< Previous: Poetry Sunday: Lot's Wife Up: Site Index Next: The Aura of Infallibility >
Conflicting Miracles

"Saint Jnanadeva is revered for his Bhagavad Gita translation and commentary in the Maharastrian language. Among several miracles that established this 13th-century saint's reputation, the most famous involved a water buffalo. Challenged by the arrogant brahmins of Paithan that he was not qualified to recite the Vedas, Jnanadeva replied, 'Anyone can recite the Vedas.' He placed his hand upon a nearby water buffalo, which proceeded to correctly chant Vedic verses for more than an hour."

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1995/12/15_miracles.shtml

"Thousands flocked to temples in Sri Lanka in early August 2006 after media reports that 'miracle rays' could be seen emanating from statues of the Buddha. As news of the extraordinary phenomenon spread, traffic was held up throughout the capital city of Colombo and its suburbs as large numbers of people visited temples and roadside Buddha statues.

...'Thousands vouched for having seen rays emanating from the chest of the Buddha statues and considered it a miracle,' according to an article in a Sri Lankan newspaper."

http://www.einterface.net/gamini/buddhist.html

"I was heartbroken that my boyfriend decided to leave the relationship, so I had the Retrieve A Lover spell cast. Within a week of the spell casting, he called 'just to talk.' After some pleasant talks and catching up, he asked to see me again.

I felt he had started to turn around. I decided to date someone else just to see. He is absolutely crazy about me now and DOES see the good in me that I had hoped he would.

I am a college grad with a highly professional job. I was looking for answers. I got them.

I was so thrilled that I had the Money Spell cast a few months later. Within days I got a letter from the child support office that my child support was increasing by $172 a month!"

http://www.calastrology.com/spelltestimonials.html

"In Kirtland, Joseph Smith made friends with a local resident, John Johnson. The Johnsons and several others visited Joseph at his home in 1831. Mrs. Johnson had been ill for years with a lame arm. It made her unable, for example, to lift her hand above her head. One of the group asked Joseph if God had given any man power to heal Mrs. Johnson. A non-member of the Church records what followed:

A few moments later, when the conversation had turned in another direction, Smith rose, and walking across the room, taking Mrs. Johnson by the hand, said in the most solemn and impressive manner, 'Woman, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ I command thee to be whole,' and immediately left the room. The company was awe-stricken at the infinite presumption of the man, and the calm assurance with which he spoke. The sudden mental and moral shock - I know not how better to explain the well-attested fact - electrified the rheumatic arm - Mrs. Johnson at once lifted it up with ease, and on her return home the next day she was able to do her washing without difficulty or pain."

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophecies.shtml

"Narrated Anas:
A man came to the Prophet on a Friday while he (the Prophet) was delivering a sermon at Medina, and said, 'There is lack of rain, so please invoke your Lord to bless us with the rain.' The Prophet looked at the sky when no cloud could be detected. Then he invoked Allah for rain. Clouds started gathering together and it rained till the Medina valleys started flowing with water. It continued raining till the next Friday. Then that man (or some other man) stood up while the Prophet was delivering the Friday sermon, and said, 'We are drowned; Please invoke your Lord to withhold it (rain) from us.' The Prophet smiled and said twice or thrice, 'O Allah! Please let it rain round about us and not upon us.' The clouds started dispersing over Madinah to the right and to the left, and it rained round about Madinah and not upon Madinah. Allah showed them (the people) the miracle of His Prophet and His response to his invocation."

http://members.tripod.com/maseeh1/advices7/id154.htm

"On May 13, 1917, a vision appeared to three shepherd children near the village of Fatima in Portugal. On a cloud that hovered above an oak tree they saw the shining figure of a woman, 'a beautiful Lady from Heaven'. The lady told the children - Lucia, 10, Francisco, 9, and Jacinta, 7 - to meet her in the same place on the 13th of each month until October.
On the first two visits only the children claimed to have actually seen the lady, but on the third and last visit, a crowd of 50,000 gathered, on a wet and dismal day, to see the last apparition. This time the shining lady, again invisible to all but the children, announced her identity: she was Our Lady of the Rosary, and she told them three 'secrets' about the future.
Then something shocking happened.
The rain suddenly stopped and the sun came out. At first it seemed to start spinning and then it began to plunge crazily toward the earth. The crowd was terrified. After a moment the sun returned to its normal position and then, twice more, repeated the same maneuver."

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/scripts/fatima.html

"These miracles were common enough in Rome, and among others this was believed, that when the Roman soldiers were sacking the city of Veii, certain of them entered the temple of Juno and spoke to the statue of the goddess, saying, 'Wilt thou come with us to Rome?' when to some it seemed that she inclined her head in assent, and to others that they heard her answer, 'Yea.'"

—Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius (1517)

Although our age is somewhat less credulous than past eras, human society is still awash in miracle claims. As the above examples show, they come from every faith and belief system, and they run the gamut: faith healings; weather miracles; snake-handling and poison-drinking; speaking in tongues; statues that move, weep, bleed, speak, eat or drink; miraculous prophecies and foretellings; psychics who claim they can view distant locations or communicate with the dead; "deliverances" from demons and evil spirits; spells and prayers to bring love, health and prosperity; "incorruptible" bodies; levitation and bilocation; divine manifestations in burned food and water damage; stigmata; multiplication of food and oil; speaking animals; and many more.

One of the greatest English-speaking philosophers of all time, David Hume, saw the fundamental problem with all these miraculous stories in his 1748 book An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:

To make this the better understood, let us consider, that, in matters of religion, whatever is different is contrary; and that it is impossible the religions of ancient Rome, of Turkey, of Siam, and of China should, all of them, be established on any solid foundation. Every miracle, therefore, pretended to have been wrought in any of these religions (and all of them abound in miracles), as its direct scope is to establish the particular system to which it is attributed; so has it the same force, though more indirectly, to overthrow every other system. In destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit of those miracles, on which that system was established; so that all the prodigies of different religions are to be regarded as contrary facts, and the evidences of these prodigies, whether weak or strong, as opposite to each other.

...This argument may appear over subtile and refined; but is not in reality different from the reasoning of a judge, who supposes, that the credit of two witnesses, maintaining a crime against any one, is destroyed by the testimony of two others, who affirm him to have been two hundred leagues distant, at the same instant when the crime is said to have been committed.

In other words, Hume says, the conflicting miracle claims of various religions cancel each other out. These religions cannot all be true, since they make incompatible theological claims. (I note for completeness' sake that they can all be false.) We can safely assume that, if a religion is false, any miracle claims advanced in its name are exaggerations or frauds. It follows that when considering whether any particular miracle claim is true, we must consider all the miracle claims of all other religions to count as evidence to the contrary. And since there are so many of these, no matter which religion's miracle claims you're considering, the vast number of miracle claims from other religions which stand in opposition to it make the claim under consideration very probably false. It's as if there was a vast crowd of people, and whenever any one person stands to assert a claim, the entire rest of the crowd shouts out to contradict him.

Although it's useful to debunk particular miracle anecdotes - and I have nothing but admiration for the dedicated skeptics who go out to investigate every new wild-goose chase - this argument shows why we don't need to. Seven hundred years later, no one can really know for sure whether a water buffalo spoke on one occasion in the 13th century. But the burden of proof is not on the doubter to disprove. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, and no apologist for any religion can offer any evidence for their miracles that is superior to the evidence offered by any other. Thus, these stories offer no grounds for making a decision among all the faiths that promote them. If any miracle could be repeated, tested, under reliable and controlled conditions by independent observers, that would be something. But, so far, no religion has come anywhere close to meeting this high burden of proof.

The sole argument a theist could offer to dispute any of this, which I have no doubt will be offered by some, is for them to say that their miracles are from God, while the "miracles" of other religions are false signs performed by demons to mislead the unwary. But since any member of any religion can use that argument in exactly the same way, it is no help in deciding among them. It may soothe the troubled minds of the faithful, but it cannot have any persuasive force to anyone who is not already committed to one belief.

February 18, 2008, 9:24 pm • Posted in: The ObservatoryCommentOptions

Bookmark This:   Del.icio.us del.icio.us   Digg Digg   Reddit Reddit   StumbleUpon StumbleUpon  

97 Comments

He placed his hand upon a nearby water buffalo, which proceeded to correctly chant Vedic verses for more than an hour."

Just as a preliminary comment, is the miracle here supposed to be that he placed his hand on a water buffalo and survived? (I've heard numerous stories about how dangerous and aggressive they can be). ;/

...after looking them up, it appears I was confusing them with Cape Buffalo. (Any apologists want to try for a miracle touching one of those? :P)

There is also another defence for certain theists; not all religions are mutually exclusive. Some people believe in a god or creator, but don't necessarily subscribe to a specific doctrine. They believe that all religions are just different manifestations of the same deity. Consequently they could believe that all of these occurrences are true miracles.

That would give a pretty schizoid deity. So presumably, Prometheus, having previously decided to help humanity by stealing fire (from himself, of course, since he is also Zeus), and having made great personal sacrifices out of his love for humanity, suddenly decided to manifest himself as Qetzatcoatl, and demanded that people murder thousands every night by ripping their hearts out. Then he turned into Thor and started smiting giants, before getting bored with that, and decided that he would fight on their side instead as Loki. He then turned into Set, and murdered himself (Osiris), before avenging himself as Horus. However, before he did that he became Isis, and resurrected himself (Osiris), but unfortunately he (Ra) wouldn't allow himself to stay in the land of the living, so he decided to rule over the land of the dead, with his son and self (Anubis) as the judge of the dead. He found ruling over the land of the dead rather lonely, so he turned into Hades and kidnapped himself (Persephone) so that he could be his queen. This caused him (Demeter) to be rather upset at losing himself (his daughter Persephone), and so he stopped his duties as fertility goddess in order to look for himself. This upset himself and himself and himself, because he was worried that the mortals would die and he wouldn't get any sacrifices from them. Fortunately he (Zeus) was able to negotiate with himself (Hades) and allowed himself (Persephone) to spend half the year with himself (Demeter) and the other half with himself (Hades). Then, after spending some time as the feminist goddess Artemis, he then became Yahweh and founded a mysoginistic religion.

The Trinity is crazy enough into combining only three gods into one - but it is quite rational compared to combining every god which has ever been thought of.

