Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

But this isn't a dialogue between Christians and Atheists, rather its Atheists joining a "religious forum" to heckle and condescend to believers, not understand the spiritual truth content of religion.

We can have a discussion with honest interlocutors. But currently the Christians in this thread, and in no way does this apply to all Christians, are trying to claim to have a rational belief using irrational arguments.

It is so odd that some theists try so hard to belittle their own faith. Religions are faith based. The more specific a religion is the more that it has to rely on faith. And faith is not a rational belief. That does not make it automatically wrong, but it does show a person that they should not try to enforce their faith upon others. That is when religions often become evil.

 

[Colt]

I do not buy this based on the evidence of my many years on the most prominent forums. Heckle is another gross exaggeration from an aggressive Theist perspective, I consider there is a great deal of heckling from Christians and in professional wrestling.

Again . . . as a Theist I find many of the objections by non-believers such as atheists and agnostics well grounded and reasoned concerning Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

I doubt their sincerity based on my own many years of being on forums with hecklers. But you will be useful to them.

 

[leroy]

I have supported my claims.

Your words were, "Because it is, (at least more parsimonious than the naturalistic rivals)……… I am only adding one element “that miracles are possible” (specifically the miracle of the resurrection.) Naturalistic hypothesis, add much more elements"

The comment reveals a misunderstanding on your part of what parsimony means with regard to hypothesis formation. I've been unable to explain it to you, and it's likely you didn't read any academic treatment of the term. You're misunderstanding element here. You're adding an entirely new aspect of reality to nature and the laws of physics and equating it with elements in nature.

That changes nothing. You'd need to positively identify that body, which would be impossible without Jesus' fingerprints if the corpse still had any or his DNA if there was enough organic matter to sequence a genome. Falsify mean to rebut, which is to make an argument that if correct, makes the claim rebutted incorrect. If your claim is that such a finding demonstrates that the Jesus of the Gospels and this are the same person, then you are wrong. If your claim is that that might be the same guy, then you are correct but haven't falsified the claim that that might not be same guy and that the Jesus of the Gospels might have been resurrected if resurrection is possible.

I don't know what you mean. I have given multiple hypotheses, all but one naturalistic, and ordered them in terms of parsimony. I've told you that myth is at the top and supernaturalism is at the bottom. That's all of the development possible - an ordered list of possibilities that account for scripture and its claims, none of which can be ruled in or out at this time.

His reason to believe is faith, which has him locked into a position refractory to falsifying evidence. It's an intellectual impasse for those who see faith as a virtue and have chosen a falsifiable belief. They cannot be redeemed. That's what locked in means here. It leads to confirmation bias and motivated (tendentious) thinking.

Your understanding of parsimony and falsifiability is so naive to falsify a hypothesis doesnt necesairly implies that you have to prove it wrong with 100%Certainty, all you have to do is show that it is wrong beyond reasonable doubt

And parsimony only deals with the number of added elements

You're adding an entirely new aspect of reality

valid objection, but has nothing to do with parsimony

I don't know what you mean. I have given multiple hypotheses, all but one naturalistic, and ordered them in terms of parsimony. I've told you that myth is at the top and supernaturalism is at the bottom. That's all of the development possible - an ordered list of possibilities that account for scripture and its claims, none of which can be ruled in or out at this time.

But I am not a wizard, I can´t read your mind, I have no idea what you mean by “myth” this is why I keep asking you to develop your hypothesis……….

His reason to believe is faith, which has him locked into a position refractory to falsifying evidence. It's an intellectual impasse for those who see faith as a virtue and have chosen a falsifiable belief. They cannot be redeemed. That's what locked in means here. It leads to confirmation bias and motivated (tendentious) thinking.

The main reason I belive that my wife is not cheating on me is “faith” (I trust her) but this doesn’t mean that I am inmmune to evidence, (sure I could change my mind about my wife if evidence is provided)

This is what WLC means when he says that he believes by faith.

 

[Colt]

We can have a discussion with honest interlocutors. But currently the Christians in this thread, and in no way does this apply to all Christians, are trying to claim to have a rational belief using irrational arguments.

It is so odd that some theists try so hard to belittle their own faith. Religions are faith based. The more specific a religion is the more that it has to rely on faith. And faith is not a rational belief. That does not make it automatically wrong, but it does show a person that they should not try to enforce their faith upon others. That is when religions often become evil.

You try to enforce your faith in a godless universe on others often on this forum, so I doubt your sincerity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You try to enforce your faith in a godless universe on others often on this forum, so I doubt your sincerity.

Really? How do I do that? You only appear to have false accusations about others that you can never support when challenged. Perhaps it is your sincerity that is more than questionable. I do not doubt that you believe what you claim to believe, but you can never seem to justify those beliefs.

EDIT: And what "faith"? When you make such accusations you need to be able to support them properly. Atheism need not be faith based. You are probably still getting the concept of atheism wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are like a child.

