In my last post I brought to attention the fact that Jesus is the only leader of a world’s major religion who claimed to be Creator God. Now a claim is just a claim unless it is backed up with the kind of evidence that Jesus produced many times a day, every day for the three years of His ministry on earth. Supernatural is the ONLY explanation that accounts for what Jesus was able to do. And what’s the atheist comeback to the supernatural?
“It can’t happen.”
Some guy said to me, show me any claim of a supernatural occurrence and I will prove (he said “Prove”) to you that it was a natural occurrence. And what is the atheist proof?
“It can’t happen.”
Take the resurrection of Jesus for example. IF Jesus rose from the dead, everyone would agree that it did not happen by natural means. The fact is, the proof for this historical event comes to us with the highest reason for belief. It comes to us from sceptics regarding, and enemies of Christianity. Let me explain:
“It can’t happen”
Does not explain Jesus enemy’s admission that the tomb was indeed empty.
“It can’t happen”
Does not explain the dramatic change in the attitude of Jesus' followers from cowards hiding behind locked doors to men who stood boldly before the most educated and powerful leaders of the country proclaiming the risen Christ
“It can’t happen”
Does not explain the conversion of the sceptic and brother of Jesus, James. James, who only a year or two before, with his whole family had seen Jesus as an embarrassment and quite probably insane. Only a supernatural resurrection of Jesus from the dead turned James and his family into worshippers of Jesus. As I’ve asked before, is it not true that it would take nothing less than the resurrection of your brother and the miracles that he performed prior to his death to convince you of his divinity?
“It can’t happen”
Does not explain the rise of the Christian faith.
“It can’t happen”
Does not explain the conversion of the sceptic and Christian killer, Paul
“It can’t happen”
Is all that atheists have as a basis for their a priori discounting of the supernatural.
“It can’t happen”
Does not explain the disciple’s willingness to go to their deaths proclaiming the truth of the risen Christ.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Some guy said to me, show me any claim of a supernatural occurrence and I will prove (he said “Prove”) to you that it was a natural occurrence. And what is the atheist proof?
ReplyDelete“It can’t happen.”
Why don't you consider lying to be a sin, Rod? Didn't Jesus say something about lying being bad?
A) I'm not an atheist
B) I never said "It can't happen"
Assuming it actually occurred, resurrection must have been a NATURAL event, because it impacted natural/material stuff. Jesus, flesh and blood, was dead, and became alive. In order for that to happen, natural/material changes had to occur, making the event 100% natural.
"Supernatural" is the simple man's way of saying "I don't know how it happened, so it MUST be spooky!".
1) To honestly answer the question from the other post, no, I do not know what's the definition of supernatural... it seems to me that it means Magic as 'snackbar presented it, but obviously that would not fit the definition Thesauros wants to support. Perhaps something to be learned here...
ReplyDelete2) WEM makes a very good point; the definition of supernatural seems to be pointing to things that are not understood properly and therefore labeled supernatural. It does not explain anything, it's just another label for the perfectly fine expression "I don't know".
3) In order to start considering anything written in this post as possible, not even probable, but barely possible, it would require something more than a book.
Now a claim is just a claim unless it is backed up with the kind of evidence that Jesus produced many times a day, every day for the three years of His ministry on earth. Supernatural is the ONLY explanation that accounts for what Jesus was able to do.
So is there more evidence than a book to support the extraordinary claims presented here? The evidence presented by Jesus were recorded how exactly? anything else than a book?
"So is there more evidence than a book . . ."
ReplyDeleteYes actually, there were six independent sources who wrote six accounts regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Those accounts were later compiled into what is now known as the New Testament. The people who wrote these accounts had no idea that what they had written would still be read 2,000 years later. There weren't writing for Bible magazine or anything similar. They were writing for friends, family, early Christians / Churches and so on.
On their own, independently viewed, these documents may have had more credibility with sceptics. However, for sceptics, once any document from antiquity has been inluded into the Bible it is immediately labeleld as lie, myth, legend.
That's what atheists are like. It's how they think. They don't have ANY means or tests that they apply to determine if an account from antiquity is accurate or reliable. None. They just label it a lie, lengend or myth IF this document has been included into the Bible.
Oh, and as for supernatural, try dictionary.com
There has never been an objectively observable supernatural event which which was not later identified as having been 100% natural.
ReplyDeleteErgo, there are no supernatural events like the kind Rod fantasizes about.
And, by the way Rod, if you really DID believe in the supernatural, you wouldn't by lying so often. You'd instead be more careful of putting your immortal soul in peril.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you're not scared of the punishment promised in the Bible means that you're not a Christian.
