed? Are you going to explain it away and then come back and say "She has no cancer, but miracles don't happen. I've never experienced one." The problem is with the heart of man. He is sinful.

Personally, the way I see it, if we're more open to God working in our lives, the more likely such is going to happen, or at least we'll recognize it when it does happen. Again, if you're going to do all you can to explain away miracles, why should God work one for you?

A cup of Apologia:

I was going easy on you because you seemed to be respectful towad me and you seemed to honestly want to figure it all out.

Now you want me to trash you?

Okay. Let me pick a few battles. You simply ask too many questions that are similar in kind, so I'll pick a few to answer.

Now I'm curious. Why would you hope they satisfy me? If I thought someone was believing a lie, I would not want them to believe it.


Because sometimes ignorance is bliss. Be ignorant then, all you want.


If God exists, miracles already have occurred. After all, what do you call creation? What do we call the existence of life itself? Why is there something rather than nothing at all?

I can describe myself as a modern day deistic
existentialist, since I have to choose, but at bottom I'm an agnostic. I have faith in reason.

Norman Geisler has written two chapters about Deism, in Christian
Apologetics (Baker, 1976) and in World’s Apart (with William D. Watkins,Baker Books, 1989).

One criticism of Deism is that “it is self defeating to
admit the miracle of creation and to deny that other miracles are possible.”
(Christian Apologetics, p. 169).

I admit that God might exist and that he may
have created this universe. This means God also might do miracles. I just
haven’t seen any of them, and I have plenty of reasons to doubt that they
ever occurred in the past. Just like the problem of evil, in which God may
have reasons not to alleviate the great amount of human suffering in this
world, maybe for the same reasons God has chosen not to do any miracles.
Maybe he only has minimal power over the material universe, and the act of
creation didn’t actually require a great deal of his power. To create the
universe he may merely have had to initiate what Edward Tryon and
Stephen Hawking both describe as a “quantum wave fluctuation” (Tryon in
Nature, December 1973, and Hawking in Physical Review (December 1983).

How hard was that for God to do? I don’t know, but it’s surely much less
difficult than creating this universe instantaneously by fiat.




I'm curious if you've ever read the OEC view of Genesis. First off, Genesis 1:1 says that God created the Heavens and the Earth. Secondly, Gleason Archer has done some great work for the OEC indicating that the word for creation on day 4 indicates a revealing, which would fall in line with modern science. The plants show up and take in the carbon dioxide from the air, thus removing the barrier from seeing the sun and the moon. The Genesis 1 account is spoken as one observing from the point of Earth. Remember, one must establish the point of view and the setting of Genesis 1:2 is Earth.

I'll start a thread on this sometime soon, quoting from scholars who say otherwise.


Anything can really be doubted. There are some people out there who actually doubt their own existence. That's not the issue. The issue is, "Is it true?" Is the doubt really rational?

I think mine is. Prove me wrong.


If a true miracle happens, then miracles happen, and Hume is refuted.

Just show me how this follows, that's all. You merely restated what you said earlier. By the way, have you truly read the thread: "Can We Today Believe In Miracles?"



Miracles are events. They are not self-interpreting. For instance, the resurrection of Christ as a freak event in history could be miraculous, but what would it mean? However, when we have propehcy fulfilled and Christ's own speaking of what it would mean and his own predictions, then it makes sense.

Prophecy? Have you read through the thread: "Does God Foreknow the Future?"


Quote: Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Was O.J. Simpson truly guilt of killing two people?


And why do you believe or not believe he did? I'm quite certain you weren't in the room when his wife and her friend were murdered. I don't remember seeing you at the trial. Did you read the testimony of newspaper writers and the accounts of what the police said? Even if you discount what O.J. and his lawyers said, you do so itself on the basis of human testimony. It seems that you're selective in what testimony to believe BEFORE approaching the evidence instead of after.


Hmmm. You're proving my point about understanding something historical.

