Replies

However, it should be clear from what I quoted and other statements GGG has made that he represents people who want to determine the truth by debate. With science it’s a bit more formal, and what’s observed in reality is the ultimate test of what’s true.

This is somewhat of a misstatement of what science is all about. It's not surprising, though, since naturalists have worked hard to conflate the practice of science with the philosophy of naturalism.

It's scientific to say that one should make sure that one's instruments should provide accurate measurements. But it's not scientific to say that nothing exists except that which is, at least in principle and via instrumentation, open to observation by our senses. It's scientific to say that effects have causes. It's not scientific to say that effects can have only materialist causes.

Thus, if it is true that there exists a reality that is ontologically discontinuous from our reality but which is able, at will, to interact with it and to effect changes in it, the naturalist has put himself into a position of being unable to make an accurate assessment of cause and effect. He has done this because he has, from the beginning, simply declared certain possibilities not to exist. He doesn't do this upon a scientific basis, but upon a philosophical one.

So, presented with the claim that Jesus was killed, was buried, and rose from the dead, he responds that this is impossible and that the appearance to the contrary is only that, an appearance, and must, therefore, be accounted for by an appeal to ignorance (those people back then didn't understand natural law), deceit (either he never died or the followers are lying about his resurrection), or wishful thinking (it was a myth that developed centuries after the purported incident). They make none of these arguments on a scientific basis. But if it is, indeed, true that Jesus was killed and rose from the dead, then, by their previous decision as to what they'll accept as reality, they cut themselves off from this by believing, for one reason or another, something about the event that is, in fact, not true.

More in a bit after I get to the lab.

” With science it’s a bit more formal, and what’s observed in reality is the ultimate test of what’s true.”

Then on this basis we can say that Jesus’ raising of Lazarus from the dead (a large number of observers) in reality (a written record was kept) meets the ultimate test (here even Jesus’ enemies acknowledged the FACT of Lazarus resurrection) of what's true.

But as so often is the case when the posters have no understanding of the subject they find easier to make GGG the object of their personal comments and ridicule.
All the while explaining to us the depth of their Christian belief lest we not notice.