Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[leroy]

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.

What makes you think that James saw anyone?

You are not following.

I am addressing the naturalistic hypothesis that states that the disciples “saw someone that looks like Jesus” (like in the case of Elvis) and they proclaimed the resurection because they thought that this man was the risen jesus.

If you claim is that James didn’t see anything, then you are moving to a different hypothesis.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No he didn’t avoided the question ………. The fact that you are willing to defend your atheist friends even when they are being dishonest is very telling and evidence that “internet atheism” is pretty much like a religion with nothing but fanatic members in it

You got an answer. That's why I pointed out that you did. That's all that's going on there.

 

[Colt]

Other people provide different answers, arguments, points, etc.. People are funny that way.
Your contempt is duly noted. And dismissed.

Great! As I told you a couple times before, do NOT respond to my posts! You are waiting time for me and yourself! Keep arriving at the same dead end with others if that makes you feel better.

 

[leroy]

Based on ... ?
Not a definition. Because we don't have one of those from you.

Then what are we talking about, exactly?

I find it perplexing that you are still debating semantics, instead of addressing the OP………This thread is 47 pages long and no atheist has addressed the OP

What you are supposed to do is propose and develop a naturalistic hypothesis and explain why is it better than the resurrection.

The proposed criteria are

Explanatory scope: the amount of data that the hypothesis would explain if true

Explanatory power: how good is that data being explained

Less ad hoc: the hypothesis naturally flows

Consistency with previous knowledge:

You can add or remove any criteria if you have any justification for doing so

The hypothesis that better fits these 4 criteria wins

As for your question, I don’t know what are you expecting from me, events like the resurrection that contradict known natural laws are typically labeled as “supernatural”……….. I think there is good evidence for the resurrection, whether if you label it as supernatural or not ir}is irrelevant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are not following.

I am addressing the naturalistic hypothesis that states that the disciples “saw someone that looks like Jesus” (like in the case of Elvis) and they proclaimed the resurection because they thought that this man was the risen jesus.

If you claim is that James didn’t see anything, then you are moving to a different hypothesis.

No, you are strawmanning at best.

Once again if you do not understand someone's arguments you should ask questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find it perplexing that you are still debating semantics, instead of addressing the OP………This thread is 47 pages long and no atheist has addressed the OP

Dude! Once again you throw away your entire post when you start with such an obvious falsehood. Once again if you do not understand the arguments you should ask questions. And since you already refuted yourself I will just delete the rest of your post here:

 

[SkepticThinker]

Great! As I told you a couple times before, do NOT respond to my posts! You are waiting time for me and yourself! Keep arriving at the same dead end with others if that makes you feel better.

I'll do what I like. But thanks, Dad.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I find it perplexing that you are still debating semantics, instead of addressing the OP………This thread is 47 pages long and no atheist has addressed the OP

I find it perplexing that you have no idea why I asked you for a definition of the supernatural that you are demanding from others who don't believe in a supernatural.

Several atheists have directly addressed the OP.

What you are supposed to do is propose and develop a naturalistic hypothesis and explain why is it better than the resurrection.

Proving you wrong definitely isn't something I'm "supposed to do." It's up to you to actually make your case.
You are making a case that hinges upon something you can't even define. And you definitely can't demonstrate it.

The proposed criteria are

Explanatory scope: the amount of data that the hypothesis would explain if true

Explanatory power: how good is that data being explained


Less ad hoc: the hypothesis naturally flows

Consistency with previous knowledge:

You can add or remove any criteria if you have any justification for doing so

The hypothesis that better fits these 4 criteria wins

You claim a supernatural explanation is the most likely. Yet you cannot even define the word.

As for your question, I don’t know what are you expecting from me, events like the resurrection that contradict known natural laws are typically labeled as “supernatural”……….. I think there is good evidence for the resurrection, whether if you label it as supernatural or not ir}is irrelevant.

I'm expecting you to define the terms you keep talking about so we all know what we're talking about.
What you're claiming here is .... magic.

 

[leroy]

You already got one.

This entire passage is a claim of hearsay.

Except for Paul's claim of a vision and a voice.

Ok so there was a rumor that the risen Jesus was appearing, and Paul had an hallucination of Jesus.

Paul thought that this rumor was true, so he reported it as a real event in his letters.

Is that your hypothesis?

 

[leroy]

I find it perplexing that you have no idea why I asked you for a definition of the supernatural that you are demanding from others who don't believe in a supernatural.

Several atheists have directly addressed the OP.

Proving you wrong definitely isn't something I'm "supposed to do." It's up to you to actually make your case.
You are making a case that hinges upon something you can't even define. And you definitely can't demonstrate it.

You claim a supernatural explanation is the most likely. Yet you cannot even define the word.