"And they believe that this Saint Jnanadeva laid his hand upon a water buffalo, and this buffalo started reciting holy verses! This buffalo talked for an hour! Can you believe that stuff?? Can you believe they actually believe it??? Oh, that's too much!! Okay, so where were we? Oh yes, in today's lesson we will discuss Balaam and his donkey..."

From Porphyry's Life of Pythagoras, some miracles allegedly worked by that great mathematician:

At Tarentum, in a pasture, seeing an ox [reaping] beans, he went to the herdsman, and advised him to tell the ox to abstain from beans. The countryman mocked him, proclaiming his ignorance of the ox-language. So Pythagoras himself went and whispered in the ox's ear. Not only did the bovine at once desist from his diet of beans, but would never touch any thenceforward, though he survived many years near Hera's temple at Tarentum, until very old; being called the sacred ox, and eating any food given him.

Yes, Pythagoras believed in the wickedness of eating beans.

Porphyry also tells us that Pythagoras convinced a bear to stop killing and eating animals, that he convinced some fishermen to release the fish they had caught by telling them exactly how many there were, that he demonstrated that he was a reincarnation of Trojan War hero Euphorbus, etc.

I remember reading that passage in Hume's "Enquiry." The second part of the argument was something to the tune of, "one should only believe a miracle if NOT believing it proves to be more foolish than believing it."

Given the examples that Ebon has posted, I think I'll keep right on not believing, thank you.

The problem with saying that much, MisterDomino, is that most believers feel that it is foolish not to believe. After all, they assume that one is going to hell if they don't, so why wouldn't you?

TEP did you have that saved somewhere, or was it just off the top of your head? Either way that was brilliant.

As Ebon stated the conflicting miracles problem are only a problem for nonbelievers. The cognitive dissonance required to maintain faith in any deity over any other deity already makes in impossible for the faithful to seriously consider the arguments of other faiths.

Its like the problem with Pascal's Wager, it's only true if your options are belief or non-belief, but when compared to the near infinite combination of real world options it is useless. In other words, christians don't stay awake at night worrying about whether or not they will go to muslim hell. Similarly when muhammad flies to heaven on a white horse it's silly. But when jesus ascends to heaven on a white cloud it's a miracle of the one true faith.

TEP did you have that saved somewhere, or was it just off the top of your head? Either way that was brilliant.

I was going to say the same thing, because that's something I hear all the time. "It's all the same god".

I'm bookmarking this.

Interesting article, and thanks for reminding us of Hume's argument! As mentioned, the proposition that all religions claim to have miracles does not mean all are false. In the Christian framework, it is quite evident that both Yahweh and Satan perform miracles, although the latter's are constrained, unlike the former's. In this case, it is expected that Satan would try to mislead us by performing miracles in other religious contexts, so many miracles are not worth pursuing.

The one miracle that is worthy of serious investigation, and for which significant evidence exists, is the resurrection of Christ. As the Apostle Paul states, Christianity rises or falls on the truth of this event, which also happens to exclude Satan as the author. Skeptics like Harvard law professor Dr. Simon Greenleaf, who wrote An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice and English poet Gilbert West, who wrote Observations on the history and evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, examined the evidence and came to the same conclusion that millions of others have regarding it. I have not seen a convincing argument from the evidence that is more reasonable than considering it as a true miracle.

In response to TEP's statement about the crazy trinity, it makes more sense to understand God as three personalities in one godhead, rather than only one, when you consider that Yahweh is partly defined by His love for others. Before creation, the only love a single personality could exhibit would be self-love, or narcissism. However, in a plural godhead, the members of the trinity are able to display complex relationships including sacrificial love. I don't mean to indicate that things are that simple, but I wouldn't find a god I could completely comprehend to be worthy of my worship. Indeed, the trinity is the basis for the biblical forms of family, government, economics, labor, etc., which should not be surprising.

Hi Dave,

The one miracle that is worthy of serious investigation, and for which significant evidence exists, is the resurrection of Christ.

This is just patently contradicted by the facts. Why should your particular miracle be the only one worthy of serious investigation? Thousands of people claim to have seen miraculous rays emanating from the chest of the Buddha. The miracles of Joseph Smith are more recent and supported by better records. Magic spells that can be ordered through the mail would be far more open to experimental verification than a resurrection that allegedly took place two millennia ago and has come down to us only through hazy, anonymous, contradictory records. And frankly, I think making a statue or a water buffalo speak would be a more impressive miracle than raising someone from the dead - which, after all, non-miraculous modern medical science already has the ability to do for brief periods after clinical death.

As the Apostle Paul states, Christianity rises or falls on the truth of this event, which also happens to exclude Satan as the author.

In the massively popular Left Behind series, the Antichrist is killed and then raises himself from the dead. It seems that not all your fellow Christians agree with your point here.

Damn, TEP, I wanted to be the first to say "Brilliant!" I think SNL once did a skit called "5-Second Death of a Salesman" which went something like this:

Knock, Knock.
"Good morning M'aam, my name is-
BLAM! BLAM!
The End

I think you have given us "The Whole of Theology, in 60 Seconds"

In response to TEP's statement about the crazy trinity, it makes more sense to understand God as three personalities in one godhead, rather than only one, when you consider that Yahweh is partly defined by His love for others.

....dude, have you READ the Old Testament?

Mr. Homiak,

The one miracle that is worthy of serious investigation, and for which significant evidence exists, is the resurrection of Christ.

You might want to provide proof that Jesus existed before you try to prove that he died and came back to life.

In this case, it is expected that Satan would try to mislead us by performing miracles in other religious contexts, so many miracles are not worth pursuing.

You know, it's funny, but just the other day, someone was telling me that all this Xianity miracle stuff was really just planted by Loki to fool people because he's such an excellent trickster and he loves watching you Xians fall all over yourselves to worship such a monster of a god as he's planted. He derives considerable delight when you guys think your god is omni-benevolent. It's obvious that these are Loki's tricks on you and you are falling for them.

I don't mean to indicate that things are that simple, but I wouldn't find a god I could completely comprehend to be worthy of my worship.

Why am I not surprised?

Indeed, the trinity is the basis for the biblical forms of family, government, economics, labor, etc., which should not be surprising.

What kind of non-sensical statement is this? The trinity is the basis for the biblical family? I didn't know that families were made of sons, fathers, and ghosts. Government? The biblical government is a totalitarian theocracy where god says jump and you do it (you better not ask how high, you better know or else it's off to hell with you). Economics? What does a trinity have to do with, "Pray and the lord will provde," or, "Take what you want from the heathens," or, "Give your money to others?" Should I go on?

I don't know; I can see how the Trinity has some connection to economics.

After all, she cracked the IRS d-base... ;)

Before creation, the only love a single personality could exhibit would be self-love, or narcissism.

And you know this, how?

Before creation, the only love a single personality could exhibit would be self-love, or narcissism.

Assuming both that there is a god & that there was a creation (which I don't), what single personalities could there have been before creation to exhibit anything?

Before creation, the only love a single personality could exhibit would be self-love, or narcissism.

And you know this, how?

Actually, Spanish Inquisitor, this makes sense, according to the creation myth. God is supposed to be eternal and have no beginning. If the universe had a beginning, God was there before that. If God is love, then the only object of that love could be God. As I said, it makes sense, but I have to suspend my disbelief too far to accept the premises.

...I wouldn't find a god I could completely comprehend to be worthy of my worship.

I find this disturbing. How do you know that it is worthy of worship if you don't comprehend it?

I knew I was walking into the lion's den here, but I'll try to respond to most of the points made, albeit briefly over lunch (others have done so at length much more eloquently, e.g., Reasonable Faith and Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann by William Lane Craig, and even the older references I previously mentioned). I have not read extensively in this blog yet, so I may be covering well-trod ground,

I consider the resurrection of Christ more salient than other miracles, because the entire Christian belief system depends on its veracity, which is why it has been examined exhaustively through the ages. As you no doubt realize, Christianity is based on a personal relationship, with creeds and religious practices secondary, so it matters that the other part of the relationship is not resting in a grave somewhere. Neither Buddhism, Mormonism, Islam, or other religion systems that I am aware of depend on a single miracle. Without the resurrection of Christ and biblical prophecies, I would probably be in your camp.

The reason Satan is excluded is that the sacrifice of Christ was God's plan for bringing salvation to the world, which Satan constantly attempted to thwart in the Gospels. The entire sacrificial system of the O.T. is a foreshadow of what God would do Himself. Isaiah 40-56 teaches that Israel failed to be the servant that God desired, and so He would raise up an ideal Servant in the Messiah (Isaiah 53 does not make sense applied to the nation of Israel or the prophet Isaiah, IMHO).

On the question of Jesus' existence, outside of my personal experience, I find the conservative view that the New Testament and references by Tacitus, the Talmud, etc. are reliable to be adequate. I also believe that Yahweh is the same in the O.T. and N.T., having perfect justice, holiness, righteousness, and goodness balanced with perfect love, mercy, and compassion. If you only consider the O.T. judgments, and not the expressions of His love for and identification with the people of Israel, the poor, oppressed, and alienated, then you are guilty of creating a straw god, as it were. Are you disturbed that you believe in things you do not totally comprehend, perhaps the 10 or 24 dimensions of string theory or why the quantum reactions in your brain make you feel love? There is enough evidence in the Bible and history for me to trust the Creator/Redeemer so portrayed, without thoroughly understanding everything. Faith is not blind, but is based on evidence, yet it is faith because some things are still unseen.

Re the trinity, God stands outside of time as the First Cause; you may as well ask yourselves where the material and impetus for the Big Bang came from, but physics breaks down in that singularity. If not narcissism, then please explain how relational love can be expressed by a single personality apart from anything else? Finally, the trinity is represented in the similar accountability relationships God has designed into creation. For example, the family has God->Parents->Children, government has God->Kings/Rulers->Citizens, economics has God->Stewards->Material Things, and the church has God->Shepherds->Laity (all with an "->" from God to the third item as well) in a pattern that reflects how the Son is obedient to the Father, and the Holy Spirit is directed by the Father and Son. Since this is off-topic for this thread, any further discussion should be continued elsewhere.

Please keep a respectful and open mind; I once was an advocate of Camus' philosophy (e.g., in the face of the Absurd, the only legitimate question is suicide). After all, atheists have faith in life arising, may I say "miraculously," from matter and energy; if you believe in panspermia/exogenesis, then you've only relocated the issue to a different galaxy. I don't have that much faith, but am willing to listen to the evidence for your miracles.

