I'll accept that you were using my "scenario", but how is that my logic? The train of thought leading to your opposing conclusion belongs to you alone.

BTW, if you think I posted something illogical, why not say directly what it was and explain what makes you think it is illogical? It would save a great deal of time spent on efforts to clarify positions.

Anyway, my "scenario" is a scientist who says that miracles (i.e. events that violate laws of nature) did not happen because he/she believes it is impossible to violate natural laws. My "logic" is that this scientist does not deserve to be accused of dishonesty.

This is consistent with the portion of my earlier post that you quoted:

<YouRang: But if someone doesn't believe they [miracles] really happened on the grounds that they [miracles] violate natural laws, and are therefore impossible, I would not call that person a liar.>

That means, de facto, he will reject out of hand, without consideration, the testimony of 1000 witnesses to just such an event. That is intellectually dishonest. Period.

~lol~

I am not arguing that there is credible support for leprechauns. I am trying to get you to understand this issue from a persepective quite different from your own -- specifically, the persepective of a person who was not raised in an environment where any reason was given to regard the Bible as truth. Let's call this person Fred.

Fred matured and developed a set of beliefs drawn from his own (perhaps nonreligious) upbringing and his own observations of the world and of nature. He may quite rationally conclude that miracles are impossible.

Fred cannot be expected to simply accept the Bible witnesses as credible. In fact, he might quickly conclude that those witnesses are NOT credible just because they testify to miracles! If you were a juror in a courtroom, and some fellow came forth as a witness and testified to a miracle, would you think he was credible?

My point is that this Fred may have come to the belief that miracles are impossible through honest reasoning, and this the accusation of dishonesty is unwarranted. From *his* perspective, miracles, magic, ghosts, fairies, Santa Claus, and even leprechauns are not that much different. Some of these may seem sillier than others, but to Fred they all dubious and unconfirmable ideas that should not be believed.

See my last post.

<Travelling back down the same road, if you were the God of the Bible and you wanted to prove your existence to that scientist, how exactly would you go about it?>

I would show up in his bedroom in the middle of the night with an entrance of lightning, thunder, smoke, trumpets and scare the bejeepers out of him. Then I would inform him that I was God.

He had a nightmare. Such visions are impossible because they violate natural law. Try again.>

And that mankind has something to do we the unbalance and hence must take responsibility and trying to restore the damage.

God or not god is not the first issue in the light of 1:If there is a god , he/she needs some help.

Same goes for 2: If there is no god.

The scientist wouldn't believe it was a miracle.>

OCF: I would expect his credibility to be examined and challenged. Thereupon I'd draw a conclusion.>

~~~~

Prosecutor: Did you see your friend Jimmy drive his car and strike the old man in the crosswalk?

Witness: Yes, but it wasn't Jimmy's fault. He was just driving along an empty street, and right when he got to the crosswalk, this old man suddenly materialized out of nowhere! Jimmy couldn't stop in time.

I don't like looking 100 years ahead and realize the downfall of our culture where a movie is entitled "Men Who Rejected the Bible".>

The whole viewpoint of looking back from 100 yrs ahead is - to overstate it a tad - a sign of severe uncertainty, unnecessary weakness, low confidence, confusion, and dare I say pathetic as well as fatalistic as well as utterly weak; you either get to work and conjure up the nerve to find out what is actually "known", as in fact, knowledge, beyond dispute, and take your argument from there... If you even come close to throwing in the towel as a consequence of the issue being overwhelming and beyond your reach at the moment, then work on reading up on some selected literature from both sides of the fence, and the third one as well, which hasn't even been mentioned here yet, but lots of research among evolutionary Biology points quite strongly in a certain direction...

Anyhoo, until then - put forward some testable material, name man and horse as we say in dutch, get specific, and where hypothesis takes over from theory, and assumption takes over from hypothesis, and wild guesses from hypotheses, step back and take it from there, and find out anew; do not let what has been persuasive to you in the past persuade you now, but challenge it, out of curiosity, and out of an ongoing irrepressible wish, an urge, to get to know the truth, ie at least move closer to it.

The Bible teaches clearly that God is the Creator of the universe; that He is sovereign in His power and perfect in His wisdom; that we are not to be "conformed to this world"; that we are not to be yoked to unbelievers--

But I don't reject evolution on account of those religious principles, important as they are. My rejection of evolution never reaches that high a level. I simply do not believe that it explains nature as we see it.

Meanwhile, you say you believe in the miracles reported in the Bible--and all you have for that is the testimony of witnesses.

Juror OCF: Wow, this is a tough case. I hope they can examine and challenge the credibility of this witness so I can draw a conclusion...>

Fair enough. Up to this point I thought you were rejecting it on religious principles. If you choose not to believe it and don't accuse people who do believe it of dishonesty, then I have no great motivation to dispute the matter with you. We disagree about evolution, but honest people can disagree.

<Meanwhile, you say you believe in the miracles reported in the Bible--and all you have for that is the testimony of witnesses.>

Since you say <you say>, I sense the need to clarify my role in this discussion:

I have more or less been acting as a defense lawyer for scientists and others who have been accused of dishonesty for having the beliefs that they hold. As such, I argue from *their* perspective, which isn't necessarily mine. So, while I personally accept the miracles of the Bible, I also accept that others may have honest and sensible reasons for not disbelieving that they happened. That has been the point of my recent comments concerning miracles.

As to my own reasons for accepting miracles, I do not say that "all I have for that is the testimony of witnesses". I think there is more to it than that.

<If you are arguing that that's insufficient for purposes of proclaiming the Gospel, then maybe we have a fruitful discussion.>

OCF: When you had the scientist affirm nothing could happen that violates natural law. If you meant he'll believe nothing that violates natural law unless he sees it himself, I can work with that.>

I was speaking of a scientists who didn't believe in the miracles of the Bible (I think this started with the feeding of 5000 miracle) because he believes, based on all that science has observed and studied, that the natural laws are unbreakable and hence miracles are impossible. If he sees direct evidence that natural laws can be broken, then he will have reason to reconsider.