I'm expecting you to define the terms you keep talking about so we all know what we're talking about.
What you're claiming here is .... magic.

You fried is the one who claimed that there is no evidnece for the supernatural………… he is the one that is suppose to provide a definition, he is the one who is making claims about the supernatural.

But obviously your fanaticism and your commitment for atheism prevent you from correcting another member from your sect.

I already admitted that I can’t define supernatural, and I am not making claims about the supernatural……………..all I did was accepting the label that resurrections are supernatural

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok so there was a rumor that the risen Jesus was appearing, and Paul had an hallucination of Jesus.

Paul thought that this rumor was true, so he reported it as a real event in his letters.

Is that your hypothesis?

I don't have a hypothesis nor do I need one. We're talking about your arguments and your claims here.
You claimed there were a whole bunch of witnesses to the resurrection and I am currently disputing that claim.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You fried is the one who claimed that there is no evidnece for the supernatural………… he is the one that is suppose to provide a definition, he is the one who is making claims about the supernatural.

But obviously your fanaticism and your commitment for atheism prevent you from correcting another member from your sect.

I already admitted that I can’t define supernatural, and I am not making claims about the supernatural……………..all I did was accepting the label that resurrections are supernatural

If you can't define the thing(s) you're talking about, how are we supposed to engage with you and your arguments?

The rest of this post is just ... lol. I mean, you just used the word "supernatural" like, 3 more times, while claiming you don't know what it is, even though you've attributed the resurrection to the supernatural.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so there was a rumor that the risen Jesus was appearing, and Paul had an hallucination of Jesus.

Paul thought that this rumor was true, so he reported it as a real event in his letters.

Is that your hypothesis?

If it is do you realize that it is more rational and believable than yours?

 

[leroy]

No, you are strawmanning at best.

Once again if you do not understand someone's arguments you should ask questions.

Well if it is a strwaman, why don’t you develop your hypothesis so that I won’t misinterpret it.?

You said that mistake is better that the resurrection, ……….. so develop your mistake hypothesis and explain why is It better than the resurection

 

[Subduction Zone]

You fried is the one who claimed that there is no evidnece for the supernatural………… he is the one that is suppose to provide a definition, he is the one who is making claims about the supernatural.

But obviously your fanaticism and your commitment for atheism prevent you from correcting another member from your sect.

I already admitted that I can’t define supernatural, and I am not making claims about the supernatural……………..all I did was accepting the label that resurrections are supernatural

Are you talking about me and your false claim? I need to remind you that I did post a definition when you demanded one. When you demanded it again you lost the right to demand by ignoring the previous answer A reasonable compromise was offered and you ran away from that.

Just in case you forgot again.

But of course by making this reference you are only trying to shift the burden of proof again. In other words you are tacitly admitting that you are wrong.

 

[leroy]

If you can't define the thing(s) you're talking about, how are we supposed to engage with you and your arguments?

well, my suggestion is, “deal with the actual aguments”

none of my arguments is dependent on having a clear definition of supernatural.

The rest of this post is just ... lol. I mean, you just used the word "supernatural" like, 3 more times, while claiming you don't know what it is, even though you've attributed the resurrection to the supernatural.

I am attributing the resurrection to God, weather if that counts as supernatural or not is irrelevant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well if it is a strwaman, why don’t you develop your hypothesis so that I won’t misinterpret it.?

You said that mistake is better that the resurrection, ……….. so develop your mistake hypothesis and explain why is It better than the resurection

I do not even need a specific hypothesis since there are countless ones that defeat yours. Do you think that you can refute that hypothesis? I am sure that what was needed was explained to you by me. Refute the version that you just posted and I will give all that was required again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

well, my suggestion is, “deal with the actual aguments”

none of my arguments is dependent on having a clear definition of supernatural.

Meanwhile trying to claim that "resurrection" is likely. Oh you do tell the best jokes at times.

I am attributing the resurrection to God, weather if that counts as supernatural or not is irrelevant.

Yes, that would be magic. That would be supernatural. That puts an enormous burden of proof upon you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

well, my suggestion is, “deal with the actual aguments”

none of my arguments is dependent on having a clear definition of supernatural.

All of them are.

I am attributing the resurrection to God, weather if that counts as supernatural or not is irrelevant.

"God" is not in evidence either.

 

[SkepticThinker]

well, my suggestion is, “deal with the actual aguments”

This was in response to, "If you can't define the thing(s) you're talking about, how are we supposed to engage with you and your arguments?

none of my arguments is dependent on having a clear definition of supernatural.

Then I expect you never to use the word again, from here on out.

I am attributing the resurrection to God, weather if that counts as supernatural or not is irrelevant.

You're attributing the resurrection to a thing that isn't known to exist. Cool story, I guess.