Hi Dave,

Neither Buddhism, Mormonism, Islam, or other religion systems that I am aware of depend on a single miracle. Without the resurrection of Christ and biblical prophecies, I would probably be in your camp.

Does that single miracle qualifier make the claim any different? Whether your religion rests on one miracle or many miracles hardly makes a difference in my book, so long as evidence can be provided for their existance. I'm not sure where to find it here, but if someone here would be nice enough to link the article on Jesus's existance as a historical figure, that should be a good start.

The entire sacrificial system of the O.T. is a foreshadow of what God would do Himself.

Why do you suppose that god would need to sacrifice his son, who is also himself, to himself in order to forgive humanity for something he caused in the first place, after waiting for thousands of years after the fact? The whole idea of sacrifice is ludicrous; provided god exists and how christianity describes him, there is nothing one can offer to god - he would already own everything and nothing he wants is out of his power to create on a whim. To think a human can offer something to god somehow seems arrogant to me.

I also believe that Yahweh is the same in the O.T. and N.T., having perfect justice, holiness, righteousness, and goodness balanced with perfect love, mercy, and compassion.

I'd like to know how you deduced that god was all those things; I'll work under the assumption you got to that conclusion because the bible says so until I hear about any other means of doing so. I'll let you know right now that it's circular reasoning if you did.
Two things to say on this, kind of in one; On what scale are you measuring 'justice, holiness, righeousness' and so on? If you're starting for the vantage point that god is automatically these things, that makes the position the ultimate in moral relativity. I'll give you two solid examples; according to the bible, one of the commandants is "thou shalt not kill", yet god is the most genocidal figure in the bible. In other words, is killing intrinsically wrong, or is it only wrong if god says it's wrong? What if god came down tomorrow and said "killing and raping are now holy acts", would you start to rape and kill people? Is it automatically right if god were to do it?
As for the other stand point, if you feel that justice, holiness and whatever can be objectively measured somehow (if you think you can I'd love to hear how), and that god just happens to be all of these things, then we can develop a system of morals outside of any divine word; it just wouldn't be needed. Of course, I'd also like to know how condemning a vast majority of people to suffer for all eternity for not believing in him, despite his best efforts to not put forth any evidence, is just and loving.

Are you disturbed that you believe in things you do not totally comprehend, perhaps the 10 or 24 dimensions of string theory or why the quantum reactions in your brain make you feel love?

I accept there is a lot about existance I'll never know or understand; I would rate my reaction towards them as indifference. The feeling I get from trying to understand the world I live on and the vastness of space around me, from the very little to the very large makes me feel awed and humbled.
I wouldn't say any of those things make me feel loved; that's something my friends and family do, very well I might add.

There is enough evidence in the Bible and history for me to trust the Creator/Redeemer so portrayed, without thoroughly understanding everything. Faith is not blind, but is based on evidence, yet it is faith because some things are still unseen.

Using the bible to prove the bible is true is illogical and I hope you can see why.
As for outside evidence, what evidence do you feel points towards a creator/redeemer?
And as for faith, faith based on evidence is the exact opposite definition of faith. By it's very definitation, faith is not something based in evidence; it's a belief in lack of or in spite of evidence.

Re the trinity, God stands outside of time as the First Cause; you may as well ask yourselves where the material and impetus for the Big Bang came from, but physics breaks down in that singularity.

I ask myself how it all happened, but I don't pretend to have an answer for you. I suspect the 'answer', if one exists, exists beyond the abilities of our mind to logically understand, since that is how evolution has shaped our minds; in order to develop the mental capacity to understand such a thing, incredible amounts of resources would need to be devoted towards a cause that does not aid our survival or reproduction in the world.
However, if you think god is the answer, how do you feel god came into being? Did god just happen? Are you really proposing something infinitely larger, more powerful, intelligence, conscious, and even moral just happened? You might as well just assume the universe just happened and doesnt' need a cause; after all, you can SEE the
universe, unlike some other things I can mention.

After all, atheists have faith in life arising, may I say "miraculously," from matter and energy; if you believe in panspermia/exogenesis, then you've only relocated the issue to a different galaxy. I don't have that much faith, but am willing to listen to the evidence for your miracles.

I can honestly say I don't know how life arose. I have my ideas, but at the moment that's all I have. I find it odd though, how you don't have 'enough' faith
to believe life can just happen, yet you have more than enough faith to believe something like god (who would be considered life, be it an incomprehensibly vast form of life) can just happen and doesn't require a creator himself. It seems like a contradiction to me, but I'm open to hearing your take on it (despite all the efforts of others falling far short).

Hiya Dave! Lemme address just a few of your points:

Neither Buddhism, Mormonism, Islam, or other religion systems that I am aware of depend on a single miracle. Without the resurrection of Christ and biblical prophecies, I would probably be in your camp.

True, Buddhism not as much as others. But both Mormonism and Islam require the miracle of an angel appearing before mortal men and speaking out loud to them to provide them with insight direct from God. Plus you have the seerstones, golden plates, etc.

The reason Satan is excluded is that the sacrifice of Christ was God's plan for bringing salvation to the world, which Satan constantly attempted to thwart in the Gospels. The entire sacrificial system of the O.T. is a foreshadow of what God would do Himself.

Stoning to death, breaking bones, spilling blood, crucifying, lashes of the whip, killing of innocent children...these are the only things that your God of "love" would accept for an apology when he was upset. Why couldn't "I'm sorry" be enough? For a God of love, he sure is bloodthirsty and brutal!

Isaiah 40-56 teaches that Israel failed to be the servant that God desired, and so He would raise up an ideal Servant in the Messiah (Isaiah 53 does not make sense applied to the nation of Israel or the prophet Isaiah, IMHO).

This is an aside, but did you ever find it odd that God spent thousands of years devoting all his focus on Israel and the surrounding area? Not a word to the Chinese, Mayans, Aztecs, and all the other civilizations alive during all this time. Wonder why?

On the question of Jesus' existence, outside of my personal experience, I find the conservative view that the New Testament and references by Tacitus, the Talmud, etc. are reliable to be adequate. I also believe that Yahweh is the same in the O.T. and N.T., having perfect justice, holiness, righteousness, and goodness balanced with perfect love, mercy, and compassion. If you only consider the O.T. judgments, and not the expressions of His love for and identification with the people of Israel, the poor, oppressed, and alienated, then you are guilty of creating a straw god, as it were. Are you disturbed that you believe in things you do not totally comprehend, perhaps the 10 or 24 dimensions of string theory or why the quantum reactions in your brain make you feel love? There is enough evidence in the Bible and history for me to trust the Creator/Redeemer so portrayed, without thoroughly understanding everything. Faith is not blind, but is based on evidence, yet it is faith because some things are still unseen.

The topic of "evidence" has already been well discussed on here. The problem you are going to run into on here is when you say something in general like "The historical evidence proves the Bible", we have heard it before and we will ask you to not just mention the evidence but provide that evidence. And usually what you will find is the specific evidence you do provide is not so bullet-proof after all.

As for your comments on Yahweh's love and compassion and mercy...that's been well discussed as well, so I'll spare my rant on that, even though I touched on it a bit previously. And again...why the focus on Israel for thousands of years? Because it's part of "his plan"? Wow. Too bad for all those people who lived on other continents during those times. They had no idea any of this stuff existed, and they obviously went to hell since they did not know that the *only* way to God was through his son, Jesus, who they never even heard of.

Are you disturbed that you believe in things you do not totally comprehend, perhaps the 10 or 24 dimensions of string theory or why the quantum reactions in your brain make you feel love?

What a load of presupposition!

* do you know that any of us "believe" in string theory or quantum reactions in our brains make us feel love? I don't recall believing either.

* do you have some experiment which validates or falsifies string theory, rather than the presumption that any of us accept it as a valid explanatory paradigm?

* do you have some (peer-reviewed) research that demostrates that quantum reactions in our brain produce the emotion of love, rather than the presumption that any of us accept such a simplistic definition and model of love?

Please keep a respectful and open mind;

I will once you stop trying to convince me to abandon positions which I do not hold.

After all, atheists have faith in life arising, may I say "miraculously," from matter and energy;

No, you may not say "miraculously". And you may not say that I have "faith" that life arose that way. Accepting the "most probable--if incomplete--explanation given our current understanding" is light years away from "faith".

Are you disturbed that you believe in things you do not totally comprehend, perhaps the 10 or 24 dimensions of string theory or why the quantum reactions in your brain make you feel love?

What a load of presupposition!

* do you know that any of us "believe" in string theory or quantum reactions in our brains make us feel love? I don't recall believing either.

* do you have some experiment which validates or falsifies string theory, rather than the presumption that any of us accept it as a valid explanatory paradigm?

* do you have some (peer-reviewed) research that demostrates that quantum reactions in our brain produce the emotion of love, rather than the presumption that any of us accept such a simplistic definition and model of love?

Please keep a respectful and open mind;

I will once you stop trying to convince me to abandon positions which I do not hold.

After all, atheists have faith in life arising, may I say "miraculously," from matter and energy;

No, you may not say "miraculously" when talking about my understanding. And you may not say that I have "faith" that life arose that way. Accepting the "most probable--if incomplete--explanation given our current understanding" is light years away from "faith".

You've typed a fair bit about what you believe we believe. That doesn't bode well for the prospect of informed discussion.

Mr. Homiak,
I'm well aware of Dr. Craig's apologetics and I'm not sure you should hold them up as something to hang your hat on. His apologetics are filled with begging the question among other problems. He presumes that the Bible must be true because he assumes that the people in the gospel were real, but also that they were skeptics that would not have believed in Xianity unless it were true, which is a very tenuous position to take. Not only can he not prove that they existed, but he can't prove that they only believed because they were convinced by the miraculous happenings that supposedly happened. And, even if they did believe, it doesn't constitute proof that those things happened. I find his reasoning to be rather underwhelming.

Without the resurrection of Christ and biblical prophecies, I would probably be in your camp.

What actual proof do you think you have for this event?

On the question of Jesus' existence, outside of my personal experience, I find the conservative view that the New Testament and references by Tacitus, the Talmud, etc. are reliable to be adequate.

