From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 10:06 AM To: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: More on Brian's Book Jim Humphries wrote > >Miracles were reported commonly in ancient times and are > >attested in many other religions. > > If there is a report of a miracle in one religion, it does not > follow that that report is as credible as that in another I didn't say it follows necessarily. However, it does follow ceteris paribus. > It all depends on the background evidence etc. My point is of course that the background evidence is not different enough to make Christian miracle reports credible and all others non-credible. > Christianity expanded very rapidly, partly on the basis > that certain miraculous acts had been performed More like: were *believed* to have been performed. > - that is not the case with other religions. Islam's expansion was far more impressive, and was based on allegedly miraculous revelations to Muhammed. > Likewise we do not have the kind of detailed eye-witness > accounts that we have with Christianity. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts, but rather anonymous hearsay written decades after the events in question. > Of course the niracles of themselves are not a 'proof' of > the truth of Christian claims nor , arguably, do > they play a very strong evidentialist role Here you are in a distinct minority of Christian apologists. > rather they may be seen as providing part of a cumulative case. The case simply doesn't add up to much. -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net