Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[leroy]

Then you defeat yourself again because you have no ability at all to rationally claim that a magical God is anywhere near "realistically possible". You keep shooting yourself in the foot.

Again a 50% possibility is the default position.

50% is within what one would call “realistically possible”

 

[leroy]

Really? you don't understand the concept of dependence and independence? Talk about playing semantic games!

Yes I don’t understand that concept, but I wonder if you understand it too.

Paul and John are not independent sources from the rest of the New Testament because Christians created them,

Yes Paul and John where written by Christians SO WHAT?

Independent doesn’t mean “from different religions”

and other then conserved, preserved,

So what, independent doesn’t mean “not preserved” nor converved

edited,

Unless you what to affirm that Paul and John where edited so that they both claim the same things (when originally they didn’t)

Otherwise independent doesn’t mean not edited

collected and canonized those writings along with others that they found consistent with the story they wished the texts to tell...at the same time, they selected some other texts to not conserve, preserve, edit, and collect. Those were also in the Christian tradition at the time, and cannot be considered completely independent.

Yes yes, but non of that changes the fact that the original documents are independent

“they didn’t copied form each other, nor from a common source)

 

[leroy]

No, it means that due to your bad behavior you no longer get to make such demands.

If you do not like it change your behavior. It is really not that hard to debate honestly.

Ok, in English that would be “ignore mode” …….. nor “corrections mode”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again a 50% possibility is the default position.

50% is within what one would call “realistically possible”

No, that is a case of "citation needed". I have never ever seen that anyone can make a ridiculously unsupported claim and state that the odds are 50% because there are two possibilities. That is why I used the lottery example. I could have won, I could have lost. Two possibilities.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, in English that would be “ignore mode” …….. nor “corrections mode”

No, ignore mode is what others tend to put you on because they tired of your behavior. I have hope that you can learn how to debate properly. But I have limits to so sometimes when you make a very foolish mistake I will correct you ,but you still are unable to demand evidence until you debate properly.

 

[leroy]

No, that is a case of "citation needed". I have never ever seen that anyone can make a ridiculously unsupported claim and state that the odds are 50% because there are two possibilities. That is why I used the lottery example. I could have won, I could have lost. Two possibilities.

50% is the default answer, if you have 2 options and you know nothing about any of these alternatives, then you have no other option than assigning a 50% chance to each.

That is why I used the lottery example. I could have won, I could have lost. Two possibilities.

And your lottery example has been refuted , why don’t you deal with my refutation instead of repeating the same argument for the 4th time?



We have good reasons to think that you have less than 50% chance of winning the lottery, because usually lotteries have many tickets and few winners.

If you have good reasons to reject the existence of God, (as we do with the lottery) the you can move the wager to less than 50%

 

[leroy]

No, ignore mode is what others tend to put you on because they tired of your behavior. I have hope that you can learn how to debate properly. But I have limits to so sometimes when you make a very foolish mistake I will correct you ,but you still are unable to demand evidence until you debate properly.

Again in English to correct someone means to show that he is wrong.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

all I am saying is that Liconas argument (from the op) is good enough to justify the resurrection as a probable event, unless you affirm that the existence of god is impossible (or very unlikely)

Why are you making this point? It's irrelevant to me. I've already told you what *I* believe and why I consider the biblical resurrection story myth. For example, I've told you that I consider the Abrahamic god nonexistent and gave you my reasons.

Also, what are being called bedrock facts are not facts. The first - Jusus died by crucifixion at the hands of Pilate is also irrelevant as long as he was dead. It's also irrelevant that Paul claimed to see Jesus after Jesus' death even if true.

Also, "Very soon after his death, his disciples reported having experiences which they interpreted as the risen Jesus appearing to them, both individually and in groups" is rejected.

Also, resurrection of a three-days decomposed cadaver is probably impossible. It would violate the laws of physics, and we have no evidence that that is possible or ever occurs. And supernatural gods may be nonexistent and even impossible.