Then you rely on very shoddy scholarship indeed. There is not a single contemporary account of Jesus, which is rather odd for someone causing so much trouble and doing so many miraculous things. All references come from well after the fact. The Biblical references are contradictory, the non-Biblical references are more along the line that person or people X proclaim that they worship someone named Jesus who supposedly died on a cross. No Roman records remain of Jesus being crucified. The timelines in the Bible are all off. (Herod was king when? When was the census?) This is shoddy and poor scholarship. Also, I'd like to know what "personal experience" you have that can be counted as evidence for Jesus's existence 2000 years ago. That's a ludicrous concept.

I also believe that Yahweh is the same in the O.T. and N.T., having perfect justice, holiness, righteousness, and goodness balanced with perfect love, mercy, and compassion. If you only consider the O.T. judgments, and not the expressions of His love for and identification with the people of Israel, the poor, oppressed, and alienated, then you are guilty of creating a straw god, as it were.

If Yahweh were the same from OT to NT, then why would it be possible to get an incorrect view of Yahweh's nature from only reading one of the volumes? Face it, your claim is on the rocks by your own admission.

Are you disturbed that you believe in things you do not totally comprehend, perhaps the 10 or 24 dimensions of string theory or why the quantum reactions in your brain make you feel love?

Actually, I don't tend to believe in things I can't wholly understand. That said, I believe that quantum mechanics is the best explanation that we have for the phenomena it seeks to explain, because I know enough about it to know it works. Do I understand it completely? I'll go with Feynman here and say that no one does, and anyone who says they do is lying or flat out wrong, but that's quite different from what you said, isn't it? You said that you can only worship something that you don't understand. None of us are worshipping QM, nor would I care to worship something that strives to remain beyond my comprehension.

If not narcissism, then please explain how relational love can be expressed by a single personality apart from anything else?

Way to go. You've refuted the idea of god all by yourself and you didn't even know it. If god were perfect, then he would have no need to create our universe, yet he had to create our universe else he would only be engaging in narcissism, hence god is not perfect. Also, god is not immutable for the same reasons. Good job.

For example, the family has God->Parents->Children, government has God->Kings/Rulers->Citizens, economics has God->Stewards->Material Things, and the church has God->Shepherds->Laity (all with an "->" from God to the third item as well) in a pattern that reflects how the Son is obedient to the Father, and the Holy Spirit is directed by the Father and Son.

It's amazing how people can create patterns in the world around them that really aren't patterns at all, but only appear that way to the person making them because they so want to see the patterns. The family could operate in threes through grandparents, parents, and children as well, or it could be fours if you add god. Or, exclude god, which would be true for many families, and there isn't three there at all. This is especially true with government, considering that we have a secular government. If you really think this is some sort of compelling argument for anything, I suppose you probably also think the Bible codes are compelling as well? Tsk tsk.

After all, atheists have faith in life arising, may I say "miraculously," from matter and energy

No, what atheists have is a lack of faith in your beliefs that you have not proven or given evidence for. This does not constitute a separate faith in itself, thank you very much.

...others have done so at length much more eloquently, e.g., Reasonable Faith and Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann by William Lane Craig, and even the older references I previously mentioned.

As I pointed out in my most recent post, Craig has said that even if he were transported back 2,000 years in a time machine and personally witnessed Jesus' body lying motionless in the tomb until it decayed away to nothing, he would still be a Christian and believe in the resurrection. I venture to suggest that he is not the most objectively reliable of investigators.

I consider the resurrection of Christ more salient than other miracles, because the entire Christian belief system depends on its veracity, which is why it has been examined exhaustively through the ages.

If anything, the centrality of the resurrection to Christianity makes it less likely that Christians would have examined it objectively - because they have more to lose by doing so. If a religion is not essential to faith, theists can freely examine it and conclude it might not have happened without seriously shaking their belief. Christianity, on the other hand, absolutely depends on the resurrection, which means Christians have a strong preconceived reason to believe in it regardless of what the evidence indicates.

Neither Buddhism, Mormonism, Islam, or other religion systems that I am aware of depend on a single miracle.

Then I'd suggest you need to look into those religions more carefully. As others have pointed out, both Mormonism and Islam most certainly are dependent on single miracles - namely the miraculous revelations of their respective holy texts to Joseph Smith and Mohammed.

...I find the conservative view that the New Testament and references by Tacitus, the Talmud, etc. are reliable to be adequate.

As Earl Doherty points out, this conservative view amounts to a "consensus of necessity". The historical case for Jesus is so threadbare that Christian scholars have little choice but to cling to the accounts of these authors, unreliable as they might be. See part 2 of my essay, "Choking on the Camel".

I also believe that Yahweh is the same in the O.T. and N.T., having perfect justice, holiness, righteousness, and goodness balanced with perfect love, mercy, and compassion.

You may "believe" that, but it doesn't follow that the facts support it. My essay "Shadow of Turning" details multiple instances in which the Old Testament god and the New Testament god are faced with similar circumstances and react in diametrically opposite ways. One of my favorite examples is how the OT god explicitly forbids his followers to pray for their enemies (Jeremiah 11:14).

Thanks for the many responses and good points. I'll try to summarize my answers. Regarding the significance of the resurrection miracle, I submit that no other miracle has been examined by believers and non-believers to such a great extent, and I guess I don't classify angelic visitations as miracles per se. The main reasons I believe in the resurrection are covered in the references I've cited. Regarding no contemporary accounts of Jesus, I guess we all wish that investigative newspapers had been publishing in the Roman backwater of Palestine circa 30 A.D., yet I suspect many of you believe that Achilles was a real person despite no evidence other than the later stories of Homer, Xenophon, Brad Pitt, etc. When viewed in the full perspective of all evidence, I am satisfied with the Gospels of Matthew and John, eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus.

Heliobates, I apologize if my question was presumptuous, but I have had both issues presented to me by skeptics as explanations for the materialistic origin of the universe and human behavior. They were just suggestions of what one might believe without full comprehension, but accepting the materialistic view of life as more probable, if incomplete, hopefully does not mean you have excluded non-scientific, historical testimony in calculating your probabilities. Otherwise, you are guilty of circular reasoning.

OMGF, I believe you misinterpreted my comment about narcissism, which was a response to the previous question of how I knew only self-love was possible if God were postulated as a single personality; I am in fact arguing for the trinity for that reason, which does not require creation to express relational love in the Godhead! I'll ignore your comment about bible codes, and just say that I was explaining what the Bible teaches about the ideal relationships in those social spheres; you are free to create whatever patterns you like.

I try not to be guilty of using the Bible to prove itself for your sake, although self-reference within the revelation of God should not be excluded out of hand. The Bible is fully grounded in history as a record of God's dealings with mankind, and God uses historical events as important markers. I shouldn't need to cite (cf. Biblical Archaeological Review) the numerous times that archaeology proved the Bible correct when scholars had thought otherwise. Unlike Nostradamus, the prophecies of the Bible are specific. An example that is testified to by extra-biblical history is the prediction in Isaiah 45 that Cyrus of Persia would become the anointed servant of God in allowing the Hebrews to return to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity. This was written during Isaiah's life ~150 years before Cyrus was born. Herodotus states that Cyrus ascended to the throne of the Persian empire in 559 B.C. The Encyclopedia Brittanica and atheist H.G. Wells in his Outline of History state that the Jews returned to Jerusalem under the auspices of Cyrus. Josephus in Antiquities (http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-11.htm) even describes how the captive Jews showed Cyrus the O.T. prophecies and his role in their liberation, which led to his edict for their return. Also see http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/babylon01.html. I am aware that scholars who do not believe in predictive prophecy have postulated that a later author wrote the prophecy after the fact under Isaiah's name. The problem with this unsupported speculation is that Isaiah uses the Cyrus prophecy as an example of why Yahweh is greater than the Caananite false gods and idols that Israel had embraced in their syncretistic religion of the time; it is because Yahweh can predict what comes to pass that He is the true God, which would be nonsensical to the ancient Jews if it was written after the fact.

God devotes so much time to the Hebrews because they are His chosen people to receive His special revelation first, and be witnesses of the true God to the other nations. Due to the general revelation of creation as a witness to God's power and our consciences, Paul, once a persecutor of Christians and highly educated in Judaic law, makes the case in Romans 1 that men have no excuse for recognizing that God exists, and it is clear from Hebrews 11:5 that God is a rewarder of those who faithfully seek Him. Indeed, Hebrews 11:1 says faith is the evidence of things unseen, but it is not a blind, hopeless faith because of the divine conviction that makes confident faith possible. This conviction is supported by the evidence of God's Word and works in history. Do you think it is impossible for God to bring the knowledge and conviction of His sacrifice to those sincerely seeking Him?

Progressive revelation is the explanation for why different views of Yahweh may be arrived at by reading the O.T. or the N.T. A principle of biblical interpretation is that the O.T. should be read in light of the N.T., the later revelation. It is clear that God deals with man by faith in both testaments, and the development of salvation history is continuous and remarkably consistent in theme through many centuries and authors. Jesus made many references to the O.T.

I recognize myself from the past in the various comments maligning the character of God, and would spend the time to explain how I worked through the superficial and out-of-context interpretations to a more satisfying understanding of God's nature and the reason for evil, but I don't see the cost-benefit in this forum, where so many are unwilling to even entertain the existence of God or absolute morality for other reasons. If interested, I would first refer you to The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problems of Evil by John S. Feinberg. Now, point me to the forum where you discuss how you find meaning in life as a result of an atheistic, materialistic philosophy.

Regarding the significance of the resurrection miracle, I submit that no other miracle has been examined by believers and non-believers to such a great extent...

And found the evidence to be extremely flimsy, written many decades after the fact, and contradicting in the few accounts found.

...and I guess I don't classify angelic visitations as miracles per se...

Why not?

I guess we all wish that investigative newspapers had been publishing in the Roman backwater of Palestine circa 30 A.D...

Ahh, but Jerusalem was far from a "backwater" area, and there were historians alive at the time of Jesus who were documenting the history of Jerusalem during the Roman occupation. There were also historians who documented Herod's reign as well. Guess what? None of the historians alive during the time of Christ ever mentioned him. Neither did they mention Herod calling for firstborn males to be killed. Neither do they mention any Roman census at this time. Neither do they mention any miracles performed by a "Jesus". Neither do they mention all these dead priests coming back to life and wandering the streets of Jerusalem when Jesus died.

Do you find it odd that Jesus traveled from city to city, performing incredible miracles before crowd after crowd, for several years...and not one single witness to any of these events took the time to write it down, or paint a picture, or make a statue, or write to their friends about it? And please don't give me the "they were mostly illiterate" reasoning. There were plenty of literate priests, scholars, soldiers, etc, around who bore witness.

