No. There is simply no reliable evidence to support the resurrection of Christ. The fact that it's impossible (as described in the Bible) is really just a bonus. There are no known historical accounts of these events outside the Bible, so why believe they occurred at all? What happened to the Romans who were involved? Didn't they feel like writing about the strange events they witnessed? Why is all of the 'information' about the resurrection found exclusively in the Bible?

Believing that the cosmos worked differently long ago in the way you describe is silly. There's no evidence for it, and it is a rather extreme measure to justify continuing to believe in an ancient text written before science became widespread.

As for the video, I've watched it, and it cannot amount to anything more than an argument from ignorance. It certainly doesn't support Christianity.

And yet no one noticed. As someone already stated above, there are no contemporary reports of Jesus, yet Plantinga wants to hold that Jesus drew large crowds, worked miracles, and went completely unnoticed by anyone from his time?

And yet no historian ever noticed any jesus the christ.

I can't believe someone as supposedly intelligent as Plantinga would make so many clearly irrational claims. If there really were a crowd drawing, miracel working Jesus, then why didn't anyone notice?

 

What an utterly childish argument!

One book asserts a miracle occured, without any corroboration of the claim. And from this Plantinga overturns naturalism! He simply assumes the bible account is true, and chooses to hold to it, over reality!

Talk about begging the question!

The sane response (note I'm not just saying rational, I'm saying 'sane&#39 is to hold that the bible account is not likely to be true, given that we have good reasons to hold to naturalism.

I'd like to now demonstrate that there is no historical case for Jesus: 

 

A Silence that Screams

- Todangst (with Rook Hawkins)

"[T]here is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, not during his entire lifetime. This does not disprove his existence, but it certainly casts great doubt on the historicity of a man who was supposedly widely known to have made a great impact on the world. Someone should have noticed." - Dan Barker

It may surprise Christians to learn that there are no contemporary historical documents for 'Jesus, the Christ'. While some apologists attempt to wave this problem away by claiming that "Jesus"would not have be en a noteworthy figure, this contradicts what the Gospels say about Jesus. Even the relatively sober account of Jesus found in the first gospel, The Gospel of 'Mark', gives an account of Jesus as someone who garnered quite a bit of attention. Consider for example, Mark 2:1-12, where the crowd coming to see Jesus is so great that a paralytic has to be lowered through the roof of a building Jesus is in, in order for Jesus to see him. Consider how the crowds so overflow that he has to lecture from a boat on the Sea of Galilee. Mark tells us of how Jesus performed miracles before thousands: on two different occasions Jesus feeds thousands through miracles (see for example, Mark 8:1). When Jesus travels from Bethany to Jerusalem, throngs of people line the roads to welcome him.

In short, 'Mark' gives us a 'Jesus' who is bigger than the Beatles, and I believe the Beatles analogy is a good one. We even have a nice parallel between the story of Jesus' lecture at Galilee, and the Beatles famous 'rooftop' audition, where they were forced to play an impromptu concert on a rooftop, lest the crowds that would rush to see them cause a riot. In both cases, the crowds had reached, hysterical, historically noteworthy,proportions. Yet, John E. Remsberg, in 'The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence' (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25) makes the curious observation that no one from this era wrote a single word about the Jesus Hysteria. Remsberg notes: "(While) Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library, (no where)... in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged brief passages in the works of a Jewish author (Josephus), and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."

Let's take a look at the more notable names on his list, just to get an idea, again, of how glaring this silence is... We can call this list:

"They Would Have Noticed"

Philo (~20 BCE - ~40 CE) was a Hellenized Jew who lived in Alexandria, Egypt. He visited the Temple in Jerusalem, and corresponded with family there. He wrote a great many books on religion and philosophy which survive to this day, and mentioned many of his contemporaries. His main theological contribution was the development of the Logos, the "Word" that opens the Gospel of John. Yet Philo not once mentions Jesus, anybody who could be mistaken for Jesus, or any of the events of the New Testament. His last writings come from 40 CE, only a few years after the end of Pontius Pilate's reign, when he was part of an embassy sent by the Alexandrian Jews to the Roman Emperor Caligula.