Yet you're making this argument that if we accept that the claims called bedrock facts are true and gods not impossible, that you've made a good argument for resurrection. Two things:

[1] No, it's not a good argument for resurrection even if we grant what you've written here. Earlier, you asked me to accept that this god was 50% likely, and I said that that would make resurrection more likely. Now you are saying not impossible or very unlikely, so now, using that, my conclusion is different.
[2] and even if it were, once again, so what? Why are you telling me that if one has different bedrock beliefs than I do he'll come to different conclusions?

I think there is evidence for a god………… but even without any evidence it doest follow that the existence of god is less probable than 50%. 50% is the default answer, if you have 2 options and you know nothing about any of these alternatives, then you have no other option than assigning a 50% chance to each.

Disagree. You're making a positive claim that something is equally likely to be true as untrue if it's unknown which it is. Both parents carry the same recessive gene. We don't know if the fetus has the trait yet. The chances are not 50/50 that it does.

a 50% possibility is the default position. There is no evidence for intelligent life in other planets, but from that fact it doesn’t follow that there is no intelligent life in other planets, nor that the probability is less than 50%, nor that that “no aliens” should be the default position.

You argue that others cannot make estimates of a low likeliness, yet you would set the default position at 50% with the same information.

If you want to move the wager in favor of “atheism” you need an argument that justifies such a movement in the wager

One need only rejects god claims for lack of sufficient supporting evidence to justify belief. No further argument is necessary.

You would need evidence to reject the market will go UP claim in the same way you need evidnece to reject the “there is a god” claim

One never needs evidence to reject an insufficiently supported claim. Never.

Define “independent source” and explain why aren’t Paul and John for example independent sources?

You've already seen these answers. You call John and Paul independent because they are separate people. That's not enough. So are any pair of witnesses.

I need you to start addressing my objections. I've made them a few times each, and you ignore them while repeating an already rejected argument. You can start with this post. Please address every claim made in it. Really, Leroy. That's the deal. Look at the five or six answers in THIS POST and address them all. Tell me why you consider them incorrect or irrelevant, or don't bother answering. I really don't want to hear what you believe instead again.

 

[ppp]

50% is the default answer, if you have 2 options and you know nothing about any of these alternatives, then you have no other option than assigning a 50% chance to each.

Alternative 1: 50% Alternative 2: 50%

Alternative 1: 33⅓%, Alternative 2: 33⅓%, Unknown: 33⅓%,

Alternative 1: 25% Alternative 2: 25%, Unknown Material: 25%, Unknown Spiritual: 25%,

Alternative 1: 20% Alternative 2: 20%, Unknown Material: 20%, Unknown Spiritual: 20%, Unknown Conceptual: 20%, Unknown Numina: 20%,

Alternative 1: 7.5%, Alternative 2: 7.5%, Unknown Material: 7.5%, Unknown Spiritual: 7.5%, Unknown Conceptual: 7.5%, Unknown Numina: 7.5%, Unknown Ether: 7.5%, Unknown Ogdoad: 7.5%, Unknown Chaos: 7.5%, Unknown Elemia: 7.5%, Unknown Eezo: 7.5%, Unknown Chioma: 7.5%

 

[leroy]

Also, "Very soon after his death, his disciples reported having experiences which they interpreted as the risen Jesus appearing to them, both individually and in groups" is rejected.

Ok, so what is wrong with the arguments provided by Licona in suppor of that point?

Also, resurrection of a three-days decomposed cadaver is probably impossible. It would violate the laws of physics, and we have no evidence that that is possible or ever occurs. And supernatural gods may be nonexistent and even impossible.

Violating the laws of physics would only be a problem if you show that the existence of a god is impossible or very unlikely.

One need only rejects god claims for lack of sufficient supporting evidence to justify belief. No further argument is necessary.

I can do the same with naturalism.

“there is no sufficient evidence for naturalism , therefore naturalism is rejected by default…………..therefore “supernaturalism” wins.

I am using the same type of “logic” than you,

There is no sufficient evidence for a god, therefore no-god is the default possition………..therefore no-god wins.

Honestly don’t you see any flaws with this logic?

