The following is a discussion between Farrell Till and a Christian on the believability of miracles. I have not used the Christian's actual name rather I've used "CHRISTIAN" as the designation for this person. The Christian's irrational logic is amazing--I doubt this person uses such logic in other areas of their life:
CHRISTIAN Your reasoning is circular.
- theist - there are examples of miracles in both biblical and nonbiblical historical accounts - and here are some specific examples. The presumption in reading historical accounts must be first in favor of the accounts.
- Till - miracles are unbelievable.
- theist - why is that?
- Till - I don't accept proof for miracles.
- theist - why is that?
- Till - because the credibility of any proof is impeached by the claim itself.
- theist - why is that?
- Till - because miracles are unbelievable
TILL No, no, you are misrepresenting my position, so I will have to rewrite your little script. CHRISTIAN
No, I think I got it right.
TILL
Yes, we know you think you are **** on a stick. (That's a saying from the 1940s that you may not understand, but it isn't a compliment.)
Yes, we know you think you are **** on a stick. (That's a saying from the 1940s that you may not understand, but it isn't a compliment.)
- Till: Miracles are unbelievable.
- Theist: Why is that?
- Till: Because no verifiable miracle has ever been demonstrated.
CHRISTIAN
First, you must define what you mean by "verifiable."
TILL
You don't know what verifiable means? That may be the source of your problem. Verifiable means to prove to be true through the presentation of indisputable evidence.Now I suppose you will want to know what indisputable means.
You don't know what verifiable means? That may be the source of your problem. Verifiable means to prove to be true through the presentation of indisputable evidence.Now I suppose you will want to know what indisputable means.
CHRISTIAN
Second, you must define the difference between a "verifiable historical event" vs. a "historical event," for you have phrased a challenge in this fashion: "The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is a verifiable historical event."
TILL
Well, if an event is indeed historical, then it is an event that actually happened. The problem, though, is determining the actuality of allegedly historical events. How many events do you suppose didn't really happen that people have generally accepted as historical events?
That's a problem for you, not me, because you are the one alleging the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
Well, if an event is indeed historical, then it is an event that actually happened. The problem, though, is determining the actuality of allegedly historical events. How many events do you suppose didn't really happen that people have generally accepted as historical events?
That's a problem for you, not me, because you are the one alleging the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
CHRISTIAN
Third, you must demonstrate to me that every fact of history you accept as being a fact, is *in fact* verifiable in the same sense you demand of miracles. And, if they are not, why not?
TILL
I assume that my reply immediately above will suffice here. I am reasonable enough to recognize that there are few, if any, events of the past that can be verifiably confirmed to be actual historical events.
I assume that my reply immediately above will suffice here. I am reasonable enough to recognize that there are few, if any, events of the past that can be verifiably confirmed to be actual historical events.
TILL
CHRISTIAN
- A miracle by definition would be an act that runs contrary to empirically established laws of nature.
Not so. What we call a "miracle" is an effect, the end result, of an unobserved action or force.
TILL
Thank you for coming over to my side. This is exactly what I have been saying. To understand this, you should look up the word empirical. Someone who doesn't know the meaning of verifiable would likely be confused about the meaning of empirical.
Thank you for coming over to my side. This is exactly what I have been saying. To understand this, you should look up the word empirical. Someone who doesn't know the meaning of verifiable would likely be confused about the meaning of empirical.
CHRISTIAN
Therefore, one cannot say that miracles are "contrary to empirically established laws of nature" since one would be required to observe the force in action to define it empirically. In short, what you define as "empiricism" does not have the competency to comment on the impossibility or unbelievability of miracles.
TILL
People observe through literally millions of cases that when living entities die they stay dead, so if a verifiably dead person returned to life, this would be a miracle, because it would run "contrary to an empirically established law of nature."
What's so hard to understand about this?
People observe through literally millions of cases that when living entities die they stay dead, so if a verifiably dead person returned to life, this would be a miracle, because it would run "contrary to an empirically established law of nature."
