Miracles: Is There a Christian Double Standard?

[@TestifyApologetics]

Two quick points to avoid confusion: 1. I believe Balaam's donkey talked because I think Jesus is God, rose from the dead, and he believed the Old Testament was inspired by God. The point is I would not ask a skeptic to begin their inquiry into miracles by starting with this particular miracle. 2. Here’s how the resurrection passes the filter, and so is worthy of investigation: The original claim was reportedly made in Jerusalem just weeks after the crucifixion. It was preached to a hostile audience that would have been eager to disprove it. This is a significant claim since Jesus was a prophet who came to fulfill the law and bring in the new covenant, which shows us how our sins can be forgiven, how God no longer lives in temples but human hearts, and how we can have eternal life. He also was the Messiah and claimed to be God. Jesus and his disciples did not live for self-gain; they were willing to endure suffering, hard work, dangers, and even death. They weren’t seeking power, fame, personal glory, or any other worldly rewards.

[@CJFCarlsson]

And you are right!

[@geochonker9052]

Ohh ok. Smart!

[@thadofalltrades]

@@Boundless_Border Your O and S are disproved by the story itself. Both before and after Jesus's death the disciples didn't understand what was going on. Peter sternly rebukes Jesus for saying he would die, so sternly that Jesus says, "get thee behind me Satan." Afterwards they are hiding in the upper room for fear of the Jews because disciples of false Messiahs were usually executed. It wasn't until Jesus appeared to them and again walked them through the OT to show them everything that pertained to Him that it finally clicked. Your U is just an arbitrary selection of details. There are lots of details about the event itself. The stone gets rolled away by an angel, the guards are struck as dead men, the linen cloth is folded. Certainly no one witnessed him come back to life, but there are quite a few specific details that make that conclusion virtually certain.

[@JM-19-86]

@@Boundless_Border Let me respond to your points: O - the pre-resurrection ministry of Jesus ended in abysmal failure, by human standards. One of the Twelve denied Jesus - all of them ran away when Jesus was crucified, and they were the inner circle! The point is, the day after the crucifixion - on Holy Saturday - there were exactly zero people who believed in Jesus as Messiah. There were some who were sympathetic to Him personally, there were some who saw Him as a prophet (see Luke 24:19) - but just another prophet in a long line from Moses to John the Baptist . Nobody was expecting His resurrection, any more than they would expect Moses to rise from the dead. U - This is in the context of the maximal data case which argues for the high reliability of the Gospels, which contain the detailed accounts of people seeing Jesus in large groups, touching Him, having long conversations with Him etc. The minimal facts argument doesn't pass this filter, because 1 Corinthians 15 alone gives us no details. S - The apostles, those who claimed to witness the resurrection are described as leading the following lifestyle: 1 Corinthians 4:11-13 "To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly. We have become the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world-right up to this moment." Granted, Paul may be exaggerating a bit - he can be a bit of a drama queen. But can you imagine these words coming from the mouth of Joseph Smith or Muhammed? We can't doubt the sincerity of the apostles. They believed what they said, whether they were mistaken or not. But for these other religious leaders, there's always the sneaking suspicion that they knew themselves to be baloney, but play the game for sex, money or power.

[@StupedantWaffle]

In response to you: O- the disciples did doubt both Mary Magdalane and the other Mary when they were told of the resurrection (Mark 16:11). As a matter of fact they did not believe that He resurrected until he appeared to them while they were eating. He even rebuked them for their unbelief (Mark 16:14).

[@thephotoshopper5908]

I love that you have examples for each letter in DOUBTS

[@Walleyedwosaik]

I love that none of them are Christian

[@hashtag9990]

Congrats you got the joke

[@ChaosReaper426]

@@Walleyedwosaik the donkey was

[@Walleyedwosaik]

@@ChaosReaper426 nah bro it was a jojo reference

[@Yipper64]

TIm Mcgrew: creates a religiously neutral set of standards that are logical on their own Skeptics: "That's awfully convenient for Christians...." Gee I freaking wonder why.

[@TestifyApologetics]

So tell me what's wrong with the criteria, don't just say "well Tim already believes in the resurrection, therefore sus." What we’re essentially doing here is attempting to eliminate alternative explanations by looking for red flags. False memory and exaggeration are likely problematic, which is why we exclude events that are very late or far removed in time, where details could easily be stretched without verification (belated reports (B) and distant reports (D)). Fraud is also taken into account by the criteria regarding preexisting opinions (O) and self-serving claims (S). Mundane natural events mistaken as miracles are considered with the uncertain or undetailed events (U) criterion.

[@Yipper64]

@@TestifyApologetics yeah, its all very logical and based.

[@skueky]

⁠@@TestifyApologetics I think Yipper64 was saying that Christianity passes the evidence-based DOUBTS system because Christianity is true

[@murrayrothtard6072]

@@skuekythat’s what I thought as well.

[@valinorean4816]

@@TestifyApologetics Just found this channel. I only have one question, how do you know the miracles of Jesus weren't staged and spread as fake rumors by the local Roman government, to promote this pacifist preacher and his sect - as explained in "The Gospel of Afranius"? (This work was even praised in "Nature", look it up!) I read that book as a little kid and this is what I have always believed about Jesus. How is this wrong? What am I missing?

[@ultramarinechaplain88]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is just another way to say that i will never believe in a miracle

[@LanguageBLOX1_Alt]

@@torontocitizen6802 Jesus spoke about this somewhere

[@thadofalltrades]

@@torontocitizen6802 why? you'll just reject it.

[@harrygarris6921]

@@torontocitizen6802 there’s plenty of testimonial evidence. If what you’re asking for is scientific proof, then you’re making a categorical error.

[@vs6300]

​​@@torontocitizen6802 Miracles is family business. You don't get to experience when you don't belong and it's also not for display.

[@Eliza-rg4vw]

The quote just points out a simple thing we use in our everyday lives. Would you believe someone if they said a meteor fell on their house this morning? Perhaps, but only with valid evidence of course. Admittedly, this does get difficult with claims that go well beyond a meteor strike. This would probably be because alternative explanations to the claim start to be just as ridiculous as the claim itself. However, it does not therefore validate any ridiculous claim, you're still gonna likely hinge on the one that clings the most to reality (as you know it of course). As an atheist has no reason to assume God then, it just doesn't allow them to validate the resurrection as the claim as it's normally put forth requires God to exist.

[@ChildofGod98765]

Lord hear my prayers. I’m so discouraged as a single mother trying to make it on my own both of my sons are special needs. Jesus help me. I’m constantly struggling to buy groceries, struggling to pay bills I’m overwhelmed Lord but with you by my side Lord I cannot fail. So as I continue to struggle to provide for my children, I keep faith and know a blessing is on the way.❤️💕

[@iwatchyoutube9425]

Lord have mercy

[@Blue2qy]

Go to an Christian Orthodox Church

[@AdamCrawfordFitness]

But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly -Matthew 6:6 I have been young, and now am old; Yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, Nor his descendants begging bread. -psalm 37:25

[@KrelpDee]

Im Christian too but I feel like actually praying that instead of commenting it would do more…

[@Blue2qy]

@@KrelpDee this was unnecessary, you just wanted to insult this man and slander him. Just leave him alone

[@rickydettmer2003]

These short videos have been such a valuable resource for sending to skeptics and seekers

[@AnHebrewChild]

What have these people's responses been? I imagine they have varied...

