Posts

Bowen's 10 things

Image
Gospel of John







Last fall (around Sept 20,2019) Bradley Bowen (secular outpost) and I had a sort of debate over his take on the swoon theory of resurrection. He asserts with no evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross but merely swooned,revived latter in the  tomb and somehow got out. Thus the empty tomb is accounted for without miracles. I think I won rather handily. The reader be the Judge:Here. Now he comes back on it. He's attacked me on Metacrock's Blogconcerning quoting a certain source. He had reference to 10 arguments he makes,[1] he called them "the 10 things" that he thought just settled the matter and proved his swoon theory cold.   He fell back on them  a lot.

I answered these "10 things" in the comment section of that last debate. But I post them here since he's dug it all up again, I am enhancing my answers.  These are Bowen's "10 things"that supposedly demonstrate that John cannot be taken seriously as a historical source.…

Miracles

Image
Shrine at Lourdes

The issue of healing has risen through a challenge from a troll and taken up by our friend and loyal atheist opponent Pixie. This is a pastiche  fro various arguments made over the years. The healing i discuss here can be considered miraculous because they are proven by medical science to be conditions that are not explained by science,

Marian Library (Ibid.)

"In the last one hundred years, over 6,500 individuals have reported cures to the Medical Bureau. Of these, at least 2,500 cases are considered truly remarkable, but they lack some requirement needed to allow them to advance to the next stage--witnesses, evidence, lack of agreement on the nature of the ailment. In the last twenty years, there have been reports of about twenty cases of extraordinary cures or healings, about one a year. Mr. Bély's healing is the 66th cure occurring at Lourdes which has been officially recognized by ecclesiastical authorities. The recognition by church authorities has been a…

The Perspective We Take to the Question of God, (part 1)

Image
I never argue to prove to the existence of God anyway, but to demonstrate the rational nature of belief. Arguing to prove that God exists[1]gives one an unnecessary burden because since God is beyond our understanding there’s really no way to prove there is a God. Nor should we want such a thing because that would mean that God is subject to our calculations. If we can make God an object of our observations we have demoted God to the level of being a thing in creation. The potential for such arguments depends entirely upon the assumptions we are willing to make and the perspective from which we view the marital supporting the arguments. The point here is that our presuppositions govern the way we see to answer the question of God and the proper presumptions are philosophical and not scientific; we must do philosophy to answer the question of God.             The modern view of physical law understands “law” as more or less a metaphor. Even though text books still speak in the languag…