Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

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.

You could if you tried hard enough.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

It has already been explained why your silly strawman fails when you compare it to the Bible. Move on and find a better argument.

 

[leroy]

It has already been explained why your silly strawman fails when you compare it to the Bible. Move on and find a better argument.

All I intended was to show that naturalistic hypothesis are not necessarily better.


so ether agree or refute that point.


Just kidding, I know that you will find an excuse for not doing none of that

 

[leroy]

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.

And let me guess…………….you will not support your assertions, because for some strange reason you think that atheist have no burden proof

 

[Subduction Zone]

All I intended was to show that naturalistic hypothesis are not necessarily better.


so ether agree or refute that point.


Just kidding, I know that you will find an excuse for not doing none of that

And you utterly failed at that, and people have explained why to you again and again. Your point was refuted. It is time to move on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And let me guess…………….you will not support your assertions, because for some strange reason you think that atheist have no burden proof

There is no need to. You once again need to remember why you are on corrections only. The burden of proof has been met. You simply refuse to acknowledge it. If I did so again you would have the same reaction. We have all seen it whenever you debate and lose.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The simplest child like faith is all that is required.

You probably consider that a virtue.

"A mechanistic philosophy of life and the universe cannot be scientific because science recognizes and deals only with materials and facts. Philosophy is inevitably superscientific. Man is a material fact of nature, but his life is a phenomenon which transcends the material levels of nature in that it exhibits the control attributes of mind and the creative qualities of spirit." UB

I mentioned earlier when you claimed that skeptics like me were trying to control you that that was incorrect, that what we do is correct the errors made by the believers when they try to emulate critical thinkers or borrow their language about evidence and reasoning. And this would be me doing that again: Your source doesn't understand what scientific means, and it makes unsupported claims about reality. The above is all faith-based, and nothing is less scientific than that. Like I said, stay in your own lane. Nonoverlapping magesteria ahead:

You presume a global flood when the Bible does not tell us that.

I disagree, but it doesn't matter what the Bible says to an unbeliever. What matters is how the religion is rendered and what doctrine is taught from the pulpits. Believers argue amongst themselves what scripture really says about hell, but what matters is what believers believe.

You are saying that it is OK to presume (by faith) that the God and supernatural in the Bible are not true and then to make the Bible and when it was written and by whom, fit that presumption.

No. I am saying that the Bible should not be considered to contain any truth in it until that truth is demonstrated empirically.

If the opening of the hand caused the gap then the opening of the hand is the cause. It's really a simple concept. What caused something is the cause.

Yes, I know. The opening of the hand led to an open hand. My point is that you knew which was cause and which was effect - which was the necessary precursor to which.

skeptics come here and say that faith is rubbish and want to speak science and don't realise that their world view has as much faith as a religious persons world view.

You don't realize that my world view is not faith-based. I suspect that you don't consider it possible to have beliefs without using faith. RF has opened my eyes to the prevalence of that belief - people who don't know what critical thinking is and does aren't aware that there are reliable methods for deciding which idea are correct. They call the way they think reasoning. They aren't aware of concepts like invalid or fallacious reasoning and assume that all opinions are faith-based and thus equal.

Yes people believe all sorts of things, even that scientology is true and even that science is a pathway to find the truth.

That's a nice illustration of the difference between belief by faith and empiricism. Only one generates ideas that deserve to be called correct, and it's the one that eschews faith.

This is tedious and boring

It doesn't need to be. There have been many good and interesting ideas broached here that you seem to have no interest in considering. You're in your own little bubble

Well not granted, and you haven’t supported that assertion

That was in response to, "Any "hypothesis" that does not require the suspension of natural law, is more likely than ideas that do require the suspension of natural law."

Yes, he has. Several of us have. But you didn't see that, did you? This would be less tedious and boring for you if you noticed that there are other people posting thoughts and spent a little effort thinking about them (make sure to read them first) and engaging in discussion with others about their ideas, but you seem to only want to repeat yourself. I haven't seen a new idea from you in days, nor any interest in the ideas of others.

This paragraph ought to pique your interest. You ought to be interested in the fact that people think such things about you and looking to see if there is any truth to it. But you seem to have no interest in whether they're correct, nor whether they could possibly have anything worth your attention. What that means is that for the remainder of this thread and every other thread in which you engage in such posting etiquette, you will be bored in the same way. I'm not bored by you. Your arguments, which never change whatever is written to you and show no evidence at all that you have seen their refutations, are boring, but you are not. You are an endlessly fascinating enigma to me. You are so different from me that I can't begin to imagine what motivates you to be this way. Whatever it is, you are missing out on much wisdom here as you steadfastly cling to failed methods that lead to frustration and boredom.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know. Was @Dan From Smithville involved?