Go here and read my post: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...t=57251&page=2


I heard the testimony first, and then looked at the other evidence, and then made a judgment. But how can we accept them? The question is really, why should we not?


Did you want that piece of land I offered you, or not? It won't last long....so why not?

Quote: Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Because we would be naïve and gullible people suspending our critical faculties too much to know what’s right from what’s wrong in life, and what’s true from what’s false


Do you really believe what you type? Are you saying that all Christians are naive and gullible people and they don't have their critical faculties right in life?


Yes I do. But, I didn't say what follows from that. But if you truly followed your own criteria, you would best be described that way.

Now I'll grant on some cases, it will depend on the person. If it's the boy who's cried wolf, then I will probably be suspicious. However, what about the writers of the NT? Are they trying to make money? Are they trying to win power? How many of them died for what they believed? If Matthew had written an account without miracles, it would be accepted today. The only reason he's questioned is because his account has miracles, and then we return to questioning the text beforehand simply because it has miracles. Obviously, Matthew was naive and gullible and had lost his critical faculties.

How about, they were superstitious and gullible people who were won over to a cause that was false, and they died for that cause just like anyone else has done so down through the centuries, along with Jim Jones and Militant Muslims types.

You know what would happen if God performed a miracle for you? I guarantee you you'd explain it away somehow. You're already committed to fitting everything into a naturalistic basis and you'd do so again. In fact, you'd only harden your heart more, so why should he?

I don't care if he does, but if he does, I'll pay attention, that's for sure. But it must be an event that requires a supernatural explanation, as explained elsewhere.

Truth be told, you may have already had some miracles in your life, but you decided to always go for naturalistic interpretations.

In my 20 years as a Christian, I think God had more than enough time with me looking for them, for him to do one. Had he done so when I believed and hoped for one, I suppose I wouldn't be a doubter today. Is that now my problem? Why didn't he help keep me away from doubt then?


Quote: Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

But the believer’s “dogma” (or assumptions?) bind you too! The question is who’s “dogma” has priority. Which “dogma” is preferred?



But how does the believer arrive at the dogma. The believer is told to test all things and hold fast to what is true. The Bereans are noble because they questioned BEFORE accepting. However, when they saw the evidence, then they believed.


Again, go here and read one of my posts:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...t=57251&page=2

Quote: Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Yes, there could


You know, I have a hard time thinking of going to everyone in the world who claims a miracle past and present, as even the dead have a vote in this matter, and saying "I know you saw a miracle, but you were obviously mistaken. Can you provide an explanation for every single miracle claim out there?

No, probably not, but of the ones I have looked at, I doubt very much they were miracles, so I doubt very much that the others were too.


Quote: Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Hmmm. If the criteria for you is “what reason do I have not do?” then I have a piece of land I want to sell you in South America. It’s a steal. Only $10,000. Why not?


No. The point is "Why should I approach ancient texts assuming doubt just because the people are ancient people? If I can find other evidence that corroborates it, excellent. If not, I could be suspicious, but I don't have any reason entirely to disavow it. We only have Plato saying that Socrates drank Hemlock, and I seriously doubt we can send detectives down to his execution place and search for traces of hemlock.

Still, we accept it. On what basis? Human testimony.


This is a historical claim, and back to my first few postings in the "Can A Historical Religion Be Belived?"





And we could spend so much time there instead of investing in these areas which I believe are the main foundation. However, are you really open still to a miraculous healing? What if that's the only way she can be healed? Are you going to explain it away and then come back and say "She has no cancer, but miracles don't happen. I've never experienced one."


I cannot say in advance what I'll think. But let's see it first, then who knows?

APOLOGIA stated:

I'm curious if you've ever read the OEC view of Genesis. First off, Genesis 1:1 says that God created the Heavens and the Earth. Secondly, Gleason Archer has done some great work for the OEC indicating that the word for creation on day 4 indicates a revealing, which would fall in line with modern science. The plants show up and take in the carbon dioxide from the air, thus removing the barrier from seeing the sun and the moon. The Genesis 1 account is spoken as one observing from the point of Earth. Remember, one must establish the point of view and the setting of Genesis 1:2 is Earth.

