Board index ‹ Faith and Knowledge

[jimwalton]

It only makes sense to admit that without supernatural beings and supernatural powers (causes), supernatural effects are impossible. That says nothing about Jesus's deity. If Jesus is divine, the whole "it's not possible" is moot.

> Supernatural things cannot happen in the world of logic or reason, our world.

Of course it can. If you make a movie of a natural process and play it in reverse, is that reverse process allowed by physical laws? You have reversed time while going forward in time and yet not broken any physical laws. You are transforming energy from one form into another without disturbing the space/time continuum. There are many different ways of interpreting what energy is. Reinterpretations are always possible.

Even our knowledge of gravity is provisional. Newton’s law of gravity established a standard. Einstein’s general relativity theory (our best current theory of gravity) and quantum mechanics (our best theory of elementary particles) do not agree or mesh with each other at the scale of elementary particles.

So can you guarantee for me that what we know about science, reason, and logic makes miracles impossible?


Alvin Plantinga asks what the problem is in believing in miracles—why should anyone object to it? “Why can’t the causal continuum be rent by the interference of supernatural, transcendent powers? Why are miracles necessarily incompatible with modern science? They are only incompatible if it can be proved that nature is a closed continuum of cause and effect, and closed to intervention or interference on the part of beings outside that continuum, including God himself.” In no way does the predictable character of nature exclude the possibility of miraculous events. Science cannot prove that the universe is all there is, meaning that our universe is verifiably a closed causal system. “Natural laws offer no threat to special divine action.”

There is no logical argument or scientific experiment that conclusively disproves the possibility of miracles. Scientifically speaking, the odds of certain miracles occurring (such as the resurrection) may be infinity to one, but theologically speaking they are x:x (unknown to unknown). Miracles are outside of the scope of probability calculations. But realistically, the question is not so much “Can they occur?” but “Do they occur?”

The only way to show that miracles are illogical or impossible is to disprove the existence of God, a task that is both logically and scientifically impossible. Unless you just blindly believe they are not possible.

> My case is that it’s utterly impossible for some person to be the son of a supposedly perfect, omni-everything God (who has many fallacies including the Problem of Evil) to be that Son.

That's not a case, it's an assertion, and it sounds as if it's based in "Because that's what I believe" (a presupposition, i.e., blind belief). That's where you start from, your assumption, and then you reject all evidence that doesn't fit your presupposition.

> God cannot exist because logic and basic reason prohibits him to, because how can a perfect God do imperfect things?

Try this:

1.If God (a supreme, supernatural divine being) does not exist, his existence is logically impossible. That doesn’t mean he can’t be made up in someone’s imagination (which is still possible even if he doesn’t exist); what it means is that if God doesn’t really exist, the very concept of God is nonsensical. His existence doesn’t even make sense. If he doesn’t exist, then he can’t possibly exist. His existence is not only illogical, but impossible.

2. But if God does exist, then it’s necessary that He does. It cannot be otherwise if He is truly God and if He truly exists.

3. Therefore (first conclusion), God’s existence is either impossible or necessary. There’s no halfway position.

4. If God’s existence is logically impossible, then even the concept of God and everything we think about him is absurd. We are trying to make a reality what is not only nonsensical, but impossible.

5. Yet the concept of God is neither nonsensical nor impossible. There’s actually good sense to it in many ways, for example, that something caused what we see, or that there are elements in nature that seem to stem from an intelligent, personal, and purposeful source. While some may not agree, it’s assuredly not contradictory.

6. Therefore (second conclusion), if God’s existence isn’t impossible (if that choice is removed from the equation), then the only reasonable choice left is that God is logically necessary.

[Orpheus]

> Of course it can. If you make a movie of a natural process and play it in reverse, is that reverse process allowed by physical laws?

Really? Footage from a film is just a piece of film, whether it be literal film or a dvd, that has been recorded by a piece of equipment. It’s like arguing that replaying a piece of music is similar to rewinding time. This is the same as your counter argument to the impossibility of Lazarus’ resurrection being that a caterpillar can do the same. Just as Lazarus isn’t a caterpillar, rewinding film isn’t the same as rewinding time, it’s just reversing the films direction (not the same as reversing the flow of time).

> So can you guarantee for me that what we know about science, reason, and logic makes miracles impossible?