Philo wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre (which also has no independent corroboration) supposedly occurred. He was there when Christ supposedly would have made his triumphal entry in Jerusalem. He was there when the Crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead would have taken place--when Christ himself supposedly would have rose from the dead. Yet, none of these events are ever mentioned by him.

It simply makes no sense that Philo would not have recorded something about the Markian conceptualization of Jesus.

Pliny the Elder (~23 CE - 79 CE) wrote a Natural History that mentions hundreds of people, major and minor; he even writes about the Essenes in Natural History, section V, 15 . Yet nowhere in his works is any mention of the Jesus phenomena described in Mark.

Pliny also provides us with a direct refutation of the Gospel claims of earthquakes and eclipses. Pliny collected data on all manner of natural and astronomical phenomena, even those which were legendary - which he himself did not necessarily regard as factual, yet he records no prodigies associated with the beliefs of Christians, such as an earthquake or darkening of the skies at a crucifixion, or any star of Bethlehem.

After Philo and Pliny the Elder one of the most damning omission would be in the works of Josephus.

Josephus (37-100 AD) was not a contemporary and could not have been a first hand eyewitness of "Jesus", however, as a Jewish historian who focused on Jewish history and religion, he would have been greatly interested in the appearance of the Jewish Messiah.

Josephus wrote The Antiquities of the Jews, See his works here. This is a work that focused on Jewish history from "Adam" to Josephus' time. Yet, while Josephus devotes a good deal of space ton John the Baptist and other historical figures mentioned in the Gospels (He gives a detailed account of Pontius Pilate in The Jewish Wars, http://www.inu.net/skeptic/gospels.html) he does not appear to have actually written anything at all concerning the life of Jesus the Christ! This is 'damning' considering that we would expect that the appearance of the Jewish Messiah ought to have dominated a work dedicated to Jewish history.

For this very reason, the claim that Josephus never mentions Jesus was a concern for early Christians. For this reason it is no surprise that there is a later interpolation into the Antiquities of a reference to Jesus. The infamous "Testimonium Flavium" appears to have been inserted into the Antiquities in the 4th century. A key proof for this comes from the fact that while early Christians cited Josephus, none of them ever cited the Testimonium, even in situations where they were striving to provide historical proof for Jesus:

• Justin Martyr (circa C.E. 100-165) never once quoted the passage -- even in the face of charges that Christians had "invented some sort of Christ for themselves" and that they had accepted "a futile rumor" (Dialogue with Trypho 8; circa C.E. 135).
• Origen (circa C.E. 185-254), who in his own writings relies extensively upon the works of Josephus, does not mention this passage or any other passage in Josephus that mentions Christ. Not even when he is in dialogue against Celsus' accusations!
• Jerome (circa C.E. 347-420) cites Josephus 90 times, but never once cites the Testimonium.

Logic itself tells us that had Josephus written the Testimonium, he would have written more than 3 lines concerning the existence of the Jewish Messiah in a book dedicated to Jewish History!

Remsberg writes:

"Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly fourty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines."

-- The Christ, by John E. Remsburg, reprinted by Prometheus Books, New York, 1994, pages 171-3.

Logic also provides us with yet another powerful clue as to the falsity of the Testimonium:: Josephus lived and died a Jew, never converting to Christianity. Ergo we can say that Josephus is silent on the matter of the life of Jesus the Christ.

It should also be noted that some argue that Antiquities section 20.9 makes an indirect reference to Jesus. This claim is examined here and also here There is good reason to believe that the reference to a "Jesus' here is actually a reference to Jesus, son of Damneus, and not 'Jesus, son of Joseph'. And again, the idea that a Historian would mention the Messiah, in passing, and not elswhere, in detail, is simply inane.

