|
Burden of Proof |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 7891011 29> |
| Author | ||
Ron Webb 
Senior Member 
Male atheist Joined: 30 January 2008 Location: Ottawa, Canada Status: Offline Points: 2467 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 22 March 2009 at 11:45am |
|
|
Apollos, As with all discussion, we have reality, and the natural world, as our common epistemological starting point. Hopefully we also share a certain amount of common sense.
If you saw someone badly injured, having lost a lot of blood, motionless and apparently not breathing, might you not think he was dead? And if three days later you saw him walking around, would you immediately assume a miraculous resurrection, or would you think maybe your first assumption was wrong?
Well, maybe if your ideology tells you to expect a miracle, then you might indeed assume it was a miracle, and report it as such. But for the rest of us, common sense suggests that somebody somewhere must have been mistaken. It used to happen all the time, you know. People would be declared dead, would be given a funeral and even buried, only to regain consciousness in the grave, where they would frantically and futilely claw and scratch at the interior of their coffin. This would occasionally be discovered later by gravediggers who needed to open the grave for some reason. Such horrific incidents probably contributed to the legends of vampires and the "undead".
|
||
|
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.
|
||
 |
||
|
Apollos
Senior Member 
Joined: 29 January 2009 Status: Offline Points: 426 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 March 2009 at 2:26pm |
|
Ron, The facts do not suggest any vagueness concerning Jesus' death. That is why historians conclude that Jesus was not just injured but truly dead. The swoon theory - which you are essentially suggesting - was refuted long ago and no scholars accept it as plausible. One of the many problems with this naturalistic explanation is - the disciples see an anemic, weak and mutilated Jesus 3 days after he was crucified and it convinces them that Jesus has risen from the dead? This person who would have definitely needed emergency care convinced them that he was the amazing Lord from heaven? It was not the disciples� ideology to expect a miracle nor is it mine. But they and I allow the possibility of miracles. I gather that you do not. In which case, you are obligated to accept unbelievable unjustified explanations for some events simply because you have excluded the miraculous apriori. So lets address this juncture of what you and I currently don�t agree on. I contend that it is illogical and unjustified to say that miracles can�t and/or don�t occur. Will you explain to me how I am incorrect on this position? Apollos |
||
|
||
|
Ron Webb
Senior Member
Male atheist Joined: 30 January 2008 Location: Ottawa, Canada Status: Offline Points: 2467 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 March 2009 at 4:35am |
|
|
Why not? We know that he was mutilated (the stigmata). What makes you think he wasn't weak and amenic as well? Then again, maybe the 3 days was actually three "prophetic days"...
Miracles are by definition illogical and unjustified. If they were logical or justified by natural principles, they wouldn't be miracles, would they? Edited by Ron Webb - 23 March 2009 at 4:41am |
||
|
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.
|
||
|
||
|
Shasta'sAunt
Senior Member
Female Joined: 29 March 2008 Status: Offline Points: 1930 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 March 2009 at 5:32am |
|
|
"It was not the disciples� ideology to expect a miracle nor is it mine."
Supposedly these guys had walked around with Jesus for quite a period of time while he healed the sick, caused the blind to see and the lame to walk, raised the dead, and turned water into wine, probably a favorite...
Jesus apparently predicted his own death and told them he would rise in three days after being crucified, yet, despite all of this it was not in their ideology to expect a miracle? Tough crowd!
