Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Love how your tune changes. Certainly, the book describes events that are questionable in many instances. But that doesn't mean it can't be used in certain ways to establish material facts. But what happened to the silence of science on miracles? Suddenly, there's an opinion?
There is nothing about the tomb of Jesus to investigate scientifically. All we have is some texts written about it. Science can date extant manuscripts of that text. That's about it. If you want to discuss the age of some manuscript copy of the resurection story, science can participate, but that is not remotely connected to this thread topic.
No one is asking for science to contribute, the question is a historical one which the texts can contribute to an academic treatment by providing a rudimentary order of arising beliefs among the early community. While it is off topic for this thread, the issue isn't with science being asked to provide input but exactly the opposite. Historical questions are decided not on scientific evidence, as there is rarely sufficient physical evidence outside of large-scale events, but on circumstantial evidence and argumentation based on historical documents. This whole sidebar happened because atheist hyperbole about there being "no" evidence, to which I pointed out that there is the kinds of evidence that historical questions are decided upon. That science is (properly) silent on the matter only became an issue because people trying to insist on science contributing to the discussion.
Your "example" of supernatural explanations is to mention the ressurection of Jesus and claim it was supported by a "decent circumstantial case". While you can make a decent case for the *existence* of Jesus, you certainly can't for the resurrection.
I didn't take that as a comment of the supernatural supervision of biology, as I make no insistence on supernatural questions entering into biology as a discipline. It doesn't have the tools to address such questions, but to take a lack of ability to address the question as a denial of such is just as inappropriate as shoehorning it in through ID. It simply is silent on such matters.
What is and isn't "credible" requires far more subjective analysis than has been done in this thread, and restricting the definition to a type of evidence that is silent on the matter is a rather spurious restriction making it speak where it properly can't.
I maintain that the circumstantial case for it is considerable, and no one has provided the sleightest rebuttal to my contention other than to complain that it in part depends on Biblical data. There seems to be a lack of comprehension on what precisely I am arguing, but that's neither here nor there.
I wasn't "guffawing". Mythicism is regarded as an extremely fringe position among those who study the matter, because it relies on misconceptions about how historical research is conducted and the kinds of evidence that are reasonably expected in historical research.
All that means is you have an uninformed opinion due to apathy. That doesn't make mythicism more real, and the suspicion regarding Jesus' existence is likely motivated more by non-historical considerations that poison the well, so to speak.
Fair enough, and I agree there isn't much point to making natural/unnatural distinctions since the categories have no bearing on such things other than to bias the questions. Whether the resurrection occurred or not can be treated academically to an extent, even if not scientifically, and pretending that all evidence must conform to scientific standards eliminates far more than simply "supernatural" questions. In so far as it is susceptible to academic consideration, the applicable evidence is the kinds history deals with not the kinds that science deals with. Certainly the discussion has gotten far afield from the topic of the thread, but that was not simply my doing.
FWIW, the evolution debate is a conflict of philosophical approaches which is why both sides are incapable of engaging without the sort of triumphalism this post demonstrates. Creationist arguments are conceivability arguments that depend on a priori reasoning, so when those who accept evolution present a posteriori empirical arguments both sides just argue past each other. Concepts like "macroevolution", "irreducible complexity", and similar arguments are unconvincing to scientifically minded folk because they hinge on an absolutist conception of truth. If you were truly interested in an open and honest debate, you'd take the time to understand your opponents arguments rather than simply presenting your own as if they were universal truths. Open and honest debate takes listening and responding to your opponents, not just presenting recycled talking points.
If open and honest debate means engaging with opposing views, I’ve tried and I believe I do have a good understanding of the evolutionists viewpoint. But instead of clear answers, I was handed 50-page technical documents. I looked through them and didn’t find the specific explanations I asked for. If the evidence is so strong, it shouldn’t be hard to summarize it plainly.
I don't think you do have such an understanding, otherwise you wouldn't be presenting arguments that are bound to fall flat because they rely on a priori reasoning and fail to engage with a provisionalist conception of truth. These arguments tend to be two sides talking past each other because neither side takes the time to understand what types of things the other side might find compelling and engage with that style of argumentation. It's rationalists vs empiricists, with neither side recognizing the epistemic differences.
Can't really disagree with that, but there's more going on than just creationism vs evolution. It's a general misunderstanding of science and the epistemic approach that it takes among YECs that is the principal issue, because they deal in a rationalist, absolute-truth frame of mind rather than an empiricist, provisional truth frame. Our understanding of the truth cannot be adjusted for them as new information comes, it must be fixed and eternal. It's two totally different epistemic frameworks, and neither side takes the time to understand where the other is coming from often because neither side recognizes the differences themselves.
