What does it mean to say God is the maker? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.
Christians believe in creation. Now readers of this blog know that I hold to John Walton’s view of Genesis 1, but Walton does say that other passages of Scripture hold that God did create ex nihilo, out of nothing, and I agree.
What do we get out of that?
Look around you. Really. Take a good look. Take a look at yourself. Take a look at your spouse and your family. Take a good long look at everything you see around you and take it all in and ponder it and then think about this thought.
None of it has to exist.
In our individualistic culture, we can often get the idea going that we are necessary for the story. Our modern idea is that it all revolves around us. Now we may play a major role perhaps, but we are actors on a stage and our part can be played by anyone else if need be.
God could make it just fine without you or me.
As I write this, I have a window nearby in my office where I can see the road leading to our house. It is the window I use to see if the mailman is coming. I can see the trees outside as well and the green grass growing and know that the sun is shining.
And none of this is necessary.
Nothing that I see had to exist. Everything out there exists because God created it and it exists for His good pleasure. In fact, that includes me as well. I exist for the joy of God and you exist for the joy of God.
Despite the fact that most of us think that usually that we’re not bringing Him much joy.
And sadly, many will turn away from Him and devote their lives to finding joy apart from Him, which in the long run truly cannot be done.
Look around you and realize there was a time when everything was not. There was a time when there was no universe. God was able to exist apart from the universe and can always exist apart from the universe. He is dependent on nothing.
Creation is a gift. It is a blessing. This is one thing the environmental movement gets right. We ought to care for the creation. This doesn’t mean that every move to care for it is worthwhile. I can only roll my eyes when I hear about “Earth Hour” for instance.
Let’s also realize something else. We can debate how it was that things came to be the way they are, but let’s realize that any God who is capable of creating a universe can safely be said to be really powerful and really smart.
You know, perhaps we might even dare make a radical move and say that he’s smart enough and powerful enough to know what He’s doing and how to handle the universe. If He can handle a whole universe, surely He can handle our lives.
He who created is able to maintain creation. He who made your life is able to provide for you.
As Luke 12:32 tells us, fear not little flock. It is God’s good pleasure to give you the Kingdom.
And as Matthew 6 reminds us, the one who cares for the birds and the flowers will provide for us.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
Tags: Apostles' Creed, Maker
Deeper Waters 
March 24, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Mar |
Everything out there exists because God created it and it exists for His good pleasure. In fact, that includes me as well. I exist for the joy of God and you exist for the joy of God.
And you know this how? By turning to reality as you suggest, examining it carefully, and thinking…
Childhood cancer is for His good pleasure? Tsunamis and rubella are for His good pleasure? A biosphere predicated on prey/predator/starvation is for His good pleasure? Noticing that the universe is supposedly designed to try to kill you for His good pleasure?
What a rose-tinted window you have near your office to look through! Mine’s simply transparent.
March 24, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Mar |
Ah. The problem of evil. Tell me this as we start this one. Do you see evil as detracting from the good in the universe, or do you see good as overshadowed by the evil in the universe?
March 24, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Mar
How about you answer the question I posed: And you know this how? It should be simple enough…
March 25, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Mar
Sure then. The five ways of Aquinas and the resurrection of Jesus.
March 25, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Mar
You claim that everything out there exists because God created it and it exists for his good pleasure. You say you know this is because Aquinas argued that motion requires agency which requires a Prime Mover (which we know from Galileo’s inclined plane experiment and our understanding of inertia and how it operates is an argument that is factually wrong). This justification is a non sequitur. The same charge of non sequitur is leveled against your claim as justified by the other four Aquinas arguments about the existence of God. The resurrection is an hypothesis that allows us no means of specific knowledge adduced from reality but imposed on it but overwhelming contrary evidence from reality that it is possible; indeed, such an event would be ‘miraculous’ because reality shows us that it would be extremely unlikely. Again, belief in any of the Aquinas arguments to indicate a actual causal God is not sufficient to alter your original belief claim to be anything more than that: simply a belief claim imposed on reality that is not substantiated by anything reality has to offer us in its support and much compelling evidence in its refutation.