What's so hard to understand about this?
CHRISTIAN
So, for example, per Josephus, where men know gates do not open of their own accord; men were able to conclude the gate was opened by another force as if opening of its own accord.
TILL
The problem for you is to verifiably confirm that this event actually happened. The fact that someone said it happened doesn't make it a historical fact, because people can lie or be honestly mistaken. Either one of these explanations would be more likely than that an event contrary to natural law actually happened.
You do have problems understanding the obvious, don't you?
The problem for you is to verifiably confirm that this event actually happened. The fact that someone said it happened doesn't make it a historical fact, because people can lie or be honestly mistaken. Either one of these explanations would be more likely than that an event contrary to natural law actually happened.
You do have problems understanding the obvious, don't you?
CHRISTIAN
These miracles, these "effects" or "end results" of an unobserved force have been observed repeatedly in human history. They cannot be dismissed on the basis of "empiricism."
TILL
Yes, they can be dismissed unless you can present verifiable confirmation that they actually happened, and the mere say-so of someone that an empirically improbable event really happened would not be verifiable confirmation.
Is any of this sinking in, CHRISTIAN ? Even a little bit?
Yes, they can be dismissed unless you can present verifiable confirmation that they actually happened, and the mere say-so of someone that an empirically improbable event really happened would not be verifiable confirmation.
Is any of this sinking in, CHRISTIAN ? Even a little bit?
- TILL
- We observe empirically, for example, that water will run downhill. No one has ever demonstrated verifiably that water may in isolated cases run uphill without being acted upon by some force. Therefore, we would find it unbelievable if anyone claimed that water has on occasion run uphill without having some force acting on it to reverse the laws of nature. This principle would apply to any miracle claim. If the claim cannot be undeniably verified, the reasonable person will find the claim unbelievable.
CHRISTIAN
I think your statement above proves my point. By analogy, a "miracle", like the water running upstream, requires a force.
TILL
Ah, you are finally learning how to use the double quotation marks. Now try to learn where commas should be put when used with quotation marks. They always--without exception--go before and not after the closing quotation mark, unless you live in a country that uses the British system.
You are right; a force would be required to make water run upstream. Now if you want to claim that water ran up hill through a force exerted by a supernatural entity, you must first verifiably confirm the existence of that entity. In the same way, if you want to claim that a dead man returned to life as a result of forces exerted by a supernatural entity, you must verify the existence of that entity. I would say that you have your work cut out for you.
Is any of this sinking in, CHRISTIAN?
Ah, you are finally learning how to use the double quotation marks. Now try to learn where commas should be put when used with quotation marks. They always--without exception--go before and not after the closing quotation mark, unless you live in a country that uses the British system.
You are right; a force would be required to make water run upstream. Now if you want to claim that water ran up hill through a force exerted by a supernatural entity, you must first verifiably confirm the existence of that entity. In the same way, if you want to claim that a dead man returned to life as a result of forces exerted by a supernatural entity, you must verify the existence of that entity. I would say that you have your work cut out for you.
Is any of this sinking in, CHRISTIAN?
CHRISTIAN
Just as merely observing that all streams naturally flow downstream with gravity does not disprove the reality hydraulic science can actually make water run uphill;
TILL
If water were forced upstream by application of hydraulic science, this would be done in accordance with
natural law. So what is your point?
If science should discover some way to restore dead bodies to life, then application of that science to raise a person from the dead would not be miraculous. Everything would happen in accordance with natural law.
Is any of this sinking in, CHRISTIAN?
CHRISTIAN
If water were forced upstream by application of hydraulic science, this would be done in accordance with
natural law. So what is your point?
If science should discover some way to restore dead bodies to life, then application of that science to raise a person from the dead would not be miraculous. Everything would happen in accordance with natural law.
Is any of this sinking in, CHRISTIAN?
CHRISTIAN
so, too, merely observing Till's famous cemetary on a daily basis does not disprove the reality of the resurrection.
TILL
Here is a little mnemonic device that will help you remember how to spell cemetery. All the vowels in this word are "e's."