...yet I suspect many of you believe that Achilles was a real person despite no evidence other than the later stories of Homer, Xenophon, Brad Pitt, etc...

You tell me there was a Greek soldier named Achilles who fought in the Trojan war, then I won't have much problem with that. You tell me there was a Greek soldier named Achilles who was invulnerable except for his heel and he was the son of a sea nymph, and he was killed when an arrow fired at him was guided by a god to strike his heel, then you betcha I'm going to ask for a LOT of evidence to believe that one. I've said it before, I'll say it again - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

When viewed in the full perspective of all evidence, I am satisfied with the Gospels of Matthew and John, eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus.

When viewed in the full perspective of all evidence, the Gospels of Matthew and John were written decades after the fact, most likely around 70-85 AD, if not later. And unfortunately you will find most Christian scholars will agree with these dates. Paul is estimated to have died around 65 AD, and throughout all his letters you will notice he never quotes from any of the Gospels, which is very unusual given that he often quoted from the Old Testament. The names of Matthew and John, as well as with other gospels both canonic as well as non-canonic, were applied to the writings to help lend them an air of authenticity.

The Bible is fully grounded in history

While the Bible mentions historical facts such as the Egyptian Empire, the Roman occupation of Jerusalem, etc, that does not mean that everything else in it must be true as a result. If that's the case, then let's go back to Achilles and say that since it's a fact that the Greeks existed, and they had soldiers, than the entire story of Achilles must be true.

This conviction is supported by the evidence of God's Word and works in history. Do you think it is impossible for God to bring the knowledge and conviction of His sacrifice to those sincerely seeking Him?

You may be right on this one. I'm going to study the Quran now. After all, there was plenty of contemporary evidence that Muhammed existed. Be back later!

Do you think it is impossible for God to bring the knowledge and conviction of His sacrifice to those sincerely seeking Him?

No, I don't think that's impossible, which is why it struck me as odd that he wouldn't when I was. The only reasons I could think of for why were that he was either hiding for some reason or he didn't exist. Guess which answer I leaned towards.

Now, point me to the forum where you discuss how you find meaning in life as a result of an atheistic, materialistic philosophy.

I think that you'll find that the general consensus, at least around here, is that you make your own.

but accepting the materialistic view of life as more probable, if incomplete, hopefully does not mean you have excluded non-scientific, historical testimony in calculating your probabilities. Otherwise, you are guilty of circular reasoning.

I just caught you moving the goalposts. We were vaguely discussing abiogenesis and now you're trying to insinuate the alleged "historical evidence" for much later biblical occurrances.

Please demonstrate that the Genesis accounts are "non-scientific, historical testimony" worth revising the balance of probabilities away from naturalistic presumptions. I don't even have to get out of bed in the morning to show how the Genesis accounts do not correspond with the observable age of the Earth and age of the universe. They are, at most, mythical accounts preserved because of their religious value and therefore worthless in any discussion involving empirical assertions. I also invite you to consider Finkelstein and Silberman's work before you try to hold up the Pentateuch as "historical testimonial evidence" worthy of empirical consideration.

So then you probably meant that you feel there's adequate historical evidence for the existence of Jesus (as if proof that he existed automatically guarantees that everything said about him is also true), and because of this you can somehow bootstrap the rest of the Bible. If I'm right, you'd do well to avoid tossing around accusations of "close-mindedness" and "guilty of circular reasoning".

Now, point me to the forum where you discuss how you find meaning in life as a result of an atheistic, materialistic philosophy.

I just caught this last bit. This view really irritates me, as it implies that non-Christians can't be happy or feel content.

Why does life have to have "meaning" in the first place? Besides, "meaning" in life goes against atheism, as "meaning" implies that we are to "find our purpose", and any purpose had to have been put in place by some type of greater power.

I take life for what it is, and I don't spend countless hours of energy and frustration trying to make some things try to fit ancient books of superstition. I enjoy the much simpler process of examining the evidence and allowing it to lead me to my conclusions, rather than having my conclusion already made up and trying to force the evidence to fit that.

I have no problem loving my children, and laughing with them and enjoying the time I spend with them. I have no problem caring for others around me, and sharing in the joys and trials of this life. I have no problem marveling at the universe above, and the amazing variety of life here on Earth.

....it is clear from Hebrews 11:5 that God is a rewarder of those who faithfully seek Him. Indeed, Hebrews 11:1 says faith is the evidence of things unseen, but it is not a blind, hopeless faith because of the divine conviction that makes confident faith possible. This conviction is supported by the evidence of God's Word and works in history. Do you think it is impossible for God to bring the knowledge and conviction of His sacrifice to those sincerely seeking Him?

God chose to "reveal" his divine plan for humanity to an illiterate group of peasants in an effectively backwater Roman province. At that time, the world population was probably less than 300 million and the Roman Empire was about 60 million. It took until the 4th century CE before Christianity had spread widely enough and attained enough influence to become the Roman state religion. How many people never got the memo that, to ensure eternal happiness, they had to accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour?

Even during the supposed lifetime of Jesus, millions of people died in complete ignorance of their creator. This includes Jesus' neighbours in the Hellenic world and what would become the Jewish Diaspora---initially the only people that could receive this revelation because it was available first in Aramaic, then in Koine. So tens of thousands in the Polynesian archipelago and on the Australian continent, hundreds of millions in the Americas, northern Europe, what is now China and the Indian subcontinent... all of them died outside of the Grace of the one person God sent to redeem all of humanity.

Do you see why anyone who advances a claim of historicity while adhering to this hopelessly myopic version of events is simply not credible?

I just caught this last bit. This view really irritates me, as it implies that non-Christians can't be happy or feel content.

As far as I'm concerned, Taoists, Greeks, Bhuddists and Hindus had already worked out complex, relevant and coherent systems of meaning, conduct and morality centuries before Jesus had his kick at it. Heck, the Code of Hammurabi was already inscribed while the Judaic tribes were, according to legend, conquering the Canaanite cities and putting every man, woman and child to the sword.

I just caught this last bit. This view really irritates me, as it implies that non-Christians can't be happy or feel content.

I didn't mean this sarcastically, because it is a serious question. Let's not conflate happiness with finding meaning and purpose in life, since the latter does not necessarily cause the former, and the hedonists I know could care less about purpose as long as there is pleasure. I am coming from the perspective of Camus and other non-believers, who found the absurdity of this existence to mitigate against any real meaning. Is suffering just par for the game in survival of the fittest? The Christian framework gives me a way to understand this apparent absurdity and provides meaning to life, despite your opinion of it.

If there are any atheists here over 70 years old or approaching death, then I'd really like to here your perspective on this issue. Has Michael Martin, et al, written on this topic, or has it been discussed elsewhere here? If not, or if you think it is unimportant, then I am very disappointed...

Dave,

The problem with your questions about the purpose and meaning of life is that you have to start with the assumption that a purpose or meaning was ever installed in the first place. And for that to happen, you have to assume there is a higher being that put that purpose or meaning into place for us to find.

Understood. I am asking if there is anything more significant in regard to the meaning of life in the materialistic worldview than simply being survival mechanisms for our "selfish" genes to propagate? Are you really satisfied with that? It does not have to come from a higher power; I would think it might derive from the character of humanity (is there something that sets us apart from other species in this respect, say the ability to reflect?) and evolving social systems, but I want to know what you really think and have worked out to your own satisfaction, not the party line.

Mr. Homiak,

When viewed in the full perspective of all evidence, I am satisfied with the Gospels of Matthew and John, eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus.

Oh, so sorry, but those are not eyewitness accounts. Who lied to you and told you that?

They were just suggestions of what one might believe without full comprehension, but accepting the materialistic view of life as more probable, if incomplete, hopefully does not mean you have excluded non-scientific, historical testimony in calculating your probabilities.

If you mean religious testimony, I'll stop excluding it when a theist brings some/any evidence for their beliefs.

OMGF, I believe you misinterpreted my comment about narcissism, which was a response to the previous question of how I knew only self-love was possible if God were postulated as a single personality; I am in fact arguing for the trinity for that reason, which does not require creation to express relational love in the Godhead!

That's fine, but my point still holds. Your god is only 1 god in the OT, not 3, so you'll have to explain that. Either way, your god is still lacking in perfection and immutability, and on top of that you are now proposing a polytheistic system.

The Bible is fully grounded in history as a record of God's dealings with mankind, and God uses historical events as important markers.

Actually, there is no evidence at all in history that god has ever dealt with mankind in any way, or that any god exists. As for the historical record of the Bible, let's examine it a bit, shall we? The creation story in Genesis did not happen. The flood did not happen. The exodus did not happen. The Jews did not spend 40 years wandering the dessert. The Tower of Babel story is obviously manufactured. The sun did not stand in the sky for a full day. Etc. etc. etc. Is this what you mean by "fully grounded in history"?

I am aware that scholars who do not believe in predictive prophecy have postulated that a later author wrote the prophecy after the fact under Isaiah's name. The problem with this unsupported speculation is that Isaiah uses the Cyrus prophecy as an example of why Yahweh is greater than the Caananite false gods and idols that Israel had embraced in their syncretistic religion of the time; it is because Yahweh can predict what comes to pass that He is the true God, which would be nonsensical to the ancient Jews if it was written after the fact.

Problem number 1. Your first sentence makes it appear as if people are only doubting this because they want to prove it wrong, while forgetting that many people want it to be right and could just as easily fall prey to bias. Problem number 2. Your reasoning is pretty faulty and on par with Mr. Craig's. You presuppose that this was written before the events took place, because people wouldn't have believed it if it weren't true or something. People believe things that aren't true all the time. Second, if it were written after the fact, then the Jews in question would be looking back and it would make for a great story to say that god is so powerful that he prophecied that what happened would happen, just as it happened.

God devotes so much time to the Hebrews because they are His chosen people to receive His special revelation first, and be witnesses of the true God to the other nations.

I'm glad that the all-powerful, all-loving god has to focus on a select group of people because he can't see fit to love all people equally and try to get them all to be saved. Apologetics like this make god out to be an ineffectual weakling.

Progressive revelation is the explanation for why different views of Yahweh may be arrived at by reading the O.T. or the N.T.