Plutarch (ca. 46 - 127), again, was not a contemporary, he wrote about the same time as Josephus, about contemporary Roman figures, oracles, prophesies, and moral, religious, and spiritual issues. A figure such as Jesus, whom the Gospels portray as interacting with Roman figures, making prophecies, and giving sermons on novel religious and spiritual issues to throngs of people, would have been of great interest to him. Yet we cannot find even a word about "Jesus" from Plutarch.

Seneca the Younger (ca. 4 BC–AD 65) philosopher and statesman, who wrote both philosophical works and papers on morality. He lived during the purported time of Jesus, in the general area of Jesus, and would have had contact with Roman authorities who in turn would have had contacts with Jesus. Yet, he does not take note of any of the miraculous events reported in the gospels.

Justus of Tiberius ( ? - 95 ?) Remsberg states that "Justus was a native of Christ's own country, Galilee. He was a contemporary and rival of Josephus. He wrote a history of Jewish people Kings (who the gospels state Jesus had interactions with) covering the time of Christ's reputed existence. This work perished, but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of the 9th century, was acquainted with it and said, "He (Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did." (Photius, Bibliotheca, Code 33)."

Dio Chrysostom (c. 40–c. 120) was a Greek orator, writer, philosopher and historian of the Roman Empire in the first century. Eighty of his Discourses remain in existence. While Chrysostom was not a contemporary of Jesus' purported time (He was a contemporary of Plutarch, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger) he was both a historian and a person with great interest in moral matters. His philosophy has been considered a moral parallel to that of Paul of Tarsus and indicates that the early Greek Christians drew upon the Cynic and Stoic philosophies when developing their Christian faith. So we again have an early writer who certainly would have had interest in Jesus as Mark or any of the other Gospels, present him.

Epictetus (55-130) Again, Epictetus was not born until sometime after the purported time of Jesus, however, his silence remains noteworthy. The best known Stoic was a slave, whose master was Nero’s secretary. A translator of Epictetus, Elizabeth Carter, was baffled that he was not a Christian. “There are so many of the sentiments and expressions of Christianity in it, that one should be strongly tempted to think that Epictetus was acquainted with the New Testament,..” [p. xxii] Well, he was not and never even so much as mentions Christians in passing. He lived in Rome and as a slave to Epaphroditus, a senior member of Nero’s government would have known of the fire and the Christian sacrifice in the aftermath. However, all he has to say about Nero is his persecution of some good men who refused to attend his performances.

They all should have noticed. It appears that none did.

All that is left for us is to sum up what this means for "Jesus" of the Gospels. The historian Edward Gibbons does this summing up for us:

"But how shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world, to those evidences which were represented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of Nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world. Under the reign of Tiberius, the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even this miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects, or received the earliest intelligence of the prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, meteors comets, and eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. Both the one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe" (Rome, Vol. I, pp. 588-590).

Could the most amazing event ever go unnoticed? Only the intellectual dishonest can answer with a "yes".  And this means Plantinga is either intellectually dishonest, or incompetent, when he holds that there actually was a miracle working, crowd drawing 'Jesus'.  One more reason why Plantinga cannot be taken seriously on matters of theology. 

 

If there really were a crowd drawing, miracel working Jesus, then why didn't anyone notice? Someone did. cf. the NT. However, when WE look back in hind-sight with what Christanity has become, we may tend to exaggerate the record by anachronistically inflating the significance of the observable earthly work of Jesus of Nazereth. It is helpful to notice that, in actuality, Jesus' primary public actions were mainly in Galilee (hicksville). And only later, when He set His course to go to Jerusalem was He venturing out into the public of any modest significance.

If some young lady were a world class violinist in rural Iowa or the Louisana bayou prior to the advent of T.V. --and never ventured out of those homely beginnings-- would America, much less the World, ever know about her? Probably not. That is, not until some enterprising reporter or grad. student later did the research on this obscure person.

"[T]here is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, not during his entire lifetime.

 This is easily attributable to Jesus' relative obscurity during His lifetime --as areadly described. In addition, its worthwhile to remember that much historical record of Judea was likely lost in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. So, (though a speculation from silence) IF there were contemporaneous accounts: in Galilee they probably would NOT be written accounts, and in Jerusalem they likely perished.

