Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[shunyadragon]

The gospels are what we have, there were no journalists or historians at the scene taking notes. In addition the presence of Christ now in spirit provides the conviction of truth today for believers.

Which represents subjective belief regardless.

 

[leroy]

Yes they are.

EVERY DAY people make mistakes, lie, exaggerate, hallucinate, misremember,....

We have innumerable examples of it.
But we have zero examples of extra-ordinary things that require suspension of natural law, like resurrections.
So again, right out the gates, the most likely (BY FAR) when it comes to a claim of resurrection is that someone made a mistake rather then it actually having occurred.



The "100s" of people is again just a claim. Likely an exaggeration, since we have no "100s" independent sources of it.

I'm reminded of an event a few years ago.
We had a bakery in our street. The boiler caught fire. It was ridiculously small. Basically just a small flame coming out of it and some smoke due to melting plastic. Firetruck came and put it out. It was mega minor. There was no serious damage or danger at all. Only the boiler was a bit damaged and had to be replaced. The bakery could even simply continue to operate. A few people were in the street watching the firemen go inside, come out and leave again.

2 days later, I was at the local grocery store and people were talking about it.
By that time, the story had exploded into "HALF THE BAKERY BURNED UP".

Again, it's what humans do: they exaggerate, they embellish, they make mistakes, they misremember. It's the basics of the telephone game.
Someone sees someone that looks like Elvis (even realizing it's not really Elvis) and a few days later "100s of people saw Elvis alive and well!!!".




The question here is "what is more likely"?
That humans did what humans do all the time (embellish, make mistakes, misremember, exaggerate,...), or that the laws of nature were suspended?

That is all. And if the only evidence you have are unverifiable claims, then that will NEVER be enough to make the "laws of nature were suspended" option more likely then "humans did what humans do all the time" option.



Not semantics. Instead, just a rational pointing out of the nonsensical notion that is the "supernatural".
People who claim it exists / happens, fail to define it in testable ways.
Hence, no evidence CAN exist for it, since there is nothing there to even have evidence for or against.

Do you have evidence for or against "gooblydockbloblo"?



Indeed.
And my stance is that unless you can come up with extra-ordinary evidence, the option that "humans did what humans do all the time" is more likely then "the laws of nature were suspended".

No, to say that James the brother of Jesus (+ many others) concluded that Jesus resurrected, because they saw someone that looks like Jesus is an extraordinary claim that has never been reported.

The question here is "what is more likely"?

I would say that the resurrection is more likely.

Compare

1 the probability that a god excists + the probability that he descided to cause the resurection of a man

Vs

2 The probability that hundrets of people concluded that Jesus resurrected because they saw someone that looks like Jesus (including his brother and close relatives)

Under what basis do you affirm that 2 is more probable?


I mean even if I grant that there are good arguments against the existence of a god and zero good arguments in favor of a god, such that we are 90% certain that god doesn’t exists. Option “2” would still be less likely than 1.

Your elvis examples are disanalogous because

1 nobody concluded that elvis resurrected (some concluded that he didn’t die)

2 no close relative of elvis claimed that he was alive,

3 nobody was really serious nor convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Elvis was alive, nobody was willing to die (or willing to lose something) for their believes in Elvis.

 

[leroy]

Please define "supernatural" in such a way that it can have evidence.

I already told you: the reason I say it has no evidence, is because nobody ever offered a definition for it in such a way that it even CAN have evidence.


It's the same reason why there is no evidence for "gooblydockbloblo"

Well by that logic, there is no evidence for the natural world, because you can’t define “natural” and there is no evidnece for dogs, nor tables, nor computers, because you cant define none of these terms ether (any definition would be circular or have exceptions)

As I said, I think there is evidence for the resurrection (and other events that would typically be labeled as “supernatural”) but as far as I know there is not a hard definition of “supernatural”……..

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

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

Dude, you're the one claiming THERE IS A SUPERNATURAL.
It's not up to other people to define your terms for you. It's up to you. Nobody has to provide alternative anything to you since you haven't even made your case in the first place.
Over and over you try to shift YOUR burden of proof onto others. And it's getting tiring, Leroy.

 

[leroy]

They could be any of those. Most likely, they're embellishments written by people with an agenda.

Ok so Paul, peter James and the apóstoles saw a distant light, they claimed it was Jesus and they embellished the story because they had an agenda and wanted to convince everybody that Jeuss resurrected.

Is this your hypothesis?

