God or Delusion?

The Problem with Miracles: Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

📅 Today is Day 9 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

“A wise man… proportions his belief to the evidence.”
— David Hume, Of Miracles

The resurrection of Jesus is often called the cornerstone of Christian faith. But it’s also one of its most extraordinary claims—a literal return from the dead after three days in a tomb. For skeptics and critical thinkers alike, this raises a profound question:

What counts as sufficient evidence for a miracle?

🧠 The Core Issue: Miracles vs. Natural Law

Philosopher David Hume, writing in the 18th century, offered perhaps the most famous critique of miracles. He didn’t say miracles were impossible—only that belief in them is never reasonable, because a miracle is, by definition, a violation of the laws of nature.

If natural law tells us that dead people stay dead, then any claim to the contrary carries a heavy burden of proof.

“No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.”
— Hume

In other words: Is it more likely that someone rose from the dead, or that people misunderstood, misremembered, or misreported what happened?

🕵️ Eyewitnesses and Testimonies

Christian apologists often cite eyewitness testimony as compelling evidence for the resurrection:

“Hundreds saw Jesus after the resurrection.”
“The disciples were willing to die for this belief.”

But Hume would respond: So have people of many other religions.

Martyrdom is not unique to Christianity. Nor is sincere belief the same as truth.

If thousands believed Elvis was still alive after his death—or saw apparitions of the Virgin Mary—does that make those claims true?

🧬 Extraordinary Claims, Extraordinary Evidence

The idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is now a bedrock principle of rational inquiry. And resurrection—bodily, irreversible, and historical—is among the most extraordinary of all.

What would such evidence need to look like today?

DNA tests?
Global video footage?
Medical records?

Now ask: Does the ancient claim of Jesus’ resurrection meet even a basic standard of ordinary evidence?

🧩 A Deeper Question

Let’s flip the script.

If someone told you today that their dead uncle came back to life, visited people, then ascended into the sky—but that the event occurred decades ago, was written down in texts filled with theological embellishments, and was supported only by the faithful—would you believe them?

If not, why make an exception for Jesus?

📺 For Further Exploration

YouTube: David Hume – On Miracles | Explained and Critiqued

This short, insightful video unpacks philosopher David Hume’s devastating critique of miracles—focusing on why testimony alone is never enough to override the natural laws we know through experience. With clear explanations of probability theory, bias in religious contexts, and common counterarguments, this video challenges viewers to confront a tough question: Is it ever rational to believe in a miracle?

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.

Paul’s Jesus vs. Gospel Jesus – Two Different Messiahs?

📅 Today is Day 8 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

The God Question’s Easter Special continues with a closer look at something many believers have never considered: Is the Jesus described by the apostle Paul the same as the Jesus found in the Gospels?

At first glance, the answer seems obvious. But dig deeper, and the cracks begin to show.

✍️ Two Portraits, One Name

Paul’s letters are the earliest Christian writings we have—predating the Gospels by several decades. Yet curiously, Paul shows little interest in the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

He never mentions Jesus’s parables.
He doesn’t refer to Jesus’s miracles.
There’s no nativity story, baptism, or Sermon on the Mount.
And surprisingly, he rarely quotes Jesus at all.

Instead, Paul’s focus is overwhelmingly on the risen Christ—a cosmic, spiritual figure revealed to him in a vision. His Jesus is not a humble Galilean rabbi but a divine Lord who exists beyond time and space, offering salvation through faith in his death and resurrection.

In contrast, the Gospel writers (especially Matthew, Mark, and Luke) paint a much more grounded picture—a teacher, healer, and apocalyptic prophet who walked dusty roads, clashed with religious authorities, and taught ethical and moral lessons to the crowds.

🤯 Doctrinal Evolution or Divine Consistency?

If the Gospels and Paul are describing the same person, why the stark difference?

Some scholars argue this is simply a difference in emphasis: Paul had no need to rehash the known stories. But others suggest something more provocative:

Paul invented the theological Christ—and the Gospel writers later tried to humanize him.