Which again does not support your conclusion that god is the same throughout. You have just admitted that you have no support for your claim.

...where so many are unwilling to even entertain the existence of God or absolute morality for other reasons.

Oh please. The guy who comes on here to defend Mr. Craig for admitting that he can't be swayed by evidence also feels that he can chastize us for not being open minded? Sorry but that dog don't hunt. Being open minded is what got most of us to where we are today.

...but I want to know what you really think and have worked out to your own satisfaction, not the party line.

What party line are you talking about? Your insistence that we all have some agenda that is being given to us is rather off-putting, and makes me think that all your misgivings is just a case of projection on your part. It is religions that tell people what to think and how to act, so if there's any part line, well that's your department, not ours.

but I want to know what you really think and have worked out to your own satisfaction, not the party line.

Right: a complete philosophy, starting with epsitemology and working up to moral theory, posted in the comments section of Daylight Atheism. With an index, neh?

I'll get right on that.

Dave, I'm sure some who post here will take a kick at answering your question, but based on what you've posted, we couldn't even agree on first principles. Are you sure there's a point to your question? Why not read some of Ebon's essays and then ask us about specific points of agreement or disagreement?

Seriously, people have been pondering these questions for thousands of years and entire forests have been felled to hunt this snark.

This discussion is getting sidetracked. I'd like to return it to the question of the credibility of various miracles. Dave Homiak, why don't you address the question of the miracles of religions and sects other than yours? Like the numerous miracles already mentioned in this thread, miracles by Pythagoras, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, the Buddha, ...

And as to raising someone from the dead, Apollonius of Tyana did that too, according to his biographer Philostratus. He resurrected a young woman who was just about to get married, meaning that Jesus Christ was not exactly alone in that feat. Even the Old Testament prophets Elijah and Elisha raised some people from the dead (1 Kings 17:22, 2 Kings 4:34), among several other miracles. Elisha also did that posthumously, to someone's corpse which had touched his bones (2 Kings 13:21).

...I suspect many of you believe that Achilles was a real person despite no evidence other than the later stories of Homer, Xenophon, Brad Pitt, etc.

No, actually. Given that the mere occurrence of the Trojan War is still a matter of fierce debate among archaeologists, I know of no compelling reason that has yet been presented to believe in the personalities of the Iliad as historical individuals.

When viewed in the full perspective of all evidence, I am satisfied with the Gospels of Matthew and John, eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus.

It is widely accepted by biblical scholars, even many conservative scholars, that the gospels are not eyewitness accounts. The first references to them don't appear until well into the second century, and there is no strong evidence fixing their composition to an earlier time.

An example that is testified to by extra-biblical history is the prediction in Isaiah 45 that Cyrus of Persia would become the anointed servant of God in allowing the Hebrews to return to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity.

Again, it is fairly well accepted by textual scholars that Isaiah chapters 40 and onward (referred to as Deutero-Isaiah) are the product of a different, later author. This is not a prediction, but was simply written after the fact.

I am aware that scholars who do not believe in predictive prophecy have postulated that a later author wrote the prophecy after the fact under Isaiah's name. The problem with this unsupported speculation is that Isaiah uses the Cyrus prophecy as an example of why Yahweh is greater than the Caananite false gods and idols that Israel had embraced in their syncretistic religion of the time; it is because Yahweh can predict what comes to pass that He is the true God, which would be nonsensical to the ancient Jews if it was written after the fact.

Dave, your conclusions here are obviously being directed by what you want to be true. There are numerous ways a book written after the fact could be passed off as an earlier prophecy. For example, it could be "rediscovered" by the author, who presented it not as an original composition but as a past record that had been lost. Something very like this appears to have happened with the "book of the law", probably the book of Deuteronomy, that Hilkiah the scribe supposedly found and presented to Josiah during renovations to the temple (2 Chronicles 34:15). (Remarkably, this book contained strong support for the very religious reforms Josiah had wanted to carry out.) The Jews seem to have accepted this book without much question, despite its lacking any earlier provenance. How do you rule out a similar scenario in the case of Deutero-Isaiah?

...accepting the materialistic view of life as more probable, if incomplete, hopefully does not mean you have excluded non-scientific, historical testimony in calculating your probabilities.

Dave, the point of this entire post was to show why testimony of miracles cannot be accepted as historically accurate. I hope that didn't just go over your head. The only way we could rationally give credence to a miracle story is if that miracle could be replicated under controlled, scientific conditions. Otherwise, we're just arbitrarily choosing one bit of hearsay from a sea of thousands of similar accounts.

Now, point me to the forum where you discuss how you find meaning in life as a result of an atheistic, materialistic philosophy.

That discussion is well beyond the scope of this comment thread, but you can begin by reading the Foundational Essays at Ebon Musings.

Mr. Homiak has gotten into a sort-of miracle, successful prophecies. But are there any prophecies in the Bible that are (1) reasonably unambiguous, (2) requiring information not accessible to their makers, and (3) not self-fulfilling? Prophecies of wars and rumors of wars violate both (1) and (2), while the prophecy of the Jews returning to Israel violates (3). The prediction of the lunar eclipse I saw last night satisfied (1) and (3), but not (2).

And Jesus Christ was far from the only legendary hero who had fulfilled some prophecies, often despite efforts to thwart that fulfillment.

When Oedipus was born, his parents discovered that he would grow up to kill his father and marry his mother.

King Acrisius discovered that his daughter Danae would have a son, Perseus, who would eventually kill him.

King Amulius discovered that his niece Rhea Silvia would have a son, Romulus, who would one day kill him.

King Kamsa discovered that his cousin Devaki would have a son, Krishna, who would some day kill him.

King Suddhodhana discovered that his son Siddhartha Gautama would grow up to become a great religious leader (the Buddha).

Kronos discovered that his partner Rhea would have a son (Zeus) who would grow up and overthrow him as Ruler of the Universe.

And likely others.

It is not quote a legendary-hero prophecy, but Cassandra's prophecy of the fall of Troy was eventually fulfilled.

Thanks for your comments, Ebonmuse. I think there may be a strong bias in this forum toward accepting liberal-critical viewpoints without critiquing them or representing contradicting evidence.

It is widely accepted by biblical scholars, even many conservative scholars, that the gospels are not eyewitness accounts. The first references to them don't appear until well into the second century, and there is no strong evidence fixing their composition to an earlier time.

Please see F.F. Bruce's book, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, for a representation of the views held by many conservative scholars. Unless you claim the Chester Beatty papyrus, dated to about 200 A.D., is an original, rather than a copy, of most of the N.T. (and few would dissent that the epistles were written before Paul's death about 67 A.D.), then the original Gospels are earlier. Sir Fredric Kenyon stated the following about this manuscript in The Bible and Modern Scholarship:

The net result of this discovery -- by far the most important since the discovery of the Sinaiticus -- is, in fact, to reduce the gap between the earlier manuscripts and the traditional dates of the New Testament books so far that it becomes negligible in any discussion of authenticity. No other ancient book has anything like such early and plentiful testimony to its text, and no unbiased scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is substantially sound.

It appears Luke wrote Acts before Paul's death, since he ends with Paul alive in Rome, which would make his "former treatise" (Acts 1:1), the Gospel of Luke, even earlier. Charles E. Raven states in Jesus and the Gospel of Love:

That Acts was written before St. Paul's trial at Rome seems a strong probability, and the case for a subsequent incorporation of Mark is not strong. The general habit of placing the Synoptic Gospels in the period A.D. 70-100 is inexplicable; for the evidence is weaker than the objections. They reflect a time before the scattering of the Palestinian Church and the dispersion of the local and conservative community, a time utterly unlike the age of experiment and syncretism which followed Nero's persecution and the sack of Jerusalem.

The Rylands Papyrus 457, dated on paleographical grounds around A.D. 130 and containing part of John 18, and the Egerton Papyrus 2 have caused rejection of earlier late dating of the Gospel of John, which claims to be an eyewitness account. I believe the majority of scholars now accept a date between 90 and 110 A.D. From the 150 A.D. writings of the Gnostic school of Valentinus, most of the books of the N.T. were well known among the people of this sect (cf. Bruce).

Again, it is fairly well accepted by textual scholars that Isaiah chapters 40 and onward (referred to as Deutero-Isaiah) are the product of a different, later author. This is not a prediction, but was simply written after the fact.

I am well aware of the theories about Deutero- and even Tritio-Isaiah, and would say that most liberal textual scholars hold that opinion; there are many Hebrew scholars who do not. The tone changes at chapter 40, because Isaiah is moving from judgment to hope and restoration. I think this article is well worth reading, since it discusses the general problem with respect to the prophecy of Cyrus in Isaiah, e.g.:

For example, Robert H. Pfeiffer in his introduction comments in this sarcastic fashion on the two Cyrus notations: "Of course this anachronism offers no difficulty to those who believe that God predicted through Isaiah's pen what was to happen two centuries later." It is, then, quite clear from Pfeiffer's own words that the thing which makes the mentions of Babylon and Cyrus so repulsive to the critic is that if the single authorship of Isaiah be maintained, then clearly the Book of Isaiah contains predictive prophecy. And to admit to the existence of predictive prophecy is to admit to supernatural intervention in history. But as already pointed out the critic because of his own assumptions could not find such intervention in the historical process. Thus he refuses to allow such and therefore must posit some alternative explanation. The real point of tension then in the Cyrus notations is that conservatives are most willing to allow for divine intervention in history, while the critics will not allow such intervention.

Ebonmuse, you say my conclusions are driven by what I want to believe, and that may be true at times. However, I challenge you (and others) to read Isaiah 44:24 through 48:22, and honestly argue that Isaiah's arguments make sense if authored after Cyrus allowed the Hebrews to return to Jerusalem. Would you really accept that another author "rediscovered" the manuscript, and added the Cyrus annotations to bolster an argument that its audience would know was an obvious fraud and serve to discredit Yahweh? Or must you believe that, because your worldview does not allow you to entertain the possibility of predictive philosophy? The Jewish people were pretty picky about how they transmitted the received word of God through the ages. As far as I know, you stand alone in suggesting that the rediscovery of the Law during Josiah's reign included tampering with the original text. I find the internal evidence of the book of Isaiah to stand without the need for introducing interpolations, but I do not exclude the possibility of predictive prophecy in history.

The only way we could rationally give credence to a miracle story is if that miracle could be replicated under controlled, scientific conditions. Otherwise, we're just arbitrarily choosing one bit of hearsay from a sea of thousands of similar accounts.