[@SpiceWeazel]

I'd say that a well-educated skeptic would say "ok, and...?" This video provides a few good methods of filtering out dubious miraculous claims, and at least one useless method. It does not provide a way to determine if a miracle is legitimate, nor does it illustrate why Christian miracle claims are more authentic than those of other religions. It's not really saying much to support Christianity, and it doesn't challenge a skeptic's worldview.

[@harrygarris6921]

God acting within nature isn’t “breaking” the laws of nature. The laws of nature are contingent on God not the other way around.

[@RodMartinJr]

Ah, but it is breaking the laws of nature; yet you are right that all of nature is contingent on God! If a ball will continue rolling downhill by the "laws of nature," but God intervenes and suddenly the ball returns to the top of the hill without any visible means of intervention, then this is "breaking the laws of nature" in a very real sense. The laws of nature are *_Deterministic_* and bound by *_Continuity._* This is the very nature of *_Cause-and-Effect_* (a fundamental dichotomy of nature). *_God, Spirit and Heaven,_* however, are NOT deterministic, and are *_Discontinuous._* They are marked by *_Cause-and-Free Will._* In other words, Nature is *_Opposite_* to Heaven in all its characteristics. While God has the traits of Love, Responsibility, Humility, Confidence and Spirit, Nature has the opposite traits of Space, Time, Energy, Mass and Ego. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@juansolo3227]

Yes, the laws of nature are upheld and maintained by God. However, who is to say that God must work within them. God can manipulate circumstance so that it comes about naturally as well as manipulate the laws themselves.

[@RodMartinJr]

@@juansolo3227 Indeed. God created Nature as a deterministic, RIGID structure with only one dimension of Free Will -- whether or not to remain in the physical universe. Those who choose evil will remain in nature. Those who choose TRUTH will return to Spirit. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@juansolo3227]

@@RodMartinJr you’re not implying that the physical world is evil right? It sounds like you think we escape matter, we get new physical bodies as Christians, matter isn’t evil, our rebellion is.

[@RodMartinJr]

@@juansolo3227 Physical matter IS rebellion! *_God is Love,_* but Space is anti-love because it separates us. *_God is Responsibility,_* but Time is anti-responsibility because it removes the point of responsibility from the present, creating persistence. Christ told us that the Truth will set us free; and this Truth is the Responsibility which removes the irresponsibility of Time from any object or condition. *_God is Humility,_* but Energy is anti-humility because it boasts of the ability to do many things (money, power, etc). *_God is Confidence,_* but Mass is anti-confidence because it ensnares spirit even ensnaring light itself at the level of a Black Hole. *_God is Spirit,_* but Ego is anti-spirit because it is pure darkness -- a combination of ALL of the above: Space, Time, Energy, Mass. So, tell me how Nature is NOT evil. The only dichotomous thing described in the Garden of Heaven was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That's NATURE -- Action-Reaction, Good-Evil, Responsible-Irresponsible, Wisdom-Stupidity, Compassion-Indifference, Love-Hate,... ...while spirit is *_Non-Dichotomous:_* Action, Good, Responsible, Wisdom, Compassion, Love, Generosity, Gratitude, Taking Charge, Competence, etc. These are the perfections of earthly "good." 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@albertblay277]

You truly are the cosmic skeptic. Nice video

[@TestifyApologetics]

Haha

[@JoelBrown-h1j]

​@@TestifyApologeticsI can see how religion can give joy as a non believer but I don't see many non tolerate athetist who scorns the ideas religion present on paper

[@JesusisliterallyHim]

@@JoelBrown-h1jwhat’s your point

[@kenilord1529]

@@JoelBrown-h1j can you elaborate please brother?

[@austinschwartz7424]

​@@TestifyApologetics I just discovered a rebuttal to the Texan sharp shooter argument. To assume that D.O.U.B.T.S is a sharp shooter argument because it's gives Christians a pass, is in fact a Texan sharp shooter fallacy. If atheists can't come up with a reason to dismantle the D.O.U.B.T.S argument other then a Christian made it up, your assuming it's false because it points to Christianity not because it's illogical.

[@lordinvictus793]

I recall Richard Carrier said something like. 1. Nature we do understand. 2. Nature we don’t understand. 3. Humans we know use technology we understand to do things 4. Humans we know using secret tech 5. Secret human groups using super tech. 6. Aliens using super tech, to do things we don’t understand. 7. Than the supernatural. In short-he is basically saying the standard for miracles is so high that he will never accept them. When I read this on his blog, it was eye opening. Some atheists are just never going to be open to argument.

[@lordinvictus793]

In principle, maybe. In practice, it can always be claimed it’s some sort of natural phenomena or aliens or time traveling humans. The bar is set so high that nothing would be enough, short of the second coming itself. He’s basically moved the goalposts across the entire country, and then expects his interlocutors to meet the distance.

[@AnHebrewChild]

... if they hear not the Law & the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead. *Luk**16:31*

[@AnHebrewChild]

@user-dy3uh why do you say, "I didn't know you could change the Bible"? What are you talking about?

[@AnHebrewChild]

@user-dy3uh I quoted it from memory and put "law" in for "Moses" Jesus often uses the two terms law & Moses interchangeably (Moses being used in many places as a synecdoche, similar to how the psalms is a synecdoche for the writings in Luke24:44), he often refers to it as the 'law of Moses' (eg Luk2:22, John7:23) as well as uses the couplet "the law and the prophets" as descriptive of the Hebrew Scriptures (eg Mat5:17, 7:12) and even a couple paragraphs earlier, in Luke 16:16, he uses the term "law and prophets" to refer to the very thing Abraham in the parable refers to. (Luk16:31) "The law and the prophets" means the Hebrew Scriptures. "Moses and the prophets" means the Hebrew Scriptures. Sometimes my memory gets fuzzy tho. Good looking out. Cheers

[@gergelymagyarosi9285]

​@user-dy3uh ...and that is called Doyle's fallacy.

[@TommasoMarena]

I always find these videos very insightful, even if I don't always agree with everything said. Thank you!

[@darkwolf7740]

Nobody: Testify at 1:16 "Tim McGrew is the King of making paper airplanes."

[@hegel5816]

@@darkwolf7740 As a rival king of making paper airplanes... I dispute his title... I invoke trial by schizo sht posting competition... Let the winner take the crown...

[@Shoppe_Talk]

This is a fantastic video. One of your best I’ve seen, as I do believe it to be very fair. Well done.

[@TruePluto]

Your channel has UNIQUE content, good work

[@yarnicles4616]

I came into this wary, expecting yet another athiesm dump on Christianity and the Resurrection. I'm glad it was not that, and instead this level of quality. Great work.

[@galaxyofreesesking2124]

If the double standard is that Biblical miracles require a lack of obvious biases and nonsense testimony, then isn't that a good thing? Why would a skeptic still feel the need to object?

