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.
What special exception am I asking for? The question was about evidence for the supernatural, if you're simply going to write off supernatural explanations as a rule then all you're doing is begging the question.You have just described special pleading.
It was written by men who inhabit God's creation, men who can be wrong. Being wrong is not the same al lying.But It was allegedly written by God's creation who, according to academia, cannot lie.
B
Quality In, Quality Out
Okay, for the record, I'm agreeing with you.
But you're contradicting yourselves.
Yup.
They're not cars. They're not lamps. They're books.
Neat.
In the context of a forum, there isn't really space to make the full case. I've highlighted the primary considerations, which you don't seem to understand beccause you seem to think I am saying far more than I am.Do that then. Until then you are simply making claims that may or may not be correct. You need to provide a rationale for your conclusions.
Generally speaking, supernatural explanations which produce no detectable effect in the natural world will be ignored.What special exception am I asking for? The question was about evidence for the supernatural, if you're simply going to write off supernatural explanations as a rule then all you're doing is begging the question.
The question at hand wasn't supernatural explanations with no detectable effect, but the case for the resurrection. Rather than addressing my points he's simply trying to accuse me of engaging in a fallacy, simply because I am not writing off supernatural explanation as a rule.Generally speaking, supernatural explanations which produce no detectable effect in the natural world will be ignored.
It was written by men who inhabit God's creation,
... men who can be wrong.
Being wrong is not the same as lying.
Yes, but it's something of a red herring. There is no scientific evidence whatever of the resurrection, so there is nothing for science to evaluate as to whether it was a supernatural event. There is nothing science can say about it one way or the other.The question at hand wasn't supernatural explanations with no detectable effect, but the case for the resurrection. Rather than addressing my points he's simply trying to accuse me of engaging in a fallacy, simply because I am not writing off supernatural explanation as a rule.
Scientific evidence is not the only sort of evidence, nor was I claiming that science has any say on the matter. The whole thing started because one of the atheists did the typical atheist thing of asserting that there is "no" evidence, so I countered by pointing out that there is a circumstantial case for the resurrection and circumstantial evidence is a type of evidence. Just because science is properly silent on the matter doesn't mean we can't address it in some way, particularly by making the kinds of arguments that take place regarding historical events which tend to be circumstantial arguments.Yes, but it's something of a red herring. There is no scientific evidence whatever of the resurrection, so there is nothing for science to evaluate as to whether it was a supernatural event. There is nothing science can say about it one way or the other.
No, I just got into this conversation and I am giving you my opinion as of now.Sounds like you're backtracking now.
I don't. I don't believe the Bible has any lies in it. However, people can be wrong about the Bible, or promote falsehoods in it's name.Now you're QEDing post 614.
Then don't tell me the Bible is a lie, or has lies in It, and expect me to believe it.
I don't have any opinion about what "some here" may have said, so I certainly am not confused about it.The only time the Bible has a lie in It, is when It is quoting someone who is lying.
Yet, according to some here, no one can lie, since they are God's creation.
See your confusion?
Yes, but it's something of a red herring. There is no scientific evidence whatever of the resurrection, so there is nothing for science to evaluate as to whether it was a supernatural event. There is nothing science can say about it one way or the other.
I remember Homer Simpson's attorney making that same argument in court in order to get Homer out of a Jam. It didn't work.Scientific evidence is not the only sort of evidence, nor was I claiming that science has any say on the matter. The whole thing started because one of the atheists did the typical atheist thing of asserting that there is "no" evidence, so I countered by pointing out that there is a circumstantial case for the resurrection and circumstantial evidence is a type of evidence. Just because science is properly silent on the matter doesn't mean we can't address it in some way, particularly by making the kinds of arguments that take place regarding historical events which tend to be circumstantial arguments.
I don't have any opinion about what "some here" may have said, so I certainly am not confused about it.
I don't get the reference, nor does your statement seem to be saying much of anything about what I've said.I remember Homer Simpson's attorney making that same argument in court in order to get Homer out of a Jam. It didn't work.
Not sa scientists, because that is not a scientific questions.Science can admit that, if there was no resurrection, it would have been logical for the Roman Empire, which was trying so hard to suppress Christianity before it ever got off the ground, to go and remove Jesus' body from the tomb and put it on display.
Science has no opinion whether the tomb was empty or not, or even if there was a tomb, or someone to put in it.This would have stopped Christianity dead in its tracks.
But science can't do that, because science knows the tomb was empty.
Science has no opinion about whether a miracle occurred or not.Thus science keeps its mouth shut, rather than admit a miracle occurred.
And why does science keep its mouth shut?
It's because its dictator won't allow it to speak.
This is a bit of a cop out, because atheists regularly prop up the success of science as evidence that the supernatural(aka miracles) aren't real. So while you're technically correct that "science" is properly silent on the matter, it appears to only be an admission in a technical sense rather than any sort of real recognition in most cases.Not sa scientists, because that is not a scientific questions.
Science has no opinion whether the tomb was empty or not, or even if there was a tomb, or someone to put in it.
Science has no opinion about whether a miracle occurred or not.
The Judge said, "Have you any evidence at all?"I don't get the reference, nor does your statement seem to be saying much of anything about what I've said.
Hearsay and circumstantial are two vastly different things, hearsay is materially weak by definition. Circumstantial evidence is the kind of evidence that court cases and historical issues are decided on on a regular basis, and is not materially weak by definition.The Judge said, "Have you any evidence at all?"
The attorney said, "Well, I have hearsay evidence. that's a kind of evidence, isn't it?"
Science has no opinion whether the tomb was empty or not,
... or even if there was a tomb, or someone to put in it.
Science has no opinion about whether a miracle occurred or not.
If all you have are stories of miracles in a book, then you are on shaky ground as respects scientific evidence. Nor is there any reason to suppose that the some of the events recorded in the book as miraculous did not have natural causes, or didn't occur as recorded, or at all, for that matter.This is a bit of a cop out, because atheists regularly prop up the success of science as evidence that the supernatural(aka miracles) aren't real. So while you're technically correct that "science" is properly silent on the matter, it appears to only be an admission in a technical sense rather than any sort of real recognition in most cases.
Too bad there is no picture of the tomb.Bologna.
If science took a picture of this glass ...
View attachment 367005
... would she say it was empty? or full?
She, who?She was there when it happened.
There at the trial, there at Jesus' virgin birth, there when He walked on water, there when He fed the five thousand, etc and so on.
Just like she was there when Mt Vesuvius erupted in AD 79.
And so on and so forth.
But in the case of Jesus' resurrection, her dictator put a gag order on her.
And I'm Genghis Khan.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?