But your whole argument rests on the supernatural operating in reality, so the reality of the supernatural is a threshold issue. I accept that faith may be untroubled by such questions, but ─ please correct me if I'm mistaken ─ you're saying the resurrection was an historical event, an objective fact.
And I'm saying, show me the reality of the supernatural then.
Your whole argument rests on what you and others don't believe.
Should I stop knowing or believing what I do, on the basis of what you don't believe?
I'm saying to you, show me that what you don't believe is not reality.
Show me that what you claim, is reality.
I am showing you that A) based on what persons claimed to be true - that they witnesses an extraordinary event; B) based on the fact that I do not,
like you, tell myself, on a basis of 1) ignorance - since you clearly do not know, one way or other, 2) bias - since you seem to be in favor of one system of belief, or worldview, but against the Bible, and its adherents, 3) unreasonableness - since you seem unwilling to consider the already presented evidence, but insist on evidence you expect to get, as though the evidence must be centered around you, and what you want.
C) based on the fact that the Bible has proven itself to be reliable, trustworthy, and divinely inspired, D) based on the fact that I see evidence for God all around us, and do not doubt miracles, E) based on the fact that evidence for the resurrection does not take the form the irrational expect... and I could go on...
Based on these, and more, I have a picture of reality, that you do not want to see, and will never see, as long as you hold to the position that reality is only what you believe it to be.
Seems like we are in two different worlds, doesn't it... reality looks quite different where we are.
So let me illustrate to you, where we are at this point, so that you understand why you would need to answer my question, and stop demanding that you get to ask the questions, and demand answers, while not answering questions put to you.
This is just an illustration.
If a man fell off a 60 foot cliff, and felt something holding him in such a way that he did not hurt himself.
This is just one of his many experiences of things that seem extraordinary, and unusual.
Would you tell the man, that he was only imagining?
Would you tell him that what he experienced is only in his imagination, and that unless science can explain it, it is not real?
Would you recommend that scientist throw him off the cliff again, to test whether he experienced what he claimed he did, or not, and to test for some possible natural explanation? Maybe a whirlwind passed at the same time the men fell?
Would you say, that unless a scientist can determine what happened, or the cause, then it is just imagination, and an unreality?
This is what I understand your argument to be, so what you would need to do, is show that such an idea is true.
In reality, it is not. So it would be impossible to have a reasonable conversation with someone holding such an unreasonable position, and demanding an answer that would satisfy that unreasonable stance.
Every response from such a person, would be unreasonable, and no answer satisfactory.
I would say,
if you can prove that it is imaginary, then that is reasonable, because there could be an explanation other than what the man thought - hence imagined.
However, to claim that it is only imagined, without having any proof, is, to my mind, unreasonable.
It's like saying, whatever I believe, is true.
This is where you are right now.
Where I am, is only presenting the evidence. How you interpret that evidence is up to you.
I know what it tells me, and you are not in a position to tell me what I know.
Is any of this making sense to you?
