(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen
Comments
This is typically what I've found with 'creationist' arguments. Someone with a little knowledge will always win an argument against someone with no knowledge, but when they come up against a real 'expert' the boot is always on the other foot .
The real insight here is that the Discovery Institute would attempt to bully someone off the internet, who demonstrates their ignorance and duplicity, even though they were aware of his legal right to do so.
This is more than censorship, it's paranioa. Luckily he wasn't criticising Islamic fundamentalists, otherwise they'd want his head, literally.
Regards, Paul.
proponents have come nowhere close to providing empirical evidence of abiogenesis. I believed in evolution until I began to study biochemistry, genetics and physiology. There is no doubt that existing sets of DNA information aquire changes with time. However, those who support (tocd) cannot provide empirical evidence of the origin of a cell.