• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

leroy

Well-Known Member
I think you haven't understood @TagliatelliMonster 's definition of evidence.

The whole underlying principle of it appears to be that evidence should be relevant to the question posed.

So since in your imaginary hypothesis it has in common with the real hypothesis that mammals evolved, NH is evidence for evolution, because in both hypothesis the common question is did mammals evolve, the common evidence is NH, and the common answer is that mammals evolved.

But if you change the question to did mammals evolve from prokarites and eukaryotes or only from one of them you need evidence that distinguishes between the two hypothesis.

It is like this. A description of an individual that accurately fits both jim and Bob as being at a murder scene is not enough to prosecute either one (say for example if they are identical twins). You would need some piece of evidence which can place only Jim at the murder scene.

Now suppose Jim does not have an identical twin. In this case if one investigator proposes Jim committed the murder with a knife and another proposes Jim committed the murder with a gun. If we are asking the question did Jim commit the murder a description fitting only Jim would be evidence that Jim is our murder. But if we change the question to what was the murder weapon used, a knife or a gun? Then a description of Jim is not evidence relevant to the question. We would need either a description of the weapon or evidence such as a bullet in the body or slash wound etc. In this case our description of Jim is not evidence relevant to the question being asked.

So the first case of Jim having a twin is analogous to explaining an event using miracles. God could have miraculously caused Jesus to be resurrected, or could have miraculously caused Paul to die for a delusion. In this case miracles fit literally any scenario and thus it is not even like giving a description of Jim. Your description may as well be that a human did it, it is a description (or evidence) that fits everyone.

The second case of a description fitting only Jim, but approaching the case with two different questions is analogous to your imaginary hypothesis about evolution.
Because your evidence (NH) is relevant to the question did evolution occur, but not relevant to the question which pathway did evolution take.

Consider yourself refuted in my view.

Consider yourself refuted in my view.
If you find a bit of information (call it X) that puts Jim and Bob as the only 2 possible suspects.(and X excludes all the other 10 possible murderes) then X would count as evidence against Bob and Jim……. (perhaps not conclusive evidence) but evidence.

If you agree with that statement, then you agree with me, and disagree with @TagliatelliMonster

As for NH all I am saying is that NH only show that we are related to some organism, but NH by itself doesn’t takes you to universal common descend. NH doestn show that humans and bacteria are related. (other lines of evidence do, not not NH)

It could be the case that abiogenesis occurred twice, and that both “lines “ survived and evolved independently ………. This is far form being “ridiculous hypothesis”

Given that hypothesis then current observations of NH would also be consistent and predicted.......... we woudl also predict no mammals with feathers and no NH pattern when comparring humans and bacteria............... both universal common ancestry and (2 common ancestors) woudl make the same prediction.

If you agree with this statement about NH, you agree with me and disagree with @TagliatelliMonster
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
As ridiculoues as this may sound, but a few days ago, I did gave you the benefit of the doubt and actually scrolled back in search for your posts to see if you really did answered to my request......but I found nothing. But well it was my mistake for trusting you, and I take the blame for that.
Your mistakes included waiting too long to comment on this matter, waiting too long to look for my posts, waiting too long to report your findings, and not following directions when you did. Because of that, I don't actually believe you looked, but even if you did, you used your unaided eyes, which can't see what you claim to have looked for. I told you how to use a search engine to see words for you and direct you to what you seek, but that's among the many things you apparently didn't see.

How many people have told you the same thing now, and you ignore them all? Joelr just posted, "you will ignore my post no matter what because you always do." Skeptic Thinker just posted, "Leroy, we've all spent hours as well, responding to your posts, refuting your arguments and pointing out where your evidence is lacking. And what do we get from you? Repetition of the EXACT. SAME. POST. Over and over again." Tagliatelle Monster just posted, "Talk about confirming what he was saying."

And none of it has any impact on you.
You will not get a reply
I know, and that's a problem for you. I no longer expect one. Now, it's just about why that is. Why on earth would anybody post like you do, Leon? What's in it for you to alienate others?
because it is obviously an attemt to change the topic and avoid the challenge from the OP.
Wrong. It was an attempt to help you understand yourself better and improve yourself as was the template I provided for how to respond thoroughly to a post and how to do an RF search, but you can't be helped if you won't cooperate at even the most basic level like acknowledging that you see these things much less discussing them.