That may be a scientific way of measuring whether an extraordinary event can occur, but it fails to verify whether any particular historical miracle occurred. You cannot replicate, say, Lincoln's assassination or other historical events in a lab, but you can weigh the evidence for whether it is probable that the event occurred or not; this is done every day by our judicial system. It is not necessary for God to have Jesus crucified and resurrected again in a lab for there to be enough evidence for reasonable faith. I have already addressed the potential origin of miracles of other religions/cults in my first post, in the expected way; I can add that I hold to the veracity of the Christian miracles due to support from my view of the Bible as inspired and the “self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit” that corroborate for me the truth of the entire belief system, although I recognize this will be an unsatisfactory answer in this forum.

I'll be glad to read the essay you suggest. Thanks.

I'm glad that the all-powerful, all-loving god has to focus on a select group of people because he can't see fit to love all people equally and try to get them all to be saved. Apologetics like this make god out to be an ineffectual weakling.

OMGF, it is not a question that God does not love other people than the Hebrews, e.g., read about His rebuke of the prophet Jonah and concern for pagan Nineveh in Jonah 3 & 4. His general revelation is the starting point for all to come to salvation, but he revealed His plan through the Jewish race for how that would be accomplished, by looking forward in faith to the incarnation of the Messiah (Christ) at His appointed time. I can't answer for God as to why He didn't do it a different way; it's like the philosophical issue of whether this is the best of all possible worlds. One thing I do know, people in this forum who have done their research don't have to worry about not having had an opportunity to hear and respond to the Gospel.

What party line are you talking about? Your insistence that we all have some agenda that is being given to us is rather off-putting, and makes me think that all your misgivings is just a case of projection on your part.

Hmmm, "Nighttime is for dreaming. Daylight is for action." The recent rise of militant atheism strikes me as having the agenda of eliminating religious faith from society. Religion I can do without, but as evidenced by what happened with the home of Voltaire and the desk of Ingersoll after their deaths, the Word of God and faith will not disappear so easily. By party line, I meant the tendency for famous atheists to insist publically that there is no need for meaning in life beyond survival, yet I suspect there is actually a great deal of diversity on that point among the laity.

By party line, I meant the tendency for famous atheists to insist publically that there is no need for meaning in life beyond survival, yet I suspect there is actually a great deal of diversity on that point among the laity.

I suppose it's entirely possible that famous atheists have been saying that, and I just missed it. However, I can't help but wonder if the reason you think famous atheists are saying that is merely because they aren't pushing the same kind of meaning you push. (Please do read those essays by Ebonmuse, won't you? That way, at least you'll be fully briefed on the fact that that's certainly not the party line around here!)

When Dawkins waxes eloquent on his joy in the natural world and in the knowledge of it that he has spent much of his life seeking, when he writes about science with the passion that allowed him to title the first chapter of The God Delusion "A Deeply Religious Non-Believer", can you really call that the attitude of a man who is insisting that there is no need for meaning in life beyond survival? If you find Dawkins too abrasive, then, heck, read Carl Sagan!

One thing I do know, people in this forum who have done their research don't have to worry about not having had an opportunity to hear and respond to the Gospel.

That's a misleading statement, though. It's one thing to hear the claims of a religion; it's quite another thing to actually have evidence that supports those claims. Without concrete evidence, we are hardly better off than if we had not heard the story at all.

Mr. Homiak,

OMGF, it is not a question that God does not love other people than the Hebrews, e.g., read about His rebuke of the prophet Jonah and concern for pagan Nineveh in Jonah 3 & 4. His general revelation is the starting point for all to come to salvation, but he revealed His plan through the Jewish race for how that would be accomplished, by looking forward in faith to the incarnation of the Messiah (Christ) at His appointed time.

And, as I've pointed out, this apologetic makes god ineffectual. A truly all-powerful god would have no problem ministering to all peoples, yet he seems to focus on only one set of people. The others he treats with disdain, and tells his people to massacre them, over and over. god is portrayed as a provincial god that is petty, vindictive, and cruel.

I can't answer for God as to why He didn't do it a different way; it's like the philosophical issue of whether this is the best of all possible worlds.

And I like how you simply sidestep the question, probably because you know you can't give a satisfactory answer to it.
One thing I do know, people in this forum who have done their research don't have to worry about not having had an opportunity to hear and respond to the Gospel.
Which is nothing more than a veiled threat. Perhaps after you die, some other deity will claim that you had every chance in the world to read its favorite scripture and you didn't, but no excuses for you.

The recent rise of militant atheism strikes me as having the agenda of eliminating religious faith from society.

Through reason and rational discourse? Sure. What is good about religious faith?

Religion I can do without...

Oh, are you one of those people that think that you aren't in a religion, but a personal relationship (as if the two are somehow different)?

By party line, I meant the tendency for famous atheists to insist publically that there is no need for meaning in life beyond survival, yet I suspect there is actually a great deal of diversity on that point among the laity.

Again, knock off the projection. No one here takes marching orders from Dawkins or anyone else. No one here is told how to think. That's your department, remember. It is your religion (and others) that tells people how and what to think.

Further, I don't recall Dawkins or anyone else saying that there's no meaning in life beyond survival. Perhaps you should read Unweaving the Rainbow before continuing to make such ignorant statements about your opponents. You're doing nothing more than creating straw men.

Dave,

it is not a question that God does not love other people than the Hebrews

Remind me, off the top of your head, what is the punishment proscribed in the bible for worshipping a different god? For a family member? How about a whole city?

Now considering god only 'revealed' himself to one culture at the time, somehow managing to skip over all the other ones (which is werid, being that if we all came from two people who had direct contact with god[without getting into incest matters], how would you explain the rise of different religions at all? Did people just forget that little, non-important detail after a time?), can you say that god was equal about sharing his love in the bible?

The recent rise of militant atheism strikes me as having the agenda of eliminating religious faith from society.

I want to know too; what good is religious faith?

By party line, I meant the tendency for famous atheists to insist publically that there is no need for meaning in life beyond survival, yet I suspect there is actually a great deal of diversity on that point among the laity.

I don't know anyone who has said that. Not one. I find plenty of meaning in my life beyond survival

It appears Luke wrote Acts before Paul's death, since he ends with Paul alive in Rome, which would make his "former treatise" (Acts 1:1), the Gospel of Luke, even earlier.

Dave, I think the discussion in this thread so far, if it demonstrates anything, demonstrates just how thin your case for dating any of the books of the Bible is. Isaiah must have been written before Cyrus conquered the Babylonians because it says it was. Luke-Acts must have been written before Paul's death in the mid-first century because it doesn't mention it. Again, there are extremely obvious alternatives which you're not considering. How about this: Luke-Acts was written later, but its author sought to make it seem earlier by leaving that part out? By what evidence do you exclude that simple alternative possibility?

Attempting to date a book solely from the contents of that book, without reference to external evidence anchoring its composition at a specific time, is like building a foundation on quicksand. If you read a modern-day history of the Civil War that stops before Lee's surrender at Appomattox, do you conclude that the author must have written the book at that time? If you go to a bookstore and pick up a novel set in the eighteenth century, do you automatically assume it was written in the eighteenth century?

The Rylands Papyrus 457, dated on paleographical grounds around A.D. 130 and containing part of John 18, and the Egerton Papyrus 2 have caused rejection of earlier late dating of the Gospel of John, which claims to be an eyewitness account. I believe the majority of scholars now accept a date between 90 and 110 A.D.

I have no wish to dispute the dating of either of those documents, but they don't help your case much. Both of them are extremely fragmentary, and are no proof that a complete gospel existed at that time or that, if it did, it was substantially identical to our present version. (I note that the Egerton Papyrus contains fragments of a story that does not appear in any canonical gospel.) At best, they show that some of these ideas were beginning to circulate by the second century CE, which is not in dispute.

From the 150 A.D. writings of the Gnostic school of Valentinus, most of the books of the N.T. were well known among the people of this sect (cf. Bruce).

Again, I'm quite happy with the conclusion that the NT gospels became established by the middle of the second century. That falls in line with my position, since then - and only then - do the first unambiguous references to them start to appear, in the writings of evangelists and church fathers like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr. (If anything, I'm being generous to you: Justin Martyr doesn't specifically name any gospels or even say how many there were. Irenaeus, the first one who does, is later still.)

Would you really accept that another author "rediscovered" the manuscript, and added the Cyrus annotations to bolster an argument that its audience would know was an obvious fraud and serve to discredit Yahweh? Or must you believe that, because your worldview does not allow you to entertain the possibility of predictive philosophy?

If there was actual external evidence tying the composition of Isaiah to a particular date, it wouldn't matter what I wanted to believe. As it is, there are at least two possibilities: Isaiah was written earlier by an author with miraculous prophetic powers; or Isaiah was written later by an author with post hoc knowledge of the events it depicts. Which of those, a priori, seems more likely to you? Which would you consider to be more likely if we were trying to date an analogous passage of any religious text other than the Bible?

As for me, I don't invoke the supernatural in preference to the natural unless there is compelling evidence to do so, and you don't have any evidence like that.

That may be a scientific way of measuring whether an extraordinary event can occur, but it fails to verify whether any particular historical miracle occurred.

Precisely! And this is where your case runs smack into the strongest point of Hume's argument: since this is not something that can be tested in a lab, as you say, all the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is testimonial. As such, it must be weighed against the far larger, stronger, and better-attested body of testimonial evidence which states that people who have been dead for three days do not ever return to life (as well as the smaller, but not insignificant, body of testimonial evidence attesting to comparable miraculous events in other, mutually exclusive religions). Balance these against each other, and it's no contest. As Hume said so well:

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.

...It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior.

The murder of a historical figure is not comparable to this. Although we can't reproduce Lincoln's assassination, we have abundant evidence that people can and do assassinate political leaders. It violates no natural law; it is not an event outside human experience. In short, it is not an extraordinary claim, and requires no extraordinary evidence to believe. Resurrection is and does. Assassination by material means is the sort of claim that our judicial system is well-equipped to handle. Your claim, however, would be analogous to a prosecutor arguing that the alleged killer used telekinesis to give his victim a fatal aneurysm while hundreds of miles away. No evidence supports the possibility of such a thing, and the whole of human experience testifies against it.

