Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[shunyadragon]

I agree. The fine details are not as important but I think Goodacre Mark Goodacre's Books (Authored) has made some really strong evidence against Q and puts Mark as the first full story set on Earth.
Some of the sayings are traced back to Rabbi Hillel, one generation before Jesus and probably go back further. But his sayings are very similar:

I do believe that the existence of some form of Q remains a real possibility. The view that Mark is 'the first story set on earth; is a bit of an over-the-top assertion. and seems to assert that Mark was 'first written as is.' Yes, Mark is the first of the three gospels we presently have, but I believe that there is evidence that Mark was embellished and added to before its present text. If you want to consider Q an earlier shorter version of Mark OK. The question of authorship is another issue of evidence of evolved gospels including Mark. I believe the authors presently in the gospels are not the authors. The present text of the gospels is the result of one or more compilers that wrote the present form of the gospels and attributed them to the apostles to give them credibility.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes that is the point……….. an observation would be evidence for more than 1 hypothesis.

It makes it useless evidence as it doesn't allow you to distinguish a correct hypothesis from a wrong one.
As I have explained. Multiple times.

Therefore the word “exlusivley” should be removed from the definition.

No.

I proposed to change the word “exlusive” for “incising the probability”………….. But my suggestion was rejected.

For reasons that were explained and which you ignored. As usual.

The fact that you observed me buying dog food increases the probability that I have a dog, which is why this observation is “evidence” that I have a Dog.

The fact that you buy dogfood is only evidence of the fact that you need or want dogfood.
Perhaps you have a dog, perhaps you watch someone else's dog, perhaps you have a dog hotel, perhaps your cat only likes dogfood, perhaps you are poor and eat dogfood yourself because it's cheaper then regular meat, perhaps you plan on putting poison in it to kill the neighbour's dog who's barking all night long,......
Moreover, you NOT buying dogfood doesn't disprove the idea of you having a dog either.

But life not being organized in a nested hierarchy DOES disprove evolution.
See how it's different? You don't, don't you?

When a piece of data can be considered evidence for a whole bunch of things, then it is entirely useless. Especially so when lacking the piece of data doesn't make a bit of difference at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Faith is believing something you know is true.

That is obviously false considering "faith" is being used to believe mutually exclusive things by a whole bunch of people.
They can't all be right. So at least some of them are wrong. Most likely, they are all wrong.


There is NOTHING you can't believe on faith.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok then devolve your hypothesis in detail, so I don’t commit straw man arguments again

I don't require a hypothesis.
We've been over this. The OP makes a claim and attempts to build a case for it.
I pointed out the flaws.

My job is done then. I don't require an "alternative explanation".

Just like I don't require an "alternative explanation" for the experience of alien abductees to reject their claim by pointing out the lack evidence for their claim to be believable.

This is again just the shift of the burden of proof that you keep insisting on.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok pick one and explain why is it more likely that the” laws of nature where suspended”

All of them are more likely, because none of them require the laws of nature to be suspended.

ANY option that doesn't require the laws of nature to be suspended is ALWAYS more likely then the laws of nature being suspended.
Right out the gates.

Doubly so when the options that don't require such suspension, are such mundane things that they happen every single day.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

faith = trust


Trust and evidence are not mutually exclusive,.

Trust is based on a demonstrable track record of being trustworthy.
There is no such track record for gods, because nothing about any god is demonstrable.
It's all faith (belief without evidence) from beginning to end.

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe you are just over

Maybe you are just over sensitive? I typically find Atheist to be intelligent but unwise.

This does not reflect your references to atheists in your previous posts.

 

[Colt]

You double down on not making sense.
"false hope in a godless universe" - what does that even mean?

You are just projecting

False hope means just that! You hope that by ignoring God and actively working to undermine the faith of believers that there wont be any consequence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

2 Extraordinary: Elvis’s brother (+many other close relatives) concluded that Elvis resurrected because they saw someone that looks like Elvis, to the point of being sure beyond reasonable doubt , and even being willing to die.

I love how you keep claiming this as if it is a given fact, while in reality it is part of the claim that you are supposed to be supporting.
This is nothing but hearsay. It requires extra-ordinary evidence.

If you want to argue that James and the apostles didn’t saw anything, then you have a whole different hypothesis, where the Elvis analogy becomes irrelevant.

so please share and develope that hypotheis

It's just claims. I don't require any hypothesis. All I require is pointing out that it's just hearsay claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But ironically you are still avoiding the question.

¿is your observation of me buying dog food evidence that I have a dog?

Answer yes or no.

I already answered this at least 4 times.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Both false and irrelevant.

It is not. I explained it multiple times.
For evidence to be even a possibility for X, you require a proper definition of what X is and how you can distinguish it from "not X". You do this by presenting a well-defined idea of X that makes testable and verifiable predictions. Only then can evidence potentially exist.

You, and others who claim supernatural things exist / happen, have consistently failed to present such a definition for it.
Hence, no evidence BY DEFINITION can exist for it.

Hence: there is no evidence for the supernatural. Because there can't be.

You yourself have even admitted black on white that YOU CAN NOT DEFINE IT.
How on earth do you hope to find evidence for something that you can not even define?????????????????


Do you have evidence for "gooblydockbloblo"?

You can´t define Dog ether

Wonna bet?

, but that doesn’t mean that there is no evidence for dogs. (any definition would be ether circular or will have exceptions)

If that were true, then biologists wouldn't be able to differentiate a dog from a non-dog.
Are you saying that is the case?

Just how low do you have to fall to defend your bs?