I can agree that what happens in miracles can be explained by scientific theory and proof (such as Lazarus and the caterpillar), but I can guarantee that what you are arguing isn’t possible in terms of humans and their biology. A human being can never do what a caterpillar does as much as a piece of film can do what time can. Sure, water can go up into the vine of grapes that will later turn wine, but what Jesus did was impossible for what a human can do. It can be explained by science, but not I. Terms of human ability. A human can never instantaneously turn water into wine.

> ”Natural laws offer no threat to special divine action.”

How so? I think what you’re trying to say is that there may be a form of science that we have not discovered yet that may explain miracles. Just like how before Newton, no one could explain what gravity was, but because of him we now have a basis for it.
But as of the moment, nothing can explain miracles other than “divine action”, which also cannot be proven outside of a book and blind faith.

> Miracles are outside of the scope of probability calculations. But realistically, the question is not so much “Can they occur?” but “Do they occur?”

That’s convenient...

And about “do they occur”, they supposedly do, and that’s a fact. Whether or not they are the result of divine intervention or not is debatable.

> Unless you just blindly believe they are not possible.

I’ve done the research and I’ve learned about the counter-arguments to Gods existence, and if God were perfect there wouldn’t be any. However, I could argue that God exists only if you blindly believe so. So far, you’ve started to stray away form saying that science can explain miracles to saying “Unless Jesus was God”. How can you prove that Jesus was God / the Son of God outside of the Bible or other two thousand-year-old documents?

> If God (a supreme, supernatural divine being) does not exist, his existence is logically impossible. That doesn’t mean he can’t be made up in someone’s imagination (which is still possible even if he doesn’t exist); what it means is that if God doesn’t really exist, the very concept of God is nonsensical. His existence doesn’t even make sense. If he doesn’t exist, then he can’t possibly exist. His existence is not only illogical, but impossible.

This sounds very similar to the Ontological Argument to me. That something is greater to exist in both the mind and reality, and that God is necessary to exist.

> But if God does exist, then it’s necessary that He does. It cannot be otherwise if He is truly God and if He truly exists.

Why is it necessary that God exists, and if so, by whose standard? His own? And adding / defining God and his characteristics doesn’t add anything knew to his concept. Saying God is necessary to exist because “He is truly God “ is like saying Zeus is necessary to exist because he’s the God of Lightning and thunderstorms, and those both exist and occur today.

> Therefore (first conclusion), God’s existence is either impossible or necessary. There’s no halfway position.

How come? I would be inclined to agree with you if I’m going to be honest, but how is God necessary? Science can explain why the world is the way it is, and I would argue it does a better job than God or the Bible in doing so.

> If God’s existence is logically impossible, then even the concept of God and everything we think about him is absurd. We are trying to make a reality what is not only nonsensical, but impossible.

Exactly. You said it yourself, that without supernatural-anything, Jesus and God cannot exist. So how is it not absurd to believe in something that is not possible? How is it not absurd to try and make a reality in what is not only nonsensical, but impossible?

> Yet the concept of God is neither nonsensical nor impossible. There’s actually good sense to it in many ways, for example, that something caused what we see, or that there are elements in nature that seem to stem from an intelligent, personal, and purposeful source

Something did cause what we see, and that cause is science. It can explain how and why the ocean exists, and how and why we can breath air.

And I also have to say one thing, I do think that it only makes sense to believe in God or any god because we live in a seemingly perfect world. We haven’t seen anything with these perfect conditions so that we as a species can thrive. But I have to ask, wouldn’t an intelligent species think that it was by design although it was by chance? Because of course they would, and although our planet being the way it is was a billion trillion to 1, it did happen. And because we have intelligence, of course we could only think it was by design. In conclusion, the absurd changes of our world being made the way it is until this very point it time is by chance, but gives off the illusion of design.

[jimwalton]

One of your obstacles seems to be miracles, so let's talk about that.

The first step in any discussion about miracles is to define a miracle. Some philosophers say that it is an occurrence contrary to nature, but we shouldn’t be so quick to embrace that definition and then find our hands tied by our own definition. The Bible never claims that God violated the laws He Himself imposed on the world. Maybe a miracle is God working with the laws of nature rather than against them, just in a different manner and on a different time scale. C.S. Lewis, for one, said that miracles were just nature on a different time continuum, like fast forward. He said water always turns to wine; it just usually takes four months instead of one second; human bodies have the capability to heal, just not instantaneously at the word of the Master. So what is a miracle?