Why so many believers seem to think it’s okay to present belief claims based solely on and in faith to be expressed as if equivalent to claims of knowledge adduced from reality reveals something important about covering up faith-based claims and expressing them as if they were be something that they are not: knowledge-based claims adduced from reality. What you claim to know, clearly, you do not know but don’t want to admit this fact; instead you won’t retract the claim to be what it really is, namely, a claim not of knowledge but of faith… a claim you wish were true, that you hope were true, that you desire to be true.
My point is to have believers make claims but be clear about on what basis these claims reside: a claim of faith believed to be true in spite of anything reality has to say in the matter.
March 25, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Mar
I was really hoping I’d see something more on this, but I guess not.
Let’s see. Inertia. Well Galileo’s view works fine for physics, but why should I think that the view of physics and Galileo on motion is what Aquinas had in mind with motion? Aquinas is doing metaphysics, not physics.
As for miracles, I’d need a good argument against miracles. I don’t think Hume’s works and someone like Earman has helped to devastate it. I also think that even better, Craig Keener has demonstrated the reality of miracles in his two-volume “Miracles.”
Why it’s okay for atheists to present what they think are refutations but have already been dealt with by scholars in the field (Note that Feser is well aware of the Inertia argument http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/cosmological-argument-roundup.html?m=1) is beyond me. I guess they’re just people of faith.
March 25, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Mar
The metaphysical argument is fine… as far as form is concerned. It works beautifully contained within its own form. What it doesn’t do is demonstrate the premises to be accurate (which is an unnecessary element inside an axiomatic system), which undermines the truth value of its conclusions when applied to the reality its supporters purport it describes.
Aside from arguing metaphysics with you, a point worth your consideration is that this system of reasoning we call metaphysics to describe the reality we share has produced no knowledge while it has held dominance. Aquinas’ five arguments has not advanced human understanding of how reality operates. They may seem to justify claims made about reality, but let’s look at what such reasoning has produced: a means to justify religious claims.
It wasn’t until we as a civilization moved away from granting metaphysics respect and turned – as you point out – to physics… and chemistry and biology and methodological naturalism that we began to allow reality – and not the metaphysical musings of sophisticated thinkers – to guide us towards knowledge of it. This is a vital point when evaluating Aquinas’ five ways, comparing and contrasting claims justified by their use, and looking to see what knowledge we have gained by them. What we find is that they offer us no relevant guidance whatsoever to knowledge about the universe and everything it may contain independent of presuming these arguments to be applicable. They’re not… because they produce no knowledge that is applicable. They remain self-contained arguments that describe nothing outside of their form.
So when people make claims about reality but then retreat behind a method that refuses it any arbitrating role, they are making empty assertions that only sound sophisticated, only sound applicable, only sound reasonable. They’re not in practice and this is demonstrable by the lack of knowledge it has reliably produced throughout the ages. Now the task of Thomistic apologists is to rework the interpretation of the premises and play catch-up with methodological naturalism. I find no need for any metaphysical middleman, thank you very much, and no evidence that it offers anything other than a sophisticated diversion from seeking and gaining knowledge about reality.
March 26, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Mar
Tilde: The metaphysical argument is fine… as far as form is concerned. It works beautifully contained within its own form. What it doesn’t do is demonstrate the premises to be accurate (which is an unnecessary element inside an axiomatic system), which undermines the truth value of its conclusions when applied to the reality its supporters purport it describes.
Reply: It has not been explained what motion is in the sense that Aquinas speaks of. It has just been asserted that he’s wrong. I think I should do this for any argument I disagree with?
Want to use Hume? Well Hume’s wrong.
Want to use Kant? Well Kant’s wrong.
No need to give a reason. Just say so!
Tilde: Aside from arguing metaphysics with you, a point worth your consideration is that this system of reasoning we call metaphysics to describe the reality we share has produced no knowledge while it has held dominance. Aquinas’ five arguments has not advanced human understanding of how reality operates. They may seem to justify claims made about reality, but let’s look at what such reasoning has produced: a means to justify religious claims.
Reply: Yes, because we all know Aristotle was an incredibly religious person! Or could it be that this was part of understanding reality and religion just happens to be a part of that. Do you know what it is that metaphysics even studies?
Tilde: It wasn’t until we as a civilization moved away from granting metaphysics respect and turned – as you point out – to physics… and chemistry and biology and methodological naturalism that we began to allow reality – and not the metaphysical musings of sophisticated thinkers – to guide us towards knowledge of it. This is a vital point when evaluating Aquinas’ five ways, comparing and contrasting claims justified by their use, and looking to see what knowledge we have gained by them. What we find is that they offer us no relevant guidance whatsoever to knowledge about the universe and everything it may contain independent of presuming these arguments to be applicable. They’re not… because they produce no knowledge that is applicable. They remain self-contained arguments that describe nothing outside of their form.