And irrelevant because the claim in the OP is that the resurrection is the best hypothesis for explaining the so called be rock facts

And we have pointed out multiple times how that is not the case at all.

………….. whether if you whant to label it as supernatural or not, is irrelevant.

YOU accepted it as supernatural. In the same post where you admitted that you can't even define what "the supernatural" is. Post #952

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which is why you have to remove the word “exclusivley from your definition?”

No. It doesn't allow you to distinguish the true hypothesis from the false ones.
So it's useless.

Yes me buying dog food is evidence for me having a dog, but the observation is not exclusive for that hypothesis,

It's useless evidence because it doesn't allow you to distinguish true from false.
You have conflicting hypothesis and the data point supports both.
Hence: useless.

Moreover, the hypothesis "you own a dog" doesn't even predict that therefor you will buy dogfood.
Your dog could also live from leftovers from the table. Buying dogfood is not at all a requirement for owning a dog.

Remember my definition? It also included that the evidence must match the "testable and verifiable predictions that naturally flow from the hypothesis".
For "buying dogfood" to be evidence FOR the hypothesis of owning a dog, then NOT buying dogfood would have to be evidence AGAINST the hypothesis. But it is not.

So all you have here... is at best data that is consistent with it. It doesn't support it and it doesn't disprove it. It is at best "consistent with".
I'm sorry that you are having so much trouble comprehending this simple concept.

Compare this all to the nested hierarchy of life....
Very different story.

Evolution has predictions that naturally flow from it. One of which is that life MUST be organized in a nested hierarchy. And if it is NOT the case, then evolution is FALSE.
And there is no other well-defined idea that makes this prediction.

Hence, nested hierarchy of life exclusively supports evolution AND if it doesn't exist, it disproves it.

THAT is valid evidence. THAT has explanatory power. THAT is not useless. THAT is far more and stronger then merely being "consistent" with the idea.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The OP *is* largely about naturalistic hypothesis and how they fail when compared with the resurrection.

It is your burden to show that that the author is wrong and that at least one naturalistic hypothesis is better (using the criteria explain in that same post)

You haven’t done that, and you know it

Any "hypothesis" that does not require the suspension of natural law, is more likely then ideas that do require the suspension of natural law.

Always. About anything.


If you really need to have it explained to you why that is the case, well.... what can I say.

 

[shunyadragon]

Wishful thinking by an anti-Christ. The simplest child like faith is all that is required.

The simple childlike faith represents 'blind devotion' to intentional ignorance, and reflects your disingenuous statements concerning science.

 

[shunyadragon]

False hope means just that! You hope that by ignoring God and actively working to undermine the faith of believers that there wont be any consequence.

Atheists do not 'ignore' what they consider there is no reason to believe in God. This is a projection on your part as to what you personally assert atheists believe and do not believe.

 

[Colt]

The simple childlike faith represents 'blind devotion' to intentional ignorance, and reflects your disingenuous statements concerning science.

I disagree, so called science, atheistic science, belittles faith because they take themselves and their mechanistic philosophy too seriously. Small minds with big egos.

195:6.11 (2077.7) To say that mind “emerged” from matter explains nothing. If the universe were merely a mechanism and mind were unapart from matter, we would never have two differing interpretations of any observed phenomenon. The concepts of truth, beauty, and goodness are not inherent in either physics or chemistry. A machine cannot know, much less know truth, hunger for righteousness, and cherish goodness.

195:6.12 (2077.8) Science may be physical, but the mind of the truth-discerning scientist is at once supermaterial. Matter knows not truth, neither can it love mercy nor delight in spiritual realities. Moral convictions based on spiritual enlightenment and rooted in human experience are just as real and certain as mathematical deductions based on physical observations, but on another and higher level.

195:6.13 (2077.9) If men were only machines, they would react more or less uniformly to a material universe. Individuality, much less personality, would be nonexistent. UB 1955

 

[Jimmy]

Philosophy tries harder to answer these questions. Still no answer. But Materialism and Idealism pro/con arguments lead to some interesting insights.

I already found the answers thankfully

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I disagree, so called science, atheistic science, belittles faith because they take themselves and their mechanistic philosophy too seriously. Small minds with big egos.

What's the difference between "atheistic science" and "theistic science"?

 

[SkepticThinker]

False hope means just that! You hope that by ignoring God and actively working to undermine the faith of believers that there wont be any consequence.

Nope.

 

[shunyadragon]

I disagree, so called science, atheistic science, belittles faith because they take themselves and their mechanistic philosophy too seriously. Small minds with big egos.

195:6.11 (2077.7) To say that mind “emerged” from matter explains nothing. If the universe were merely a mechanism and mind were unapart from matter, we would never have two differing interpretations of any observed phenomenon. The concepts of truth, beauty, and goodness are not inherent in either physics or chemistry. A machine cannot know, much less know truth, hunger for righteousness, and cherish goodness.

195:6.12 (2077.8) Science may be physical, but the mind of the truth-discerning scientist is at once supermaterial. Matter knows not truth, neither can it love mercy nor delight in spiritual realities. Moral convictions based on spiritual enlightenment and rooted in human experience are just as real and certain as mathematical deductions based on physical observations, but on another and higher level.

195:6.13 (2077.9) If men were only machines, they would react more or less uniformly to a material universe. Individuality, much less personality, would be nonexistent. UB 1955

The above post negates any previous false statements you made respecting atheists and reinforces your acrid aggressive heckling and sense of superiority against atheists.

As far as science goes this is over-the-top intentional ignorance of science based on an ancient religious agenda and does not remotely reflect the reality of science.