Your claim that these events are too improbable without divine intervention is subjective.
1 Like
My claim is that they are evidence. I can not make a horse drink.
With no statistical testimony.
Evidence is evidence. It does not have to be scientific nor statistical for it to be factual and true. The righteous George Müller’s testimony of God’s providence is going to be denied next.
How many crime scenes does it take to establish an M.O. statistically?
Another account referred to earlier, with some facts presumably still verifiable:
Is it me, or does acknowledging objective and verifiable eyewitness testimony, create a crisis of belief for the agnostic atheist? Jamie Smith may call this cross-pressure. And rather than to live with this crisis, they must cast doubt on the evidence, the problem is, even at this time in modern history, the evidence is absolutely overwhelming.
1 Like
It’s you. (And in case you’re not aware, I’m a practicing Christian.)
2 Likes
Fellow Christians mischaracterizing evidence is actually one of the things that made me initially start to question my faith and it eventually led me to leave the church.
4 Likes
Just like it’s me when I see the contradiction of positing an infinite number of things?
It’s sounds like it was a faith that was received, and God began to test it. Be glad that it’s not over with yet.
(My point about their verifiability was that they were third party verifiable at the time. The facts in the accounts I have reported – I am not talking about miraculous healing, please note – the facts were external and not resulting from anyone’s subjective feeling or mere opinion, like “It’s my opinion that someone was miraculously healed.”)
It seems to me that the effort expended here has little to do with whether the facts are true or not, but how we label them. If we can label them as subjective, ta da, then we do not have to pay any attention to them.
I have no clue on that subject
That’s not what you said before
If (and since) they are true, then the ingenuous reader has an obligation to not disallow their obvious implications about the existence of the supernatural and truth in the Bible.
Keener’s chapter on Hume has been on my mind. Check out this quote where I substitute ‘providential intervention’ PI for ‘miracles’:
“Hume claims that uniform human experience leads us to not expect PI. But what happens when eyewitnesses report experiences of PI? How then can human experience be “uniformly” against PI? Many things happen that are not typical experience; we do not for that reason deny they ever happen.”
“We can come up with a nonsupernatural way to explain it if we wish, but merely dismissing inconvenient evidence is not a fair way to argue.”
1 Like
“PI” also works because we are talking about an M.O. ; - )
1 Like
Which is fine in court, as I can testify. I probably have here on BioLogos. I’ll search.
1 Like
There are very few, next to no, ingenuous readers. We have objective evidence.
1 Like
I don’t believe I’ve ever committed myself to any view of your thoughts or feelings on the subject of positing an infinite number of things.