Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!

its funny that pb is now claiming that jesuss disciples were sceintists at a time when no one was a scientist let alone the uneducated followers of a mystical jewish rabbi. this may be pbs most absurd claim yet.

rather than to thoroughly and methodically investigate any claims of supernaturalism jesuss followers were all too ready to believe those claims just like pb is ready to believe them today. rather than to start from a position of healthy scepticism they like pb start from a position of beleif.

islander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The physical parts...?"---Pondy
>
> This is probably one of many areas in which I
> differ from pb. I have little doubt that there is
> more to reality than what we can experience in the
> touch, see, feel, realm. I think there are aspects
> of reality that transcend what we can physically
> experience.
> Pb would probably call those aspects
> of transcendent reality the supernatural.

Probably.

> For him it seems, supernatural acts can violate the laws
> of the touch, see, feel, realm.

Yeah. "Can." I can think of no reason to suppose that a reality that exists separate from the natural reality would, of necessity be subject to the laws of that other reality.

> As I said, I, personally think there might be what pb calls the
> supernatural, but I wouldn’t call it that
> because even though it transcends the physical
> reality that we experience…it transcends it but
> is compatible with it.

Perhaps, isle, you'd be more accurate to say you BELIEVE that.

> It violates none of what we
> call natural law. Think of living in a two
> dimensional reality. In a flat, two-dimensional
> reality, we have the laws of geometry, a triangle
> has three sides etc. That’s all we’re capable
> of experiencing with our senses. We’d have no
> concept of volume in that world, however, if we
> add a third dimension, we now not only have flat
> triangles, but we can understand a pyramid and the
> concept of volume, which is not conceivable in a
> two-dimensional reality. Yet everything in the
> three dimensional reality is completely compatible
> with the two dimensional one. It violates none of
> its laws. My guess is, pb, in the two dimensional
> world, would consider volume something
> supernatural .

Yeah. It comes down to you just being better than the people who disagree with you, aint?

Lucky for you that you're just, well, better than I.

indy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have little doubt that there is more to reality
> than what we can experience in the touch, see,
> feel, realm. I think there are aspects of reality
> that transcend what we can physically
> experience.-islander
>
> i wonder how anyone could know that.
>
> personally i feel this way about that: its
> possible that parts of reality lie beyond our
> ability including our technological ability to
> sense but theres no reason to believe anything in
> particular about it.
>
> there may be a god or an invisible flying
> spaghetti monster who actually controls parts of
> reality but there is no reason to believe that
> there is.

indy,

Just so you understand that that is a belief. It's unjustified and can't be justified any more that Osama's belief that 72 virgins await him at the end of this earthly journey.

indy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> its funny that pb is now claiming that jesuss
> disciples were sceintists...

No. Sciencists--people who will settle only for a natural explanation of any event.

I can think of no reason to suppose that a reality that exists separate from the natural reality would, of necessity be subject to the laws of that other reality.-pb

you cant think of any reason to suppose that a reality that exists separate from the natural reality would of necessity NOT be subject to the laws of that other reality either.

so where does that leave you?

there is no reason to believe anything in particular about something that cannot be sensed by us or by our technology. its all only a guess and your guess is just as bad as any other.

"there is no reason to believe anything in particular about something that cannot be sensed by us or by our technology. its all only a guess and your guess is just as bad as any other. " -- indy

That is the most purely unjustiable faith statement I've ever read on this board.

Good for you.

No. Sciencists--people who will settle only for a natural explanation of any event.-pb

how can you claim that jesuss followers were people who would settle only for a natural explanation of any event when they so easily and quickly settled for a supernatural explanation to explain the circumstances surrounding jesuss death??

if those same people had spent ten minutes with the great kreskin they would believe that he was god.

Just so you understand that that is a belief. It's unjustified and can't be justified any more that Osama's belief that 72 virgins await him at the end of this earthly journey.-pb

im fully aware that christianity and islam are only unjustified beliefs.

"What kind of whacky Bible do you have? In my Bible the last verse in Mark is 16:8. Now, if the game is to start making up Bible verses, let me know. I'm sure I can come up with some real doozies that'd make your head spin"---pb

I'm never surprised anymore at the things you can make up.The Bible I used is commonly known as the Authorized “King James” version. In it, Mark 16 has 20 verses. Which Bible are you using?

"I want to know who said that He never died again. You said, that that's said. Who said it? Where? When? In what context?

I, for one, am saying it. Are you arguing that (according to the story) Jesus did die again? If you are, you’re the first person I’ve known to ever make that claim. Present your evidence that leads you to believe he died again.

"I'm not a sciencist. You are demonstrating that YOU are."

Why, thank you pb. I definitely take that as a compliment.

good point islander. people sometimes forget the bible was composed by normal fallible men and is not inerrant.

Is there a reliable method which deals with the
supernatural realm?-jun

Yeah. Faith.-pb

faith is a notoriously UNreliable method for knowing anything about anything.

faith "justifies" osamas 72 virgins or some branch davidians belief that david koresh was jesus or some mormons belief that jesus physically spent time on the north american continent or some hindus faith in reincarnation every bit as much as faith "justifies" your belief in the physical resurrection of jesus.

if not, then how does it not?

indy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. Sciencists--people who will settle only for a
> natural explanation of any event.-pb
>
> how can you claim that jesuss followers were
> people who would settle only for a natural
> explanation of any event when they so easily and
> quickly settled for a supernatural explanation to
> explain the circumstances surrounding jesuss
> death??

Who said they settled quickly?
>
> if those same people had spent ten minutes with
> the great kreskin they would believe that he was
> god.

There's nothing like fundy sciencist sanctimony, eh?

The thing you lack is, as Socrates would observe, is on the level of self knowledge.

islander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "What kind of whacky Bible do you have? In my
> Bible the last verse in Mark is 16:8. Now, if the
> game is to start making up Bible verses, let me
> know. I'm sure I can come up with some real
> doozies that'd make your head spin"---pb
>
> I'm never surprised anymore at the things you can
> make up.The Bible I used is commonly known as the
> Authorized “King James” version. In it, Mark
> 16 has 20 verses. Which Bible are you using?

Any of the translations published in the last century, except. of course, the NEW KJV. Apparently, you've never heard of the Textus Receptus. That's okay.
>
> "I want to know who said that He never died again.
> You said, that that's said. Who said it? Where?
> When? In what context?
>
> I, for one, am saying it. Are you arguing that
> (according to the story) Jesus did die again? If
> you are, you’re the first person I’ve known to
> ever make that claim. Present your evidence that
> leads you to believe he died again.

Well, if YOU said it, then, of course, I agree.

It's just that, in all my years of theological study, I don't think that I've come across that statement.

"Yeah. It comes down to you just being better than the people who disagree with you, aint?
Lucky for you that you're just, well, better than I."---pb

You're inferiority complex is showing again.