Based on the advice of counsel, I have no comment.

 

[paarsurrey]

Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus​

Left Coast said: #8
Because people don't come back alive after being dead for days, as a rule. It's a one way trip. Any claim of some miracle explanation for a phenomenon that violates everything we know about how the world works is going to have automatically very low plausibility.
Apologes said: #10
We know that people don't rise from the dead on their own, true, but here we are talking about God raising someone from the dead. This isn't going against how the world works as its not the laws of nature that are raising the dead but an act of God. On what basis would you assign a low plausibility to God choosing to raise Jesus from the dead a priori?
paarsurrey said: #421
Clue from Bible :Jesus did not resurrect, he need not, as rising from the physical dead is against "Sign of Jonah":
Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah rising from the physical dead is against Sign of Jonah, I (therefore) must say (Jesus did not resurrect at all), as I understand?
Right?

paarsurrey said: #430
Jonah did not die in the belly of the fish so Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah could not and did not die on the Cross or in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, please, right?

paarsurrey said: #449
Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah pegged the Sign of Jonah to be shown to the Jews and the Jews knew as per Book of Jonah that (1) Jonah entered the belly of fish alive, (2)remained alive in the belly of the fish and (3)came out alive from the belly of the fish, so if the Sign was for the Jews then Yeshua had to remain alive and he did remain alive (1) on the Cross, (2) in the tomb where he was laid and (3) afterwards as he was seen by many, please, right?

paarsurrey adds:#476
Since Jonah was a truthful prophet of G-d so applying the same criteria Jesus/Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah was also a truthful prophet, please, right?

• paarsurrey#540
• There are many clues in the Gospels itself that Yeshua- the truthful truthful Messiah did not die on the Cross in the first place so there is no question of his being resurrected from the dead, please, right?

1. Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah prayed in the garden of Gethsemane most fervently to G-d (whom he used to call God-the-Father) that his life may be saved:

Matthew 36-40
36 Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” 37 He took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be grieved and agitated. 38 Then he said to them, “I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and stay awake with me.” 39 And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.” 40

So G-d willed and accepted Yeshua's prayer to the astonishment of Pauline-Christianity people and saved the life of Yeshua against all the odds, please, right?
First Clue in the Gospels :“My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me "

• #776

So, G-d made it possible to let the cup pass from him. Yeshua's prayer was accepted by G-d.
Right?

• #1,144

Second clue: Messiah's bones were not broken

• #1,210

Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah's bones were not broken, Pilate's wife saw a dream and told Pilate to refrain from killing Yeshua, so he maneuvered to save Yeshua's life, right?

Regards

 

[leroy]

And you utterly failed at that, and people have explained why to you again and again. Your point was refuted. It is time to move on.

Well the fact that my argument has not been refuted or even addressed strongly suggest I made a pretty good argument

 

[leroy]

There is no need to. You once again need to remember why you are on corrections only. The burden of proof has been met. You simply refuse to acknowledge it. If I did so again you would have the same reaction. We have all seen it whenever you debate and lose.

No sir, if you made a claim then the burden proof is on you.

 

[leroy]

That was in response to, "Any "hypothesis" that does not require the suspension of natural law, is more likely than ideas that do require the suspension of natural law."

Yes, he has. Several of us have. But you didn't see that, did you? This would be less tedious and boring for you if you noticed that there are other people posting thoughts and spent a little effort thinking about them (make sure to read them first) and engaging in discussion with others about their ideas, but you seem to only want to repeat yourself. I haven't seen a new idea from you in days, nor any interest in the ideas of others.

Stop the hypocrisy, no that point has never been shown to be true or even adressed seriously.


Nobody has shown (or even try to show)that hypothesis that require supernatural/miracles/suspension of natural laws are *necesairly * less likelly to be true than any naturalistic hypothesis. .... al we have is "its true because I say so"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Nobody has shown (or even try to show)that hypothesis that require supernatural/miracles/suspension of natural laws are *necessarily * less likely to be true than any naturalistic hypothesis. .... all we have is "its true because I say so"

No, Leroy. That's all YOU have. And it's by design, at least by the design of your faith-based confirmation bias that filters what you are allowed to see. I showed you what locked in was and what it looks like with a series of quotes from the likes of Craig, Ham, and LaRuffa. They proudly announced that evidence has no impact on them if it contradicts faith-based beliefs. That's you, too, Leroy. What message do you think you send when you keep repeating that nobody will show you a refutation of the OP or an alternate hypothesis when others have seen and written those answers themselves? What do you think you are telling us about your relationship with evidence when you refuse to look for the posts I claim I wrote and provided you with a method to find them? I'll tell you: You're not interested in seeing such a thing. Now you write a post like thatone and expect to be regarded as a standard for what has transpired.