[@jor-eld9093]

some people want to be right now matter what

[@fushumang1716]

Atheist more so will find truth in aliens than what's under their nose.

[@coffeehousedialogue]

Right? They are willing to believe any number of whacky ideas that are convenient for them, yet they accuse us of that? Irony!

[@charfu]

God is an alien. Whether he's extradimensonal or an AI or something is the question, but he's definitely not a human

[@EmperorofChinaItwillgrowlarger]

@@charfu He’s outside time and space so no

[@charfu]

@@EmperorofChinaItwillgrowlarger How is a creature that exists outside of time and space not an alien? Also, don't you think an advanced alien civlization could easily pose as 'God' to us; extra dimensional or not?

[@EmperorofChinaItwillgrowlarger]

@@charfu No they can’t because Aliens live in our realm which means they can’t create the realm to begin with. Definition is false.

[@m.b.7920]

Watched the original video just an hour ago! The second I saw the title, I hoped you would bring up DOUBTS again, because its a very sound concept

[@samuelcallai4209]

It would be great if you made a video on examining miracles on other religions, but miracles with good evidence, the ones that are really challenging. If we can refute them, it would be so profitable to our faiths.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I would love to hear about them. I haven't found anything in another faith that passes this criteria yet.

[@thadofalltrades]

the Bible leaves plenty of room for miracles in other religions because the false gods are demons masquerading as gods. It even predicts that the world will be deceived by miracles and accept the mark of the beast.

[@fundamentality]

@@TestifyApologetics Same here. I’m finding a lot of stuff from different denominations in Christianity, but not much outside of Christianity. If this is true, it’s a ridiculously strong argument for Christianity 🤔

[@Ben_of_Milam_Music]

random, but I personally think the reason why there are so many religions is because humans have a natural inclination to seek out God. Demons capitalize on this inclination by pretending to be God, and leading people astray en masse. Their goal is not so much to be worshipped as divinity, but to separate humanity from the one true God. While I'm certain that some non-Christian religions worship the one true God under a different name, often the true divinity is buried under a lot of unrelated rituals or beliefs that have nothing at all to do with serving God (hence why we needed Jesus to set the record straight and form a new covenant; Judaism had become bloated and was more about following a strict set of rules than it was about loving God). I think Buddhism and Hinduism are good examples of religions that were originally about the one true God, but became twisted over time and are in need of reform. Both of them feature a form of the Holy Spirit in some capacity, and Buddha's life and teachings being remarkably similar to Christian prophets.

[@AnHebrewChild]

Why would it be profitable to the Christian faith to refute the miracle claims of other religions? Genuinely curious. Thank you.

[@segtendonerd64]

It is a little funny watching a video giving a method to decide which miracles are worth investigating only for some comments to go "Nope, demons and devils can create miracles for other religions. Only miracles that prove Christianity true can be real and righteous." Ah well, if you already believe you have the perfect answer, looking around at other peoples answers seems fruitless at best and stupendous at worst, in regards to truth seeking.

[@emanuelsadu263]

As a fact. The Church dose not deny the reality of other paranormal activities at all. It just states that all are in work with devils.

[@franciscofont2194]

It would be interesting to investigate what miracles outside of Christianity pass the filter

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'd like to know that too

[@undolf4097]

These are excellent videos. I saw the thumbnail and I went “You know this guy has some good other videos I wonder how he answers this one” and it was very satisfying

[@CyberUser_055]

Thank you for your movies. Please, make a movie about the book of Daniel. Debunk all critics claims against the book of Daniel. We need this. Greetings from Poland and Thank You for this channel.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Someday I'd like to. In the meantime, here's a blog post from my friend Jonathan McLatchie. I hope you find it helpful. jonathanmclatchie.com/the-authenticity-of-the-book-of-daniel-a-survey-of-the-evidence/

[@CrusaderMapper]

3:23 Ok I don’t want to claim that Romulus really ascended, but you should keep in mind that because of the Sack of Rome in 390 BC the majority of written texts was destroyed, and someone could have written about it not too long after it’s supposedly happened, but we have no way of knowing.

[@offlineterminated]

How can God heal some random believer but not heal children with cancer?

[@TestifyApologetics]

God does heal some children with cancer. Lisa Larios was healed of a reticulum cell sarcoma when she was 12 years old for just one example

[@offlineterminated]

Okay, but why just her? Why not the entire population that has cancer?

[@Jesusiscomingback-jc8nf]

Because we live in a fallen world every time we sin we prove we are born with it and have consciously rebelled against God we’re lucky he still reveals himself, we’re still allowed to be here, and he gives us a chance at an underserved eternal life the only rule if we accept his gift and repent

[@scottanno8861]

​@@offlineterminatedI dunno, maybe it's because NOBODY lives forever bro, the cancer kids are victims of something called mortality. So unless you solve that, what ethical difference is there in the end if you end your misery sooner rather than later? Huh?

[@offlineterminated]

@@scottanno8861 My issue isn't the mortality. My issue is apologists using specific miracle claims as evidence for the Christian god existing. These are the same people that say god cannot alleviate suffering because it interferes with free will, yet they want to use secluded cases of miracle claims to make their case of his existence. Which is it? Can god alleviate suffering for certain specific people or not at all?

[@SE-kd5lo]

Good video. It's cool you're up front about the arguments and address them in logical way

[@roshantopno1253]

Why a trivial miraculous event should be ruled out. That criteria seems to be arbitrary to me. How can we say what is trivial or not trivial? Let’s grant that there are supernatural beings, but why assume that one category of miracles is trivial and the other is not? Who are we to say that a supernatural being should perform this specific category of miracle to be believable?

[@YouMayKnowMeAsNate]

@@roshantopno1253 maybe the framing wasn’t clear, but I think the point that specific test is trying to make is that we should put priority into investigating miracle claims that would have some impact on our lives. Maybe there are some verifiable miracles that have happened, but if answering the question of if they happened or not doesn’t affect anything, then it would just be a waste of time to look into them. It would be like an accountant taking a class on microbiology. The accountant might learn some true things, but if it doesn’t change their life at all, there would be better uses of the accountant’s time.

[@coltonreeves6893]

The purpose of these criteria is not to say that any miracle that doesn't make it through them definitively did not happen. The point of them is to determine whether or not an alleged miracle is even worth seriously investigating. If someone says that they miraculously turned a hot dog into a hamburger when no one was looking and then ate it, it's pretty pointless to seriously look into the veracity of that claim because it's meaningless and left no impact on the world. Even if it happened, who cares?

[@GSkuzx]

It's pretty trippy that when you brought up one of the letters I automatically jumped to the story about the donkey lol, then later discovering it was one of the examples you mentioned was funny

[@DarkBlade37]

Which letter does it supposedly fail?

[@LorenzoPelupessy]

Wow... What a glorious achievement! To find Testify vid this quickly... 😂

[@DavidMarketh]

I like how each letter has an example.

[@Makaneek5060]

Some other religions come kind of close, Zoroaster's healing the horse only fails two (Belated Events and Self Serving) but he could easily have been a great veterinarian.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Belated is def. important.