Reply: Something’s missing in here. Oh yes! A demonstration that the five ways are wrong! It’s just being said “Well they’re not science so let’s disregard them!” Also, there wasn’t a move away. In fact, Aquinas’s mentor Albert the Great was doing science. Francis Bacon meanwhile, who really got the scientific method going full throttle, warned us that it was not wise to jettison the wisdom of the past and to disregard metaphysics. The metaphysics provides the essential foundation for the science. Remove the foundation and there is no modern science. It won’t stand on its own.
Tilde: So when people make claims about reality but then retreat behind a method that refuses it any arbitrating role, they are making empty assertions that only sound sophisticated, only sound applicable, only sound reasonable. They’re not in practice and this is demonstrable by the lack of knowledge it has reliably produced throughout the ages.
Reply: An accurate self-description of what you’ve just said.
Tilde: Now the task of Thomistic apologists is to rework the interpretation of the premises and play catch-up with methodological naturalism.
REply: Actually, no. A work such as Gilson’s “From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again” shows that Aristotle was indeed right. Final causality is the most important for our understanding and science wanting to remove final causality will lead to trouble.
Tilde: I find no need for any metaphysical middleman, thank you very much, and no evidence that it offers anything other than a sophisticated diversion from seeking and gaining knowledge about reality.
Reply: I’ll just be surprised if you can tell me what metaphysics actually is.
March 26, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Mar
I thought this might be apropos.
March 25, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Mar |
tildeb
“The resurrection is an hypothesis that allows us no means of specific knowledge adduced from reality but imposed on it but overwhelming contrary evidence from reality that it is possible; indeed, such an event would be ‘miraculous’ because reality shows us that it would be extremely unlikely.”
What contrary evidence are you talking about? This is a bare assertion with no support. If you want to make statements of faith that’s fine, but don’t expect it to persuade many people.
March 26, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Mar |
The contrary evidence is quite reliable: cellular death precludes reanimation of those cells, so any claim of resurrection at the level of dead cells back into living cells after this process has been completed throughout the body is contrary to our understanding of how biology works. Proclaiming it is possible is to assert that our understanding of cellular biology is wrong, that it is possible. On what basis is this claim about reality made? Well, nothing from reality. It comes from some other source than reality… and, sure enough, we find it comes from hoping it’s possible… perhaps by some intervention of an agency that can alter our reality by whim. And the evidence for such an agency? Not from reality, nor from any understanding we have about process of physics, chemistry, and biology that inform applications, therapies, and technologies that work for everyone everywhere all the time, but a belief held about possibility that stands contrary to this understanding… based entirely on hope.
March 29, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Mar
“The contrary evidence is quite reliable: cellular death precludes reanimation of those cells, so any claim of resurrection at the level of dead cells back into living cells after this process has been completed throughout the body is contrary to our understanding of how biology works.”
Honestly I could for arguments sake concede some points here and still point out the fact that this is just an argument from ignorance, how do you know that 10,000 years from now humans will not find new information that states otherwise? What we know now doesn’t equate to absolute truths, I hope you realize this. If HUmans know everything there is to know with respect to biology then please make your case.
“Proclaiming it is possible is to assert that our understanding of cellular biology is wrong, that it is possible. On what basis is this claim about reality made? Well, nothing from reality. It comes from some other source than reality… and, sure enough, we find it comes from hoping it’s possible… perhaps by some intervention of an agency that can alter our reality by whim. And the evidence for such an agency? Not from reality, nor from any understanding we have about process of physics, chemistry, and biology that inform applications, therapies, and technologies that work for everyone everywhere all the time, but a belief held about possibility that stands contrary to this understanding… based entirely on hope.”
Again you’re making another argument from ignorance.
If you can demonstrate an objective truth here regarding this matter in which it is absolutely true of the fact that this is impossible, then you’d have a point, So please by all means, I want to see this.