If you read a modern-day history of the Civil War that stops before Lee's surrender at Appomattox, do you conclude that the author must have written the book at that time? If you go to a bookstore and pick up a novel set in the eighteenth century, do you automatically assume it was written in the eighteenth century?

Heh, touché. For some reason, this is an argument that many theists have trouble with, though I can't imagine why. I mean, was A Tale of Two Cities written during the French Revolution?

It was written 1859, if you care. ;)

And this is where your case runs smack into the strongest point of Hume's argument: since this is not something that can be tested in a lab, as you say, all the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is testimonial. As such, it must be weighed against the far larger, stronger, and better-attested body of testimonial evidence which states that people who have been dead for three days do not ever return to life (as well as the smaller, but not insignificant, body of testimonial evidence attesting to comparable miraculous events in other, mutually exclusive religions). Balance these against each other, and it's no contest. As Hume said so well:

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.

...It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior

Since Hume's argument is apparently fundamental to your reasons for rejecting miracles, let's take a closer look and see if he has rigged the table in his favor. I hope you will apply the same critical evaluation to Hume's arguments that you have to Craig's. Let's start with the quote above, which smacks of circular reasoning, i.e., since uniform experience amounts to a "proof" against miracles, miracles cannot occur, since, by his definition, miracles are events that contradict uniform experience. For Hume, no miracle is possible, no matter how great the integrity of the witnesses and testimony, unless the falsehood of the testimony would require an even greater miracle! The evidence for miracles can hardly, in Hume's rigged game, overcome the "firm and unalterable" experience establishing the laws of nature and unreliability of human testimony.

James Arlandson wrote an article that cites this and other flaws, which have been previously examined by Christian scholars such as C.S. Lewis, Peter Kreeft, and Norman Geisler. I strongly encourage the participants of this forum to read it for balance. I will summarize some of these points here:

By basing his argument on "uniform experience", Hume begs the question since he cannot possibly know all human experiences, and engages in the fallacy of special pleading by ignoring the unfavorable evidence of those who have testified to having witnessed miracles.

Extreme events in economic markets have taught traders that they can no longer base their risk on a normal distribution, but must consider the extreme events that occur in the tails of the empirical distribution. Similarly, a rare, "black swan" occurrence like a miracle should not be discarded since it falls outside the realm of common probability. Hume appears guilty of a consensus gentium fallacy in arguing that something should be believed to be true simply because it is believed by most people.

Hume's argument does not prove that miracles have not happened, only that we should not believe them if they occur. It is unfair to say that rare events are untrue, even if there is exceptional evidence is support of the miracle. In the very paragraph following the one quoted in the beginning of this thread, Hume discusses "one of the best attested" miracles," a healing by Vespasian recorded by the historian Tacitus, whom Hume praises. Yet, after describing all the evidence, Hume concludes "it will appear, that no evidence can well be supposed stronger for so gross and so palpable a falsehood."

In considering miracles, there must be an option to judge that they could be possible. Hume argues that human testimony is unreliable because our empirical knowledge is unstable, yet, when it comes to miracles in this same empirical realm, our experience mitigates against them because it is unalterable. Hume seems to recognize this inconsistency in arguing that past experience cannot be used to predict the future. To deny future miracles based on past experience is inconsistent with his own principles.

If God performs a miracle, then it is no longer a "violation" of the "laws" of nature, since He is the final authority with respect to His creation. Spinoza, more extreme than Hume, is also constrained by his naturalistic understanding: "if anyone asserted that God acts in contravention to the laws of nature, he, ipso facto, would be compelled to assert that God acted against his own nature - an evident absurdity" (Tractatus Theologico- Politicus, Sect. 6). C.S. Lewis explains how nature naturalizes the immigrant or miracle, so it is not a violator, but a welcome guest, which then conforms to the laws: "The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern to which events conform, but of feeding new events into that pattern."

There are more issues mentioned in the article, but I'd like to address Hume's position in regard to prophecies like Isaiah's prediction of Cyrus. Hume concludes his treatise with these words:

What we have said of miracles may be applied, without any variation, to prophecies; and indeed, all prophecies are real miracles,and as such only, can be admitted as proofs of any revelation. If it did not exceed the capacity of nature to foretell future events, it would be absurd to employ any prophecy as an argument for a divine mission or authority from heaven. So that, upon the whole, we may conclude, that the Christian Religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one. Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its veracity: And whoever is moved by Faith to assent to it, is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience.

Hume is arguing that Christianity must require the belief in miracles, but such belief should involve an act of faith and not reason. I agree that "mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its veracity," but do not agree that it "subverts all the principles of his understanding." While I cannot prove without a doubt that Isaiah's prophecy was dated before the exile, I can have faith in it because it is contextually consistent with its argument and requires the unreasonable presupposition of deception among a people who were taught to stone false prophets. I submit that the biblical miracles and prophecies are God's evidence for us to consider rationally with faith, and such miracles make sense within the special revelation we have been given. If only blind faith were necessary, such evidence would not be necessary. Following Christianity involves both faith and reason, as the apostle Paul shows in his carefully reasoned arguments to non-believers (Acts 17) and believers (Romans), tempered by his warnings against relying only on worldly wisdom (I Cor. 1). I like how Clement of Alexandra expressed the reason that is found in faith: "I believe in order that I may know" (credo ut intelligam).

Mr. Homiak:

One thing I do know, people in this forum who have done their research don't have to worry about not having had an opportunity to hear and respond to the Gospel.

You're right. I actually used to teach it! And I reject it!

The problem with this unsupported speculation is that Isaiah uses the Cyrus prophecy as an example of why Yahweh is greater than the Caananite false gods and idols that Israel had embraced in their syncretistic religion of the time;

Listen to what you're saying: That the creator of the universe, the omnipotent god that can destroy mankind with a single thought, has to prove his power to the nations by ridiculous means such as tribal warfare and magical tricks. That somehow, some prophet somewhere has prophesied that these things will come to pass. Why doesn't he just appear to everyone all at once and declare himself? Why doesn't he post his message on the moon? Why even deal with puny humans at all? Where are your miracles today, Dave?
Chris Angel does everything that jesus supposedly did. And he admits it's a trick!

Mr Homiak,

By basing his argument on "uniform experience", Hume begs the question since he cannot possibly know all human experiences, and engages in the fallacy of special pleading by ignoring the unfavorable evidence of those who have testified to having witnessed miracles.

My reading of that is that the "uniform experience" is the laws of nature. He's not talking about personal experiences, which would be absurd. Even if you testify that you witnessed a miracle, why should I believe you if what you are claiming violates the physical laws of the universe?

Hume appears guilty of a consensus gentium fallacy in arguing that something should be believed to be true simply because it is believed by most people.

I would argue that most people believe in miracles, so he's probably not actually doing this.

It is unfair to say that rare events are untrue, even if there is exceptional evidence is support of the miracle.

We aren't talking about rare events, but events that violate the laws of the universe. And, I'm not aware of any miracles that have exceptional evidence. Most have some purported eye witnesses that have human brains and therefore are very susceptible to seeing what they want to see and interpreting through their biases. This does not make for very reliable witnesses when considered against the bulk of science and reason.

If God performs a miracle, then it is no longer a "violation" of the "laws" of nature, since He is the final authority with respect to His creation.

Sorry, but I disagree. Let's take Lewis's example of god creating a sperm cell inside a virgin. This is creation from what? It violates the physical laws since these things do not simply spontaneously create themselves in women. Whether natural law is able to take over from there doesn't mean that the act itself did not violate natural law. Why do people take Lewis seriously when he writes such horrible stuff?

I submit that the biblical miracles and prophecies are God's evidence for us to consider rationally with faith, and such miracles make sense within the special revelation we have been given.

So, we are to rational consider the evidence that god has given us through irrational means, including violating the natural laws of the universe through miracles and prophecies and not giving us ample evidence for them, but also through some sort of special revelation that is in itself also irrational? Sorry, but that don't fly. It is not rational to believe in god, because you have to beg the question to even consider the existence of god. You can't get off the ground without committing logical fallacy, so you can not rationally believe in god.

If only blind faith were necessary, such evidence would not be necessary.

Blind faith in the religious sense is the only faith there is in reality. People don't like that though, since we live in the age of science, and most have a "show me" attitude. Unfortunately, our psychology is such that we can be easily tricked and we pick up most of our attitudes regarding religion when we are most susceptible (during childhood) so we delude ourselves into thinking we have actual proof of god's existence, which comforts us enough to believe that we are not engaging in blind faith. It's all a deception, however.

Following Christianity involves both faith and reason, as the apostle Paul shows in his carefully reasoned arguments to non-believers (Acts 17) and believers (Romans), tempered by his warnings against relying only on worldly wisdom (I Cor. 1).

Which is rather contradictory. His arguments are based on not following worldly wisdom, but instead follow my beliefs, which you should rationally follow, yet it's impossible because they are not rational beliefs.

I like how Clement of Alexandra expressed the reason that is found in faith: "I believe in order that I may know" (credo ut intelligam).

Which is utter dreck. What he believes has no bearing on the state of the material world around him. No matter what he thinks he believes, it does not mean that it gives him any insight into the world around him nor does it shape the world around him. I'm not surprised that you like the comment, however, in that it seems to express something that you wish were true yourself. That if you believe the prophecies in Isaiah are true hard enough, then they are. Unfortunately for you, this is simply not the case. There are many parts of the Bible that are simply not true, and you can believe really hard that the Bible is grounded in history (or however else you put it) but your act of believing does not make it so.

Mr. Homiak:

Re the trinity, God stands outside of time as the First Cause;

Just think: Because god stands outside of time, all of our puny human history has already happened. He already sees you in heaven or hell.
He just sits back and plays a game with his creation. And you want to worship this?

Now, point me to the forum where you discuss how you find meaning in life as a result of an atheistic, materialistic philosophy.

Why don't you answer some specific questions posted by the others first, rather than declare victory and move on to another post to conquer. You can't say what you've said, without providing evidence. And so far, you've provided none.
How conceited!

goyo, since you say you used to teach the Gospel, i'd be interested in what turned you from it.

Listen to what you're saying: That the creator of the universe, the omnipotent god that can destroy mankind with a single thought, has to prove his power to the nations by ridiculous means such as tribal warfare and magical tricks. That somehow, some prophet somewhere has prophesied that these things will come to pass. Why doesn't he just appear to everyone all at once and declare himself? Why doesn't he post his message on the moon? Why even deal