The Cambridge Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (pg. 208) defines a miracle as “An event (ultimately) caused by God that cannot be accounted for by the natural powers of natural substances alone. Conceived of this way, miracles don’t violate the laws of nature but rather involve the occurrence of events which cannot be explained by the powers of nature alone.” That’s an acceptable definition, but I would tentatively define miracle as “a supernatural exception to the regularity and predictability of the universe, and therefore it is not a common (this term needs to be interpreted) occurrence.” Maybe the laws of nature speak of naturally recurring events, and miracles speak of supernaturally nonrecurring events. After all, the laws of nature are not really laws, but rather more accurately forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and strong field forces) and constructs (velocity, mass, energy, acceleration). Einstein’s theory of relativity lets us know that velocity makes a difference in reality and can come into play in ways we are still deciphering. It’s quite possible that God has forces as yet unknown to us, and can manipulate velocity, as well as other forces, to initiate relative states.

Secondly, we should realize that science cannot prove that miracles are impossible. After all, science can only speak to what is within the purview of scientific observation and the study of nature. Anything outside of that ballpark is outside of its scope. Science can’t prove to us whether entities exist outside of nature, and whether or not those entities could possibly have an influence in our natural world.

Since a miracle, by any definition, is a once only, nonrecurring event, it is outside the scope of science (which can only observe and test recurring sequences) and naturalistic evidence. Miracles can only be proven in two ways: (1) that they can be shown to be logically consistent with the physical world—the way things are, or (2) by enough corroborating, credible eyewitnesses to substantiate the claim being made.
For instance, if I put $20 in your pocket today, and then another $20 in there tomorrow, logic and reason would tell me that there will be $40 in your pocket. And of course that’s true, provided that no one has meddled in your pocket. So one of the first things to establish when we discuss the possibility of miracles is to find out whether your presuppositions have ruled out all “meddling” by definition. In that case, of course miracles are impossible to prove. You have made it impossible by your arbitrary definition. The second thing to notice is that nature is full of once-only, non-recurring events, such as the cosmic blast that happened in Russia in 2013. It would be sort of foolish for a group of scientists to gather there saying, “C’mon, do it again!”
As far as the second, if you have enough trustworthy people whose eyewitness accounts corroborate with each other, even though the event may not repeat, it could be considered to be accepted as reality if their testimony is reliable. Even our courts accept such testimony.

There is no philosophical argument or scientific experiment that conclusively disproves the possibility of miracles. Scientifically speaking, the odds of certain miracles occurring (such as the resurrection) may be infinity to one, but theologically speaking they are x:x (unknown to unknown). Miracles are outside of the scope of probability calculations, as I've already mentioned. But realistically, the question is not so much “Can they occur?” but “Do they occur?” Anyone will admit that scientists exclude the miraculous from their scientific work, which they are entitled to do. But that’s because if a scientist tried to offer a miraculous explanation for something, he or she would no longer be doing science, but something else, like theology or philosophy. Miracles are inadmissible as scientific evidence because they are unpredictable, not able to be compared with a control group, and unrepeatable for confirmatory studies.

Ultimately you are asking the wrong question of the wrong discipline. Science can really only work in a uniform environment that is predictable, repeatable, and (in this situation) controllable (a control group and an experimental group). Evidentiary demands require some sort of material remains that allow a phenomenon to be studied, but this requirement is outside of the sphere of what we mean by “miracle.” Miracles are not predictable (so the situation can’t be intentionally studied before the event), reproducible (so the situation can’t be tested again to confirm hypotheses), nor controllable (cannot isolate causal mechanisms).

Science is appropriate when dealing with repeatable (reproducible) phenomena that can be studied under controlled conditions and give confirmatory results. One time events that were unpredictable and don’t leave behind any material evidence can’t possibly fall under that category. Suppose you had a sneezing fit a few weeks back. I want you to quantify it and analyze it, or better yet, prove to me that it happened. That’s not possible, Should I then assume you never sneeze, never sneezed, and that you’re wrong until you can prove it? What evidence do you have that you had a sneezing fit? Or walked around the mall last month? Or saw a catamount? We have to use the proper measure for the proper category. And science is not the proper measure for understanding or proving miracles. Even in the area of astronomy, for instance, where some phenomena are one-time only events, to study them scientifically requires multiple repeatable examples that can be observed and compared/contrasted. Again, miracles don’t fall into this category.