"There has never been an objectively observable supernatural event which which was not later identified as having been 100% natural."
ReplyDeleteYou mean like the resurrection of Jesus?
Or like when you throw a tarp over a pile of garbage and a week later you say, "Oh look! Life really can rise spontaneously from non life."
The resurrection of Jesus wasn't objectively observable. And even if it had been observed objectively, it still would have happened according to the laws of this universe. Supernatural things (ie. stuff that lies outside of time and space) must become natural to affect anything in our world.
ReplyDeleteErgo, Jesus' resurrection was a natural event.
---
Rod's definition of "supernatural": Duh, God done it!
"must become natural to affect anything in our world."
ReplyDeleteSays you?
Put up or shut up: define "supernatural".
ReplyDeleteActually, a few of the accepted definitions for "supernatural" connote the word with being the actions of an intervening deity. Otherwise the definition is either "beyond natural" (which is rather vague) or "an event that cannot be explained naturalistically". We could go different routes with this I think. We can assume that if such supernatural event becomes explained naturalistically, then such event is disqualified as supernatural and alternatively becomes a natural event OR we could claim that no event defined as supernatural can be explained naturalistically being that a supernatural being or deity operates without being bound to a naturalistic process. We could argue whether or not a supernatural event becomes assimilated into a quality of naturalism once it fuses into reality but I think it hardly matters. A helpful analogy might be a glitch in a video game. Is the glitch part of the game? Well yes, and no. The glitch cannot exist without the game. But what if the glitch was caused from something outside the game? The glitch being a temporary deformity in the operations of the game caused by an external force... It's simply a battle of definitions, and I think we get nowhere to pursue such combat.
ReplyDeleteOops, I posted under the wrong thing, the last comment was mine. I'm on my phone and it put that automatically.
ReplyDelete'Snackbar, you sorta ruined my fun. This conversation is obviously about definitions - Rod simply refuses to tell us what he means by "supernatural", and I was calling him to task for that.
ReplyDeleteNearly every post Rod makes involves him using words incorrectly or at least inconsistently, and I'm tired of it. If he's not going to tell us what he means when he uses the word , then he's effectively talking nonsense.
I mean, more nonsense than we've come to expect from him...
Supernatural = Magic.
ReplyDeleteOops, sorry about that WEM :(
ReplyDeleteSo the Bible proves that the Bible is true?
ReplyDeleteThe only record you have to support your supernatural claims is the Bible.
Surely, in 2000 there ought to be "some" proof besides the Bible?
I will grant that unexplainable things happen. But, to then suggest it is "God" that is behind that which can not be explained is a huge leap of, uh, what's the word I am looking for? Oh yeah FAITH.
Christianity rests on a foundation of faith. Trying to argue otherwise makes Christians into fools. (yeah I know for Christ's sake)
Christianity rests on a foundation of faith. Trying to argue otherwise makes Christians into fools.
ReplyDeleteThis. Perfect.
NWOS, I search for honest theists, and one of my criteria for such people are those who recognize that there's no need to argue that logic and reason support their beliefs. When pressed, theists will almost always fall back to this position, but until then most seem to try to justify their beliefs. They try to show that their beliefs are rational and make sense.
Such beliefs often DON'T. And because faith is such an integral part of belief in God, I often consider appeals to logic as dishonest.
Anyhow, I'm glad someone else sees this same issue (even if you don't agree with everything I've just said). Cheers.
"I will grant that unexplainable things happen. But, to then suggest it is "God" that is behind that which can not be explained is a huge leap of, uh, what's the word I am looking for? Oh yeah FAITH."
ReplyDelete"there's no need to argue that logic and reason support their beliefs."
You guys summarized pretty well what the issue is here. That's why it seemed to be very insulting of Thesauros to pretend that Atheists would want to 'convert' him. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Thesauros' problem is not his beliefs per se, they are his own and he has all the right in the world to have them. What's ridiculous is when he claims to have EVIDENCE, and a rational thought process that leads from this evidence to God.
Honest people say that they have faith in their God, and understand that not everybody shares that faith. Some people like Thesauros on the other hand think that that faith is synonym to facts and that anybody who does not share that faith is an idiot... very sad and insulting.
Of course it goes even further than that, since if people do not share the faith of Thesauros, they are automatically granted the title of "functional Atheist" as he likes to say, associating all sorts of terrible behavior and immorality with the lack of faith.
Heck, the whole secular society we live in in first world countries appear to be a 'function Atheist' society, painted negatively by Thesauros who cannot stand living with people of other beliefs since HE is right, nobody else is, and only HIS god is the answer to everything.