ED'S reply:

There are many interpretations of Genesis. Conrad Hyers (former chair of religion at Gustavus Adolphus College) in his book, The Meaning of Genesis, explained why not every Evangelical is equally enthusiastic about Archer's OEC interpretation of Genesis.

First of all, Genesis 1 does not say "In the beginning God created [completed] the heavens and the earth," but instead it speaks of God "beginning to create," or, "when God started creating," the heavens and the earth. How they were created is described in each of the following days. Neither did the "fourth day of creation" only involve the mere evaporation of cloud cover. [sic] Because the text states that God not only "made" the sun moon and stars but also "set them in the firmament" on the "fourth day"-- Archer's attempts to find loopholes in word meanings and then string through those loopholes a bit of modern science not withstanding.

If you don't believe Dr. Hyers then read the NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY on Genesis by O.T. Prof. Walton of Wheaton College and note the references. Or read the latest issue of Bible Review, out just this month and the article, "Of Time and Immortality": http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BR/bswbbr2103f4.html The Jewish Society's official translation of the Pentateuch also makes the same point.

At the very least, even if you don't agree with Hyers and Walton, one must agree that major scholars even among Evangelicals, do not find each other's arguments convincing. Why is that if the Bible was written by the author of language itself and who must have known how to use it to make very clear indisputible points instead of all the gerrymandering and quibbling over terms and interpretations from Genesis to Revelation as presently exists even within Evangelicalism?

Lastly, the ancient mind did not necessarily consider the light of day as being equal to the light that shone from the sun, because after all, anyone can see that each day begins to dawn even before the rim of the sun first appears on the horizon.

In fact, the belief arose, especially among Christians, that the light of “day” had no relationship to the light of the sun. In the fourth century, Saint Ambrose wrote in his work on creation:

"We must remember that the light of day is one thing and the light of the sun, moon, and stars another--the sun by his rays appearing to add luster to the daylight. For before the sun rises the day dawns, but is not in full refulgence, for the sun adds still further to its splendor." (Hexameron, Lib. 4, Cap.III).

Even weirder, Genesis speaks about a "separation of light and darkness," as if they both were mixed together equally in the beginning. The book of Job even echoes that idea, and speaks about “light and darkness” having their own separate and distinct dwelling-places now that they have been separated (again, note, without any mention of the sun being the one and only source of light):

Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof?
--Job 38:19

Originally posted by Doubting John

A cup of Apologia:

I was going easy on you because you seemed to be respectful towad me and you seemed to honestly want to figure it all out.

Now you want me to trash you?

Okay. Let me pick a few battles. You simply ask too many questions that are similar in kind, so I'll pick a few to answer.

Um. Isn't this kind of the pot calling the kettle black?

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Because sometimes ignorance is bliss. Be ignorant then, all you want

Now I'd ask you, why should it matter? It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you're happy? Then what's the benefit of believing in agnosticism? Does agnosticism automatically entail then that one does not have joy? While that wouldn't be the final criteria, all people ultimately seek to be happy and in our universe apparently, every other need can be met, except the need to be truly happy. Now either the need to be happy is met in the afterlife, or else we've found an argument that if it doesn't show the existence of God, it shows the existence of the devil.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

I can describe myself as a modern day deistic
existentialist, since I have to choose, but at bottom I'm an agnostic. I have faith in reason.

Norman Geisler has written two chapters about Deism, in Christian
Apologetics (Baker, 1976) and in World’s Apart (with William D. Watkins,Baker Books, 1989).

One criticism of Deism is that “it is self defeating to
admit the miracle of creation and to deny that other miracles are possible.”
(Christian Apologetics, p. 169).

Why have faith in reason though? Don't get me wrong. I love reason. It's a great gift. Yet I reailze that there are many things my mind cannot and will not figure out entirely. I'd also want to know the cause of reason. What is it that makes the immaterial mind possess such an accurate correspondence to reality?

