Michael Martin on God’s existence making miracles more likely
This relates to this post.
“What sore of evidence would make it probable that God, rather than some other supernatural being, was the cause of the Resurrection? It has been argued that at the very least one would have to show that the Resurrection fitted into a larger pattern of events that revealed God’s purposes. … But what sort of pattern would this be? Presumably it would involve other miraculous events that God brought about. If one had evidence of Miracle1, Miracle2, Miracle3 and so on, and evidence of the Resurrection, one might be able to discern a pattern and infer from it a divine purpose that would indicate that God was behind the Resurrection.
However this implication is damaging to Christianity… The historical reliability of reports of the other miraculous events reported in the Scriptures is no better and is often worse than the evidence for the resurrection. In these accounts of the Resurrection, there are inconsistencies, lack of eye-witness testimony, second and third-hand reporting, failure of independent confirmation and questions about reliability of witnesses… There is then a serious obstacle in concluding that Jesus was restored to life and that this was a miracle.” (Martin, The Case Against Christianity, p-98, 1991)
Martin M. (1991). The Case Against Christianity. Philadelphia. Temple University Press. P-98
- An Argument Against Rational Belief in The Resurrection of Jesus (unfspb.wordpress.com)
- The gospel: true power of God (savouringthegospel.wordpress.com)
- Miracle of Healing…God Only? (donstewartrandomthoughts.wordpress.com)
- General Conference Challenge, Day 31- September 28: The Miracle of the Atonement (myfavoritetalks.wordpress.com)