You said “there is no evidence for the supernatural”

I asked “ok what do you mean by evidence and supernatural? “

Your reply: no no no I will not define thise terms because it is your homework

Grow up and act like an adult,

I know that I gave you a definition, and yet you denied it. I have my doubts about your claim that he did not give you a definition. He may have and reasonably refuses to do so again.

But even if what you claim is true he does have a point. To be debating such matters you should understand the meaning of the terms that you use.

 

[Colt]

Really? How do I do that? You only appear to have false accusations about others that you can never support when challenged. Perhaps it is your sincerity that is more than questionable. I do not doubt that you believe what you claim to believe, but you can never seem to justify those beliefs.

EDIT: And what "faith"? When you make such accusations you need to be able to support them properly. Atheism need not be faith based. You are probably still getting the concept of atheism wrong.

like this------>"And faith is not a rational belief." Billions of rational people have faith, so the accusation has been proven which leaves you to come up with some bs to wiggle your way out of it.

 

[leroy]

It is infinitly more likely then "the laws of nature were suspended / violated"

Other explanations that are infinitely more likely:

- it's just a story
- people made mistakes
- people lied

We have real-world contemporary example for each and every one of these.
We have ZEROR real-world examples of the laws of nature being suspended / violated.

IN FACT.....

When we call a certain occurance or event "impossible", what we actually mean is that said occurance or event would require exactly that: laws of nature being suspended / violated.



So what you are really arguing for here... is that an explanation branded as "IMPOSSIBLE" is more likely then COMMON daily things like people making mistakes, lying, hallucinating, exaggerating,........................

So you branded events that contradict your personal philosophical view as “impossible” ………….. then you win

You are brilliant

 

[leroy]

I know that I gave you a definition, and yet you denied it. I have my doubts about your claim that he did not give you a definition. He may have and reasonably refuses to do so again.

But even if what you claim is true he does have a point. To be debating such matters you should understand the meaning of the terms that you use.

I understand the meaning of those terms, but you didn’t like my definition of “evidence”……………. That is why I keeps asking you to provide a definition that you accept………….. and you refuse to do it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

like this------>"And faith is not a rational belief." Billions of rational people have faith, so the accusation has been proven which leaves you to come up with some bs to wiggle your way out of it.

So what? Yes, billions of people have faith. That does not make it rational. Your arguments are quite odd at times.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So you branded events that contradict your personal philosophical view as “impossible” ………….. then you win

You are brilliant

... in comparison.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you branded events that contradict your personal philosophical view as “impossible” ………….. then you win

You are brilliant

Why not admit that you just could not follow the argument? Distortion is not a refutation.

 

[leroy]

Another ad hominem which is only "required" because actual evidence and proper arguments are lacking.

That is why I am asking you to define “evidence” but you refuse to do it.

How can anyone present evidence to you, for the resurrection (or the supernatural) if you don’t explain what you mean and what would you accept as evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand the meaning of those terms, but you didn’t like my definition of “evidence”……………. That is why I keeps asking you to provide a definition that you accept………….. and you refuse to do it.

Yes, because your definition makes "evidence" of no value. When you have to demote an idea to the point of worthlessness you demonstrate that your claims have no merit.

As to me giving you the definition again, there was price involved since you ignored it the first time. You were not willing to pay that "price" even though it was merely an admission that was obvious to everyone else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is why I am asking you to define “evidence” but you refuse to do it.

How can anyone present evidence to you, for the resurrection (or the supernatural) if you don’t explain what you mean and what would you accept as evidence?

You should be able to learn from your mistakes. You expect everyone else to do all of your homework for you and then you reject the answers given by that. That is why more and more people are trying to force to you reason logically. There is no point in giving answers to a person that will only reject those answers without any rational thought.

 

[Colt]

Why not admit that you just could not follow the argument? Distortion is not a refutation.

Because your argument is bogus, plenty of rational people have faith. Philibuster is not fact.

 

[leroy]

Yes, because your definition makes "evidence" of no value.

I defined evidence as anything that moves the wager in favor of a claim, view or position.

Under what basis do you claim that the definition has no value?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because your argument is bogus, plenty of rational people have faith. Philibuster is not fact.

People are never rational in all aspects of life. Faith is by definition not rational. When we have evidence for beliefs, which is what it takes for rational thought, one does not use faith. But the more "faith" that one relies on the less rational that a person is.

 

[leroy]

You should be able to learn from your mistakes. You expect everyone else to do all of your homework for you and then you reject the answers given by that. That is why more and more people are trying to force to you reason logically. There is no point in giving answers to a person that will only reject those answers without any rational thought.

that will only reject those answers without any rational thought.

But you can quote single comment where I did that----------- can you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I defined evidence as anything that moves the wager in favor of a claim, view or position.

Under what basis do you claim that the definition has no value?

And that is so vague as to be worthless. There are standards for evidence. Your "evidence" could be used to convince people that buffaloes fly.