Having observed this cemetery for over 40 years and never once having seen a person rise from any of the graves constitutes empirical evidence that dead people stay permanently dead. Now the best way to prove "the reality of the resurrection" would be for you or someone to go to this or some other cemetery and call people forth from their graves (like the many saints who came forth in Matthew 27).
You wouldn't seriously attempt such a feat as this, would you?
I didn't think so.
Here is a little mnemonic device that will help you remember how to spell cemetery. All the vowels in this word are "e's."
Having observed this cemetery for over 40 years and never once having seen a person rise from any of the graves constitutes empirical evidence that dead people stay permanently dead. Now the best way to prove "the reality of the resurrection" would be for you or someone to go to this or some other cemetery and call people forth from their graves (like the many saints who came forth in Matthew 27).
You wouldn't seriously attempt such a feat as this, would you?
I didn't think so.
- TILL
- Theist: Why do you so reason?
- Till: Because in my entire life of seventy-six years, I have never seen anything happen that was contrary to empirically established laws of nature. In those years, I have observed literally millions of natural events, all of which happened in accordance with empirically established laws of nature; therefore, it is reasonable for me to say that events happen according to natural laws, so it is on these bases that I say that an unverifiable miracle claim is a claim that is unbelievable.
CHRISTIAN
Well, are we to make Till the standard for acceptance of the possibility of miracles?
TILL
No, we will make all the people who have lived for however long they have lived, who have never seen any dead person return to life, the standard of acceptance.
How about that? Would that be an appropriate standard of acceptance?
CHRISTIAN
No, we will make all the people who have lived for however long they have lived, who have never seen any dead person return to life, the standard of acceptance.
How about that? Would that be an appropriate standard of acceptance?
CHRISTIAN
But let us imagine, suppose the Lord in his mercy were to grant Till a resurrection miracle one day as he walked passed that cemetary,
TILL
We would have to imagine this, wouldn't we?
Keep in mind that all the vowels in cemetery are "e's.
CHRISTIAN
Would any of his disciples on the list believe him? Should they?
We would have to imagine this, wouldn't we?
Keep in mind that all the vowels in cemetery are "e's.
CHRISTIAN
Would any of his disciples on the list believe him? Should they?
TILL
They shouldn't, because they should be intelligent enough to realize that it is far more likely that I would lie or be honestly mistaken than that I actually saw a dead person return to life.
I propose a better way to resolve this. Let your "Lord" gather all of the members of the list into one place--I volunteer the cemetery in front of my house--and raise just one dead person. That should do the trick, shouldn't it?
CHRISTIAN
They shouldn't, because they should be intelligent enough to realize that it is far more likely that I would lie or be honestly mistaken than that I actually saw a dead person return to life.
I propose a better way to resolve this. Let your "Lord" gather all of the members of the list into one place--I volunteer the cemetery in front of my house--and raise just one dead person. That should do the trick, shouldn't it?
CHRISTIAN
If not, then there is no reason to accept Till's experiences to the contrary as carrying any weight whatsoever either.
TILL
You surely aren't this dense, CHRISTIAN . My "experiences to the contrary" are that dead people stay permanently dead, and my experiences in this are the same as the experiences of millions and millions of other people, so there is nothing in these "experiences" that would tax the credulity of any sane person, because these experiences are the same as what they too personally experience day in and day out, year after year after year. One can readily believe claims that the sun rises in the east or that water seeks its own level or that rocks tossed into the air will fall to earth again, etc., etc., etc., because these are claims that conform to what he himself experiences day in and day out. However, if I claim that I saw a dead person return to life, this would be an "experience" that runs completely contrary to the experiences of those to whom I make the claim. Therefore, the reasonable person, hearing such a claim, will reject it until his own empirical experiences demonstrate to him that this can happen.
You really can't see the difference, CHRISTIAN ?