[@Makaneek5060]

@@TestifyApologetics I agree, King Vishtaspa's horse most likely did not have 4 broken legs, but that's what the story turned into after centuries.

[@caos1925]

There is also the idea of looking at mutually exclusive religions first, cause you could believe in something like the Egyptian and Greek pantheon at the same time, be a Buddhist and Norse, Hindu and Aztec, but not any of the Abrahamic ones and another.

[@ర_ర]

Ave, Cristus Rex!

[@CityPete]

This is a cool acronym that I haven’t heard before. It’s a good launching point in understanding your own beliefs and those of others

[@RodMartinJr]

*_Love the lessons in Critical Thinking!_* BUT it is ironic that the filter would be named "DOUBTS;" for the study of miracles becomes much more difficult when the researcher uses a potent *_Negative Bias,_* rather than a Neutral Attitude. The reason why scientists cannot do research on spiritual things (miracles, etc.) is because of their flawed paradigm of discovery -- skepticism, with its potent negative bias of "doubt." The best way to throw "water" on the "fire" of a miracle is to use the *_Wrong Ingredient_* -- the opposite of the *_Faith_* required to perform a miracle. What skeptics get wrong about *_Everything_* is their penchant to dismiss (as if debunked) anything they disbelieve. The *_Proper_* (scientific) stance is one of saying, "I don't know." Otherwise, by claiming that something is "impossible" or "never happened," the skeptic is claiming for himself a form of *_Omniscience,_* which is a miraculous ability in itself. For how else could they KNOW that something is "impossible" or "never happened" unless they had the superior knowledge of God? 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@midimusicforever]

Great stuff!

[@mesplin3]

I think Hume's argument regarding miracles is mostly semantics. For example, if one defines a miracle as something impossible, then any claim that a miracle occurring must be false by definition. The same argument can occur for improbable events. If a miracle is defined as an unlikely event, then again a miracle cannot occur by definition.* *Suppose miracle is an event where P(event)

[@mesplin3]

@@Boundless_Border I use the dictionary definition. As for your example, I don't think it works. If you knew that an event happened, then this event would no longer be classified as a miracle assuming that miracles are defined by one's low degree of belief.

[@mesplin3]

@@Boundless_Border miracle: a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency. If you are using a Bayesian interpretation of probability, then probability means a degree of belief (how a gambler might wager on outcomes). If you aren't, then probability might refer to a ratio of favorable cases to cases overall. This interpretation is problematic because one cannot sample their own ignorance.

[@mesplin3]

@@Boundless_Border I believe that divinity is fictional, so many of these questions don't make much sense to me. As I see it, we observe reality and create models that, when assumed, can be useful.

[@mesplin3]

@@Boundless_Border Yeah, that sounds about right. If I saw someone get sawed in half and then emerge unharmed, I would assume this was a magic trick and not a miracle.

[@VictoryOlaleye]

This is so good. Tim McGrew is really something. 🔥🧠

[@Blue2qy]

Evidence for God : Orthodox Christianity

[@LiveForGodStudios]

This series is amazing

[@jamesc3505]

Yes, I think the things included in the DOUBTS acronym are probably red flags. But, for me at least, there seems to be an obvious omission. I think we should also be sceptical of accounts that aren't first-hand eye-witness testimony. The Gospels don't appear to be first-hand eye-witness testimony. They don't speak in the first person (e.g. I saw Jesus perform miracles), but rather the third person. And I think they follow the supposed travels of Jesus through encounters with various other people, without there always being some particular person present who might have been identified as the author. Imagine a witness being called to the stand in a trial, and offering an account of something that they didn't experience themselves, without even saying where they heard it from. I think we would be right to be sceptical. But I think this is essentially the situation with the Gospels.

[@TestifyApologetics]

You're just wrong about the Gospels. See my previous 2 playlists.

[@jamesc3505]

@@TestifyApologetics: I watched a couple of your previous videos, where the titles suggested they were Gospel related. There were several mentions of aspects of Gospel accounts that you say aligned with other accounts, the local geography, customs of the time, and archaeological evidence. I'll assume you're right on these matters. I guess it does add some credence to the accounts, but I think many of the things you mention don't really add very much credence. On the face of it, it does seem impressive that the Gospels would align on details in ways that are arcane to us, who belong to a different cultural context. I assume many of these things would have been fairly common knowledge within their cultural context, however. e.g. if you were to hear a couple of accounts of the occurrences on a day, and one account mentioned that people opened presents in the morning, and another account mentioned that they went carolling in the evening, you would see that both implied that the day was on or around Christmas, so they agreed, and that would lend some credence. But it wouldn't have been very difficult for someone in your cultural context to make them agree, so you wouldn't take that as strong evidence that everything in the accounts were true.

[@dontburstmybubble686]

To put the acronym in points: D. O. U. B. T. S. Distance: The miracle happens far from the first to tell it. Opinions: Basically confirmation bias. Undetailed Events: Basically one sentence description of what happened. Belated Reports: The first story happens centuries after the initial event. Trivial Miracles: It doesn't change life too much. Self Serving: It directly benefits the one telling it. (I feel like T is a weird standard because penicillin affects many lives but we had to discover fungi as a species first and I'm certain no one was deeply affected by fungi upon its initial discovery. We never know what information will be useful or when it will be useful.)

[@fratstar420-o9t]

Prophecy from a man of Christ is a miracle. Fortune telling from a pagan is a spiritual communion with demons. People often seem to forget that Satan is the prince of lies and confusion, he is indeed powerful enough to provide illusions and counterfeit miracles in which there is always a caveat. Satan doesn’t care if you are spiritual or not he just doesn’t want you worshiping the one true God. Satan has atheist right where he wants them… worshiping their own intellect. As for spiritual people he will try and have them follow down a path of idol worship.

[@cherubin7th]

By your logic Jesus might have been satanistic himself.

[@JoelBrown-h1j]

I see themhope bringers to me that faith with context will guide me to a better life

[@domineprimatus]

OR, you could just believe all miracles that happen in other religions etc. are from demons trying to lie...

[@TestifyApologetics]

that would be kinda convenient and ad hoc. not saying there aren't false signs and wonders, but even claims for weird stuff that I'd say sounds demonic often don't even pass this filter

[@Faithfulfilled1]

@TestifyApologetics I agree, atheist definitely wouldn’t sit there and have that, in fact a good comeback would just be “how do you know miracles that happen within your religion aren’t demons?

[@ravissary79]

That isn't denying a miracle though, it's just a spiritually tribalistic interpretation of its meaning. That's still taking it seriously, indeed its taking them at their word.

[@domineprimatus]

@@TestifyApologetics I'm just saying that as Christians we don't need to deny "miracles" of other religions in order to defend our own because it has long been held that signs pointing away from God are just demonic influences... We don't need to abide by the atheistic default of "miracles likely fake" for good apologetics, that's all.

[@theriveroffaith852]

First Corinthians - Inspired Version 13:2 "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." This is the difference between miracles.

