I made no comment about myself. I was referring to you and your own beliefs. Can we conclude then that you are not convinced that Christ rose from the dead, and that Christianity may be a scam, and you do not "believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, ... "?
As I already said, I prefer to use abductive reasoning and to think in terms of "what is more probable" given the current evidence we have. If I had to compare the hypotheses H1 = "Christianity is a scam" and H2 = "Christianity is true", my current personal impression would be that H2 seems to be more probable than H1.
How can it be a gotcha question when the answer was obvious? It was a rhetorical question mimicking mine (just as you said it was), implying that because today's courts wouldn't accept the biblical evidence for 1st century miracles, then neither would you. But that's ok, you've already stated you are not convinced that Christ rose from the dead along with the other miracles recorded in scripture, so it doesn't come as a surprise. It would also explain all the atheist questions you asked earlier.
It's quite clearly a gotcha question, otherwise you wouldn't be dodging it so persistently ... Look, it is very simple: you brought up courts of law in the first place as an example of how one should judge the evidence. Yet, paradoxically, courts of law would most probably reject the miracle claims in the Bible. So we have a problem: on the one hand you seem to want me to think like a court of law, yet on the other hand, when it comes to the Bible, you
do not want me to think like a court of law. So how is it? Do you want me to think like a court of law or not? Are you suggesting that I should have a double standard?
What is a surprise though, is that although you are not convinced that the miracles recorded in scripture are true, you are nonetheless willing to accept that today's stories of miracles as being true on the basis of hearsay evidence alone!
Again, you seem to be using a black-or-white, all-or-nothing mode of thinking. I instead use abductive/probabilistic reasoning. I believe that you can make a
probabilistic case for both modern and Biblical miracles. Both pieces of evidence complement and support each other. Modern miracle reports make Biblical miracle reports more likely and vice versa. I will quote once again the preface of Keener's book
Miracles : 2 Volumes: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts: https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-volumes-Credibility-Testament-Accounts-ebook/dp/B007KOI2PY, because I think it states this idea very well:
Most modern prejudice against biblical miracle reports depends on David Hume's argument that uniform human experience precluded miracles. Yet current research shows that human experience is far from uniform. In fact, hundreds of millions of people today claim to have experienced miracles. New Testament scholar Craig Keener argues that it is time to rethink Hume's argument in light of the contemporary evidence available to us. This wide-ranging and meticulously researched two-volume study presents the most thorough current defense of the credibility of the miracle reports in the Gospels and Acts. Drawing on claims from a range of global cultures and taking a multidisciplinary approach to the topic, Keener suggests that many miracle accounts throughout history and from contemporary times are best explained as genuine divine acts, lending credence to the biblical miracle reports.
Right. So you are saying that, despite their claims, these accounts of alien abductions did not actually happen in real life. There are no actual aliens flying around in UFO's performing experiments on people. They were all merely deluded in some way into thinking that happened.
I never claimed that actual alien abductions didn't happen.
I never claimed that actual alien abductions did happen either.
I never claimed either possibility to be true.
Once again, the way you speak seems to reveal a black-or-white mode of thinking. Instead, I prefer to remain open to both possibilities while simultaneously focusing on developing a sense of which of these two hypotheses is more likely to be true. It all boils down to doing your best to estimate the probability of each hypothesis on the basis of the evidence you currently have. The estimations of these probabilities might change as new evidence comes along. This is an ongoing learning process.
A question for you: are you open to continuously learn and change your mind, or do you believe that you already know it all?
So why do you not accept the same about the fantastical stories made today in charismatic circles? There is no difference. They are both hearsay accounts of incredible events that supposed occurred in real life. Although people may sometimes believe they really happened, people can be mistaken, people can exaggerate, people can lie. You cannot dismiss one fantastical hearsay account, and then accept a similar fantastical hearsay account only in a different context.
Of course there are attention seekers, liars, exaggerators, folks who are deluded, etc. That's why you have to judge the credibility of each witness on a case-by-case basis, and only pay more attention to those who seem to be more credible.
It is still hearsay. Any unsubstantiated oral account is hearsay. In order to believe it happened I have to take the word of a stranger on the internet. Only a gullible fool would do such a thing imo. If I contacted them to ask further questions all I would get is more hearsay.
Do you always request hard evidence from anyone who tells you anything?
If your mother pays you a visit and tells you that a dog from a random stranger defecated in her front yard last week, would you look at her in disbelief and demand live recordings of the dog actually defecating on the exact day your mother claimed the dog allegedly did so, plus indisputable evidence that the dog belonged to some random person unknown to your mother?
Where is the video of the miracle actually occurring before the camera, or the independently verified report in a scientific journal?
I already answered this, but some redundancy never hurts:
link1,
link2,
link3.
The bible is not just some "manuscript telling a story". It is the infallible word of God, the ultimate source of truth, and far more reliable than any scientific evidence.
- How do you know that?
- Do you personally believe the miracle claims in the Bible are not hearsay?
- Do you personally believe the miracle claims in the Bible are substantiated?
... how do you know scripture is the highest standard of truth?