This idea challenges the traditional Christian claim of doctrinal consistency. It suggests that early Christianity evolved, with beliefs shifting based on theological needs, cultural pressures, and evangelistic aims—not based on an unchanging, historical truth.

🧠 Applying The God Question’s Core Philosophy

Let’s apply the same critical lens we’ve used throughout this series:

Does this claim rely on empirical evidence or belief?
Paul’s Jesus is based on personal revelation, not historical reporting. He explicitly says he received his gospel “not from any man” (Galatians 1:12).
Are alternative explanations considered?
The theological development of Christology is rarely acknowledged in church. But when viewed historically, the divergence between Paul and the Gospels makes sense as the result of evolving beliefs in a growing religious movement.
Is there independent corroboration?
We have no contemporaneous non-Christian sources confirming Paul’s vision or his interpretation of Jesus. His letters stand as theological documents, not verifiable history.
Is the claim falsifiable?
No. Paul’s vision of the risen Christ is purely subjective and cannot be confirmed or denied outside his own testimony.
Does the explanation raise more questions than it answers?
Yes. Why would God reveal the most important truth in history through a private vision and allow such divergence in the earliest Christian writings? Why doesn’t Paul reference Jesus’s earthly ministry?

🧭 Final Thoughts

If Paul had never lived, would Christianity look anything like it does today?

It’s a fair question—and one worth asking. Paul’s influence on Christian theology is immense. But it’s also worth considering whether he reinterpreted—or even reinvented—the message of Jesus to fit a new vision of salvation.

The God Question doesn’t claim certainty where there is none. But when two portraits of Jesus emerge—one cosmic and abstract, the other earthly and human—we should at least pause and ask:

Which one, if either, reflects reality?

For Further Exploration

Watch this Video: “Jesus vs Paul: The Origins of a Religious Schism in Early Christianity”
Presenter: Dr. Bart D. Ehrman
Duration: Approximately 30 minutes
Description: Dr. Ehrman explores the potential divergences between Jesus’ original teachings and Paul’s interpretations, examining how Paul’s writings may have influenced early Christian theology.

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.

Visions or Visitations? The Psychology of Grief and Hallucination

Today is Day 7 of our 20-Day Easter Special

Each day from April 1 to April 20, we’re critically examining one aspect of the resurrection story—through the lens of evidence, logic, and human psychology. Today, we explore the powerful role grief plays in shaping religious visions, particularly claims of seeing the risen Jesus.

Were the Disciples Hallucinating?

One of the most compelling naturalistic explanations for the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus is psychological: the appearances weren’t literal events, but experiences shaped by grief, guilt, and expectation.

In other words, what if those early “sightings” were not visitations—but visions?

The Power of Grief

Bereavement hallucinations are surprisingly common. Studies show that up to 60% of widowed people report seeing, hearing, or feeling the presence of their deceased loved one in the weeks or months after death.

These experiences often feel very real and comforting, especially for people going through extreme emotional trauma or who are deeply religious.

Now consider the disciples:

They had just watched their teacher die a humiliating death.
They were frightened, scattered, and possibly ashamed of abandoning him.
They desperately needed meaning and hope.

This is precisely the emotional context in which bereavement hallucinations thrive.

Group Hallucinations?

Some argue that hallucinations are personal—so how could multiple people experience the same thing?

That’s a fair question, but it assumes all resurrection experiences were simultaneous. They weren’t. According to the Gospels and Paul:

Appearances happened individually (Mary, Peter),
In small groups (Emmaus road, upper room),
And possibly in larger gatherings (the “500” mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15—though no details are given).

Social contagion, group reinforcement, and the human desire to “believe” can go a long way in explaining how a personal vision becomes a shared story over time—especially in tight-knit religious groups.

Expectation Shapes Perception

Cognitive science tells us that what we expect to see strongly influences what we think we do see.