 

[leroy]

I didn't dismiss the "500" as an hallucination. I dismissed it as a hearsay claim that cannot be verified because we do not have anything at all from those supposed 500 people to examine. Anybody can say 500 people saw anything. Of course, I already pointed this out.

ok so from the list of 7 apperances that are reported in paul

which of them do you dismiss as legend, and which of them are hallucinations (or lies, or mistakes where they saw someone like jesus etc.?

 

[leroy]

Dude, you're the one claiming THERE IS A SUPERNATURAL.
It's not up to other people to define your terms for you. It's up to you. Nobody has to provide alternative anything to you since you haven't even made your case in the first place.
Over and over you try to shift YOUR burden of proof onto others. And it's getting tiring, Leroy.

And your attempts to avoid the burden proof are amazing.

Here is a summery

1 @TagliatelliMonster claimed that there is no evidence for the supernatural

2 I simply asked, what does he means by supernatural (and evidence)

In this context he is the one that has to provide a definition

 

[leroy]

It is almost always what Christians actually mean when they invoke faith, though they may not realize it. Otherwise, they'd just give the evidence instead of invoking faith.

Well that is not what I mean when I say that I have faith…...

 

[leroy]

Again shift of the burden of proof.
This is basically saying that they SHOULD be considered reliable "until shown otherwise".
That's not how it works.



No.
Various abiogenesis hypothesis exist, with varying degrees of evidence and none conclusive enough to be promoted to theory.
The evidence that does exist, matches the predictions of the hypothesis.

Also, at one point there was no life and then there was. Hence, factually life started somehow.
I consider a natural origin the most likely simply because there is no evidence of any other contended.
And we do have evidence of chemistry existing.
We do have evidence of chemical processes that produce complex biological compounds known as the building blocks of life.
So the evidence is mounting in favor of a natural origin.

I'm unaware of any evidence of anything else.




False



I don't have to do either.

Be specific, what is the “evidence” for any hypotheiss of natrual abiogenesis? (using your definition of evidence)

Just to be clear, I am not denying that there is evidence for natrual abiogenesis (you even mentioned some)

What I am saying is that we don’t have what you call “evidence” for any hypotheis.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Excellent post. Sadly it will fall on deaf ears.

Thank you. I think your posts are most excellent. But sadly, I fear you are right.

We are dealing with a person who thinks an explanation that requires "the laws of nature were suspended" is more likely then an explanation involving any of the following:
- someone made a mistake
- someone lied
- someone exaggerated
- someone misremembered
- someone embellished

It's hard to argue with a mind like that... Not to say pointless..

All of which happen all the time, every single day, somewhere on the planet. That's just what humans do.

But we're too believe that "supernatural" things that cannot even be defined in the first place are the most likely explanations. It's absurd to me. And yeah, rather pointless it seems.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well that is not what I mean when I say that I have faith…...

I know it's not what you meant. But it's what you convey and demonstrate in your posts. That was actually my point.

 

[leroy]

It counts as evidence that you likely are planning to feed a dog. Perhaps your own dog, perhaps someone else's dog.
Or maybe you like to eat dogfood yourself. You wouldn't be the first to do that.
Not sure where you are trying to go with this.



I considered that a given. I'm sorry if I overestimated your ability to understand what was meant by the word "prediction" in context of "hypothesis".



It would count as being evidence against the third that predicts B instead of A. That one will now be disproven.
It would be evidence for the other two, but it would be meaningless to distinguish which of both is the correct one.
For that, you would have to look towards other predictions that are exclusive to it and find evidence that matches those predictions.

Again, if 2 ideas both predict A and you then find A... what is the value of A?
At best you can say that it doesn't disproof both ideas. It supports both ideas, so it is useless to distinguish between them.

Say there is a murder case and you have two suspects.
From security camera footage you know for example that the guilty person drives a pink Mercedes. As it turns out, both suspects drive the same pink Mercedes.
What is the value of that security camera footage?

Will you waste time with that evidence in court? Or will you rather try and find evidence that points exclusively to just one of both suspects?




Nested hierarchies are independently verifiable.



We don't need to rely on reports. Anyone can verify this.
This is the difference between objective independently verifiable evidence and mere claims.


It's funny how you have to make up stuff just to try and make your nonsensical points.

I´LL ask you again

1 is your observation of me buying dog food evidence that I have a dog?????? yes or no? …(the obvious answer is yes)

2 does this “evidence” matches your definition (NO)

Therefore there is something wrong with your definition.

This is not meant to take us 100+ posts, all you have to do is admit that your defection is not accurate

 

[SkepticThinker]

Exactly.

Just like my bakery example a couple posts back.
A minor boiler fire, with a couple of flames coming out of it and a bit of smoke due to melting plastic, with no further damage or danger to anything or anyone.
And 2 days later, at the grocery store that event turned into "HALF THE BAKERY BURNED UP"

It's what humans do.