[@vonmusel6158]

What do you say of the catholic theology of miracles, one priest on youtube explains that God does not "break" the laws of nature but operates within them, however they are not in the normal course of nature

[@TestifyApologetics]

I think that was Aquinas' definition. I would simply say this: A miracle is an event that exceeds the productive power of nature, and a religiously significant miracle is a detectable miracle that has a supernatural cause.

[@thadofalltrades]

@@TestifyApologetics that's a good definition. That includes instances where it would be impossible at the current technology level.

[@notgoodatall]

4:26 wait i heard this same story from another religion , guess which religion it is

[@mike16apha16]

the whole "but miracles in other religions" is kind of a what aboutism anyways. unless the atheist is trying to prove that miracles in other religions did happen and is willing to go the distance to white knight for these miracles it is irrelevant to the conversation i am in no way shape or form obligated to try and debunk something the atheist doesn't believe in himself and only obligated to defend my claims and beliefs not anyone else

[@jamesc3505]

I don't see a problem with it. If Christians set the bar low for accepting miracles, then they ought to accept miracles from other religions, otherwise their position's inconsistent. I think Christians rely on similar logic when they argue that atheists can't have morality unless they believe in a god. Using your position, I think atheists could say unless Christians are willing to go the distance to argue for moral nihilism, then the argument is irrelevant, and no more need be said about it.

[@Alieth]

It’s an internal critique of Christian logic, it is valid for the atheist to use

[@smilepie5735]

John 3:16-21; John 14:6-7; Ephesians 2:8-9

[@thatonedude932]

The most interesting thing about miracles is how they suddenly stopped happening when cameras were invented

[@GutsOnYT]

Illogical. My family has caught miracles on camera. There has been plenty of miracles caught on camera, too.

[@juansolo3227]

We often are quick to categorize things as either natural things we have yet to figure out or coincidences. Miracles happen all the time.

[@nickNcar]

Any "miracle" is just shoved off as fake whether on camera or not is the thing. A friend of ours' wife was dying their body damaged in a way that couldn't be fixed, and they were on life support. The doctors were not trying to fix anything because they couldn't, and they were convincing our friend to pull the plug. He was going to because everyone said she was already dead. Well, the next morning, they went to take her off life support, and she was perfectly OK out of nowhere as if she had never been sick. The doctors have no idea how or why she just miraculously healed from near death to perfectly healthy in just a couple of hours. That's a miracle, but everyone says that it wasn't and something else happened. Miracles don't happen anymore because people's bass world view is "it can't be a miracle because miracles aren't real. therefore, they don't happen"

[@thatonedude932]

@@juansolo3227 probably because it’s reasonable to say something has a natural explanation than to assume that it has supernatural causes that we can’t test or see or interact with. And also not a single person within the Christian religion can even agree on weather or not miracles still happen

[@thatonedude932]

@@nickNcar modern medicine: manages to save someone on the brink of death Theists: must be god because clearly once a doctor says the person is going to die it’s definitely going to happen unless god intervenes because doctors never make incorrect statements ever

[@garybrown2039]

Hi, man interesting video. Thank you for the points that you have made. I want to ask you two questions. 1. Have you ever heard of the testimony by Charles Colson ( Who was a member of Richard Nixon's cabinet and was questioned during Watergate) . He made a very good argument that you can see here on a KZbin short for Christianity. 2. As I was watching your video, It reminded me of the factors surrounding the miracle of Fatima during the year 1917. I highly recommend you research that because there are just so many elements supporting it according to your logic here. Including how the mayor was a Freemason who had every reason to deny everything. And how it set the stage , or at least hinted at, World War 2.

[@michaeljefferies2444]

On the whole sign value thing, I don't think that's necessary. If a God exists who loves us, we would expect him to perform miracles for people (particularly healing miracles) for people in any religion, and that they don't have to be construed as supporting the beliefs of the people who received the miracles.

[@RodMartinJr]

That sounds logical. Having studied numerous religions, in-depth, over the last 74 years, each one seems to contain elements of truth. For men have long had a hunger for the Spirit and would inevitably discover elements of Truth. And just as every religion has become corrupted because of the ever present *_Ego,_* even Christianity has been profaned by politics and selfishness. But there is only one *_TRUTH._* And all religions of any value point in that general direction. What sets Christianity apart is that God chose one people -- the Jews -- to work toward TRUTH, and the *_First_* individual Jew to Reach TRUTH was rewarded with the Honors, Responsibilities and Title of Messiah or Christ, with the mission to return to Earth as Yeshua of Nazareth in the first major step in the harvest to come. Gautama Siddhartha Buddha knew that there was someone greater than he would would "soon" arrive on Earth to help us toward TRUTH. I suspect he was sensing the arrival of that "First" in another five, short centuries. Miracles are effortless when you have a pure heart, and having stumbled onto such purity only a few dozen brief moments, I recognize in Christ's teachings all that I saw and learned from those experiences. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@rubemartur8239]

3:52 if i told someome this, they would ask from which bar i came from

[@Onzo22]

Dude, I just flew around the world, died, rose from the dead, and turned your couch into a donkey

[@SuperMeatBoa]

No Comment

[@darkwolf7740]

No reply

[@geochonker9052]

No video

[@TestifyApologetics]

no

[@projectr9999]

n

[@HankPymhaha]

‎

[@sulk7080]

Decent filter for nonsense claims, but the resurrection miracle claim is still getting stuck in the filter for me. Though to be fair, I took this miracle claim very seriously for 20+ years of my life, and so I’ve not just cast it aside without examining it.

[@Deinz1024]

Out of curiosity I ask: What's making it stuck in the filter for you?

[@sulk7080]

@@Deinz1024 I don't view the accounts of the Gospels as historical, and there are textual discrepancies in details that don't lend to the historical credibility of the four books when seen as a whole. I consider that already on the same level or worse than the U in this D.O.U.B.T.S. -- in so far as it is detailed, but the details change often significantly between the accounts, and they even sometimes differ with set-in-stone historical dates, like the death of Herod and the Syrian census of Quirinius. The claims in the Bible that there were reports of witnessing the risen Christ don't really amount to actual reports either, in my mind. You can suppose that they do, but there's no way to find out for sure from what we have. That renders the Gospels at least a bit belated, by a handful of decades-- which renders me a bit perplexed as to why we wouldn't have more contemporaneous sources. Honestly, the miracle claims in the Bible are very very familiar to me, and I understand that there's hardly a way to falsify them without suppositions, and there's hardly a way to justify them either without suppositions. It's a supposition game, I suppose.

[@fluffysheap]

​@@sulk7080 The death of Herod is far less set in stone than you think. He actually died in 1 BC. This atheist claim is one of the more preposterous ones. Here are the two problems. First, the death of Herod is not given as a year, but recorded relative to an eclipse. In 4 BC there was technically an eclipse, but it was minor and most people who were not astrologers would likely not have even noticed it. In 1 BC there was a spectacular eclipse. Yet the atheists and so-called scholars insist that the minor one is the one being referenced. The other problem is that the supposed early date requires a large number of very significant events (requiring many people to travel great distances) to all happen within a few weeks. It would not realistically have been possible. Instead these events needed to play out over a period of a couple of years. Sorry for the lack of detail in the second paragraph as I don't have time to refresh my memory right now. It involved Herod's mourning period and tributes.

