Raphjd ~
R: "Unless you have real proof that god did indeed do then be quiet."
No. One might as easily say that if you don't have proof that God did not do it, then be quiet. But I'm not saying to be quiet. I'm saying that the charge of absurdity is unfounded, because it arbitrarily excluded the miraculous from the equation, when a miraculous (or remarkably providential) event is precisely what the text describes.
R: "I have read your biblical excuses and commented on them, yet you never seem to go back and answer my points."
Why are you complaining about that for? Didn't you just tell me to be quiet?! (Plus, frankly, a lot of your comments do not have impacts of consequence upon what I've said, so I'm content to let them stand; future readers including yourself may later see my posts and yours as somewhat complementary.)
R: "Another problem I have with your excuses, is that you use the "shot gun" answer to many topics. We have to suppose that god exists, then we have to suppose or pretend 20,000 other things to make you excuse{s} work."
Speaking of topics: the topic here is the account about St. Peter's fish in Matthew 17. Yes, the resolution to the proposed "absurdity" involves the notion that God exists and that Jesus, as God's Son, had some impressive powers. Without those two premises, my resolution won't work. But inasmuch as neither of those two premises are absurd, the resolution is cogent, and the charge of absurdity is dissolved. Calling that a "shotgun answer" just because it is uncomplicated and faith-based does not disprove it.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
R: "Unless you have real proof that god did indeed do then be quiet."
No. One might as easily say that if you don't have proof that God did not do it, then be quiet. But I'm not saying to be quiet. I'm saying that the charge of absurdity is unfounded, because it arbitrarily excluded the miraculous from the equation, when a miraculous (or remarkably providential) event is precisely what the text describes.
R: "I have read your biblical excuses and commented on them, yet you never seem to go back and answer my points."
Why are you complaining about that for? Didn't you just tell me to be quiet?! (Plus, frankly, a lot of your comments do not have impacts of consequence upon what I've said, so I'm content to let them stand; future readers including yourself may later see my posts and yours as somewhat complementary.)
R: "Another problem I have with your excuses, is that you use the "shot gun" answer to many topics. We have to suppose that god exists, then we have to suppose or pretend 20,000 other things to make you excuse{s} work."
Speaking of topics: the topic here is the account about St. Peter's fish in Matthew 17. Yes, the resolution to the proposed "absurdity" involves the notion that God exists and that Jesus, as God's Son, had some impressive powers. Without those two premises, my resolution won't work. But inasmuch as neither of those two premises are absurd, the resolution is cogent, and the charge of absurdity is dissolved. Calling that a "shotgun answer" just because it is uncomplicated and faith-based does not disprove it.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