March 29, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Mar
Cornell, you seem determined to miss my point: believing in miracles is not made based on evidence adduced from reality. Read that again if you’re still having troubling identifying my point. I say quite clearly that such a belief in miracles, the hope that such events are possible does not come from evidence adduced from reality but stands contrary to it. In other words, belief in the resurrection does not come from reality. It comes from some other source.
My point is that such beliefs are not equivalent in why we grant confidence to beliefs that we have adduced FROM reality but a different kind of belief altogether… one that stands with confidence in spite of overwhelming contrary evidence from reality. For example, dead cells don’t reanimate. You cannot produce any evidence from the reality we share that such reanimation is possible. Take a moment now. Think hard. Produce evidence that it is possible. You will come up empty. You’ve got nothing … NOTHING… from the reality we share to show evidence for this possibility, that such a belief is deserving of confidence, that such a belief is possible when we allow reality to arbitrate it. Granting confidence to a belief that reanimation IS possible means that you grant this confidence by means not of evidence produced from reality but in spite of it.
So please stop pretending that belief in the resurrection of Jesus is based, is deduced, is adduced, from reality, that the confidence you lend to this belief is therefore reasonable because it comes from reality. It’s not reasonable because it doesn’t; it stands contrary to all evidence we find in reality right now. You lend confidence because you wish to, because you want to, because you feel you ought to, for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with reality; rather, you IMPOSE this belief on reality and claim is is possible and therefore reasonable. This is backwards and it doesn’t reflect the method you are actually using, namely, faith.
Furthermore, you then pretend you have come to this belief in the same way you come to the belief about where you left your keys… adduced from reality. This is simply not true. Belief in the resurrection is imposed on reality in spite of all evidence to the contrary, which makes the belief faith-based, which was my point.
March 29, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Mar
That is to say, science doesn’t deal with absolutes bud….
So talks of impossibility are nonsensical, and this is your first problem. Try keeping up with the times IMO, or at least in the 20th century.
“… in science there is no ‘knowledge’, in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. What we usually call ‘scientific knowledge’ is, as a rule, not knowledge in this sense, but rather information regarding the various competing hypotheses and they in which they stood up to various tests; it is, using the language of Plato and Aristotle, information concerning the latest, and the best tested, scientific opinion. This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by ‘proof’ an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory.”
– Sir Karl Popper, ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1: The Spell of Plato’ pg 229
“It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven.”
– Albert Einstein, “Science and Religion” in The Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion”
March 29, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Mar
I’m not making a claim about impossibilities… bud. I’m talking about the difference between faith-based and evidence-adduced beliefs. These are different kinds of beliefs that use different methods. Evidence-adduced beliefs are arbitrated by reality; faith-based beliefs are imposed on it.
I’ve kept up with the times and understand that faith-based beliefs have not, do not, and in all likelihood never shall produce on jot or speck of knowledge. That’s why faith-based beliefs are demonstrably based on a method that reliably and consistently does not produce knowledge. You seem stuck on 4th century BCE metaphysics and assume this methodology is equivalent way as methodological naturalism to support religious claims about reality. Wrong. It’s a guaranteed way to fool yourself into believing stuff that you simply wish were true.
April 2, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Apr
Hey, look down..
(don’t know if this grabs your attention or not)
April 3, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Apr
You see Hinduism exists.
Therefore we must EXPLAIN why Hinduism exists, in fact both of us have the burden to do so.
The Devas are the best explains why Hinduism exists, therefore it is reasonable to believe in the Devas.
April 4, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Apr
“You see Hinduism exists.
Therefore we must EXPLAIN why Hinduism exists, in fact both of us have the burden to do so.
The Devas are the best explains why Hinduism exists, therefore it is reasonable to believe in the Devas.”
Sure, so let’s use this
1) The hypothesis, together with other true statements, must imply further statements describing present, observable data.
2) The hypothesis must have greater explanatory scope (that is, imply a greater variety of observable data) than rival hypothesis.
3) The hypothesis must have greater explanatory POWER (that is, make the observable data more probable) than rival hypothesis.
4) The hypothesis must be more plausible (that is, be implied by a greater variety of accepted truths, and its negation implied by fewer accepted truths) than rival hypotheses.
5) The hypothesis must be less ad hoc (that is, include fewer new suppositions about the past not already implied by existing knowledge) than rival hypotheses.
6) The hypothesis must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs (that is, when conjoined with accepted truths, imply fewer false statements) than rival hypotheses.
