Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[leroy]

↑

So there is a scholarly consensus that the earliest written account of the crucifixion is 2 to 3 decades after the fact. Which was precisely what I posted, and anyone can go back and see the quote and the link.
↑

And I never denied that claim of yours.

Yes you most certainly did. Repeatedly...not just from me either.

But you can’t quote anywhere where I denied such claim right?............. Paul wrote his letters within 25 years or so after the crucifixion and some of the texts are quotes from earlier creeds (including one that is dated within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion) you won’t find any claim made by me that contradicts this claim

 

[leroy]

I j

Sheldon said: ↑
Here are your 5 assertions again:
1 Jesus died on the cross
There is not a high degree of certainty as you claimed, but there is a scholarly consensus it occurred. Given how commonplace the name and the punishment were in this epoch, I would not dispute a claim I find to be trivially true in this context, HAPPY?
2 was buried
I have no problem accepting this claim since pretty much everyone is buried, though again I would dispute we know this to a high degree of certainty in this specific instance as you claimed. HAPPY?
3 the tomb as found empty
I have no idea if this is true, as it is entirely based on second or even third hand hearsay, and I don't believe your claim it is substantiated to a high degree of certainty. Though again I would have no problme accepting it might true, since it would seem a trivial truth. HAPPY?
4 early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection.
I have no idea what anyone did or did not see, and certainly not to a high degree of certainty, as you claimed. I can only speculate on what they believed for much the same reason. However since it has no relevance, I would not rule out they held such a superstitious belief. HAPPY?
5 Paul and James became christian after the crusifixtion
Since there were no Christians prior to the crucifixion this seems trivially true, but again I would dispute there is a high degree of certainty, merely that there is some anecdotal evidence they claimed to be Christians HAPPY?

OK assuming you grant those 5 facts (which apparently you are willing to at least for the sake of the conversation) how would you explain them ? what naturalistic explanation do you offer and why is it best than the resurrection?

 

[leroy]

@Sheldon

READ SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY...AND PLEASE READ IT ALL.

evidence
noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

That is how evidence is defined, it does not mean that I will find whatever you present as evidence, sufficient for or compelling enough, to believe your conclusion. You seem to struggle with the difference, so lets try an analogy:

My feet are objectively shown to be wet. (This is the evidence) (see definition above)

I claim I must certainly be in the bath (This is the claim)

Now think carefully, is that evidence sufficient to support the claim, and do take your time? Now you are talking about an unknown author from 2 millennia ago, allegedly claiming that someone else told him, that someone had wet feet, and leaping to a supernatural conclusion as the best explanation, lets say his feet were made wet by a miracle.

Now I can't say the evidence supports the claim, I can say the claim is at least more probable than the miracle, for the reasons already stated.

More boring and tedious stuff, you are not providing a metric that would allow us to determine what evidence is and what is not evidence.

From your definition and example its impossible to tell if something would count as evidence or not. ……………. Realistically speaking what would you accept as evidence for the resurrection?.

 

[leroy]

Sheldon said: ↑
We know natural phenomena are possible as an objective fact, we haven't any objective evidence that anything supernatural is possible, hence to claim (as you did) that the best explanation to an empty tomb, is a supernatural resurrection, is incorrect, since we know natural explanations could exist, and we know they are at least possible.

@Sheldon

Again it seems that you are saying that natural explanations (or things that are known to be possible) always “win” against supernatural explanations (or explanations that haven’t been proved to be possible)………….

But then you are accusing me, because supposedly that is a straw man understanding of your view….

I honestly and sincerely don’t understand what you are saying, and your unwillingness to provide clear answers simply suggests that keeping your view ambiguous is part of your “debate tactics”

 

[Sheldon]

Disbelievers are Atheists.

No, atheists do not believe in any deity or deities. You are using a generic term, whereas atheism is a very specific term.

Atheists have nothing to do with Beliefs.

That depends on the belief, all humans must form beliefs of reality, else we could not function. Atheists simply lack one specific belief.

 

[Sheldon]

I can believe theists and not believe atheists.

That is again errant nonsense, if a theist says they believe the earth is flat and an an atheist says it is rotund, are you seriously going to believe the former. You are wording your posts poorly.

But atheists can only disbelieve.

Again I believe this claim to be preposterous.

 

[Sheldon]

Well it proves that Jesus died before any resurrection claims where made

Well of course I don't believe in superstitious resurrections, but I'm pretty sure dying first, would be de rigueur.

this disproves any hypothesis that states that Jesus never died in tje first place and fulled everbody pretending he resurrected.

