“I’m one of those closed-minded scientists who says he’ll ignore the evidence for Jesus”
He would probably answer that it is not scientific to ignore evidence. Miracles cannot be explained by science. But they could—theoretically—be proven with scientific methods. If someone claims to have a scientific proof of a miracle (for example a video), it would be unscientific to just ignore it, wouldn’t it?
The idea is that you would open with this, but go on to explain why there could not be such a thing as evidence, because what is being asserted isn’t really an assertion at all.
I can’t agree with the idea that religious assertions aren’t really assertions.
A fairly big thing in Christianity is that Jesus died, but then two or three days later was alive and well. This is a claim about how the world is (or was). It’s entirely conceivable that there could be evidence for such a claim. And, in fact, there is evidence—it’s just not strong enough evidence for my liking.
“I’m one of those closed-minded scientists who says he’ll ignore the evidence for Jesus”
He would probably answer that it is not scientific to ignore evidence. Miracles cannot be explained by science. But they could—theoretically—be proven with scientific methods. If someone claims to have a scientific proof of a miracle (for example a video), it would be unscientific to just ignore it, wouldn’t it?
The idea is that you would open with this, but go on to explain why there could not be such a thing as evidence, because what is being asserted isn’t really an assertion at all.
I can’t agree with the idea that religious assertions aren’t really assertions.
A fairly big thing in Christianity is that Jesus died, but then two or three days later was alive and well. This is a claim about how the world is (or was). It’s entirely conceivable that there could be evidence for such a claim. And, in fact, there is evidence—it’s just not strong enough evidence for my liking.