USING THE PROCESS OF ELIMINATION TO DEFEND MIRACLES AS WORTHY OF BELIEF BACKFIRES 

If miracles happen they don’t mean somebody can be raised from the dead. Bringing a person back could be impossible for some reason. We don’t know the miracle rule book. If you have a place where everybody gets healed of sickness that does not mean you can take a dead person there and have them restored to life. Against this it will be said that if God can create you from nothing he can raise you. But nobody says he can make two of you at the one time. If he has set us up to go out of existence forever at death or turn into some kind of life force that is recycled then resurrection does not happen.

Given that you need quality evidence for a miracle claim, you need a higher bar of evidence for such a big thing as somebody rising from the dead to be our saviour and to be with us forever. How miracles are validated and considered matters of faith defeat that search. You have no right to just validate and look at miracles that suit your religious tastes. The miracle of Krishna’s statue levitating needs the same weighing as the miracle of John’s cure at Lourdes by Mary. Yet people pick and choose.

So for honesty's sake you need to look at a resurrection claim and come up with all the ways it might have happened without it being a miracle. Maybe the person died and the risen person is a lookalike. There are endless possibilities. Then you look to see what is left standing. Is it an actual resurrection? Then you have to show the evidence for it.

 

 


Hume is said to confuse probability and evidence. In other words, he should see that the evidence can show that something improbable happened. Hume is saign that you can never rule out natural explanations when confronted with a semeing miracle. For that he is acused of circular reasoning or making up his mind before looking at the evidence or facts. That is simply down to him saying that no miracle is believable. A miracle could be believable but not believable enough to count. Nobody talks about that. And what if it is the evidence itself says that a paritucar miracle is believable? Beleivers wsant you to hold that miracles are possible. If so then there could be a elievalbe miracle that nobody has noticed or thought of that urles out a miracle you thinmk is believable. What if Satan was seen by a couple of witnesses who wrote nothing turning Jesus back into a dead man?
Many events are very improable – before they happen! Finding a gold ring worth a fortuen in the turkeys belly is not likely at all bu thtat does not mean it did not happen or that the [erson saying it happened is lying or mistaken.
The calim sit hat an event being rare is not the same as it being unbleielble. Its imporanblby as in being rare does not mean the evidence for it is probabl wrong.


The fact that human nature will not do the work THOROUGLY is enough to stop God raising somebody as a sign of salvation. If he raises somebody then he will see no point in trying to ask us to believe.  Doing the work to look good and honest is not an option.  You may as well do nothing.  Do the work correctly.

Now we will never have the resurrection explanation being the last one standing. If miracles happen you never know if the person’s death was a miracle illusion. Or what kind of miracle made the person seem to come back. The possibilities are endless. You will never think of them all. At least there is a stopping point if you think of the natural possibilities.

We conclude that the irrationality of believing somebody came back from the dead in a resurrection is worse than that or any other miracle such as a healing.  Your options now are agnosticism or denial.  But basing religions on miracles as if they are in any way believable is out.  Religion should not have the position in society it has.

Just to be clear, irrationality is an untruth.  If you say you believe x when in fact you are only guessing it that is a lie at worst and an untruth at best.