Again it's hard to see how not dying is evidence of a resurrection? Also would you please spellcheck your posts, as they're getting harder and harder to decipher, unless fulled (sic) is a word I'm unfamiliar with?

Well if Jesus wasn't burried an emty tomb would have not been surprising

Anymore than the unevidenced hearsay someone was buried, makes the subjective hearsay a tomb later turned out to be empty, that surpassing. Unevidenced claims are easy to make.

 

[Sheldon]

Most biblical scholars accept these 5 facts.

No they don't.

The empty tomb is accepted by 75% of scholars that the rest is accepted by virtually all scholars.

No it isn't.

we have multiple independent early sources confirming the empty tomb

There are no independent or early sources to corroborate this, it is unevidenced second or third hand hearsay, related by unknown authors, and decades after the fact. This is hilarious nonsense, you really need to do some cursory research.

unless you want to claim that a big massive conspiracy where the authors of the gospels and Paul had a secret meeting where they decided to create the story,

Paul never met or knew Jesus, he wrote decades later, based on at best second hand hearsay.

the empty tomb is likely to be a historical fact………

No it most certainly is not, you are embarrassing yourself.

the empty tomb was common knowledge,

Wow, you just dived off the embarrassing board into the embarrassing pool, and sunk without trace into the embarrassing deep end.

if the tomb would have been occupied then it would have been very easy for romans and Jews to expose the body and destroy resurrection claims.

Given no one made any claims until decades after the fact, that would have been impressive.

But I am open to any alternative explanation

No you're not, that is abundantly clear and has been for some time, you are as closed minded as any theist I've ever encountered, no mean feat.

Yes it´s empirical evidence, you can test empirically if the sources are early and independent for example

There are no independent sources, and the earliest account is (Paul) is decades after the fact, and based on at best second hand hearsay.

More likely than not, the empty tomb was common knowledge

Again you're embarrassing yourself, no credible historian claims this kind of ludicrous hyperbole.

the authors of the NT had firsthand knowledge

No they didn't, the earliest account according to a scholarly consensus is decades after the fact, from the writings of Paul, who never met Jesus, and the gospel authors are not even known, so again you are embarrassing yourself.

This is laughably hyperbole.

 

[Sheldon]

This is boring repetitive and tedious,

I can be held responsible for your tedious and boring duplicity here.

I am not talking about your definition of hearsay,

I don't have a definition, I accept the one derived from common usage.

I am talking about the other definition provided and accepted by Valjean and KWED

It's the same, it's in the dictionary, learn to read.

 

[Sheldon]

Well my alleged strawman was a honest mistake, why didn’t you correct my mistake by explaining what your actual claims are?,

Not much of an apology, and if you want me to clarify something you will need to give me some clue what precisely that is? Am I supposed to guess?

 

[Sheldon]

I am asking a yes or no question.

As am I, are you still beating your wife?

This was your rule remember, I can quote it if you want. I explained again and again what a false dichotomy fallacy is, but you insisted you wanted just yes or no answers, so lets have one then please. Are you still beating your wife? Or are you going to have the integrity to admit that a yes no answer is not always apropos?

 

[Sheldon]

More boring and tedious stuff, you are not providing a metric that would allow us to determine what evidence is and what is not evidence.

From your definition and example its impossible to tell if something would count as evidence or not. ……………. Realistically speaking what would you accept as evidence for the resurrection?.

READ SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY...AND PLEASE READ IT ALL.

evidence
noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

That is how evidence is defined, it does not mean that I will find whatever you present as evidence, sufficient for or compelling enough, to believe your conclusion. You seem to struggle with the difference, so lets try an analogy:

My feet are objectively shown to be wet. (This is the evidence) (see definition above)

I claim I must certainly be in the bath (This is the claim)

Now think carefully, is that evidence sufficient to support the claim, and do take your time? Now you are talking about an unknown author from 2 millennia ago, allegedly claiming that someone else told him, that someone had wet feet, and leaping to a supernatural conclusion as the best explanation, lets say his feet were made wet by a miracle.

Now I can't say the evidence supports the claim, I can say the claim is at least more probable than the miracle, for the reasons already stated.

 

[leroy]

Well of course I don't believe in superstitious resurrections, but I'm pretty sure dying first, would be de rigueur.



Again it's hard to see how not dying is evidence of a resurrection? Also would you please spellcheck your posts, as they're getting harder and harder to decipher, unless fulled (sic) is a word I'm unfamiliar with?



Anymore than the unevidenced hearsay someone was buried, makes the subjective hearsay a tomb later turned out to be empty, that surpassing. Unevidenced claims are easy to make.

