Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well if an atomic bomb explodes the total amount of energy in the explosion is 0 just as at the BB.
Add it all up vectorially and it is 0.
But maybe the physicists do it a different way.

As usual, you missed the point.

As I said, if the cause and effect happened at the same time, T=0, what is the problem.

The problem is that causality is temporal in nature.
Causes happen before effects.
Effects happen after causes.
Necessarily so.

Another problem is that causality only really applies to classical physics. It gets spooky at the quantum level.

This has been pointed out to you many a times already.

Causality furthermore is a phenomenon of physics. The physics of the universe.
You can't invoke the physics of the universe and pretend it applies in an environment where the universe does not exist.

Yes OK maybe if someone getting sucked into a black hole can look at someone further away from the hole, us on earth, and see many of our years go by in one of their seconds. That is easy to understand but does not mean much really except that time goes slower or faster in different places.

[/QUOTE]

That's not really the case, actually.
A second is a second. Regardless of where you are, a second will always be of equal length.
The issue only occurs when you observe said second in that place from another place, dilated through gravity or speed.
A clock doesn't move slower or faster in either of the places.

But maybe the physicists do it a different way.
Maybe God going at the speed of light can make time stop. Maybe if God goes faster He can go backwards in time. Who knows, who cares.
I wonder if you can travel at the speed of light when time has stopped for you.

Again, time never "stops" for you.
If you travel at the speed of light, your clock just continues to tick like it always has.
The rate-change is only from the perspective of an outside observer looking at you.
For YOU, who travels at the speed of light or who is in proximity of a gravity well, time goes on as usual and you don't notice a difference.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Evidence is any available body of independently verifiable facts that either exclusively matches or contradicts the testable predictions of a certain hypothesis / theory / idea.


Thus, before evidence can even be a topic of discussion, one needs a testable idea that makes testable predictions.

You ask you can somebody present me with evidence of the supernatural...
Well, it all starts with providing a testable definition of what "supernatural" means, with testable and falsifiable predictions.

Lacking such a definition, "evidence" can not exist.

 

[leroy]

By historical academic standards, there are no verifiable hid]storial facts for the resurrection nor any other miraculous events in any other ancient religions.

There is not a 'building a case' because this is simply a repeated apologetic argument found in thousands of books and internet references without citing anything new.


Not true. Only believing Christians and Christian scholars consider the miraculous events in the Bible as true. The majority of scholars do not consider the miraculous events in the Bible as true.

As previously summarized there are not any independent historical records even for the life of Jesus during his lifetime.

Strawman
What I said is that the facts in the OP are accepted by the mayority of scholars.

Whether if the resurection is the best explanation for this facts or not is an other issue.

As previously summarized there are not any independent historical records even for the life of Jesus during his lifetime

granted, so what?

.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you branded events that contradict your personal philosophical view as “impossible”

I did not.
What does "impossible" mean, if not "requires violation / suspension of natural law"?



And also, you are once again playing dodgeball. That part was just an additional footnote. The main point of the post you replied to, and which you completely ignored, was that MUNDANE COMMON THINGS like "people lie, people make mistakes, people exaggerate, people can be delusion" are FAR more likely then "the laws of nature were suspended / violated".


Meaning that when people claim they saw Jesus or Elvis after they supposedly died, that the most likely explanation is that those people were:
- mistaken
- lying
- delusional

And that about either having seen them after they died, or about them being dead in the first place.

Not that Jesus or Elvis returned from the dead.

 

[leroy]

The problem is that causality is temporal in nature.
Causes happen before effects.
Effects happen after causes.
Necessarily so.

Says who? How do you know that *Necesairly * causes happen beffore the effect?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

How is it bogus?

When someone claims that they have seen Elvis, Tupac or Michael Jackson...
What is the most likely explanation straight out of the gates?

That those people were mistaken / lying / delusional?
Or that Elvis / Tupac / Michael Jackson returned from the dead?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

It is vague and fails to define how that happens ("moving the wager").

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Really and what is your definition of faith?

To believe without evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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 that is not rational.

It is on par with the "experience" of people seeing bigfoot, seeing elvis alive and well, being abducted by aliens, etc etc etc.


There is NOTHING that can't be believed "on faith". It can be used for ANY position you can think of.

Therefor, it is not a reliable pathway to truth.
It is only a reliable pathway to holding false believes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Says who?

The meaning of the word "causality".

Here's the first lines of the wiki article on the subject:

Causality (also called causation, or cause and effect) is influence by which one event, process, state, or object (a cause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state, or object (an effect) where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause. In general, a process has many causes,[1] which are also said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past.
An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future.

How do you know that *Necesairly * causes happen beffore the effect?

The same way I know that the people in the TV can't see me.

 

[Colt]

How is it bogus?

When someone claims that they have seen Elvis, Tupac or Michael Jackson...
What is the most likely explanation straight out of the gates?

That those people were mistaken / lying / delusional?
Or that Elvis / Tupac / Michael Jackson returned from the dead?

Neither Elvis, Tupac or Michael Jackson returned from the dead so any one of those classifications could fit. The Son of God incarnate, laid down his life or mortal flesh and returned 3 days later in a form that resembled that of his previous body.

Those who saw him resurrected were obviously shocked and surprised! Even some apostles doubted the initial reports until they saw him with their own eyes.