They take a minor fact or even just a rumor and as it spreads it takes on a life of its own and explodes into a fantastical story.
It happens all the time...


But no.... "the laws of nature were suspended" is a "better" explanation for the story.

Exactly. And great example!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Subjective experience with God doesn't come with objective verification. Atheist's know this so they get off on demanding answers that they know cant be proven, then congratulate themselves! For the apostles everything was still a matter of faith regardless of what they witnessed!

Atheists "know" that we've got a bunch of people making various god claims, but none are actually able to demonstrate the veracity of those claims. When questioned, you just pile on more claims.
So I don't believe those claims.

I expect the same evidence from religious claims that I expect from any other claim about anything. It's you that makes a special exception of "faith" and "subjective spirituality" claims, as though they're in some separate category. Why? Because they're completely lacking in evidence. But it does demonstrate to me that my definition of faith is accurate, though you don't seem to realize it.

 

[leroy]

We are dealing with a person who thinks an explanation that requires "the laws of nature were suspended" is more likely then an explanation involving any of the following:
- someone made a mistake
- someone lied
- someone exaggerated
- someone misremembered
- someone embellished

Thank you. I think your posts are most excellent. But sadly, I fear you are right.

All of which happen all the time, every single day, somewhere on the planet. That's just what humans do.

But we're too believe that "supernatural" things that cannot even be defined in the first place are the most likely explanations. It's absurd to me. And yeah, rather pointless it seems.

Yes, but the specific mistake lie, hallucination etc. that you are invoking is extraordinary and has never been shown to have happened in the past.

@Subduction Zone Made a similar argument somewhere but I cant find his post so this is an answer for him too


1 So Yes mistakes in general are common; one can confuse a person with someone else. This is not strange nor extraordinary

buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut..

2 the specific mistake where James saw someone that looks like Jesus and concluded that his brother resurrected, to the point of being sure beyond reasonable doubt is extraordinary and no similar thing has ever been proven to have happened in the past.

 

[SkepticThinker]

ok so from the list of 7 apperances that are reported in paul

which of them do you dismiss as legend, and which of them are hallucinations (or lies, or mistakes where they saw someone like jesus etc.?

Please address what I said in the post you are responding to before we move on.
Thanks.

Also, I'll need quotes for these "7 appearances," please.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And your attempts to avoid the burden proof are amazing.

This response to what I posted is absolutely baffling.

Here is a summery

1 @TagliatelliMonster claimed that there is no evidence for the supernatural

2 I simply asked, what does he means by supernatural (and evidence)

In this context he is the one that has to provide a definition

Please address what was actually said in the post. I'm convinced you didn't read it.
Thanks.

Dude, you're the one claiming THERE IS A SUPERNATURAL.
It's not up to other people to define your terms for you. It's up to you. Nobody has to provide alternative anything to you since you haven't even made your case in the first place.
Over and over you try to shift YOUR burden of proof onto others. And it's getting tiring, Leroy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I´LL ask you again

1 is your observation of me buying dog food evidence that I have a dog?????? yes or no? …(the obvious answer is yes)

2 does this “evidence” matches your definition (NO)

Therefore there is something wrong with your definition.

This is not meant to take us 100+ posts, all you have to do is admit that your defection is not accurate

The poster answered your question. Try actually reading for comprehension.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, but the specific mistake lie, hallucination etc. that you are invoking is extraordinary and has never been shown to have happened in the past.

Nah.

@Subduction Zone Made a similar argument somewhere but I cant find his post so this is an answer for him too


1 So Yes mistakes in general are common; one can confuse a person with someone else. This is not strange nor extraordinary

buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut..

2 the specific mistake where James saw someone that looks like Jesus and concluded that his brother resurrected, to the point of being sure beyond reasonable doubt is extraordinary and no similar thing has ever been proven to have happened in the past.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, but the specific mistake lie, hallucination etc. that you are invoking is extraordinary and has never been shown to have happened in the past.

@Subduction Zone Made a similar argument somewhere but I cant find his post so this is an answer for him too


1 So Yes mistakes in general are common; one can confuse a person with someone else. This is not strange nor extraordinary

buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut..

2 the specific mistake where James saw someone that looks like Jesus and concluded that his brother resurrected, to the point of being sure beyond reasonable doubt is extraordinary and no similar thing has ever been proven to have happened in the past.

What makes you think that James saw anyone? Where in the Bible does James say that he saw Jesus after the crucifixion. There is an "Epistle of James" but he does not appear to be the author of it.

And you keep forgetting how Elvis refutes your claims.