This does not disprove his existence. . .

 Obviously not.

. . .but it certainly casts great doubt on the historicity of a man who was supposedly widely known to have made a great impact on the world.

 Only if one presupposes that Jesus of Nazereth was "widely known" and "making an impact on the World" within His lifetime. He wasn't (in the public sociological sense of that phrase --though in the theological sense He obviously was).

It may surprise Christians to learn that there are no contemporary historical documents for 'Jesus, the Christ'.

 Not really.

While some apologists attempt to wave this problem away by claiming that "Jesus"would not have be en a noteworthy figure, this contradicts what the Gospels say about Jesus.

 Yes to believers He is/was noteworthy. To unbelievers just another kooky rabbi.

Even the relatively sober account of Jesus found in the first gospel, The Gospel of 'Mark', gives an account of Jesus as someone who garnered quite a bit of attention. Consider for example, Mark 2:1-12, where the crowd coming to see Jesus is so great that a paralytic has to be lowered through the roof of a building Jesus is in, in order for Jesus to see him. Consider how the crowds so overflow that he has to lecture from a boat on the Sea of Galilee. Mark tells us of how Jesus performed miracles before thousands: on two different occasions Jesus feeds thousands through miracles (see for example, Mark 8:1). When Jesus travels from Bethany to Jerusalem, throngs of people line the roads to welcome him.

 99+% percent of which persons were illiterate. The notion that there might have been a stenographer present is highly unlikely. The oral traditions among the poor hicks who were present at those events survive in the Gospels --not in the pages of the literati of Jewish scribal production, or Roman historians.

 

**This was a friend's response, not my (paradox's) words** I thought his response was well put.

Jesus is quoted in John 5:31 of saying "If I {alone} testify about Myself, My testimony is not true."  

Initially I didn't want to reply, considering a reply to such your original post worthless, but now I feel forced to.

The video is actually perfectly correct from a physics point, but its greatest mistake is that it doesn't tell:

- what happens from a deeper perspective

- what the conditions of the experiment were

- what hasn't been noticed at first

If you were to take that video as one addressing kids that are just about to begin a journey into quantum physics, it's OK. But the conclusion that you have drawn from it is not only an argument from ignorance, it is an argument from EXTREME ignorance.

Let me explain the bits of that video that I think have led you to the conclusion that the Universe doesn't behave the same way always:

1. electrons behaving in a wave-like way: the big difference between the marble and the electron (and that, of course, HASN'T been presented in the movie) is that the marble doesn't generate a significant electrostatic field compared to its size. The electrostatic field that an electron generates, based on its size, is at least 100,000 times greater than that of the marble, when compared to the marble's size. So whereas the marble can be considered, through approximation, an electrostatically-neutral object, the electron can be considered whatever else BUT that. Furthermore, if we dwelve deeper into the field theories coroborated with motion, we get why that wave-like pattern arises: movement and motric modification of the electromagnetic field. You generate electric current to power up your computer in pretty much the same way.

2. electrons having the same wave-like pattern even when shot one at a time: this is also true, but what the clip fails to note is that the patterns aren't perfectly identical when shot one at a time, compared to when shot multiple at a time. That leads us to consider that there is, perhaps, another field difformity causing electrons to move that way. Since (as stated above) the marble isn't much electrostatically charged, compared to its mass, it will obviously not be affected by the material that plate with two slots is made up of, be it a gravitational pull (yes, that exists not only when referring to planets) or an electrostatic field too weak to affect an object as heavy as the marble, but strong enough to affect an electron.

3. electrons changing their behavior when observed: this is partially false. The clip fails (again) to tell us HOW the electrons were observed. The electrostatic field produced by one single electron is feeble enough to not be measurable through direct means. It is noticeable only in the context of the interaction with another field (electromagnetic). However, exposing an electron to another field automatically changes the resulting field that acts on the actual matter of the electron, thus giving him a different behavior. This is perfectly normal, and, actually this test hasn't been performed to prove that we know nothing, but exactly the opposite, to prove beyond doubt that the elecron is in fact matter and behaves accordingly (considering the similarity with the margle). What the video also doesn't say is that the electron behaves THE SAME whenever it is "observed"...