7) The hypothesis must so exceed its rivals in fulfilling conditions (2)-(6) that there is little chance of a rival hypothesis, after further investigation, exceeding it in meeting these conditions.
C. Behan McCullagh, ‘Justifying Historical Descriptions’ (Cambridge University Press) pg 19
Ok first objection,
Does Hinduism posit a necessary being that is responsible for all contingent affairs or does it just assume beings that came into being from a pre-existing universe?
April 4, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Apr
When you finish hammering this out with a Hindu (and you might as well cover all other religious beliefs while you’re at it with appropriate authorities) and come to a religious consensus, get back to me. I eagerly look forward to that day.
April 5, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Apr
Why do I need a religious consensus, and what’s up with your tu quoque?
Is that your only defense lol
If other religious deity’s do exist then that makes atheism false….you realize this right?
April 1, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Apr |
Tildbe
“I’m not making a claim about impossibilities… bud.”
Oh is that right?
You said “I say quite clearly that such a belief in miracles, the hope that such events are possible does not come from evidence adduced from reality but stands contrary to it. In other words, belief in the resurrection does not come from reality. It comes from some other source.”
Now once again my point is validated, of course miracles are possible simply by the fact that nothing is impossible to science. You can argue that there are metaphysical impossibilities and I’d agree, but that burden is on you not me.
Now stick to the topic and stop it with your silly hand-waving. This is where I’m starting from, and then from here I will make my case for miracles.
So have we established the fact that I can argue the case that miracles are possible simply by bringing up the fact that science doesn’t rule out impossibilities since it doesn’t deal with absolutes, which then leads us to argue the possibility of miracles within the realm of metaphysics or do you concede the point and admit that you were wrong? It’s ok to admit a fault tildbe, don’t worry I promise I won’t gloat over this as it isn’t really much to gloat about.
“I’m talking about the difference between faith-based and evidence-adduced beliefs. These are different kinds of beliefs that use different methods. Evidence-adduced beliefs are arbitrated by reality; faith-based beliefs are imposed on it.”
And I’m all about evidence, so I don’t need hear this nonsense about faith-based beliefs, because if I had to take Christianity on faith-based beliefs (using your definition of faith) then I wouldn’t be a Christian.
“I’ve kept up with the times and understand that faith-based beliefs have not, do not, and in all likelihood never shall produce on jot or speck of knowledge. ”
Yeah if we use your definition of faith then I agree, but I don’t base my evidence of faith. So stop with the strawmen.
“That’s why faith-based beliefs are demonstrably based on a method that reliably and consistently does not produce knowledge.”
Thanks captain obvious
“You seem stuck on 4th century BCE metaphysics and assume this methodology is equivalent way as methodological naturalism to support religious claims about reality. Wrong. It’s a guaranteed way to fool yourself into believing stuff that you simply wish were true.”
Really, and what 4th century BCE metaphysics am I stuck on? How about we play a game called ‘support your claims’
You make the claim you back it up, all I see so far is nonsensical strawmen and bare assertions.
What the heck are you talking about when you say 4th century metaphysics. My favorite metaphysicians are Alexander Pruss and E.J Lowe, have you ever read any of their works or is too tough for you?
April 1, 2014 at 10:12 -04:00Apr |
Must have missed most of this before
“Cornell, you seem determined to miss my point: believing in miracles is not made based on evidence adduced from reality. Read that again if you’re still having troubling identifying my point. I say quite clearly that such a belief in miracles, the hope that such events are possible does not come from evidence adduced from reality but stands contrary to it. In other words, belief in the resurrection does not come from reality. It comes from some other source.”
Actually yes it is
You see Christianity exists
Therefore we must EXPLAIN why Christianity exists, in fact both of us have the burden to do so.
The Resurrection best explains why Christianity exists, therefore it is reasonable to believe in the Resurrection. I’m already arguing with you right now about why it is reasonable to believe in Miracles, so we can keep to this up above.
“My point is that such beliefs are not equivalent in why we grant confidence to beliefs that we have adduced FROM reality but a different kind of belief altogether… one that stands with confidence in spite of overwhelming contrary evidence from reality.”
looks around
Christianity exists in reality
So we must ask “WHY Does Christianity exist in reality’
The debate for WHy Christianity exists in reality is where I’m going to end up when I demonstrate the fact that Jesus Christ was almost certainly Resurrected by God.