 

[Left Coast]

The churches his epistles were circulated to were of the Christian tradition. Still not independent of Christianity, and therefore not independent evidence of a resurrection. It shows that his stories were consistent with the developing narrative, and therefore were retained amongst the other texts included in the New Testament.

I don't mean that the documents are evidence of the resurrection. They're evidence, though, that Paul had some sort of experience he interpreted in a certain way. The other options are a) that Paul lied about having the experience, or that b) those passages in Paul's letters were fabricated whole cloth. We have little reason to believe Paul would lie about such a thing: people have strange, seemingly supernatural experiences; this is just another one. He also didn't gain anything by his lie, if it was one. If anything, it made his life worse by his own report. We have no evidence the passages were fabricated, either: Galatians is usually regarded as the earliest epistle, and Paul tells us his information about Jesus came from revelation right in Galatians 1, and that is present in the earliest manuscripts of the text we have. It's also consistent with a repeated theme in Paul's letters: that Paul's authority as an apostle comes not from any earthly source (e.g. having been an eyewitness or early disciple of Jesus while he was alive) but from God/Jesus directly, via revelation. If early Christians were to fabricate Paul's story, we'd expect a more convincing narrative (one, in fact, that we get in the more embellished and contradictory version of Paul's conversion in Acts, written by someone else).

 

[Subduction Zone]

50% is the default answer, if you have 2 options and you know nothing about any of these alternatives, then you have no other option than assigning a 50% chance to each.



And your lottery example has been refuted , why don’t you deal with my refutation instead of repeating the same argument for the 4th time?



We have good reasons to think that you have less than 50% chance of winning the lottery, because usually lotteries have many tickets and few winners.

If you have good reasons to reject the existence of God, (as we do with the lottery) the you can move the wager to less than 50%

No, you do not get to claim that. Yo udo not know how probabilities work. There is no "default answer". Until you find a valid source that support that ridiculous claim my lottery argument beats your nonsense.

By the way, we have even better reason to think that your odds are worse than those of the lottery. We can confirm countless lottery winners. We cannot confirm that anyone has ever seen or experienced God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again in English to correct someone means to show that he is wrong.

Exactly. Thank you for confirming what I do when I put you on corrections only. It is not my fault if you refuse to understand the corrections . That is on you.

 

[Brian2]

I won't do that. Theories OK if they can stand scrutiny to that level, but not belief.

Would you call your Hinduism a theory that has stood scrutiny or a belief that you live by without knowing for sure?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Well, either way on what grounds can you say that it's unlikely that God wished to raise Jesus from the dead?

If Jesus’s death is what saves us, it makes no sense to resuscitate him.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Would you call your Hinduism a theory that has stood scrutiny or a belief that you live by without knowing for sure?

Hinduism is a kaleidoscope of beliefs. Not all of them will stand scrutiny. But what I believe - atheistic non-duality (Advaita), can stand all scrutiny.

 

[Brian2]

If Jesus’s death is what saves us, it makes no sense to resuscitate him.

Huh?

 

[Brian2]

Hinduism is a kaleidoscope of beliefs. Not all of them will stand scrutiny. But what I believe - atheistic non-duality (Advaita), can stand all scrutiny.

Surely what you mean is "But what I theorise to be true - atheistic non duality (Advaita), can stand all scrutiny".

 

[Aupmanyav]

Surely what you mean is "But what I theorise to be true - atheistic non duality (Advaita), can stand all scrutiny".

It can stand all scientific scrutiny. Of course, neither science nor religion can answer the question 'Why there is anything (or God) at all?'

"Similarly, it's legitimate to ask why non-existence or "nothingness" is impossible, even if that is the case." Why there is anything at all - Wikipedia

 

[paarsurrey]

We know that people don't rise from the dead on their own, true, but here we are talking about God raising someone from the dead. This isn't going against how the world works as its not the laws of nature that are raising the dead but an act of God. On what basis would you assign a low plausibility to God choosing to raise Jesus from the dead a priori?

Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah rising from the physical dead is against Sign of Jonah, I must say, as I understand?
Right?

Regards