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

I admit that God might exist and that he may
have created this universe. This means God also might do miracles. I just
haven’t seen any of them, and I have plenty of reasons to doubt that they
ever occurred in the past. Just like the problem of evil, in which God may
have reasons not to alleviate the great amount of human suffering in this
world, maybe for the same reasons God has chosen not to do any miracles.
Maybe he only has minimal power over the material universe, and the act of
creation didn’t actually require a great deal of his power. To create the
universe he may merely have had to initiate what Edward Tryon and
Stephen Hawking both describe as a “quantum wave fluctuation” (Tryon in
Nature, December 1973, and Hawking in Physical Review (December 1983).

How hard was that for God to do? I don’t know, but it’s surely much less
difficult than creating this universe instantaneously by fiat.

You make it sound as if every Christian has seen a miracle. I have never seen something that I could explicitly call a miracle. Possible miracles? Yes. But there's no stamp from God that says miracles. It doesn't change my faith in miracles at all though.

I'll go a step further. Unlike many Christian claims today, I have never heard the voice of God. Whenever I have prayed, I have never heard God speak. Why should I expect to? That's our self-centeredness coming through. It also assumes that everyone before us has been ignorant. When we count experience though, it's not only the living that get a vote on experience. The dead get a vote also.









If a true miracle happens, then miracles happen, and Hume is refuted.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Just show me how this follows, that's all. You merely restated what you said earlier. By the way, have you truly read the thread: "Can We Today Believe In Miracles?"

If a miracle happens, then what happens to Hume's criteria? if we can experience a miracle in the present today, then why not in the past? Now I have read your thread. I'd say "Can We Today Believe in Miracles?" I'd actually say the answer is no, because we would include you and I. I can, but I don't see anyway you can, because you've already assumed from the outset that any event has a naturalistic explanation.



Miracles are events. They are not self-interpreting. For instance, the resurrection of Christ as a freak event in history could be miraculous, but what would it mean? However, when we have propehcy fulfilled and Christ's own speaking of what it would mean and his own predictions, then it makes sense.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Prophecy? Have you read through the thread: "Does God Foreknow the Future?"

Not yet. I don't see much point after awhile because rather than dialogue on one point for a while and get an answer there, it's rather that a constant barrage keeps going up. Is this someone really wanting truth or just wanting to rant?

Anyhow, if God is outside of time, which I believe, how can he be bound by time. Furthermore, while we may not be able to see the future, we can see the past and we can see that the prophecies came true right on schedule.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Hmmm. You're proving my point about understanding something historical.

Go here and read my post:[/color] http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...t=57251&page=2

I have read your thread on historical religions. I wonder how you accept anything in ancient history. Now someone pointed out that coins and such aren't human testimony. How do you know coins date from that time period? You take it from someone who does know. A human always has to interpret the findings.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Did you want that piece of land I offered you, or not? It won't last long....so why not?

Considering the style I read John, it's easy to see you're being sarcastic. ANd even if you weren't, I don't have NEAR enough money. lol.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Yes I do. But, I didn't say what follows from that. But if you truly followed your own criteria, you would best be described that way.

I'd say the shoe goes on the other foot. It is the skeptic that is gullible simply because they will accept any explanation they can in order to avoid a conclusion they have already decided in advance they don't wish to believe. The doubt isn't really intellectual but volitional. Maybe some emotional thrown in though.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

How about, they were superstitious and gullible people who were won over to a cause that was false, and they died for that cause just like anyone else has done so down through the centuries, along with Jim Jones and Militant Muslims types.

Ancient People Are Stupid again. And why were they? They believed in miracles. It's assuming what you want to prove. Back then though, you didn't change what you believed the same way you change your favorite ice cream flavor. (Which all orthodox know that the best is Peanut Butter and Chocolate.)

The apostles back then had firsthand experience based not on a subjective experience but on objective testimony, and they were all willing to die for that claim as well as drastically alter the sacred traditions they'd held for years. Militant Muslims and cults today have secondhand experiences.

