Uploaded February 2023 | Updated September 2026, 6 days ago
Can we be justified in believing that God is "behind" some event when we're not even sure that it was a miracle? What would that mean? Why are obvious miracles important epistemologically?
Here is the testimony of Andrew Klavan that I refer to in the video:
youtu.be/KgT43ppxpzY
Thumbnail is a picture of baseball player Gary Carter from Wikipedia.
Can we be justified in believing that God is "behind" some event when we're not even sure that it was a miracle? What would that mean? Why are obvious miracles important epistemologically?
Here is the testimony of Andrew Klavan that I refer to in the video:
youtu.be/KgT43ppxpzY
Thumbnail is a picture of baseball player Gary Carter from Wikipedia.










![Unstated Gospel symbolism: Its too easy!
What do I mean by saying that its too easy to come up with theories of unstated symbolism in the details of the Gospels? And why does the fact that its too easy create a problem for those theories?
A song from an operetta by Gilbert and Sullivan says, If everybodys somebody, then no ones anybody.
If youre willing to go far enough to come up with an unstated symbolism theory for the details of the Gospels (such as the view that John is symbolizing some particular theological idea by dyschronologically moving the Temple cleansing), then there is virtually no limit to the additional theories you can come up with. The choice among them is arbitrary. And thats a Gilbert and Sullivan problem.
Thumbnail by Studio Ellis & Walery:[1] Alfred Ellis (1854-1930)[2] & Walery (Stanislas Julian, Count Ostrorog, either senior (1830 - 1890) or junior (1863 - 1935).)[3] - Scanned from the 1914 edition of François Cellier & Cunningham Bridgemans Gilbert and Sullivan and Their Operas., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3987877 Unstated Gospel symbolism: Its too easy!](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/QuOwEA8I1Bs/mqdefault.jpg)