One of my favorite resources on the topic of confirmation bias comes from young earth creationist (YEC) and geologist Glenn Morton, who became an old earth creationist (OEC) as he studied geology at university. He describes his confirmation bias as a YEC using the device of a demon who sat at the portal of his awareness screening ideas and throwing those that disagreed with his faith-based belief out to protect him from contradictory evidence. I find him and the description of his experience credible. The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: February 2002 In his words:

"But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen."

This is how I view your situation, and why I don't place much value in your judgments about what's been posted previously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No sir, if you made a claim then the burden proof is on you.

No, we are dealing with your silly claims here. Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well the fact that my argument has not been refuted or even addressed strongly suggest I made a pretty good argument

Yes, it has been. Just because you refuse to understand how is not our problem. That is your problem now since multiple posters have repeatedly shown how you are wrong. After a while all we need to so is to remind you that of that fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

I didn't say it did. This is the point that goes over your head.
This is not about the accuracy of your beliefs (or inaccuracy). It's about your justification for holding them.

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.

Again, it has to do with your justification for it.
It's about "faith" as a justification. It's not a pathway to truth. It's instead a pathway to false believes. You can believe anything on faith.

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

It's implied. Like "fact". It's verifiable. Demonstrable.
That's how "knowledge" distinguishes itself from mere beliefs.

To quote AaronRa: "You don't know it, if you can't show it"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=knowledge+means

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.

You're not getting it.
Knowledge is a subset of belief.
It's the kind of belief that is rationally justified as opposed to being "just a belief".

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

You don't need faith if you have proper evidence.
Your "evidence" are the things you have faith in.

The fact that faith is not a pathway to truth is not logically connected to which religions, if any, are correct.

Exactly. Which is exactly what makes it useless and irrational to use it as a justification for belief.
Now we are getting somewhere.

Faith is necessary to believe in any religion, since God can never be proven to exist, but faith should be coupled with evidence.

Again, you wouldn't require faith if you would have valid evidence.
If the evidence alone doesn't get you to where you want to be, then adding faith won't make you move an inch closer. Not a rational inch anyway.

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.

Most religions have "some truth" in them, correct. These "truths" however, are the same kind of "truths" we find in disney movies.
Symbolic truths. Poetic truths. Allegorical truths. Truths about human nature, about social situations, about righteousness, patience, humility, etc.

But Iron Man and Thor aren't real charactes that exist in objective reality.
Gods are no different.

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.

When the evidence is rational and can be independently and objectively verified, yes. Not when that "evidence" requires faith.

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

That doesn't seem to be the case at all to me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again your definition of evidence is unique.

It seems you are the only one who has problems with it.

Likely because it shows that what you have are just make-belief claims instead of actual evidence.

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

It would not, as I have explained multiple times now.

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.

I explained why I didn't mention horizontal transfer.
You also know full well what it is and how it is accounted for.
You also know full well how that isn't a problem at all in the great scheme of things concerning nested hierarchies in genetic biology.

Stop grasping at straws and doubling down on fallacious intellectual dishonesty.
It's really tiring.

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)

Imaginary hypothesis don't count.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why are you changing the topic?

Why not simply granting the conclusion of that post ?

Because asking the question he did exposes the intellectual dishonesty in the post he's replying to as it moves the goalposts.
That's why.

The conclusion of said post is irrelevant to the large point at hand.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree, you have to reject your beloved theory of evolution

Only in your imaginary world with an imaginary rivaling hypothesis that account for all the same data.
Not in actual reality.

, just because you don’t want to admit that you made a blunder in your definition of “evidence”.......... to me that is funny

I didn't.
And the only way you can apparantly argue against it, is by making things up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not moving the goal post, I simply provided an extreme example

You provided a fantasy.

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)

I can give you an example of a magician actually conjuring up a rabbit to make the point that it is "logically possible" for real magic to happen.
This is the level of stupid here.

You didn't provide an example. You provided a fantasy. Fantasies aren't proper examples.
Imagining that a human can jump up and fly off into space intstead of falling back to earth, doesn't show that defying gravity is "logically possible".
It's imagining that it is.

Yes, go to the OP

//facepalm

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.

There you will find claims that are in need of evidence.