If the disciples expected a resurrected Jesus—because he said he’d return, because they hoped he would—they were primed to interpret ambiguous experiences (dreams, shadows, inner voices) as real encounters.

This isn’t deceit—it’s human.

The God Question’s Core Philosophy Applied

✔ Does the resurrection rely on evidence or belief?
The post-resurrection stories offer no verifiable evidence—only subjective reports from believers.

✔ Are natural explanations considered?
Not in church—but they should be. Hallucinations, grief psychology, and confirmation bias are well-documented in both religious and secular contexts.

✔ Is the claim falsifiable?
No. If you believe Jesus appears to people supernaturally, there’s no way to disprove it—and that’s the problem.

✔ Does the supernatural explanation raise more questions than it answers?
Yes. Why did only followers see him? Why are their accounts contradictory? Why do similar visions occur in non-Christian religions?

Conclusion: Vision, Not Visitation

It’s not disrespectful to ask whether something really happened. In fact, it’s vital.

The resurrection stories—while moving—fit neatly into a psychological pattern we see throughout human history. People don’t want their leaders to be gone. So their minds fill the silence with presence.

Not because they’re lying.

But because they’re grieving.

📺 For Further Exploration:
Title: Grief Hallucinations
Duration: Approximately 5 minutes
Description: This video delves into the experiences of individuals who have reported sensing the presence of deceased loved ones, discussing the psychological aspects of such phenomena.

You can watch the video here:

This resource should provide valuable insights into the psychological experiences associated with grief and how they might relate to historical accounts of post-resurrection appearances.

Could Jesus Have Survived Crucifixion?

📅 Today is Day 6 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

The Medical and Biological Evidence

One of the most persistent alternative theories to the resurrection is known as the Swoon Theory—the idea that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross, but merely passed out or fell into a coma, later reviving in the tomb and escaping.

At first glance, this might sound like a desperate attempt to explain away a miracle. But let’s pause and ask: Could someone realistically survive a Roman crucifixion?

This question matters deeply. If Jesus didn’t actually die, then the resurrection loses its miraculous power. So let’s examine the evidence from a medical and biological standpoint.

🩻 What Happens to the Body During Crucifixion?

Roman crucifixion was deliberately designed to kill slowly and brutally. The victim was typically scourged first—beaten with a whip embedded with bone or metal shards that ripped skin and muscle. Many victims died from this stage alone due to blood loss and shock.

Crucifixion then induced:

Asphyxiation: The person had to lift themselves by their nailed wrists just to breathe. Eventually, they would become too weak to do so.
Hypovolemic shock: Caused by severe blood loss.
Dehydration and exhaustion.
Exposure: Naked and exposed to the elements, victims lingered for hours or days.

In Jesus’ case, according to the Gospels, he was beaten, scourged, and then crucified. A Roman soldier pierced his side with a spear, and “blood and water” flowed out—often interpreted by modern doctors as pericardial effusion (fluid around the heart), indicating death.

🔬 What Medical Experts Say

Medical professionals, including those with no theological agenda, have analyzed crucifixion in peer-reviewed journals. One oft-cited study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), concluded:

“Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted.”
— JAMA, March 21, 1986, Volume 255, No. 11

No reputable medical authority believes someone could survive what the Gospels describe.

🧠 Applying The God Question’s Core Philosophy

Let’s evaluate the swoon theory using our framework:

1. Is there any empirical evidence Jesus survived?

No. The only sources we have describe severe trauma and a pierced heart—conditions incompatible with survival.

2. Do natural explanations hold up better than supernatural ones?

In this case, no. The naturalistic swoon theory is implausible. But the supernatural claim of resurrection also lacks supporting evidence. What we’re left with is uncertainty—not validation of either extreme.

3. Are alternative explanations ignored or considered?

Most sermons and Christian apologetics dismiss the Swoon Theory as absurd, without addressing it thoughtfully. We seek to take every theory seriously—and let the evidence speak.