In short, the bottom line is that knowledge is not one-dimensional. The methods of evidentiary scientific study are not applicable to much of our knowledge, including the occasion of miracles. Attempting to extend scientific evidence as the grounds of all knowledge is doomed to failure in many arenas, not just this one. To presume that anything remaining outside of science’s scope fails to qualify as knowledge is not justified by science or any other argument, and is, in fact, self-contradictory.

Can anyone prove that a once-only nonrecurring event is a miracle from God or not? No, because either way it’s an interpretation of what one has seen or experienced. We all decide based on what we determine to be consistent with our understanding of the world and the evidences on which we build those understandings.

Let’s talk a little bit, then, about Newtonian physics and miracles. People’s main problem with miracles is that they mess with what people know about science, while at the same time requiring them (if accepted) to subscribe to metaphysical realities like spirits and spiritual forces. But if we are honest philosophers and scientists, we have to be open to reputable questions (as any scientist would ask): Why can’t the causal continuum be interfered with by supernatural and transcendent powers? Why are miracles necessarily incompatible with modern science? A little probing will reveal that they are not. They are only incompatible if it can be proved that nature is a closed continuum of cause and effect, and closed to any intervention from outside that continuum. Classical (Newtonian) science is nowhere near sufficient for anti-interventionism. Newton himself believed that the laws he observed reflected the nature of what God had created. According to Newton, natural law describes how the world works when, or provided that, the world is a closed system, subject to no meddling. The Newtonian laws of physics only apply to isolated or closed systems, but there is nothing in them to say there is or can be no God who can intervene in such a system to make change to the matter or energy in question. Furthermore, it is not part of Newtonian mechanics or classical science generally to declare that the material universe is a closed system—because that claim isn’t scientific, but theological, philosophical, or metaphysical. The laws don’t tell us how things have to go, or even how they always go, but only how they go when no outside agency acts on them.

Interestingly, quantum mechanics offers even less of a problem for special divine action than classical science, since quantum mechanics is characterized by (among other things) indeterminism: a spectrum of probabilities to the possible outcomes. Quantum mechanics doesn’t by necessity prohibit any answers to prayer, raising the dead, or walking on the water.

Looking at miracles even another way, it’s absurd to think that everything must be subject to scientific proof and evidence, and miracles are in that category as well. We are wrong even to think that miracles should be or can be subject to scientific inquiry. There are thousands of things we know that are not subject to scientific proof (as critics want miracles to be): I like apple pie, I forgive you, I felt chilly yesterday, I saw a beautiful sunset five days ago, Bill is my friend, that wasn’t fair, I’m in love with Denise, I’m afraid of heights, my favorite movie is “Gladiator,” I feel at peace with myself. There are millions of these. We’re just in the wrong arena to think that we can use science to prove these things. There are also things that exist, that are coherent, but not scientific: peace, justice, love, memory, reason, values, to name a few. There are disciplines that have nothing to do with science, but they are still legitimate ways to know things: jurisprudence, economics, history, literature, politics, art, philosophy, logic, and theology. As it turns out, probably most of what we know is not subject to scientific verification, nor can it be considered scientific knowledge. Miracles also fall into this category. It is both illogical and unreasonable to apply scientific reason or necessity to the possibility or veracity of miracles. While we can bring some scientific thinking to bear as we evaluate them, they are just as much outside of the purview of science as “I forgive you.”

[Orpheus]

How can miracles even begin to be compared and explained by science? I understand that it can be explained in the whole aspect of science, but not in terms of what humans are capable of. And you even accept this, but go straight to the idea that "well, Jesus was divine so he was able to do so."

And I also understand that miracles are outside the explanation or comprehension of science. However, isn't that just a little too convenient?

[jimwalton]

> How can miracles even begin to be compared and explained by science?

They can't be. Then again, there's a lot that science can't explain. Science is not the source of all knowledge, but instead the source of knowledge about natural material and phenomenon. Science can't begin to explain Keirkegaard's teleological suspension of the ethical, for instance. It's not within the realm of science. Neither are miracles within the realm of science. They are exceptions to the regularity and predictability of the universe.

> And you even accept this, but go straight to the idea that "well, Jesus was divine so he was able to do so."

