Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

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

Sorry, there is no need for me to use the way back machine. When it happens you have been quoted. You know that this demand of yours is just you admitting that you are wrong again. You need to deal with refutations when they first appear.

 

[leroy]

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.

Faith is by definition not rational.

Really and what is your definition of faith?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really and what is your definition of faith?

Faith based beliefs are those that are not supported by evidence.

 

[Colt]

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.

That's just your opinion as one who has no faith.

"Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. It is much easier for men to agree on religious values—goals—than on beliefs—interpretations. And this explains how religion can agree on values and goals while exhibiting the confusing phenomenon of maintaining a belief in hundreds of conflicting beliefs—creeds. This also explains why a given person can maintain his religious experience in the face of giving up or changing many of his religious beliefs. Religion persists in spite of revolutionary changes in religious beliefs. Theology does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy.

103:1.5 (1130.4) That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience. Religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology, the philosophy of religion, is an honest attempt to interpret that experience. Such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error.

103:1.6 (1130.5) The realization of the recognition of spiritual values is an experience which is superideational. There is no word in any human language which can be employed to designate this “sense,” “feeling,” “intuition,” or “experience” which we have elected to call God-consciousness. The spirit of God that dwells in man is not personal—the Adjuster is prepersonal—but this Monitor presents a value, exudes a flavor of divinity, which is personal in the highest and infinite sense. If God were not at least personal, he could not be conscious, and if not conscious, then would he be infrahuman." UB 1955

If you are ever able to get over yourself and be receptive to the gift of faith then religion would make much more sense to you.

 

[Colt]

Faith based beliefs are those that are not supported by evidence.

The evidence for faith to the one who has it is subjective religious experience. That cant be proven to you in a scientific way but if you ever experience it then you would understand.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I would much rather you give an example of a naturalistic theory you think is most plausible and we go from there as the book is 600 pages with the treatment of naturalistic hypotheses being about a 100 so it would be unrealistic for you to expect me to summarise all of that down in a single post.

Given my fascination with anatomy and physiology since childhood, I love reading ancient medical stories. Most gospels don’t give enough details, but John, arguably the most incorrect version, at least adds that Jesus was stabbed in the side and water came out with the blood, IIRC. “Side” doesn’t tell me much because it definitely depends on where he was actually stabbed, but the story sounds like Jesus had fluid in his chest or abdomen and stabbing him relieved the pressure, allowing him to recover in, oh, a few days. Had Jesus been buried like we normally consider burial, we would have never had the conversation. The fact that he is put in a tomb makes it more believable that he just simply recovered.

 

[leroy]

And that is so vague as to be worthless.

why is it vague?

There are standards for evidence.

Sure, if you move the wager a – lot that would be strong evidence, if you move the wager a tiny bit, that would be weak evidence.

Your "evidence" could be used to convince people that buffaloes fly.

How?

 

[leroy]

Faith based beliefs are those that are not supported by evidence.

Ok, in that case, I don’t have faith in God, or in the resurrection. (using your definition)

Obviously you are making your own definition; this is not what Christians mean when they use the term faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

why is it vague?

Everything about it. There are no real standards applied. Do you know the standards for legal evidence? Do you know the standards for scientific evidence? Each has clear well defined standards. For legal evidence hearsay is not evidence. For your definition it would be. For scientific evidence it is almost always based on objective evidence. Yours is definitely not based upon that.

Here is something that you do not seem to understand. The ore stringent the demands are to qualify as "evidence" the more convincing that evidence will be. Your "evidence" has extremely lax standards so it should not convince anyone. In other words you have made it worthless.

Sure, if you move the wager a – lot that would be strong evidence, if you move the wager a tiny bit, that would be weak evidence.

What are you nattering about now? No one has "moved" anything. What are you trying to claim here?

How?

Buffaloes have wings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, in that case, I don’t have faith in God, or in the resurrection. (using your definition)

Really? You would need to support that. Right now it appears that faith is all that you have. When you have to use failed arguments that tells us that all you have is faith.

Obviously you are making your own definition; this is not what Christians mean when they use the term faith.

Are you sure? From what I have observed it is because they can never demonstrate a rational basis for their faith.

By the way, faith is not totally a bad reason to believe something. It is amazing that you have to denigrate your own religion by denying that you have faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence for faith to the one who has it is subjective religious experience. That cant be proven to you in a scientific way but if you ever experience it then you would understand.

And subjective experience is not evidence. It is not rational, though you might think that it is.

Here is a simple question: How would you properly test your faith? No circular arguments, no confirmation bias, you need a proper test. I doubt if you can come up with one.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Grow up and act like an adult,

So, for example, the above serves as reasonably good evidence of a personal attack.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Moving on, to say Jesus appeared to them within ordinary vision in his bodily raised corpse is to say that it wasn't a vision of any sort but that Jesus actually materialized in his body

That the Bible says that people didn’t recognize him, that seems like someone cosplayed as Jesus after the crucifixion and hoped no one would notice.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If naturalism is true it's unlikely that a miracle is an explanation but if supernaturalism is true the miracle as an explanation becomes far more likely. We need to look at the data and bracket our worldviews or we'll be driven by our horizons rather than the evidence.

Personally I feel that if magic is true then there are people more deserving of its value.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I know that there is endless evidence for hallucinations.

I have seen my late fur babies. I know they are hallucinations. Even though my mental health has been deteriorating, I know that what I have been seeing lately isn’t real.

 

[leroy]

Everything about it. There are no real standards applied. Do you know the standards for legal evidence? Do you know the standards for scientific evidence?

The definition that I provided for evidence, doesn’t stops you to apply any standards.

For legal evidence hearsay is not evidence. For your definition it would be.

Hearsay would be week evidence, but still evidence.

If there are rumors that say that you stole the store, the cops are more likely to investigate you than a random person.

And given the rumors from the point of view of a judge, you are more likely to be guilty than a random person.

I agree that it wouldn’t be conclusive evidence, but yes rumors do count as evidence……… (just not strong enough to put someone in to prison.

For scientific evidence it is almost always based on objective evidence. Yours is definitely not based upon that.

Again I define evidence as anything that moves the wager (it could be something objective or something subjective)

Here is something that you do not seem to understand. The ore stringent the demands are to qualify as "evidence" the more convincing that evidence will be. Your "evidence" has extremely lax standards so it should not convince anyone. In other words you have made it worthless.

My definition doesn’t have standards (neither lax standards nor strong standards)…….. standards are not part of the definition, you can add any standards that you want

Buffaloes have wings.

no

But that is just my definition (and almost everybody’s definition) I am not interested in imposing my definition.

Feel free to suggest your own defintion.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

You think the apostles and the disciples were lying when they say they saw Jesus?

How do you interpret them seeing someone that they don’t decide is Jesus until later?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

False prophets just made it up or told you what you wanted to hear.

Like Jesus?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you are ever able to get over yourself and be receptive to the gift of faith then religion would make much more sense to you.

Religion belief is irrational, but why people need it is comprehensible. They've never learned how to live without it. It meets some psychological need that the atheist doesn't have. The gift is to be comfortable without a god belief or a religion. Anybody who hasn't learned critical thinking can be a theist, but most theists cannot be atheists. Do you think you could be comfortable as an atheist?

valid objection, but has nothing to do with parsimony

You don't understand the word or its proper application. How many times in this thread have posters told you that your understanding and reasoning are flawed?

I have no idea what you mean by “myth” this is why I keep asking you to develop your hypothesis

Already done. Go search for my answer if you care to see it. I showed you how. You have no excuse for your ongoing ignorance or blaming others for your shortcomings. Since you're uninterested in doing better, you'll have to settle for whatever fraction of what goes by you that you can retain using your present inadequate methods.

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)

Why do you trust her? If it's based in experience, then your belief might be justified. If it's based in the will to believe, it is not.

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

No, it's not. He told you that he is immune to contradictory evidence in areas where he believes by faith. Since there is no other way to disabuse oneself of an unsound belief but evidence evaluated open-mindedly, he's locked in and proud of it. He sees it as a virtue. In my world, belief by faith is a logical error. It ALWAYS generates a logical fallacy - non sequitur.

 

[Colt]

Religion belief is irrational, but why people need it is comprehensible. They've never learned how to live without it. It meets some psychological need that the atheist doesn't have. The gift is to be comfortable without a god belief or a religion. Anybody who hasn't learned critical thinking can be a theist, but most theists cannot be atheists. Do you think you could be comfortable as an atheist?

You don't understand the word or its proper application. How many times in this thread have posters told you that your understanding and reasoning are flawed?

Already done. Go search for my answer if you care to see it. I showed you how. You have no excuse for your ongoing ignorance or blaming others for your shortcomings. Since you're uninterested in doing better, you'll have to settle for whatever fraction of what goes by you that you can retain using your present inadequate methods.

Why do you trust her? If it's based in experience, then your belief might be justified. If it's based in the will to believe, it is not.

No, it's not. He told you that he is immune to contradictory evidence in areas where he believes by faith. Since there is no other way to disabuse oneself of an unsound belief but evidence evaluated open-mindedly, he's locked in and proud of it. He sees it as a virtue. In my world, belief by faith is a logical error. It ALWAYS generates a logical fallacy - non sequitur.

I would make a great atheist because Im also argumentative and can pick flaws in scripture. But I know the presence of God and was born of the spirit. I hope I never return to indifference or worse, dedication to Godlesd ideals.