Comments on: Can One Prove the Existence of a Miracle?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 19:05:00 +0000

Anonymous, what do you mean by "desperately searching?" Are you having doubts about your atheism? Just looking for something interesting to challenge yourself with? If you're really looking for reasoned arguments, I would suggest starting with Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig or the book by Habermas that I mentioned in this post. "One concern I have with this line of argument is that it does not rule out other supernatural, mystical experiences." You're right about that, but I don't see the problem. This doesn't mean we have to take the word of everyone who claims to have seen a miracle. Every miracle or experience can be evaluated on its own merit. Does another religion offer a miracle as evidence of its validity? Then the evidence for that miracle ought to be examined. There may be a better naturalistic explanation for that miracle, given all the facts. Could there be spiritual occurrences in other religious systems? If there are spiritual beings--good and bad--I think there could be, so the whole system has to be examined in light of what we know of truth and goodness. Are there other arguments for accepting the religion as true? Does it match our knowledge of the world and human nature? Does it address our need? But I wasn't trying to prove all of Christianity in this one little post--only the resurrection. I addressed your "metaphorical resurrection" argument in point 1 and in the early creed in point 2. The Jewish view of "resurrection" at the time was something physical, and the creed also suggests something physical. Also, take a look at all of 1 Corinthians 15. Paul talks later in the chapter about being raised with a body and I've been told the Greek word refers to something physical. (And remember, this book was written much earlier than the Gospels.) The Romans had attempted to put an end to the whole thing once and for all by crucifying Jesus--why would they turn around and try to build it up again? Why not just support Jesus from the beginning? I don't see how it was in the Romans' best interest to stir up trouble. Even if it seemed probable, this explanation would still not explain the resurrection appearances which are described as physical.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:14:00 +0000

I think it is useful to post explanations of why one should not doubt the existence of the Resurrection. Although I am an atheist, I have an open mind and I am desparately searching for theists of any stripe who offer reasoned arguments.
One concern I have with this line of argument is that it does not rule out other supernatural, mystical experiences. Thus it opens the Pandora's box of theism – why not believe in any other supernatural doctrine? Islam? Rosicrucianism? Witchcraft? the monotheism of Egypt? Judaism? Or how about the reports of others who have claimed to have come back from the dead? or those who have communicated with aliens?
One explanation of the disciples belief may be that, they believed Jesus came back to life metaphorically. Over time, disputes led people to insist that it happened literally. As for his not being in his tomb – there are lots of people who could have removed it for a variety of reasons. For example, the Romans could have removed it to bolster the “Christian” faction among the Jews and thereby weaken the more rebellious Zealot faction. This explanation seems more realistic than someone rising from the dead.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:55:00 +0000

UberKuh, thanks for your comment. We love to have people here who disagree with us!
What kind of evidence would convince you the supernatural exists if not evidence of supernatural events?
Jesus lived, Jesus claimed he would die and rise again, Jesus died, then people saw Jesus and talked with him. I am arguing to the best explanation for this occurrence, claiming that Jesus' resurrection from the dead explains more evidence, more simply and directly, than other explanations.
Of course the failure to adequately explain all the facts naturalistically may mean there's a naturalistic explanation out there no one has yet thought of, and you're free to believe in it, but now you are depending on faith–believing in some facts you have not seen and for which you have no actual evidence (“to claim more naturalistic evidence, one would need to prove that such evidence exists, and this has not been done, which is why faith is required!”), and holding a position that is less supported by the evidence than the opposing position. You certainly wouldn't let me get away with that!
One can always say that “maybe there's another explanation” about anything and everything, but you have to deal with the evidence you have now. If the resurrection turns out to be the best explanation for the evidence we actually have, yet a person simply dismisses it without consideration as impossible, then they're operating out of dogmatic philosophy. No amount of evidence will ever convince them because their position is not about evidence, but about bias.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:12:00 +0000

I see no evidence that a supernatural explanation works where a naturalistic one fails. A naturalistic failing may simply mean that more evidence is needed. Besides, to claim a supernatural influence, one would need to prove that the supernatural exists, and this has not been done, which is why faith is required. UberKuh

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:47:00 +0000

Anonymous, thanks for stopping by. Unfortunately, this medium of blogging (which is always shorter than the first chapter of a Nancy Drew novel!) limits the depth I can go to in this post. That's why I've directed you to places where you can read about these things in much more depth. Those particular two explanations are more popular than others, so I gave them as examples. The hallucination theory is perhaps most popular at this time, but would take more time to explain, and people would get bored and stop reading. Again, that's why I refer you to the books--especially the one in which the Jewish author has no bias to believe the resurrection occurred. You said, "Your argument still falls apart on point three. People lie frequently, misunderstand things constantly and are duped readily. Dying for a belief doesn't make it valid." I think you've missed the point of #3. At this point in the argument, I grant you that the disciples may have completely misinterpreted events or been duped, and I certainly never claim that suffering and dying for a belief makes it valid; it only shows that those who die are convinced, as I'm sure you'll agree both the hijackers and the Heaven's Gate cultists were convinced they were correct. The fact is that something happened to change the disciples from people who fled and dispersed after Christ's death, to those who strongly preached his resurrection at the risk of physical harm from that point forward. Perhaps the disciples were completely mistaken, and there's some other naturalistic way to explain this experience the disciples thought they had had of speaking to Jesus after his death. Point 3 doesn't address this at all. But common sense says that something happened to convince the disciples (even if they misinterpreted what actually happened) because they had absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by their change of mind.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 10:24:00 +0000

Let's assume for a moment that points one and two are accurate. I have little reason to doubt them. Your argument still falls apart on point three. You resort to intellectual bullying, telling the reader that he “must agree,” because you are subconsciously aware of the weakness of your position. People lie frequently, misunderstand things constantly and and are duped readily. Dying for a belief doesn't make it valid. I would tell you to consult with the 9/11 hijackers and the members of the Heaven's Gate cult, but they're all dead.
In your fouth point, your exploration of the possible explanations is as thorough as the first chapter of a Nancy Drew novel. You limit yourself to talking about only two scenarios, and provide inadequate support for even those.
Holmes, by the way, were he any more real than your god would turn over in his grave at having his name associated with such a shoddy investigation.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:53:00 +0000

Vicky, so many people never even consider Christianity because they've dismissed it as a fairy tale. You're right that hearing a reasonable defense of Christianity can get people to start thinking about it. I know more than one person who became a Christian after reading Mere Christianity!
I'm a fan of Lewis, but I read Mere Christianity quite a number of years ago and I don't recall his exact line of reasoning about the resurrection. I'm guessing, though, that we're close to the same page.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 22:01:00 +0000

Good post, Amy. I sometimes think that those who dismiss miracles and the resurrection cannot be convinced by reason, because our belief in miracles and in the Lord's resurrection is certainly a matter of faith. And conversion is a miracle too. But you never know what will make someone think!
Have you read C.S.Lewis' Mere Christianity? What do you think of his line of reasoning re: the resurrection? and have you read his book Miracles? At a glance, it seems as if you and he are on the same page, but I wondered whether you also think so–
Vicky