Again you have to show that the claims are hearsay. Evidence for the contrary has been provided and ignored by you (therefore tacitly accepting such evidence)

 

[Sheldon]

@Sheldon

Again it seems that you are saying that natural explanations (or things that are known to be possible) always “win” against supernatural explanations (or explanations that haven’t been proved to be possible)………….

No, this is what I said:
We know natural phenomena are possible as an objective fact, we haven't any objective evidence that anything supernatural is possible, hence to claim (as you did) that the best explanation to an empty tomb, is a supernatural resurrection, is incorrect, since we know natural explanations could exist, and we know they are at least possible.

I honestly and sincerely don’t understand what you are saying, and your unwillingness to provide clear answers simply suggests that keeping your view ambiguous is part of your “debate tactics”

Your inability to grasp arguments that go beyond facile or jejune, are not an indictment of my arguments.

Are you still beating your wife?

Come on, you surely can join the dots here???

 

[leroy]

READ SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY...AND PLEASE READ IT ALL.

evidence
noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

That is how evidence is defined, it does not mean that I will find whatever you present as evidence, sufficient for or compelling enough, to believe your conclusion. You seem to struggle with the difference, so lets try an analogy:

My feet are objectively shown to be wet. (This is the evidence) (see definition above)

I claim I must certainly be in the bath (This is the claim)

Now think carefully, is that evidence sufficient to support the claim, and do take your time? Now you are talking about an unknown author from 2 millennia ago, allegedly claiming that someone else told him, that someone had wet feet, and leaping to a supernatural conclusion as the best explanation, lets say his feet were made wet by a miracle.

Now I can't say the evidence supports the claim, I can say the claim is at least more probable than the miracle, for the reasons already stated.

Really repeating the same mistake for the fourth time?

 

[leroy]

No, this is what I said:
We know natural phenomena are possible as an objective fact, we haven't any objective evidence that anything supernatural is possible, hence to claim (as you did) that the best explanation to an empty tomb, is a supernatural resurrection, is incorrect, since we know natural explanations could exist, and we know they are at least possible.



Your inability to grasp arguments that go beyond facile or jejune, are not an indictment of my arguments.

Are you still beating your wife?

Come on, you surely can join the dots here???

So you are saying that explanations that are known to be possible always win against explanations that have not been shown to be possible?

This is an honest yes or no question .

 

[Sheldon]

Again you have to show that the claims are hearsay.

Already done, not one word was written about Jesus until after he was alleged to have died.

Evidence for the contrary has been provided and ignored by you (therefore tacitly accepting such evidence)

No it hasn't, no I didn't and no I don't. the scholarly consensus is that the earliest writings are dated decades after the crucifixion, and since Paul never met Jesus, and his claims cannot be substantiated, it is hearsay by definition.

 

[Sheldon]

Really repeating the same mistake for the fourth time?

You said you didn't understand. Now there is a mistake, what would that be exactly? Given you have failed to honestly address a single word of it I'm dubious.

READ SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY...AND PLEASE READ IT ALL.

evidence
noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

That is how evidence is defined, it does not mean that I will find whatever you present as evidence, sufficient for or compelling enough, to believe your conclusion. You seem to struggle with the difference, so lets try an analogy:

My feet are objectively shown to be wet. (This is the evidence) (see definition above)

I claim I must certainly be in the bath (This is the claim)

Now think carefully, is that evidence sufficient to support the claim, and do take your time? Now you are talking about an unknown author from 2 millennia ago, allegedly claiming that someone else told him, that someone had wet feet, and leaping to a supernatural conclusion as the best explanation, lets say his feet were made wet by a miracle.

Now I can't say the evidence supports the claim, I can say the claim is at least more probable than the miracle, for the reasons already stated.

 

[Sheldon]

So you are saying that explanations that are known to be possible always win against explanations that have not been shown to be possible?

No, this is what I said:
We know natural phenomena are possible as an objective fact, we haven't any objective evidence that anything supernatural is possible, hence to claim (as you did) that the best explanation to an empty tomb, is a supernatural resurrection, is incorrect, since we know natural explanations could exist, and we know they are at least possible.

This is an honest yes or no question .

Are you still beating your wife?

 

[Sheldon]

So there is a scholarly consensus that the earliest written account of the crucifixion is 2 to 3 decades after the fact. Which was precisely what I posted, and anyone can go back and see the quote and the link.

And I never denied that claim of yours.

Yes you most certainly did. Repeatedly...not just from me either.

But you can’t quote anywhere where I denied such claim right?.............

What scholars (and I ) are saying I that Paul quotes material that can be dated within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion

Do you want more quotes?