Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[SkepticThinker]

In this particular case hypotheiss 1 “wins”

But you made a more ambisious claim……….. “that naturalistic expalnations *always* win.

Consider this counter example.

1 You go to your house, and the drawers start to open and close

2 then you see a nebulous image of a friend of your that passed away few days ago

3 he talks to you and he explains to you that he is a ghost.

4 you have a conversation with him about a football game that you had with him in 3rth grade

5 other witnesses where with you and saw the same thing. and it was rcorded in a camera.

What hypothesis would be better.

1 i´ts a ghost (something that is typically labeled as supernarual)

2 it´s a hallucination (natrual).....................(reed point 5 before claiming that this is the best hypotheiss)



Assuming that you picked hypothesis 1, this proves that it is at least logically possible for natural hypothesis to lose vs something that would be labeled as supernatural.



This shows that naturalistic hypothesis don’t win by default…………

Please give us the Bible quotes/stories that are directly analogous to your claims here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This thread is so funny.......

 

[leroy]

If your goal is to poison your neighbor's dog using the dogfood, then how is you buying the dogfood evidence of you owning a dog?



//facepalm

Horizontal gene transfer is a known mechanism and it accounts for those instances where there is no strict nested hierarchy.
It is known what it can and cannot accomplish.
By NH we mean the large scale things like only mammals having hair, only mammals have mammary glands, only birds and their dino ancestors have feathers, .. and the genetics that underpins those things.

All this is part of the predictions. I was not going to go in such detail for simplicity's sake. But I forgot who I was talking to. You'll grasp at anything in an attempt to defend your nonsense.



The only thing "dangerous" here, is talking to you in general terms so that you have openings to spew your childish nonsense.
Your intellectually dishonest approach never ceases to amaze me.

Again your definition of evidence is unique.

Nobody would deny that an observation of me buying dog food is evidence that I have a dog. Because such an observation would make the hypothesis more likely to be true

All this is part of the predictions. I was not going to go in such detail for simplicity's sake. But I forgot who I was talking to. You'll grasp at anything in an attempt to defend your nonsense.

Your are tacitly admitting that your definition/standard is wrong………… you simply don’t have the intellectual honestly to admit it.
a failure in the NH doesnt falsify evolution (common ancestry) as you previously cliamed.

By NH we mean the large scale things like only mammals having hair, only mammals have mammary glands, only birds and their dino ancestors have feathers, .. and the genetics that underpins those things.

then NH only shows that mammals share a common ancestor, but NH do not show that mammals and bacteria have a common ancestor.


If I propose an alternative hypothesis where prokaryotes and eukaryotes evolved independently , then my hypothesis would also make the same predictions for NH than your hypothesis, we would both predict “no mammals with feathers_”


So by your ridiculous definition of evidence NH is not evidence for evolution (common ancestry)

 

[leroy]

Please give us the Bible quotes/stories that are directly analogous to your claims here.

Why are you changing the topic?

Why not simply granting the conclusion of that post ?

 

[leroy]

We've all explained why to you several times now.

Yes I know, it is simply that your excuses for avoiding the burden proof are amazing

 

[leroy]

This thread is so funny.......

I agree, you have to reject your beloved theory of evolution , just because you don’t want to admit that you made a blunder in your definition of “evidence”.......... to me that is funny

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again your definition of evidence is unique.

Nobody would deny that an observation of me buying dog food is evidence that I have a dog. Because such an observation would make the hypothesis more likely to be true

You never provided a hypothesis. You do not seem to even understand the concept.

Your are tacitly admitting that your definition/standard is wrong………… you simply don’t have the intellectual honestly to admit it.
a failure in the NH doesnt falsify evolution (common ancestry) as you previously cliamed.


then NH only shows that mammals share a common ancestor, but NH do not show that mammals and bacteria have a common ancestor.


If I propose an alternative hypothesis where prokaryotes and eukaryotes evolved independently , then my hypothesis would also make the same predictions for NH than your hypothesis, we would both predict “no mammals with feathers_”


So by your ridiculous definition of evidence NH is not evidence for evolution (common ancestry)

No, just no. This is just more of the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I know, it is simply that your excuses for avoiding the burden proof are amazing

No, the burden of proof is yours. All that it takes to refute your claims is to point out how you have not met the burden of proof. That is why no hypotheses are even needed to defeat you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree, you have to reject your beloved theory of evolution , just because you don’t want to admit that you made a blunder in your definition of “evidence”.......... to me that is funny

Let me see if I have some Preparation H for you. That may ease your pain.

 

[leroy]

Those are not my words.
My actual words are: hypothesis that do NOT require suspension of natural law are, right out the gates, ALWAYS more likely then hypothesis that do.

Those are words that are so obviously true that I am baffled that even you insist on arguing against them.



I love how you have to change things up to include strong and verifiable evidence. Talk about moving the goalpost...
Is that supposed to be analogous to the bible claim?
Where's the verifiable evidence there? Where's the camera recording of jesus?

I am not moving the goal post, I simply provided an extreme example to show that it is logically possible for a naturalistic hypothesis to lose vs a hypothesis that would typically be labeled as supernatural (or that suspend the laws of nature)

At least not in imaginary situations

Can you also give a real-world example?
You can't, can you?

How about that...

Yes, go to the OP

There you will find a hypothesis that would typically be labeled as supernatural, and that requires suspension of natural laws, that is better than their naturalistic competitors.

 

[leroy]

No, the burden of proof is yours. All that it takes to refute your claims is to point out how you have not met the burden of proof. That is why no hypotheses are even needed to defeat you.