 

[leroy]

I did not.
What does "impossible" mean, if not "requires violation / suspension of natural law"?

You are definning miracles as something that by definition is impossible, you whanto to "win" with a semantic trick rather than with arguments and evidence.

You dont know what laws are, nor where did they come from, ...... so to saybthat it is impossible to violate a law is a big strech

And also, you are once again playing dodgeball. That part was just an additional footnote. The main point of the post you replied to, and which you completely ignored, was that MUNDANE COMMON THINGS like "people lie, people make mistakes, people exaggerate, people can be delusion" are FAR more likely then "the laws of nature were suspended / violated".


Meaning that when people claim they saw Jesus or Elvis after they supposedly died, that the most likely explanation is that those people were:
- mistaken
- lying
- delusional

And that about either having seen them after they died, or about them being dead in the first place.

Not that Jesus or Elvis returned from the dead.

No no no

(Borrowing your elvis analogy)

To say for example that the disciples (including James the brother of Jesus) Saw someone that looks like Jesus and cocluded that Jesus resurected is not a mundane claim.

Like the resurection It would also be an extraordinary event that has never ever been reprorted.

Imagine that your neighbor's brother died a few days ago, how likelly is it for your neighbor (+hundreds of other people) concluded that his brother resurrected, just because he saw someone that looks like him?

You are not talking about mundane claims, all the alternatives that you listed are extraordinary events that seem to require a bigger miracle than the resurection itself.

As for your elvis example it is disanalogous for 2 reasons

1 nobody concluded that elvis resurected, the claim was that he didnt die

2 those who "saw elvis" where random people, not his family nor closely related people.

 

[shunyadragon]

Strawman
What I said is that the facts in the OP are accepted by the mayority of scholars.

Not true

Whether if the resurection is the best explanation for this facts or not is an other issue.


granted, so what?

For most scholars to accept the resurrection it needs to be documented as an acceptable academic explanation.

No documented facts no reason to believe..

 

[leroy]

To believe without evidence.

Ok given that definition I have no faith in God nor in anything else

 

[leroy]

The meaning of the word "causality".

Here's the first lines of the wiki article on the subject:

Causality (also called causation, or cause and effect) is influence by which one event, process, state, or object (a cause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state, or object (an effect) where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause. In general, a process has many causes,[1] which are also said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past.
An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future.





The same way I know that the people in the TV can't see

Lol


Why didnt you quote the complete paragraph

"Causality (also called causation, or cause and effect) is influence by which one event, process, state, or object (a cause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state, or object (an effect) where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause. In general, a process has many causes,[1] which are also said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Some writers have held that causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space.[2][3][4]"

To say that the cause *necesairly * comes before the effect is a controversial statement where phylosophers and scientists are still debating on...... it is very arrogant for you to claim to have the definitive answer

 

[leroy]

Evidence is any available body of independently verifiable facts that either exclusively matches or contradicts the testable predictions of a certain hypothesis / theory / idea.

Granted, given that definition, there is no evidence for the supernatural........but there is no evidence for evolution (common ancestry) ether (given that definition)

Your definition is too restrictive , you should substitude the words "excusivley matches" for softer words........otherwise there wouldn't be evidence for anything.

Thus, before evidence can even be a topic of discussion, one needs a testable idea that makes testable predictions.

You ask you can somebody present me with evidence of the supernatural...
Well, it all starts with providing a testable definition of what "supernatural" means, with testable and falsifiable predictions.

Nice shift, I personally have no idea how to define" supernatural " but you are suppose to offer such definition. You are the one who claims that there is no evidence for the supernatural you are the pne who has to offer a definition

The suggestion of the OP is that the resurection is the best explanation for the "bed rock facts"

Your burden is to provide an alternative explanation and explain why is that a better explanation.

Whether if you whant to label the resurection as a supernatural event or not is just a matter of semantics

 

[Colt]

And that is not rational.

It is on par with the "experience" of people seeing bigfoot, seeing elvis alive and well, being abducted by aliens, etc etc etc.


There is NOTHING that can't be believed "on faith". It can be used for ANY position you can think of.

Therefor, it is not a reliable pathway to truth.
It is only a reliable pathway to holding false believes.

Seeing Big Foot isn’t a subjective experience.

 

[shunyadragon]

Strawman
What I said is that the facts in the OP are accepted by the mayority of scholars.

Whether if the resurection is the best explanation for this facts or not is an other issue.


granted, so what?

No independent supporting historical records for the existence of Jesus nor the resurrection

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok given that definition I have no faith in God nor in anything else

Note that claiming to have evidence doesn't mean you actually have evidence.
Often times what people call "evidence" is not actually evidence at all and instead mere hearsay.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lol


Why didnt you quote the complete paragraph

"Causality (also called causation, or cause and effect) is influence by which one event, process, state, or object (a cause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state, or object (an effect) where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause. In general, a process has many causes,[1] which are also said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Some writers have held that causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space.[2][3][4]"

Because the "metaphysical brainfart opinions" of "some" no-named "writers" is irrelevant to what is observable, demonstrable and factual.

To say that the cause *necesairly * comes before the effect is a controversial statement where phylosophers and scientists are still debating on...... it is very arrogant for you to claim to have the definitive answer

I don't care about "philosophers".
The consensus among scientists is that causality is a phenomenon of the (classical) physics of the universe and temporal in nature.
This is what we observe and can demonstrate.