My Summation in my Discussions with "NIck the Christian" on the Evidence for the Resurrection and other Miracles

Dear Nick and other Christian readers of Theology Web:

We have previously reached agreement that there are other plausible, alternative explanations for the early Christian belief in a resurrection than a literal, bodily resurrection. In addition, I posted an article yesterday by a PhD philosophy professor that supports and even strengthens Hume’s statement on the implausibility of miracles. He has turned the proverbial table on theists who always demand of skeptics: “Prove to us that a miracle did NOT happen” with “Theists: Prove to us skeptics that a miracle DID happen.”

It is brilliant.

—For every claim that Jesus healed you of your lung cancer, our reply is: Prove to us that your lung cancer was not healed by a natural phenomenon.

—For every claim that Jesus healed your broken bone, our reply is: Prove to us that it was really broken to begin with. That the doctor reading the Xray didn’t initially make a mistake.

—For every claim that Jesus saved you from dying in a car accident, our reply is: Prove to use that you weren’t saved because of your seat belt, or by the sturdy design of the car.

—For every claim that a first century Jewish prophet was reanimated from the dead, our reply is: Prove to us that his body was not moved or stolen; that the story is not an embellishment, there was no tomb.

—For every claim that someone saw a walking/talking reanimated dead Jesus two thousand years ago, our reply is: Prove to us that his followers did not have false sightings, visions, and mass delusions.

We cannot prove that your miracles did not happen, but we can demonstrate to any reasonable, rational person that your miracle claims are the LEAST probable of all explanations. Your explanation for the evidence fails inductive reasoning using abduction, the best tool available yet to mankind to determine truth, the basis of our modern, industrialized society. To tell us that your supernatural explanation is the BEST of all plausible explanations defies reason. Your supernatural belief system is only true, to you, because you want so desperately for it to be true.

It cannot be proven true by any standard measure of fact.

The belief in the resurrection of a first century dead man can only be believed by faith. The sooner conservative Christians accept that fact, the better off the world will be.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “My Summation in my Discussions with "NIck the Christian" on the Evidence for the Resurrection and other Miracles

  1. I find it disturbing that you would find interest in that video, whoever you are. What a creep.

    Videos of young children behaving in a sexually seductive manner may not be porn, but I find it disgusting regardless.

    Go find another blog to post trash like that. Get lost, jerk.

    Like

  2. Gary how did you get anything sexual from that at all? It was a video made by the kid himself in 1991 and posted by him as an adult. You have something wrong if you found anything sexual about a kid being a kid. You're crazy Gary. Here is the kid today, complain to him, he's the one who made it and posted it you freak. I may be a jerk but you're an asshole.

    https://www.facebook.com/RobertJeffreyPage

    Like

  3. I watched it again and try as I might I found absolutely nothing remotely sexual about it. I can't see where you get that from Gary. Here is where I first heard about it (an art magazine):

    http://www.ixdaily.com/the-grind/we-tracked-down-vogue-boy-and-interviewed-him

    I am concerned you were somehow able to find it to be sexual in any way. I found it to be ridiculous and silly just like you. Had there been video cameras and green screens for the home user when I was his age I would have done the same thing. Only someone like you could find a way to view it as sexual, your kids don't dance? You never danced as a kid?

    Maybe others could chime in and see what they think. If there is something sexual going on then I completely missed it.

    Like

  4. G –

    Porretto is anything BUT “fundamentalistic” – and least of all, “paranoid.”
    You have had the top spot in that category for many months!

    Your comment above just seems to be your “off the cuff” response to anything or anyone you think might put a chink in your fragile armor of your present pursuit.

    Kinda humorous in itself – you calling others “fundamentalistic.” But I've told you before that you were still a fundamentalist, just being so in a different venue. 🙂

    I have my popcorn good to go, and some cold beverages – in case you decide to try to get into a dialogue with Porretto.

    It would be a show! Won't last too long, but it would be memorable.

    Pax – jb

    Like

  5. If you followed my discussion on Theology Web you saw how difficult it is for people who are involved in this ancient cult to see its many faults. I am not interested in investing another couple of weeks on your buddy. He can come here if he wants to debate me.

    Like

  6. I shall leave your can of worms to yourself this time. And I certainly do not want to tread the same old ground for the umpteenth time.

    I made a suggestion – it's your call, not mine nor anyone else's call. I believe firmly that Porretto would rattle your cage, but . . .

    Okay – Pax anyway – jb

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s