(all gentlemen that aren't extremely ignorant on science please do not burn me for having to explain like to a child)

So your argument is one from ignorance, as rexlunae said. It doesn't prove what you just said, but actually proves that the current relational matrix that humanity has discovered and thought for the Universe is actually surprisingly accurate.

Also, since science obviously doesn't have the necessary computing power to predict everything correctly all the time, from where do you get the impression that this is proof of resurrection being possible? I may accept the first part of the sentence, but the second is a complete non-sequitur.

 

Also let me rephrase your signature (bolded the addition):

"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are, but you now believe you're smarter, too."

Then allow me to ask you why hasn't such a thing ever happened again? Why doesn't such a thing ever happen in a controlled, monitored environment (this can be asked about all miracles, actually)?

I might be arrogant (and I admit that I am, sometimes, perhaps even in the post on this thread, and yes, I do apologize for stating it's an argument from extreme ignorance), but that doesn't change the fact that your video "proof" of the Universe not acting the same always is simply an argument from ignorance.

Under this light, one can only presume that the statement "the Universe doesn't always behave according to rulse" is simply a statement.

I'm guessing the reason something like that hasn't happened since or in a cotrolled environment is that "we" are not in control of causing such an event ( that we know of ).  I'm just trying to keep an open mind on the subject. All humanity being resurrected one day may be a lie to control others behavior OR it may be true. If it is true, then when the day comes I would like to have been prepared. Pascal's wager makes sense to me, but it doesn't mean God exists. It just means I'd rather not gamble with my possible eternity. The frustating thing is that I cannot seem to behave correctly 100% of the time to meet the entrance requirments for "heaven".  So now what do I do?

todanst, those responses were not mine. I belong to a yahoo Christian group and posted your original response on there in hopes that someone would help me see a different angle to debate from. A respected fellow Christian responded and I posted his response on here to which now you have debated further. What a waste of time my decision was for the two of us. I apologize.

I haven't researched enough Christian history to debate about Origen or Josephus, etc. But I'm glad you brought them up!

I have had too many "spiritual" experiences to know that there is something more, there is something bigger than me that I'm a part of, and that I must submit to. My experiences do not line up perfectly with any "religion". I can apply my experiences to a religion and then my experiences may make sense in the context of that religion, which is probably what I've done with Christianity. 

To be honest, my Christianity gives me comfort when I feel so alone in such a hostal universe...to know that I'm chosen, loved and adored, and protected by a power that I can never be seperated from. Then all the doubts and questions come flooding in. Questions that I'm sure may never be answered until after I die. So I figure I choose when to confront those questions and when not to, hence my activity at this site. I admit Christianity doesn't make perfect sense, but according to the bible, Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc claim all I have to do is believe (not reason logically) to be saved from such a hostal universe. 

 Proverbs 3:5-6 says " Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding, in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight". So I ask myself, who or what is this "Lord" that will direct my life's events? I reflect upon my recent past and can see how, what must be a power greater than I, has intervined. However, I seem to not have any conscious control over this "power". Things just happen. I don't remember asking to exist, but yet "I think therefore I am", right? So then I begin to question and to see where my questions lead me. Also I assume I've asked the correct questions, but how do I know my original premise was the right question? And so goes the Fibionacci-like downward spiral of questioning...which somehow has lead me here and being here must have it's purpose.

What is Love? The bible says that God is love, so if that is true and we all have the ability to love, then aren't we all connected to God somehow?

*Insert "what is love?" song joke*

*Insert "Oh god" during loving joke* 

Hundreds of thousands of people have had this feeling. Millions of people have therefore created gods to explain them. Millions of people have seen their gods, who they had worshipped for hundreds of years, maybe even millenias, go "poof" throughout history. Roman gods, Greek gods, Mayan and Aztec gods, literally thousands of beliefs and religions, all smashed, right in their faces.

