Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Remember last week, hun, when you stopped by my
> office just as Marv was making lunch for everyone
> form LJS's menu, and right out of thing air."
>
> You are splitting hairs here, pb. Even if I said
> that in the email it still wouldn't constitute
> evidence that Marv was a miracle man. Even if
> everyone who thought they were witnessing a
> miracle was convinced it was a miracle, it
> wouldn't constitute proof that it was in fact a
> miracle.
Good thing that you didn't try Grad School for history. I still can't believe that you're this, well, intellectually challenged.
Why would reading the email, "Remember last week, hun, when you stopped by my office just as Marv was making lunch for everyone form LJS's menu, and right out of thing air." utterly convince you that Marv can perform miracles?
"Tell me, in context, what you know about Paul that even suggests that he did magic tricks." -pb
Well.... gosh.......................
When you put it like that.................
...Wow, pb. I realize now that the idea of a religious zealot, a mere human being, ever playing fast and loose with the truth to promote their religion is an absolutely ludicrous and impossible idea. I need only look to the Christian leaders of today to see how absolute adherence to reality and the truth are utterly concrete and intractable precepts from which they never ever ever veer.
I concede, pb. You win. Your argument is absolutely airtight.
i dont understand why anyone would believe that two people or three hundred people emailing each other back and forth discussing some strange event that they had witnessed in common would constitute evidence that the strange event was a miracle. it might be good evidence that those people believed that the event theyd witnessed was a miracle but it would be very very poor evidence that the event was an actual miracle especially to some third party who himself had not witnessed the event in question. to believe that hearsay of this sort would be good evidence for the occurrence of a miracle is the worst kind of intellectual self-deception.
Indy, I would concede that it does constitute some form of evidence in that I could see pb's side presenting it as "evidence" in a trial. "Strong" evidence? I don't think so personally.
pb, I think it all comes down to a level of faith. That's what religions are really based on anyways. If you have the faith to see it as "strong" evidence for something that you had already committed yourself to believing by virtue of your religious conviction then good for you. For others of us, we don't have the same degree of specific faith required to accept the evidence as "strong" that you do.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2009 02:26AM by Ponderer.
Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You mean what religion would I die for?
>
> One doesn't pop to mind. People have done it in
> the past though.
No. You implied that Marv just did an illusion. And, Paul suffered intense persecution for the 'tricks' he did. So, I'm asking what lie or trick you would die for?
islander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pb,
>
> When, where, and how did Paul die? Just in case
> it comes up in this thread for some
> reason...well...I think it'd be good to know.
Actually, there is, as far as I know, only tradition on how he died.
There is an first hand account of suffering he endured in 2 Corinthians, which is a relatively early letter. It's quite a list.
indy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i dont understand why anyone would believe that
> two people or three hundred people emailing each
> other back and forth discussing some strange event
> that they had witnessed in common would constitute
> evidence that the strange event was a miracle. it
> might be good evidence that those people believed
> that the event theyd witnessed was a miracle but
> it would be very very poor evidence that the event
> was an actual miracle especially to some third
> party who himself had not witnessed the event in
> question. to believe that hearsay of this sort
> would be good evidence for the occurrence of a
> miracle is the worst kind of intellectual
> self-deception.
Don't settle on a life as a professional historian, there, indy. Still to garbage. It's obviously in your blood.
pb, I wouldn't die for a lie or trick. So what? That's irrelevant because I'm not saying that's what Paul did. He would die for his religion, his belief.
