JEPD Evidence

peter_kirk at sil.org peter_kirk at sil.org
Tue Dec 21 12:09:48 EST 1999


Dear gfsomsel,

Thank you for sharing your opinions and your background.

I accept that there is a logical difficulty in proving a supernatural 
event. By its very nature it cannot be proved by the methods of 
natural sciences. Also its supernatural character cannot be proved in 
that we cannot be sure that it will never be explainable by future 
natural science. But it is possible in principle to demonstrate using 
historical methods that an event has taken place which cannot be 
explained by current natural science. As an example, take the 
resurrection of Jesus. Given your background, I am sure that you are 
aware of many writings which seek to prove that the only rational 
explanation of the records is that Jesus really did rise from the 
dead. The point is not whether you personally find these arguments 
convincing, but whether such arguments could in principle be 
successful. Is it necessary to rule out their success a priori? I 
don't think so. Of course their personal acceptability will depend on 
the reader's presuppositions.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re[9]: JEPD Evidence
Author:  <Polycarp66 at aol.com> at Internet
Date:    20/12/1999 10:20


In a message dated 12/20/99 5:12:00 AM Central Daylight Time, 
peter_kirk at sil.org writes:

<snip>

How would one go about proving a supernatural event?  By its very nature it 
would not be subject to the laws which normally govern phenomena.  The 
closest one could come would be to say that it cannot be explained.  There 
are, however, many events which cannot be explained given our current 
knowledge.  That it cannot be explained may simply mean that we do not know 
the explanation -- not that it doesn't exist.

<snip>




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list