Is this all we need when considering the Resurrection of Jesus?
When examining artifacts from the past, historians assume that nature worked back then as it does today; otherwise, anything goes. American patriot Thomas Paine, in The Age of Reason, asked: “Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of the miracle tells a lie.”…
David Hume wrote: “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless that testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.”
Could I really just distil my forthcoming book on the Resurrection dow to this pithy quote?
 Barker, Dan (2008), Godless, Ulysses Press, p. 278-79.
Stay in touch! Like A Tippling Philosopher on Facebook: