It is hardly valid to
argue against the miracle of the bodily resurrection on scientific - rationalist grounds and then stop short of the non-theistic logic of such scientism by continuing to speak of God.
I HAVE
nothing against miracles, but whenever there's a big buzz about a new drug, it's a fair bet it'll be down to the usual suspects: vested interests, early research, and uncritical journalists.
According to Rory Allen (17 October, p 31), I was right to criticise Hume's and Dawkins's
arguments against miracles but a misunderstanding of science mars my case (8 August, p 26).
If you are
against miracles, I am not sure what you do with most the Great Commission passages.
Hugh McLachlan is right to raise fundamental issues about Richard Dawkins's and David Hume's arguments
against miracles (8 August, p 26), which are, as he suggests, weak if not circular.
Hugh McLachlan is right to raise fundamental issues about Richard Dawkins's and David Hume's arguments
against miracles (8 August, p...
Arguments for and
against miracles.