Of course I go to that. Jesus was divine and not limited by human nature or capability.

> And I also understand that miracles are outside the explanation or comprehension of science. However, isn't that just a little too convenient?

No, it's just good logic and good science. To relegate it to "convenience" is just an attempt to denigrate it without engaging the argument. It would be like me responding to one of your arguments by saying, "Oh, isn't that just too cute!!!"

[Orpheus]

> Science can't begin to explain Keirkegaard's teleological suspension of the ethical, for instance. It's not within the realm of science.

True, philosophy and ethics can rarely explain science, and vice-versa (however, there are exceptions).

> Of course I go to that. Jesus was divine and not limited by human nature or capability.

Then you’ve proven my point.

> To relegate it to "convenience" is just an attempt to denigrate it without engaging the argument.

Then the same, if not worse when you resort to saying that Jesus can do all sorts of amazing things just because he’s divine. You aren’t engaging the argument, you aren’t supporting your claim with solid evidence, you’re just saying that it can’t be explained because it is beyond us (divine). How is that no different?

> It would be like me responding to one of your arguments by saying, "Oh, isn't that just too cute!!!"

How so? I mean, it is kind of convenient that the way to prove the impossibility of miracles or anything supernatural cannot work just because “it’s divine” or because “God is incomprehensible”.

[jimwalton]

> I mean, it is kind of convenient that the way to prove the impossibility of miracles or anything supernatural cannot work just because “it’s divine” or because “God is incomprehensible”.

This is so unfair. I wrote a LONG segment to you using logic and science to talk about the possibility of miracles and how they can't be ruled out from a scientific vantage point. I NEVER said, "Because it's divine!" or "God is incomprehensible."

> if not worse when you resort to saying that Jesus can do all sorts of amazing things just because he’s divine.

I wrote to you a long segment about miracles, proving to you that science can't rule them out. Miracles just may be possible. So let's talk about Jesus's miracles in particular, since you seem to think I'm just a priori jumping to conclusions.

What are the evidences of Jesus's miracles?

• The records of the Gospel writers were still within the lifetime of the people who had been there (even if we stretch their writings to the 60s or 70s). Such reporting could easily still be confirmed or debunked. If the tales were easily able to be discredited, it would have made them all look like fools.
• Jesus’s miracles were one of the major evidences to convince them that He was who he claimed to be. His healing of people, the Transfiguration, and His resurrection were a large part of what motivated them to accept that He was God. Their faith was based in part on the miraculous signs they saw Him perform. The fact that so many Jews of Jerusalem and Palestine came to faith in the 1st century is evidence of some credibility to Jesus's miracles.
• The inclusion of verifiable historical data in the miracle stories lends credibility to the entire narrative. When Peter drew his sword and chopped off Malchus’s ear in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus heals the man on the spot (John 18.10). The verifiable data is given: His name is Malchus, he works for Caiaphas, and it was his ear that was injured. These details are given so the story could be verified as historically accurate. The authors obviously intended their accounts of the miracles to be interpreted as historical events, and for people to find out for themselves if the stories were true.
• Josephus, in a text considered to be historically reliable, mentions "Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who did surprising deeds."
• A bowl recently discovered in Alexandria, Egypt, dates to the first century AD. The engraving reads (in Greek) "dia chrstou o goistais," translated by the excavation team as “through Christ the magician.” It is speculated that a first-century magician used it in the work he was doing to invoke the name of Jesus, showing from an extra-biblical source that Jesus was known for His miracles.
• The Paris Magical Papyrus, dated to about AD 300, describes an elaborate exorcism ritual that begins with, "I beseech you by the god of the Hebrews," and then lists a number of mystical names, of which Jesu is the first one listed. The papyrus then continues with numerous other references to biblical events and persons, some of which are undecipherable. It is yet another evidence from an extra-biblical source that Jesus was known as a worker of wonders, a successful exorcist, and called "the god of the Hebrews."
• The cultural milieu of Jesus’s life speaks to the truthfulness of the record. The era of 1st-century Palestine was not one characterized by superstition and gullibility. Jews were educated people, and Romans and Greeks were skeptics. That the Gospels record that people swarmed around Jesus, both requesting and experiencing miracles, is evidence of their veracity. What is also often recorded is that the people were skeptical of Jesus’s ability to do miracles until they saw with their own eyes and were convinced. What is lacking is corroborative writing other than the written record of Jesus’s miracles is in the Bible itself.
• Jesus’s enemies even admitted that He performed miracles (Matthew 12.22-24; 14.54-57; John 3.2).
• Alternative interpretations of the miracles (mass hallucinations, mythical creations of biased authors, sleight of hand, etc.) lack credibility upon examination. There is no such thing as mass hallucination, and the historical nature of the narratives, along with the intent of the authors to have been recording history speaks strongly against alternative interpretations.
• The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is compelling.

So I'm NOT just saying, "We believe it because we believe it!"

[Orpheus]

>I wrote a LONG segment to you using logic and science to talk about the possibility of miracles and how they can't be ruled out from a scientific vantage point.

I understand that science can explain miracles, e.g. how the water that made the grapes in which were fermented into wine, so water was turned into wine. However, when I explained how this was impossible to achieve not only without touching the water, but it happening instantaneously, you simply replied with “Unless of course, He was God.” How does that not entail that he was divine?

> (even if we stretch their writings to the 60s or 70s)

Do you mean life wise? I’m not sure. Well the average life expectancy in Biblical times was around 25-35, it was highly unlikely any of them even made it past 50.

And either way, I’ve been trying to say that miracles are impossible, unless of course “He was God.” My point is that at some point, this argument hits a bedrock in which the only answer is “unless of course He was God”, which proposes he is divine. Any amount of logic would say that it’s impossible for someone to make another grow back their ear by magically healing it on the spot. It hasn’t ever been done outside of a 2,000 year old book.

[jimwalton]

> However, when I explained how this was impossible to achieve not only without touching the water

Why is touching necessary? I don't get it.

I am appealing to divinity, however. Neither you nor I nor anyone else from history has ever turned water to wine in an instant of time. The Bible contends that Jesus is God—the God who created everything (Jn. 1.3; Heb. 1.3), who is Lord over nature, the mastermind and power behind it all, the One who sustains it just by His word (Heb. 1.3). If this is actually who Jesus is, what He has done, and what He is capable of, turning water to wine is quite easy.

> Well the average life expectancy in Biblical times was around 25-35, it was highly unlikely any of them even made it past 50.

The life expectancy was lower because of infant mortality. It was also higher among slaves (farm injuries, mining, etc.—the Roman era was one of brutality to slaves). It was a time of general peace in the Empire (Pax Romana), and trade was brisk, so dietary nutrition was not horrible. A typical diet in 1st-c. Palestine was bread, beans and lentils, fish, eggs, honey, fruits (figs, dates, grapes), and olives. Vegetables and meat were rare, but occasional. Not too shabby.

There are many ancient records of what we could consider to be normal lifespan:

• Clement of Alexandria: 75
• Caesar Augustus: 82
• Tacitus: 64
• Josephus: ~63
• Philo: 75
• Herod the Great: 79
• The Apostle John: ~ 80-90
• Tiberius Caesar: 77

In other words, if you survived to age 5, there was reasonable expectation of a life like ours: into one's 70s. Sure, some die younger (Jerry Garcia: 53), but some die older.

From (https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-ev ... ong-077889): "If we look again at the estimated maximum life expectancy for prehistoric humans, which is 35 years, we can see that this does not mean that the average person living at this time died at the age of 35. Rather, it means that for every child that died in infancy, another person might have lived to be 70. The life expectancy statistic is, therefore, a deeply flawed way to think about the quality of life of our ancient ancestors."

So it was quite likely there were many people older than 50-60.

> I’ve been trying to say that miracles are impossible, unless of course “He was God.”

Bingo. The issue is more about Jesus's identity than the scientific possibility of miracles. It is often said that the real question of the truth of Christianity is not the resurrection, but the incarnation. If we believe that God actually visited the planet, then resurrection is easy. The hard part is comprehending the incarnation.

> My point is that at some point, this argument hits a bedrock in which the only answer is “unless of course He was God”, which proposes he is divine.

That's correct. The real conversation is at the incarnation.

[Orpheus]

> That's correct.

That’s what I’m trying to get at. That it doesn’t matter what amount of reason or logic someone can use to disprove miracles or other religious-related things, someone will always resort to “it’s just because He was divine.” That’s what this post about blind faith, something that throws away logic in favour for faith, was all about.