You said the story or Jesus was implausible, then elaborated on the miracles. The miracles are implausible. But if Jesus truly is God, then He could do the implausible. So the miracles don’t render the story as a whole implausible, because the story is claiming that it was God Himself performing said miracles, which would make sense.
It seems pretty clear that someone saying they find the story of Jesus implausible is by extension saying they find the existence of God implausible. Which would make sense.
No? It’s a bit silly to claim miracles don’t happen because they aren’t physically possible. That’s what makes then so miraculous
If something isnt physically possible then it won’t happen.
Unless there is a God and the person performing them just so happens to be God
I think you’re conflating physically possible and scientifically explainable.
My first comment though, I find it shocking you wouldn’t understand that someone finds resurrection implausible.
It is implausible, that’s why it’s so important that Jesus did it
Without miracles, Jesus would just be some madman walking about claiming to be God yet not being able to prove it.
I’m so confused by you right now.
You said the story or Jesus was implausible, then elaborated on the miracles. The miracles are implausible. But if Jesus truly is God, then He could do the implausible. So the miracles don’t render the story as a whole implausible, because the story is claiming that it was God Himself performing said miracles, which would make sense.
It seems pretty clear that someone saying they find the story of Jesus implausible is by extension saying they find the existence of God implausible. Which would make sense.