It is far more likely that they just didn't think Jesus was God, but a mere man, like the Bible says after the death and resurrection:
1 Timothy 2:5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
|
||
|
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt |
||
|
||
|
Apollos
Senior Member
Joined: 29 January 2009 Status: Offline Points: 426 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 March 2009 at 11:16am |
|
You are using the terms "illogical" and "unjustified" in naive and subjective ways. Miracles are not by definition illogical and when you add the qualifier "by natural principals" you are setting forth a subjective criteria. You are trying to define miracles out of existence rather than disprove them. I offer two rebuttals:
1. If you are consistent with your view that "a miracle can not happen because a miracle by definition goes against the laws of nature", then I would expect that you reject the theory of evolution. Do you? I think you know that the theory of evolution relies on their having been events that defy our observations of natural laws, correct. (Do I need to list these for you?) Are you therefore consistent with your criteria on what is justified by natural laws? 2. Your criteria can only apply to a closed system. If God exists and this God is transcendent to our universe, you have created an arbitrary and unjustified criteria that does not account for this part of reality. In this way, your stipulation rests on the presumption that God does not exist. You can�t prove this negative so it is illogical for you to act as if it is an established fact. A myriad of subsequent false beliefs and conclusions will occur if this foundation is false. At a minimum it is unjustified and illogical for you to assume your foundational belief is certain when you haven�t demonstrated this. Apollos
|
||
|
||
|
Ron Webb
Senior Member
Male atheist Joined: 30 January 2008 Location: Ottawa, Canada Status: Offline Points: 2467 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 March 2009 at 4:20pm |
|
|
Apollos,
1. Yes, I think you need to list them for me. (But keep it a short list, please. I don't want to get into a debate about evolution.) If you think that the theory of evolution defies our observations of natural laws, then you either don't understand evolution or you don't understand what is meant by "natural laws". Evolution is the poster child for a naturalistic world view.
2. The universe by definition is "all that exists". If God exists, then he is part of the universe. If that definition makes you uncomfortable, then think of another word and I'll use it instead, but my "closed system" includes all that exists. Yours too, I hope. Would you knowingly include in this discussion things that do not exist? Would you knowingly deny things that do exist?
|
||
|
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.
|
||
|
||
|
Apollos
Senior Member
Joined: 29 January 2009 Status: Offline Points: 426 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 March 2009 at 8:04pm |
|
Ron, On evolution � let�s just discuss a few of the basic problems for calling this theory �natural�. For example: arrival of the fittest. We know how survival of the fittest works but each species � according to the theory of evolution � requires the arrival of a new species. This species arrival requires a macro level mutation that is totally unlike the small changes within a species. The latter we can observe, the former has never been observed. (If you need a specific change to illustrate this, consider the supposed change from cold blooded reptile to warm blooded bird). And its not just external features that pose the problem. The DNA of each species is different and nowhere do we have transitional forms or DNA. The idea of mutations producing an overall positive change is counter to our observations and other natural laws like the law of entropy (second law of thermodynamics). Raw energy is destructive not productive; water destroys DNA so DNA repair genes would have to be in place simultaneously with the occurrence of DNA or it would not survive. Homchirality is another formidable opponent. The only way we come close to re-creating life is when we concoct an experiment filled with our own �intelligent design�. We pick certain chemicals and exclude others � not based on the predicted elements in the primordial world but the kind that will give us the required results we want. And even then the results aren�t completely right. Consider the origin of life itself. In addition to all of the other problems for the first living cell being the result of random chance, we know that living cells require DNA and Proteins. (RNA can substitute for some virus forms). We also know that proteins must have DNA and DNA replication requires proteins. The chicken and egg dilemma is at it�s worst here. If you wish to read a list of quotes by evolutionists who admit to this, please see this link - http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrstpsnknwnmchnsmfsbjctfthrcntrvrsyrcmpltbwldrmnt These are just some of the reasons why it is incorrect to call evolution a theory based on �natural laws�. Apollos |
||
|
||
|
Apollos
Senior Member
Joined: 29 January 2009 Status: Offline Points: 426 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 March 2009 at 8:21pm |
|
Ron, With your statement above you are trying to define God out of existence again. In addition to that fallacy, you are using a definition which is illogical. I offer my explanation and welcome your response. For the sake of brevity, I�ll agree with you that the universe exists. But the key question is � Does the universe represent everything that exists or is there is something that exists outside the universe (i.e. - God)? If the universe has always existed one might be able to make the case that you have. But I think you know that the universe has not always existed � science and logic refute this idea. In which case, we have one of two logical possibilities: 1. The universe is derived from something else that has always existed. 2. Something did not always exist. Put another way, there was a point when nothing existed. To get to the point we are � where something exists � means you would have to show how something can come from nothing. Apollos |
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 7891011 29> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
Ron Webb wrote: