To Sean Dictionary definition of a miracle: “mir·a·cle ˈmirək(ə)l/Submit noun a surprising and welcome event …

Comment on Academic Freedom Strikes Again! by george.

To Sean

Dictionary definition of a miracle:

“mir·a·cle
ˈmirək(ə)l/Submit
noun
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
“the miracle of rising from the grave”
synonyms: wonder, marvel, sensation, phenomenon, supernatural phenomenon, mystery
“his recovery was a blessed miracle”
a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences.
“it was a miracle that more people hadn’t been killed or injured”
an amazing product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something.
“a machine which was a miracle of design”
synonyms: wonder, marvel, sensation, phenomenon, supernatural phenomenon, mystery
“his recovery was a blessed miracle”

As I said science cannot detect miracles, by the very definition of same. Ergo, if the resurrection of Christ is considered an event of divine agency then science cannot detect it or falsify it.

When it comes to historical evidence of the event, outside of the gospels which are likely self serving to the audience they are meant to convert, is there independent corroboration of the event? Are all the versions in the gospels the same or are there differences in the various accounts. Why are there similarities with other resurrection stories from other religions?

If the matter was litigated these are the types of questions that would be asked. Biased eyewitnessed accounts not subject to cross examination under oath in Court are not really of much persuasive value in my experience.

In sum, a biased biblical account of a miraculous resurrection is not scientific and not proof on the balance of probabilities that it occured. The evidence that you have cited is unreliable and not corroborated by unbiased accounts.

I haven’t seen a resurrection or a perfect granite cube, Santa Claus, ghosts, demons, fairies, haunted houses, prophets or anything of a miraculous nature that I am aware of. So it is specious for you to ask me hypotheticals in this regard. It’s like me asking you if your head could swivel 360 degrees could you see the world better.

Onwards….

Also is it possible Jesus did not die on the cross but removed before he was medically dead? Did some of his followers remove his body from the cave to make it appear he was resurrected? If a multitude of people saw him resurrected why are there only biblical accounts?

george Also Commented

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
To Wes

“So you’ve been asking (as is your egg-nostic wont, may I insert, winking) religious people for years and years and never yet heard anybody answer that God has actually talked to them? Not surprised. You wouldn’t in the legalist and Laodicean circles you’ve been socializing in (or, ahem, in them badlands circles ya’ll been goin’ roun’ ‘n roun’ in – couldn’t resist that hoop trope, you know me), which excludes serial killers, who hear some god without letup bugging them to do ungodly things, as they zealously witness in court. Hmmm… I hear an ear-splitting egg-nosticogeorgian question popping out of that one! ”

I apologize if I misunderstood what your were alluding to when you referenced serial killers.These were the atrocities to which I alluded.

Your confused cowpoke


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
Gentlemen,

What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? Should not every human being, irrespective of faith, be judged on their actions towards their fellow humans? Is this not what the parable of the Good Samaritan was all about and why it is so appealing to those of faith and non faith alike?

When we set ourselves as being the interpretive authority as to what God wants we risk hubris of the highest order. Better to allow for rational debate on the topic and respect the opinion of others.

What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that. 🙂


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
To Wes and Sean

” Of course, as our friend Wesley has artfully described, many of these revelations are only detectable by the mind that is already open to hearing the voice of God – already open to the leading of His Spirit. If the mind is not open to Spiritual things, then Spiritual communications will not be perceived – even if someone is literally raised from the dead before one’s very eyes (Luke 16:31). ”

Gentlemen, thank you for your further elucidation on the topic. But is it not also true that even to those whose minds are open to hearing the voice of God, in fact fervently pray to hear it (Mother Teresa in her later years) they may not necessarily ‘hear’ the voice of God. And., I presume in those cases this is where faith and interpretation as to how God speaks to us comes in?

I also point out that I grew up with religious education and church attendance. I also have opened myself up to prayer and spiritual experience. I am also very conscious of the mystery of life, the universe and especially good and evil in people. And, as an agnostic I acknowledge that God may be communicating “speaking” to me in many different ways. But I cannot say God has ever spoken to me and I don’t hear voices. That is why I am always curious about the phenomena of those that do. Most of my religious friends are of the same bent as yourselves – and I don’t disparage them or you! – they interpret the presence of God through feelings, observations and scripture. But I also have observed perhaps the most important similarity- they WANT to believe in God. Their moral universe and hope for life after biological death fuels that WANT. For me this represents a kind of benign human hubris or confirmation bias that colours objectivity. For me faith and science are different fields of human endeavour and should be separated.

As always, thanks for your patience and tolerance of your agnostic cyber cowpoke


Recent Comments by george

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@ Dr. Pitman

How did you make the segue from the creation story to Alexander the Great as historical science? What am I missing here – did someone actually witness the creation story and write about it?

Let’s try to stay inside the ball park on analogies shall we?


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
“Again, why do you believe that Alexander the Great really did the various things that historians claim he did.”

Who said I did?

History is often recorded by the victors who may well gild the lily. Different historians may say different things about him. Some may have been eye witnesses, some may have not relying on hearsay. Some may have had a bias. Take all history with a grain of salt by considering the sources and margin for error I say.

However you’re not just talking about claims of the Bible, you’re talking about the claims of EGW. Do you have some empirical proof that she actually visited those worlds she described? If so where is your corroborating evidence of any sort? In short is your belief about EGW’s vision of extra terrestial based on any science whatsoever?


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Bob

Have you ever read how much resistance Darwin faced when Origin of Species was first published? Many of the scientific establishment opposed him. In fact I have read that natural selection did not become a centerpiece of modern evolutionary biology until the 1930’s and 1940’s.

Darwin, like Pasteur has stood the test of time, notwithstanding the lack of initial scientific consensus. Who knows, perhaps one day YEC or YLC may ascend to the scientific pantheon? Have to find evidence for 6 day creation and how biodiversity emanated from the Ark though 🙂
Until then, I’m afraid they are just so stories.


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Did you notice that you have unilaterally used the analogy of Alexander the Great of which I have never studied or alluded to?

Are you equating EGW’s vision of extra terrestrial life to a battle on earth? Proverbial apples and oranges, but your silence and evasion of the science behind EGW’s vision is deafening.


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@ Bob and Sean

Is EGW’s vision scientific? Is it corroborated or falsifiable?

Ask yourselves honestly why you believe in it. If it is because of your faith that is fine, but if it has some scientific, empirical basis, as Dr. Pitman likes to tote, you need to establish that basis. Otherwise it is a ‘just so’ theological story.

Also, I think a couple of my previous comments on this topic never made it out of the cyber editing room. I didn’t think they were offensive so I’m not sure why they were not posted. 🙂