[@cherubin7th]

​@@sulk7080there are non biblical witnesses as well. Like Thomas went to India and told them about his experience of the resurrection, healed sick and so on.

[@Sam_Hyde_Apologist]

of course there's a Christian double standard, to be religious is to have double standards. "My book of extraordinary claims is real because it says so and anyone who says the same about their book is wrong, because my book says only it can be true" literally every religion

[@Bigbagofgamer]

@@Sam_Hyde_Apologist hypothetically what if one book detailed the others as true and just as another path to one’s peace? Would it still fit into double standards or nah, since it still claims it's own religion as true.

[@Sam_Hyde_Apologist]

@@Bigbagofgamer what?

[@Bigbagofgamer]

@@Sam_Hyde_Apologist i edited it lol mb

[@joiemoie]

I think that miracles can also happen in other religions, only if its confirming the belief at the very least in God, compared to the alternative which is disbelief in God altogether. For example, it would not surprise me if a Hindu or Muslim were healed after praying to God inside their temples. However, I do believe that once their minds were opened to God, God would begin revealing more signs that would point them to the Christian faith and whether they follow his signs is a different matter.

[@thadofalltrades]

the Bible plainly states there can be miracles in other religions because there are demons behind many of the deities in other religions. Demons can do "miracles." Revelation 13 says that the world will be deceived by a false Christ calling fire down from heaven. We should expect miracles in other religions given a biblical worldview.

[@joiemoie]

@@thadofalltrades I don’t doubt that there can be strange phenomenon in other cultures, but demons can’t do everything. For example, they can deceive, but they can’t bring about healings. The high priest Melchizedek was the King of Salem, not associated with Abram, but was blessed by Abram. Balaam was not an Israelite, but a recognized Prophet. Job was a non-Israelite, living in the land of Uz. Finally, the three Kings were likely Zoroastrians, who probably had a different relationship with God than typical Jews, but followed signs which led to Jesus.

[@thadofalltrades]

@@joiemoie I'm not saying they can do everything, but they can do stuff. Pharoah's magicians could duplicate Aaron's signs to a point. Revelation predicts that the false Christ that comes at the end will do signs and lying wonders. They can sort of heal. They can make someone sick and then release them from the sickness. How do you think witch doctors become so powerful? They "heal", but also do curses and stuff. They can strengthen someone's body against harm. I used to work for a missionary group that had ministries in the Philippines. The leaders of gangs would wear special talismans that would protect them from gunfire.

[@GldnClaw]

how could 23-year-old Joseph Smith dictate all 269,510 words of the Book of Mormon without any notes, in 60 working days, with only a 1-in-15 Trillion chance of Nephi and Alma having the same writing style and 1500 shifts in author overall? And All ,apparently, just for p00n and dollarydoos?

[@RodMartinJr]

A similar feat was accomplished by the author of *_Oaspi,_* about the time the typewriter was first invented. Demons? When we see the behavior of Smith, we do not see a Righteous man. We must remain humble to God's Truth. In other words, we need to remain a perpetual student, for God will *_always_* have more to teach us. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@GldnClaw]

@@RodMartinJr Oahspe: Written in 50 weeks of daily sessions + 3 months of writing. Little-to-no variation in writing style. "a few" revisions Only internally-consistent within it's esoteric structure This is the equivalent of "We have the Book of Mormon at home" meme.

[@RodMartinJr]

@@GldnClaw And?... 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@MrDrProfJMF]

Yeah it gets on my nerves. Like self-serving? Joseph Smith's life was no cakewalk and he sealed his testimony in his blood. Just another lame attempt to paint him as a cult leader when he behaved nothing like any other actual cult leaders we know anything about

[@keeganmet257]

Great video!

[@GldnClaw]

The Book of Mormon is a Miracle. Showyourshelf has 500 questions to ask about it.

[@brettstafford9665]

Distance: good Opinions: bad (what if faith contributes to miracles) Undetailed: has some potential as a back up Belated: good Trivial: bad (it would still be a miracle) Self-serving: bad (same issue as opinions)

[@MIKAEL212345]

the resurrection fails on the S in DOUBTS. You claim "Jesus and his disciples did not live for self-gain; they were willing to endure suffering, hard work, dangers, and even death. They weren’t seeking power, fame, personal glory, or any other worldly rewards" and sure, it isn't self serving in the obvious way the Mormon Joseph Smith miracle is self serving, but it is self serving in the fact that it advances the religion that they believe in to spread the miracle. Maybe they really did see someone and thought it was Jesus that was resurrected.

[@Easternromanfan]

The apostles would have absolutely no reason to die for a religion that they previously thought was a lie when Christ was crucified. Ironically enough all you did was point to the need of a resurrection convincing the apostles much more

[@MIKAEL212345]

@Easternromanfan I never said they previously thought it was a lie. I'm sure they truly believed in the new religion. By way of analogy, let's say you are a die hard, true believer communist. Some story comes out about some owner abusing his employees somehow. You know the details of this story are kinda sketchy, but why would you question them? So, you spread this story despite kinda not believing it.

[@michaelgibbons8277]

@@MIKAEL212345 you’re making the disciples reasoning sound like this “I believe this is the new religion based on Jesus and it should be promoted. I believe I saw Jesus resurrected. That promotes the new religion on Jesus. Therefore, Jesus really is resurrected so I can now promote the religion.” That’s not how it works. What the previous reply is saying is that were it a lie or were it merely some guy they thought looked like Jesus, then they could easily back off and go “ahh sorry this all a lie. My bad.” Also, this is discounting all the rest of the post resurrection activity of Jesus that would have been evidence of continuity with the same Jesus who died. For example, Jesus spoke to Peter asking if he loved him. Peter would have been able to know and understand exactly the voice and love of his savior that he knew for three years prior. The resurrection appearances with the disciples were not “oh there is this guy who’s walking down the street. Man he looks like Jesus.” So you’re positing that Peter was delusional at best which would just put us back to the original response and we could change they wouldn’t die for a lie to they wouldn’t die for a delusion. They could have easily responded “oh no I’m sorry it’s just a guy I thought looked like Jesus. My bad.”

[@eunicestjarielofficial]

Couldn't help but screenshot that probability equation 😻

[@VikOnasi]

I like your videos a lot. I think you shouldn't filter out Joseph Smith. You really misrepresented him and his motives. Go learn more about him, what people who knew him said about him, his family including his brother and how they believed him and stuck by him no matter what, and how he died for what he believed, even going back to what he knew was certain death because his friends felt like he was abandoning them. He had such a hard life that someone who was in it for himself would have just given up and said, this lie is not worth my children dying, tarring and feathering, sitting in a dungeon for months in the winter etc.

