Originally posted by dadeadman1337:I don't think anyone can claim to be knowledgeable in such areas, its like someone claiming to be a astrology expert. If historical sources do not mention a large infanticide on such a scale, makes it very likely that it never happened at all.
The book of Matthew had the record. That's enough for the Christians to believe that it happened.
On the other hand, people can choose to disbelieve based on the critics' speculations and unproven opinions.
Herod was notorious for the ways he settled scores and murdering rivals, including his own wives and children. Is it not possible for him to murder the children of peasants whom he thought was a threat to his reign?
If the tomb of Herod was not discovered, the critics can even claim that Herod did not exist.
Originally posted by googoomuck:The book of Matthew had the record. That's enough for the Christians to believe that it happened.
On the other hand, people can choose to disbelieve based on the critics' speculations and unproven opinions.
Herod was notorious for the ways he settled scores and murdering rivals, including his own wives and children. Is it not possible for him to murder the children of peasants whom he thought was a threat to his reign?
If the tomb of Herod was not discovered, the critics can even claim that Herod did not exist.
How can that one line in Matthew's gospel be a "proven opinion"? It is possible for Herod to have done that, but no evidence suggests he did. It is also possible that the US could have caused a nuclear Armageddon, but that does not mean it did. The ability to execute an action and the execution of an action are two different things. As for your last point, that is completely baseless
Originally posted by dadeadman1337:How can that one line in Matthew's gospel be a "proven opinion"? It is possible for Herod to have done that, but no evidence suggests he did. It is also possible that the US could have caused a nuclear Armageddon, but that does not mean it did. The ability to execute an action and the execution of an action are two different things. As for your last point, that is completely baseless
Nevermind.
Critics' opinions are completely unfounded.
Well it depends on your starting philosophy. If you believe in a naturalistic universe which is a closed system with no outside intervention possible, then miracles and the supernatural are of course, out of the question. All appearance of the supernatural would then have entirely natural causes.
Even if evidence of the supernatural was presented, one will not believe it on basis of that philosophy. It's like if I don't believe in ghosts and I happen to see one, I could explain it as a matter of the nerves or an illusion.
That's why I find all these arguments of evolution/miracles/science largely pointless... it depends on your starting philosophy. The weight of evidence itself is not enough to convince a person on either side in any way.
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Well it depends on your starting philosophy. If you believe in a naturalistic universe which is a closed system with no outside intervention possible, then miracles and the supernatural are of course, out of the question. All appearance of the supernatural would then have entirely natural causes.
Even if evidence of the supernatural was presented, one will not believe it on basis of that philosophy. It's like if I don't believe in ghosts and I happen to see one, I could explain it as a matter of the nerves or an illusion.
That's why I find all these arguments of evolution/miracles/science largely pointless... it depends on your starting philosophy. The weight of evidence itself is not enough to convince a person on either side in any way.
Even if u accept supernatural intervention as possible, what is the criteria for acknowledging events as supernatural if there remain reasonable explanations for them?
evidences r unbiased. If people reject evidences, it shows they r biased. And evidence is always with the people following science more than religion.