“For example, dead cells don’t reanimate. You cannot produce any evidence from the reality we share that such reanimation is possible. Take a moment now. Think hard. Produce evidence that it is possible. You will come up empty. You’ve got nothing … NOTHING… from the reality we share to show evidence for this possibility, that such a belief is deserving of confidence, that such a belief is possible when we allow reality to arbitrate it. Granting confidence to a belief that reanimation IS possible means that you grant this confidence by means not of evidence produced from reality but in spite of it.”
My God your overconfidence makes you look like such a child. I think I went over this before, what you’re doing here is making an argument from ignorance. We don’t know for sure if dead cells don’t reanimate, you see humanity in current times doesn’t have access to all scientific knowledge. Do you realize how many stars there are in the universe? Guess how many of these stars humans have travelled too? ZERO
We are not as advanced as you think, so to say ‘dead cells don’t reanimate’ is just an argument from ignorance and this is why you should be careful when speaking of things in scientific terms.
Now you can say ‘it is reasonable to believe that dead cells don’t reanimate as current scientific knowledge says it can’t’ and that’s fine, but that only makes sense if Theism is false or heck even if there is no superior intelligent species out there. So you end up making an argument from ignorance and begging the question against Theism and a possible intelligent species that makes humans look like ignoramuses. Guess what? This is why it’s called a ‘Miracle’
If God exists there’s nothing incredible about miracles at all. If a chef lived in my house, there’s nothing unusual about a great meal being prepared.
“So please stop pretending that belief in the resurrection of Jesus is based, is deduced, is adduced, from reality, that the confidence you lend to this belief is therefore reasonable because it comes from reality.”
It is evidenced based, On the miracles issue, I think C.S. Lewis made the observation that miracles are not scatter haphazarly, but are found at the ‘great ganglia or history’. In other words, they aren’t mere displays of magic but are always part of God’s redemptive action. If you look at the Bible, there were long periods of centuries where no miracles are recorded (Noah through Abraham, Israel in Egypt, Judges, etc…). So it would be as foolish to demand Red Sea type miracles at our particular time in history before we believe in God as it would be to demand a Revolutionary War before we believe in democracy. On the other hand, I think God still is actively at work in miraculous ways, just probably not at the grand level that he was during the Exodus or Jesus’ ministry.
“It’s not reasonable because it doesn’t; it stands contrary to all evidence we find in reality right now. You lend confidence because you wish to, because you want to, because you feel you ought to, for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with reality; rather, you IMPOSE this belief on reality and claim is is possible and therefore reasonable. This is backwards and it doesn’t reflect the method you are actually using, namely, faith.”
No faith, and if you ever happened to just take one moment of your time and be skeptical of your own claims you might realize that.
It makes perfect sense that God would increase the regularity of miracles during the life of the Jesus as a way of demonstrating the Messiahship of his Son. God had a special reason for doing so.
“Furthermore, you then pretend you have come to this belief in the same way you come to the belief about where you left your keys… adduced from reality. This is simply not true. Belief in the resurrection is imposed on reality in spite of all evidence to the contrary, which makes the belief faith-based, which was my point.”
Well not really I actually use the historical method put forth by this academic. You should ditch your emotional nonsense and put your atheist pom poms down and try it for awhile.
1) The hypothesis, together with other true statements, must imply further statements describing present, observable data.
2) The hypothesis must have greater explanatory scope (that is, imply a greater variety of observable data) than rival hypothesis.
3) The hypothesis must have greater explanatory POWER (that is, make the observable data more probable) than rival hypothesis.
4) The hypothesis must be more plausible (that is, be implied by a greater variety of accepted truths, and its negation implied by fewer accepted truths) than rival hypotheses.
5) The hypothesis must be less ad hoc (that is, include fewer new suppositions about the past not already implied by existing knowledge) than rival hypotheses.
6) The hypothesis must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs (that is, when conjoined with accepted truths, imply fewer false statements) than rival hypotheses.
7) The hypothesis must so exceed its rivals in fulfilling conditions (2)-(6) that there is little chance of a rival hypothesis, after further investigation, exceeding it in meeting these conditions.
C. Behan McCullagh, ‘Justifying Historical Descriptions’ (Cambridge University Press) pg 19
^Does this seem real to you? I’m just getting started, buddy boy.