[@KD-eh3qo]

I highly recommend everyone to watch the debate between Tim McGrew and Zachary Moore which discusses the D.O.U.B.T.S filter in more detail and deals with objections to it. Great video btw, Erik! Succinct and informative

[@youfromthefuture2212]

I enjoy it when apologists make videos about comparative religion, and I learned some new things! But respectfully, I don't see how you can even call DOUBTS a filter. A filter would imply there is some cutoff. DOUBTS is just a list of axioms about what makes things more or less probable. I know it was a short video just explaining an idea but I still would have liked to see more discussion around what the cutoffs are. It seems to me like you simply selected miracles that were less probable than certain core Christian miracles for each filter and simply stated that they didn't meet the cutoff, but that the Christians ones do. For example the time between event and first report looks good for the resurrection when compared to the story of Romulus. But I could just as easily find some miracle where the reports started a week after the supposed event, and say that by comparison, the decades in between the resurrection and its first reports means we should throw it out. The axioms themselves may not be biased, but the way you are selecting the cutoffs is.

[@charbelbejjani5541]

Great video. Do you believe that some healing miracles that happened at Lourdes are genuine?

[@TestifyApologetics]

Absolutely I do. They meet a very stringent criteria. Stay tuned, I'll discuss one of them I think is very well-evidenced.

[@BenjaminYWarner]

Joseph Smith was not self-serving. He had to endure a lot of persecution for sticking by his claims. Also, he ran for president in an attempt to preserve religious freedom, because the Latter-day Saints kept getting attacked by mobs.

[@tlovi7342]

@BenjaminYWarner I don't know if those other guys whose wives he married felt that way...but that seems self-serving on its face. Additionally, he claimed to be greater than Peter, Paul, and Jesus. That's not really related to his self-service. I just thought I'd throw that in there (video by Mike Winger recently on that tidbit had me reeling, frankly). May God bless you and keep you.

[@BenjaminYWarner]

@@tlovi7342 The quote about Joseph Smith saying he was greater than Jesus is often taken out of context. He was riffing on Paul's "I speak as a fool" verses in 2 Corinthians 11. Try looking up the short video Did Joseph Smith Think He Was Better Than Jesus by Saints Unscripted. As for Joseph's motives for practicing polygamy, the motivation was not to have a lot of sex. It is too complicated to elaborate here, but try looking up Don Bradley's talk at the 2023 FAIR Conference. It is called Knowing Brother Joseph: How the Historical Record Demonstrates the Prophet's Religious Sincerity.

[@icedatm]

awesome video! side question: can i ask what denomination you are? thanks!

[@TestifyApologetics]

Pentecostal

[@fundamentality]

@@TestifyApologetics Dang I wasn't expecting that answer whatsoever, but I'm a pentecostal too lol

[@juansolo3227]

@@TestifyApologeticslet’s gooooo!!

[@christophertaylor9100]

As C.S. Lewis put it, we only have to believe the miracles in scripture and the ones that occur to us.

[@MrDrProfJMF]

Can you explain how the Book of Mormon and other revelations Joseph Smith claims to have received are self-serving? From the history, it seemed more like those things hurt him, his family, and his followers more than anything

[@briandiehl9257]

Like getting multiple wives?

[@tiew2_77]

Do you get the emails that people send you through your website?

[@TestifyApologetics]

If you've sent something I haven't seen it

[@hinduismwithpremananddasbhagat]

I know a Hindu guru who has caused miracles. They are written about in his official biographies. According to former members, at the time the events occurred nobody talked about them being a miracle caused by him. The first time they were touted as miracles was in the book. .............. And, thus you are to believe he is legit and the miracles are 100% true cause they're in a book! That last sentence is the mantra now.

[@nothingnothing7958]

Balaams talking donkey is possible though because donkeys have vocal cords and can make noises with their mouth so God can just alter the brain of the Donkey so it can speak.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying it's not where I'd ask the skeptic to begin their investigation.

[@jimnicholas7334]

It's a good playlist! But are they supposed to be out of order they were released in? It's a tad annoying to hunt for the release order because you constantly refer back to earlier videos

[@TestifyApologetics]

Yes they're in the correct order

[@308enjoyer]

We acknowledge that signs and wonders can be performed by spirits that are not aligned with God in order to deceive men.

[@connorgrynol9021]

Does that include the resurrection of Jesus?

[@DarkAdonisVyers]

Yes, yes, yes, every god that isn't Yahweh counts as a "demon". I've played SMT.

[@kze24]

@@connorgrynol9021 Are you trying to say that a demon resurrected Jesus?

[@connorgrynol9021]

@@kze24 perhaps. Perhaps Jesus himself was a demon. Perhaps his “resurrection” was nothing more than a deception by a group of demons. At the end of the day, you have nothing else to go on except faith. So the Christian worldview has just as much validity as Islam or Judaism.

[@thehitomiboy7379]

Exactly. The One True Church has defined miracles with contemporary witnesses, that are confirmed by science. While the false churches usually have miracles that occur with unnamed people at an unnamed place resulting in minor physical ailment releif (backpain etc).

[@juansolo3227]

I love that one Catholic story about how angels gave Saint Aquinas a belt for keeping it in his pants. Truly a miracle that no man could replicate.

[@thehitomiboy7379]

@juansolo3227 Not sure youre intention of that comment but that wouldnt be a miracle, strictly speaking. Since its not verifiable by inquiry. But it could be a pius beleif. I myself have somesuch miracles applied to me too. Just not verifiable as actual miracles.

[@juansolo3227]

@@thehitomiboy7379 ah well that’s actually nice to hear then, I must be misinformed. I would believe all good is the work of God so one could argue it is but yeah verifiability was what I was attacking. I thought y’all used it as his Saint miracle cause don’t saints need a miracle associated with them?

[@thehitomiboy7379]

@juansolo3227 saints at that time needed 4 posthumous miracles to be sainted. So it wasnt used. Allegedly there were 100 or more presented tho whoch 4 were considered conclusive i do not know.

[@KD-eh3qo]

Btw doesn't the 'U' stand for Uncertain events rather than Undetailed events? Meaning events that can plausibly be explained naturally. McGrew gives the examples of the Hindu 'milk miracle' and the healings at the tomb of Abbe Paris where thousands of people would go there and some would report feeling better afterwards

[@TestifyApologetics]

I changed it, I thought about using both.

[@sophiacristina]

"Laws of nature" - A guy that don't knew the laws of nature, since the quantum physics works differently than classical mechanics.

[@fluffysheap]

A lot of these are just ordinary historical method. Distance and time are ordinary criteria used by historians. Same with how much the writer stands to benefit. The one I'd mostly disagree with is detail. Today's flim flam artists add lots of detail, because it distracts people from noticing that it's all garbage. Similarly, older but essentially true stories might lose detail over time as minor parts of the story are forgotten.

[@segevstormlord3713]

I don't think there's a double standard. If you were to walk up to a medieval scholar and tell him that you believe that the other time-traveler from your era could potentially have a working "magic light" (especially if he brought LEDs and batteries with him), but that you don't believe he could have a "flying horse," then he might think you're being arbitrarily skeptical. After all, why is a magic light so much less likely than a "magic flying horse?" You're not being arbitrarily skeptical, though, and you don't have a double standard. You believe it is possible that he has the tools to do the one thing, but not the other. Christians believe that God can cause miracles; we do not believe that animistic spirits dwelling in trees can. That said, I think a lot of modern Christians are _still_ likely to be skeptical of even claims of miracles allegedly performed by God if they're not in the scriptures. Modern miracles are more likely to be fakes, delusions, or whatnot than they are to be real, because there is incentive and motivated reasoning that can lead to frauds or mistakes. So skepticism even about "Christian miracles" is as wise as skepticism about new scientific theories and alleged discoveries: do the research and try to find out what actually happened.

