[quote]one of us has Matthew's testimony on his side, namely me. Whose first-century testimony do you have to the effect that this event did not occur?[/quote]
It is the testimony itself that is in question here. The testimony cannot be used to support itself. This is yet another circular argument.
My belief is that Matthew's testimony is untrue - I'll be kind and say that he was lying rather than saying that Christ was a charlatan who fooled him. Upon what do I base this belief? Not on the idea that God doesn't exist, though that's true enough. It's based on the idea that fish do not generally have coins in their mouths, and that among those which do, it is not possible to pull that particular fish from a river full of fish on command. Well, it's possible, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Waterrock holds that this all makes sense because God can transcend the rules. If that's the case, then there is absolutely no point in arguing, because God could be pulling the same tricks right now. What you are now reading is actually a cookie recipe - you all just [i]think[/i] it's an argument about the Bible because God is making you see it that way. Prove me wrong!
The passage about finding a coin in the mouth of a fish is held as an example of absurdity because it defies the rules of logic. Once supernatural elements are introduced, logic no longer applies, and it is impossible to construct an argument either way about it. Therefore, I would invite Waterrock to avoid playing the "God Almighty" card. We are not impressed with illogical arguments around here.
Put forth your arguments in terms of logic, verifiable evidence, and natural law, or don't bother. Your tactics will work on children in Sunday School, but not adults with their own minds.
It is the testimony itself that is in question here. The testimony cannot be used to support itself. This is yet another circular argument.
My belief is that Matthew's testimony is untrue - I'll be kind and say that he was lying rather than saying that Christ was a charlatan who fooled him. Upon what do I base this belief? Not on the idea that God doesn't exist, though that's true enough. It's based on the idea that fish do not generally have coins in their mouths, and that among those which do, it is not possible to pull that particular fish from a river full of fish on command. Well, it's possible, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Waterrock holds that this all makes sense because God can transcend the rules. If that's the case, then there is absolutely no point in arguing, because God could be pulling the same tricks right now. What you are now reading is actually a cookie recipe - you all just [i]think[/i] it's an argument about the Bible because God is making you see it that way. Prove me wrong!
The passage about finding a coin in the mouth of a fish is held as an example of absurdity because it defies the rules of logic. Once supernatural elements are introduced, logic no longer applies, and it is impossible to construct an argument either way about it. Therefore, I would invite Waterrock to avoid playing the "God Almighty" card. We are not impressed with illogical arguments around here.
Put forth your arguments in terms of logic, verifiable evidence, and natural law, or don't bother. Your tactics will work on children in Sunday School, but not adults with their own minds.