You surely aren't this dense, CHRISTIAN . My "experiences to the contrary" are that dead people stay permanently dead, and my experiences in this are the same as the experiences of millions and millions of other people, so there is nothing in these "experiences" that would tax the credulity of any sane person, because these experiences are the same as what they too personally experience day in and day out, year after year after year. One can readily believe claims that the sun rises in the east or that water seeks its own level or that rocks tossed into the air will fall to earth again, etc., etc., etc., because these are claims that conform to what he himself experiences day in and day out. However, if I claim that I saw a dead person return to life, this would be an "experience" that runs completely contrary to the experiences of those to whom I make the claim. Therefore, the reasonable person, hearing such a claim, will reject it until his own empirical experiences demonstrate to him that this can happen.
You really can't see the difference, CHRISTIAN ?
CHRISTIAN
Still, even considering Till's seventy-six years, why should that carry any weight against the testimony of others throughout the historical record who have been present on those rare occasion when that force has acted?
TILL
As stated before, it is more likely that persons can lie or be honestly mistaken than that they actually experienced resurrections from the dead.
You really can't see that?
CHRISTIAN
As stated before, it is more likely that persons can lie or be honestly mistaken than that they actually experienced resurrections from the dead.
You really can't see that?
CHRISTIAN
What more does this say than Till hasn't seen one, or perhaps, that Till hasn't recognized one when he has?
TILL
However, if Till experienced the opposite time after time after time after time, then that is an empirically sound reason to think that dead people just don't return to life and that it is far more likely that one claiming to have seen resurrections from the dead is either lying or honestly mistaken.
You really can't see that?
However, if Till experienced the opposite time after time after time after time, then that is an empirically sound reason to think that dead people just don't return to life and that it is far more likely that one claiming to have seen resurrections from the dead is either lying or honestly mistaken.
You really can't see that?
- TILL
- Theist: Why are you so adamant about "empirically established laws of nature"?
- Till: Because all of the advances that mankind has made in the field of science have resulted from application of this empirical principle, but no advancement in science has been made through acceptance of unverifiable miracle claims.
CHRISTIAN
It seems here that Till seeks to make one part of man's knowledge, the whole of man's knowledge. Till's conclusion here is again, the same as his beginning statement in reality. He's concluded with what he assumed at the beginning. He exhibits a bias for all the good that Christianity has done for man, from civilizing the barbarians, establishment of universities and the nurturing the philosophical, medical and physical sciences, the establishment of hospitals, religious orders that care and tend for the poor, etc. Opposed to these human advances, he pretends to care simply for cold hard facts - yet he has taken a mere part of man's knowledge, and worships it as the whole.
TILL
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. CHRISTIAN begins with the assumption that a man named Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, and he ends with the conclusion that he assumed at the beginning. The only difference is that my assumption conforms to empiricism, whereas his runs completely contrary to it.
I agree that Christianity has done some good for mankind, but old-timers here know that I also recognize that it has done probably more harm to mankind than good. Islam has done a lot of good, but I can't help believing that the world would be better off if it didn't exist. To discuss this would take us off on another tangent and give CHRISTIAN an excuse to continue evading my challenge for him to put his courage where his mouth is. Hence, I repeat my invitation for him to affirm that the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is a verifiable historical event or that the fulfillments of pagan prophecies are verifiable historical events.
Will he accept this challenge? Will pigs fly someday?
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. CHRISTIAN begins with the assumption that a man named Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, and he ends with the conclusion that he assumed at the beginning. The only difference is that my assumption conforms to empiricism, whereas his runs completely contrary to it.
I agree that Christianity has done some good for mankind, but old-timers here know that I also recognize that it has done probably more harm to mankind than good. Islam has done a lot of good, but I can't help believing that the world would be better off if it didn't exist. To discuss this would take us off on another tangent and give CHRISTIAN an excuse to continue evading my challenge for him to put his courage where his mouth is. Hence, I repeat my invitation for him to affirm that the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is a verifiable historical event or that the fulfillments of pagan prophecies are verifiable historical events.
Will he accept this challenge? Will pigs fly someday?
No comments:
Post a Comment