[@adjustedbrass7551]

Anyone who doubts miracles can visit a weeping icon at any time.

[@DarkAdonisVyers]

Weeping Icon? When's their next concert?

[@arbiterskiss6692]

No-one wanta to talk about Balaam's talking donkey. Kind of a big deal if you ask me, and we all glaze over it, I am as guilty as everyone else.

[@Christ_Inspiring]

They talk about miracles being impossible, but you're going to look me in the eyes and say the solar system came by luck? I don't think so.

[@DexterHeart]

My brother in Christ, wtf do you mean with that?????

[@thadofalltrades]

the B in doubt is why we can reject most of Hinduism's stuff. Though there is demonic activity that performs miracles.

[@gabrielcastro6193]

Search for the Eucaristic Miracles, and other Catholic Miracles.

[@Thebigem]

I don’t think the Donkey thing was a Miracle, It was just a Thing that happened

[@standard-user-name]

If atheists don't even have any pause at Padre Pio's Stigmata then there is little that will convince them. And this is just one of many miracles in Christianity. Along with all the rational arguments.

[@danielcox7629]

If it happened in a cave after questionable herb use I'd call it questionable.

[@MiszuFiszu]

The Resurrection is an obvious example of meeting this DOUBTS framework, but I recommend anyone interested in well-documented miracles to check out the miracle of Calanda. "A sign for Non-Believers" by Vittorio Messori is a great book on it, but if you can't grab hold of it even Wikipedia does a fair job of summarizing it (and even as an "objective" source it can't help but conclude that key objections raised by skeptics fall flat).

[@evanthesquirrel]

Why is it an assumption that the miracles don't follow the laws of nature? Why can't an event happen exactly as it was recorded and also be within the laws of nature?

[@benabaxter]

One of my favorite cases to triage the claims of Christianity above other religions has to do with the nature of Truth. If a religion is true, then you would think that it would have some widespread purchase outside of its place or people of origin. But if you do limit your look at religions to simply religions which fit this criterion, you're down to basically Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity. This narrows the conversation enough to make it manageable. It doesn't lead directly to Christianity, but it does give it a special place without special pleading.

[@thadofalltrades]

why wouldn't Judaism also fit into that?

[@GldnClaw]

The Ojibwe indians have writings that affirm aspects of the Book of Mormon.

[@GldnClaw]

The ojibwe indians affirm the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[@logicianbones]

​@@thadofalltrades Ben has a good point. I agree Judaism should be included but that's still only four. He might have overlooked it since investigation into Christianity necessitates it anyways.

[@thadofalltrades]

@@logicianbones yes, I was just curious if he had a good reason not to include Judaism. I use a similar path of logic to reason to Christianity. Once someone accepts that a timeless, relational, powerful entity might be possible, it's pretty easy to eliminate nearly all religions because most deities have an origin story. They are often the children of other entities.

[@ethanwild3301]

Now I'm curious where/who fabricated other religions. Ex: greek gods, Indian gods, etc

[@sahilhossian8212]

Lore of Miracles: Is There a Christian Double Standard? Momentum 100

[@kaelothsgaming8199]

Since the Jesus resurrection story is based on the Romulus one. If Jesus really rose from the dead, then so did Romulus. lol

[@SamuelNotTheProphet]

Love how you bunched Catholics, with their own Mary symbol, with the other religions.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Catholics are Christians. It wasn't an insult. The cross is there too.

[@SamuelNotTheProphet]

@@TestifyApologetics Sorry I missinterpreted. I have very sectarian views, which make me curse other Christians. Every sincere Christian is saved.

[@KingoftheJuice18]

Two quick things. (1) How many of the miracles in the Jewish Scriptures (Genesis through Chronicles) would pass through your filter? For example, the Creation-by far the most important of all biblical miracles-is incalculably distant in time from its recording. And for academic non-believers (which I am not) there is no hard proof that the primary biblical miracles of the Exodus or Mount Sinai were written less than 700 years after the supposed events. (2) The criterion of "self-serving" would tend to disqualify all reported miracles occurring in documents of faith, such as the JS and NT. From an outside perspective, they all serve to bolster or validate the religious claims and authority of the texts themselves. There is no neutral testimony concerning things like God speaking to Israel at Sinai or Jesus' empty tomb. "Self-serving" accounts do not have to be for very crude or materialistic reasons.

[@briandiehl9257]

I mean he was quick to state that most of the miracles in the old testament wouldn't pass such criterion

[@KingoftheJuice18]

@@briandiehl9257 Are you sure? At what timestamp (approximately) did he say that?

[@briandiehl9257]

@@KingoftheJuice18 he said that in the top comment

[@KingoftheJuice18]

@@briandiehl9257 No he did not. He picked out one very minor miracle (Balaam's donkey) on which not much of anything depends. Some traditional Jewish commentators say it was a dream. The important things are the plagues in Egypt, the splitting of the Red Sea, the revelation at Sinai, God's visible presence accompanying Israel through the desert, and so forth...Or are you referring to something else?

[@caos1925]

I thought for a filter you might have used J Warner Wallace's bomb theory, that the bigger impact, and they left the more worth, they are to investigate it, and might be true. This is actually the first time I've seen a use for it. Tim McGrew's version seems, circular, like you have to investigate it by going thru these 5 steps, to know if it is worth investigating, but it is good for the investigation.

[@CJFCarlsson]

Atheist argument: I dont believe in miracles in india. Therefore Christ never was resurrected. That argument is so extraordinarily dumb that it proves indian miracles.

[@CJFCarlsson]

@@Electricalpenguin Why? Are you assuming atheists arguments are honest?

[@CJFCarlsson]

And I should add that I am not ruling out there is plenty of paranormal, to the layman indistinguishable from miracles, activity going on in India, based, admittedly on just asking around what friends and acquaintances are observing around them and their nets of friends and acquaintances. So. If someone with no effort, decides to dismiss indian "miracles", which he would be unable to distinguish from paranormal events, based on his unwillingness to investigate the one case he might be aware of has been claimed, then to draw IMMENSE conclusions based on no knowledge, no understanding of anything relevant and survives in his own club of likenumbminded. Then YES. That is so typical that if any of them is actually serious he will have to stand up, distance himself from the rest of them and prove his bona fide. It is not too much a demand.

[@CJFCarlsson]

@@Electricalpenguin This is not about maturity but right and wrong. You can argue any viewpoint as an intellectual exercise. The Rope is a good film of two posers who murder a classmate inviting their teacher with the body hid in a chest in the apartment, as an intellectual exercise in superman rights and in the end they are just exposed, words, ideology and all as murderers. The substance is more important than the poses, always.