4. Are the claims falsifiable?

Not really. The resurrection is treated as an article of faith—immune to disproof. The medical evidence, however, is verifiable and points to death, not survival.

🧭 Final Thought

Could Jesus have survived crucifixion?

The overwhelming answer from medical science is no. The trauma described in the Gospels would have killed any human being. This puts pressure back on resurrection believers: if Jesus truly was dead, where is the independent, verifiable evidence that he came back to life?

The God Question doesn’t deny possibilities—it demands proof.

🎥 For Further Exploration

YouTube Video: Exclusive: Passion of Christ – A Medical Analysis of the Crucifixion – Documentary
Presenter: Dr. Mark Eastman
Description: In this lecture, Dr. Eastman provides a detailed medical analysis of the physical effects of crucifixion, offering insights into the suffering endured during the process.

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.

The Resurrection Accounts Don’t Agree—And That’s a Problem

📅 Today is Day 5 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

🧠 Today’s Big Question

If the resurrection really happened as the defining moment of Christianity, why do the four Gospel accounts contradict each other at nearly every major detail?

Wouldn’t something this miraculous—something this pivotal—warrant a consistent, unified report?

📜 A Quick Glance at the Conflicting Accounts

Let’s break down just a few of the major discrepancies in the Gospel resurrection stories (found in Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20–21):

Element	Matthew	Mark	Luke	John
Who went to the tomb?	Mary Magdalene & “the other Mary”	Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, & Salome	A group of women, unnamed at first	Mary Magdalene (alone), then others
Was the stone already rolled away?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Who was at the tomb?	One angel	One young man	Two men in dazzling clothes	Two angels inside tomb
Where were the angels/men?	Sitting on the stone	Sitting inside	Standing inside	Sitting inside
What was said to the women?	“He has risen… go tell…”	Similar message	Similar message	Angels say little; Jesus speaks
Did the women tell the disciples?	Yes	No—they said nothing (original ending)	Yes	Yes
Who saw Jesus first?	Women (Mary Magdalene, etc.)	Not shown in earliest version	Two disciples on the road to Emmaus	Mary Magdalene alone
Where did Jesus appear?	Galilee	Galilee (as predicted)	Jerusalem	Jerusalem

And these are just a few of the inconsistencies. When you compare the full narratives, it becomes clear: these are not four people describing the same event. These are four theological retellings—written decades apart—for different audiences, with different agendas.

🔍 Applying The God Question’s Core Philosophy

Let’s examine the resurrection accounts using our critical thinking lens:

1. Do the accounts rely on evidence or belief?

All the Gospels rely on hearsay and secondhand testimony. There is no contemporary, verifiable documentation of these events—just writings decades later by authors who were promoting a specific theological message.

2. Are alternative explanations addressed?

No. The Gospel writers do not account for inconsistencies or attempt to harmonize the contradictions. Apologists today often try—but the results require cherry-picking, assumptions, and speculation.

3. Is there independent corroboration?

None. All four Gospels are religious texts written within the same faith community. No non-Christian source from the 1st century documents a resurrection, empty tomb, or angelic appearances.

4. Are the claims falsifiable?

No. These are miracle claims presented as divine truth. Any contradiction is explained away as a “matter of perspective” or “complementary” rather than being taken seriously as a credibility issue.

5. Do the contradictions raise more questions?

Absolutely. If the resurrection were a historical event, why do the supposed eyewitnesses disagree so wildly on who saw what, when, and where? If God wanted us to believe it, wouldn’t he have made sure the story was consistent?

💭 Conclusion

For a faith that hinges entirely on the resurrection, these Gospel contradictions should give any honest seeker pause.

We’re not talking about minor differences in wording—we’re talking about clashing stories that disagree on the key details. And when sacred stories look more like legend development than eyewitness reports, we have every reason to question their truth.

The God Question isn’t afraid to ask the hard questions. Because if we’re going to stake our beliefs—and our lives—on something, it should be grounded in truth, not tradition.