And again, ancient people were a lot smarter than people are today.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

I don't care if he does, but if he does, I'll pay attention, that's for sure. But it must be an event that requires a supernatural explanation, as explained elsewhere.

John. I'm convinced. You'd explain it away somehow. It doesn't mesh with your beliefs and you can't explain it in your system so somehow, you'd explain it away. I do pray for your situation, but I'm convinced it'd be explained away whatever happened.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

In my 20 years as a Christian, I think God had more than enough time with me looking for them, for him to do one. Had he done so when I believed and hoped for one, I suppose I wouldn't be a doubter today. Is that now my problem? Why didn't he help keep me away from doubt then?

And if you didn't? So what? And are you saying you stepped away because you didn't get a miracle? That's an odd criteria isn't it? "God. If you exist, you must do what I say. You don't do it, so you don't exist."

And for all you know, he could have given you a way to avoid doubt, but it wasn't taken. Scripture tells us about the one another passages. Were those really being followed? Had you learned the truths about what differences doctrines like the Trinity and resurrection of Christ make, or were they just right answers on the theological quiz?

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Again, go here and read one of my posts:

DJ. I'm a preterist and I didn't have to blink even at what I saw. You really aren't familiar with what you speak against.

Quote: Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Yes, there could


You know, I have a hard time thinking of going to everyone in the world who claims a miracle past and present, as even the dead have a vote in this matter, and saying "I know you saw a miracle, but you were obviously mistaken. Can you provide an explanation for every single miracle claim out there?

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

No, probably not, but of the ones I have looked at, I doubt very much they were miracles, so I doubt very much that the others were too.

Attention Earth: Everyone of you before DJ was ignorant apparently. If we'd all had such wisdom, we would have known the truth. It's more than likely that 1 is right than that all are wrong. And again, my experience isn't the final authority. I have the experience of others.

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

Hmmm. If the criteria for you is “what reason do I have not do?” then I have a piece of land I want to sell you in South America. It’s a steal. Only $10,000. Why not?

For one thing, there's definitely a motive to make money and in our culture, that would be something I'd question even more than a miracle claim.

But what did the NT writers have to gain? Money? Power? Control? They died for what they believed in. Hardly a benefit. (Don't forget adding in embarrassing details that could have easily been left out.)

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

This is a historical claim, and back to my first few postings in the "Can A Historical Religion Be Belived?"

And I read it. Wanna quote a historian next time?

Originally posted by DoubtingJohn

I cannot say in advance what I'll think. But let's see it first, then who knows

You're already showing it here. Again, you ask "Why don't I get a miracle?" but then say "Miracles don't happen and they have to meet my criteria." Well why should you honestly?

Cuppy:

Did you want that piece of land I offered you, or not? It won't last long....so why not?
Considering the style I read John, it's easy to see you're being sarcastic. ANd even if you weren't, I don't have NEAR enough money. lol.

I'd sell it real cheap--just for you!

If a true miracle happens, then miracles happen, and Hume is refuted.

No No No. Did you really read that thread? Hume cannot be refuted. Even William Lane Craig said so!

Why have faith in reason though?

Because the faith we start with can get it wrong.

I wonder how you accept anything in ancient history.

With a some degree of uncertainty, after all we can never be sure.

Ancient People Are Stupid again. And why were they? They believed in miracles. And again, ancient people were a lot smarter than people are today.

Well, I can say that they exaggerated with time. We see this in John's gospel, and later with all of the the apocraphal stories, and even later as it was believed Mary was a perpetual virgin even though the N.T. said Jesus had siblings.

Can you provide an explanation for every single miracle claim out there?

Nope.

Can you provide a justification for all of the miracles you believe actually took place?

But what did the NT writers have to gain?

They may have believed what they wrote, I don't know. I never claimed they were liars. But just like preachers today they told stories that illustrated moral points of view. But the perpetrators of religion gain fame, popularity and power over those who believe. These things may be more important to them then what outsiders think or do to them.