You have defined your own religion that "is similar to" Christianity. Couldn't you have developed it to be similar with Taoism? Considering that the majority of people in your immediate surrounding are Christians, I guess not.

You simply say that your belief based on, practically, a dream, or a series of dreams, is "definitely out there" because of what?

No offense, but you know what this sounds like? This sounds like the ostracized kid in school inventing imaginary friends and playing with them. It seems so real and so comforting. There have been serious thoughts on whether or not the processes are actualy related. But that doesn't change the fact that those friends are purely and simply imaginary.

Oh, it's so nice to think like that. It's so easy and so comforting. It's nothing like a glimpse of harsh reality, which shows that we are actually insignificant parasites of an insignificant planet, orbiting around an insignificant star in an insignificant galaxy... Someone posted a picture of Saturn, compared, in size, with Earth. That picture alone speaks for itself.

You believe. Does it change anything? Can't a guy still bust in your home and shoot you to death?

The only "escape" is death. And whether you're a Christian, or a Muslim, or an atheist, it's the same for all. We all die, and only then do we truly leave this Universe. Until then, you're simply in the same situation as everybody else, no matter how intense you believe.

By all means, do feel free to show us just how your past was changed by this superior being (of course, if it's not too personal).

We don't have either. It's called the Universe. It has dictated every little circumstance of your past until birth, and it will also dictate after your death. A single atom's position altered in the history, and you might end up being a Buddhist. There's no secret in this. And definitely no mystery.

All too difficult reasoning, so simply give up and say "ah, this must have a purpose" ? If you don't have the strength to go on, is accepting something simply because it SEEMS to explain all right? Some people have had the strength to go on. Little by little, generation after generation, reality is put to the test, verified and classified. Doesn't that feel a little more logical to believe in, although everybody acknowledges that such a process cannot claim to hold all right answers?

What if the Bible was simply not a "holy book" ? What if some of its books were, in fact, odes for the heroic history of the Jewish people? What if others were simply fables, or stories, or myths? What if the four evangelists were simply trying to transmit spoken stories through writing, and thay happened to cover the same story?

I can define love through a complex of cerebral and endocrinal stimuli. Could it be that that part of the Bible is just a metaphor?

No, I wouldn't. I would first check it. There's no point in alarming all people inside a building just because I thought I smelled something. Checking implies action, true, but it is different from the action I would take if that belief was really confirmed.

Perhaps if you told a psychologist or psychiatrist that, he might disagree with you.

I have. And once I've come to understanding the workings of the human brain, I've come to the conclusion that we are strictly material.

Just for the fun of it I've taken part in an experiment involving generating, through magnetic influence, the impression one gets when a fly lands on the skin. And it did feel completely real. I would just go about and smack myself out of reflex, because my brain was certain that there's a fly on that area. Once it was over, I started asking and seeking knowledge on how the human brain works, and once I got them, I have come to the conclusion that our existence can be explained through material means only. Like Gauss saying about God: "I had no need for that hypotheses."

And yet, a few chapters later, when the Pharisees ask him about this, he says "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go." (John 8:14)

Funny that.

-Triften

 

I understand where you're going, but your statement is filled with problems.

 

The first, that "science cannot predict the behavior of the cosmos all of the time". You must add "human" to the beginning of that, and also add "at the present time". The only way a statement like yours can be made is if one is all-knowing. No physicist believes we've found a unified theory, and thus all agree that we are only using models as descriptions of the universe.

 

The second, that because of the first resurrection must be possible, is far too great of a leap for me to handle. That's like saying because a neutron star has been discovered spinning fast enough that, according to the laws of physics, it should be ripped apart but is not, resurrection is possible.

 

Just because science cannot explain everything about everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with god.

Eh? Are you saying I am agreeing with you?

But he doesn't say "we know whence I came," he says "I know whence I came." It says nothing of other people testifying for him.

-Triften