Even if true, it amazes me that your goal is to defeat me………… rather than finding out the best explanation for a series of data

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why are you changing the topic?

It's the same topic!

We're talking about Biblical claims. So let's see the claims we are talking about please.

Why not simply granting the conclusion of that post ?

Because it isn't warranted. I'm trying to figure out how you think the scenario in your analogy is at all related to your claims about the resurrection.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes I know, it is simply that your excuses for avoiding the burden proof are amazing

 

[leroy]

It's the same topic!

We're talking about Biblical claims. So let's see the claims we are talking about please.

Because it isn't warranted. I'm trying to figure out how you think the scenario in your analogy is at all related to your claims about the resurrection.

The point of the post was to show that naturalistic hypothesis are not necessarily better than non-naturalistic hypothesis.

So ether grant or refute that point

 

[leroy]

@TagliatelliMonster Those are not my words.
My actual words are: hypothesis that do NOT require suspension of natural law are, right out the gates, ALWAYS more likely then hypothesis that do.

Those are words that are so obviously true that I am baffled that even you insist on arguing against them.

Ok, I am not familiar with that expression in red, I took it as if you were saying that naturalistic hypothesis are necessarily better.

If that is not your claim then I apologize for the strawman…… but I would ask you to explain what do you really mean.

 

[Trailblazer]

So do all the other people who believe things that are mutually exclusive to your beliefs.
The point. It's so far over your head you don't even see it.

What is far over your head is that just because 'other people believe things' that are mutually exclusive to my beliefs that in no way means that my beliefs are not true. There is no logical connection whatsoever. Logically speaking, my beliefs are either true or false. It has absolutely nothing to do with what 'other people' believe.

Knowledge is demonstrable.

There is nothing about 'demonstrable' in any definition of knowledge I have seen.

knowledge

1a(1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique

b(1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something
(2) : the range of one's information or understanding

c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition

d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned

2a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind

Definition of KNOWLEDGE

knowledge;

1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

knowledge means - Google Search

"knowing" and "believing" are not the same thing.
All thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs.

They are not always the same, but a person can know that what they believe is true.
How they know can be explained but it is not understood by others who don't know.

All of them can be wrong as well.
IOW, faith is not a pathway to truth.

I never claimed that faith is a pathway to truth. Evidence is the pathway.

No. Most likely, ALL are wrong. At best, one is correct. And if that is the case, it was just a lucky guess. Because faith is not a pathway to truth.

The fact that faith is not a pathway to truth is not logically connected to which religions, if any, are correct.
Faith is necessary to believe in any religion, since God can never be proven to exist, but faith should be coupled with evidence.

Then one has to ask what you mean by correct. I believe that most religions have some truth in them, but much of the original truth has been lost over time, since man has tampered with the original revelation from the Prophet founder of the religion and thereby corrupted much of the original message.

Not just proven. Even only supported.
And when things can't be proven or supported, then the rational thing to do is to reject them or at least withhold belief until you actually have rational reasons to believe.

My beliefs are supported by evidence but there is no need to go around that block again.
When things can be supported with evidence, then the rational thing to do is to acept them since you you actually have a rational reason to believe.

Your statement reveals that faith beliefs have no basis and that they are just believed because the believers want to believe

When I believe something... it's not because I want to. It's because I MUST. Because I am compelled to through evidence and reason.

I do not believe becaue I want to believe. I believe because I am compelled to through evidence and reason.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The point of the post was to show that naturalistic hypothesis are not necessarily better than non-naturalistic hypothesis.

So ether grant or refute that point

I don't agree and I don't think you've demonstrated that.

You can't even define your terms and admit as much.

 

[leroy]

I don't agree and I don't think you've demonstrated that.

You can't even define your terms and admit as much.

welll I provided an example of a hypotheis that would typically be labeled as supernatrual, that is better than naturalistic hypothesis.


your alternatives are
1 show that the natural hypotheis would be better
2 admit that the supernatrual hypothesis would be better and admit that natural hypothesis are not necesairly better
3 run away and change the topic

(Evidence for the supernatural: I can predict the future, I can predict that you will pick option 3)



Consider this counter example.

1 You go to your house, and the drawers start to open and close

2 then you see a nebulous image of a friend of your that passed away few days ago

3 he talks to you and he explains to you that he is a ghost.

4 you have a conversation with him about a football game that you had with him in 3rth grade

5 other witnesses where with you and saw the same thing. and it was rcorded in a camera.

¿Which hypothesis would be better.?

1 i´ts a ghost (something that is typically labeled as supernarual)

2 it´s a hallucination (natrual).....................



Assuming that you picked hypothesis 1, this proves that it is at least logically possible for natural hypothesis to lose vs something that would be labeled as supernatural.

 

[leroy]

TagliatelliMonster said:
Knowledge is demonstrable.

There is nothing about 'demonstrable' in any definition of knowledge I have seen.

knowledge

1a(1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique

b(1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something
(2) : the range of one's information or understanding

c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition

d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned

2a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind

Definition of KNOWLEDGE

Even trivial examples show that knowledge is not necessarily demonstrable.

I “know” that I had a sandwich for breakfast. But I can´t demonstrate it to be true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if true, it amazes me that your goal is to defeat me………… rather than finding out the best explanation for a series of data

Why is a "best explanation" so important? It is an unsupported myth. Your version is the worst explanation. It is not about "defeating you". It is about not allowing people to make false claims.

As someone that claims to be a Christian honesty should be very important to you.