There is no remaining challenge from the OP. It's been rebutted multiple times, although apparently you've never seen any of the arguments.

And guess what I just found from a post dated July 22, 2022. I've removed much of my answer, because I simply won't give it to you again. You haven't earned it. How do you suppose I found this, and why won't you do the same? :

You: "pick a specific naturalistic process that explains the data. And lets test it against the resurrection hypothesis in terms of parsimony explanatory power explanatory scope plausibility etc...."

Me: "OK. I've already done this, but here's the answer I expect is most likely to be correct. [content deleted] This is a very parsimonious hypothesis. [content deleted] It completely explains the story, and it is quite plausible."

Me: "Once again, it would have been nice if you had addressed that argument when you saw it."

So, we've been down this road before*, and it ended the same way. And we may well engage again in the future. If you'd like it to go a different way, I suggest that you start paying attention. If you bring this same posting etiquette with you again - failing to address most of what is written, ignoring most questions to you, and repeating arguments already rebutted, you'll get the same response: What's in it for me to continue like this? You might want to pay attention to that comment this time. What do you offer others with this behavior?

*I'm reminded of song lyrics:

But you and I, we've been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us stop talkin' falsely now
The hour's getting late
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Leroy, we've all spent hours as well, responding to your posts, refuting your arguments and pointing out where your evidence is lacking.
And what do we get from you? Repetition of the EXACT. SAME. POST. Over and over again. Please don't bother trying to admonish us for not addressing your points when that is all we have done over and over again. Seriously.

Nobody anywhere on this thread has said "Naturalism wins because I say so" and it's disingenuous of you to say as much when you know full well nobody has argued that.
That is why I have been suggesting for weeks a different approach.

1 Provide and develop your hypothesis

2 expalin why is that hypothesis better than the resurrection according to the criteria mentioned in the OP
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Your mistakes included waiting too long to comment on this matter, waiting too long to look for my posts, waiting too long to report your findings, and not following directions when you did. Because of that, I don't actually believe you looked, but even if you did, you used your unaided eyes, which can't see what you claim to have looked for. I told you how to use a search engine to see words for you and direct you to what you seek, but that's among the many things you apparently didn't see.

How many people have told you the same thing now, and you ignore them all? Joelr just posted, "you will ignore my post no matter what because you always do." Skeptic Thinker just posted, "Leroy, we've all spent hours as well, responding to your posts, refuting your arguments and pointing out where your evidence is lacking. And what do we get from you? Repetition of the EXACT. SAME. POST. Over and over again." Tagliatelle Monster just posted, "Talk about confirming what he was saying."

And none of it has any impact on you.

I know, and that's a problem for you. I no longer expect one. Now, it's just about why that is. Why on earth would anybody post like you do, Leon? What's in it for you to alienate others?

Wrong. It was an attempt to help you understand yourself better and improve yourself as was the template I provided for how to respond thoroughly to a post and how to do an RF search, but you can't be helped if you won't cooperate at even the most basic level like acknowledging that you see these things much less discussing them.

There is no remaining challenge from the OP. It's been rebutted multiple times, although apparently you've never seen any of the arguments.

And guess what I just found from a post dated July 22, 2022. I've removed much of my answer, because I simply won't give it to you again. You haven't earned it. How do you suppose I found this, and why won't you do the same? :

You: "pick a specific naturalistic process that explains the data. And lets test it against the resurrection hypothesis in terms of parsimony explanatory power explanatory scope plausibility etc...."

Me: "OK. I've already done this, but here's the answer I expect is most likely to be correct. [content deleted] This is a very parsimonious hypothesis. [content deleted] It completely explains the story, and it is quite plausible."

Me: "Once again, it would have been nice if you had addressed that argument when you saw it."

So, we've been down this road before*, and it ended the same way. And we may well engage again in the future. If you'd like it to go a different way, I suggest that you start paying attention. If you bring this same posting etiquette with you again - failing to address most of what is written, ignoring most questions to you, and repeating arguments already rebutted, you'll get the same response: What's in it for me to continue like this? You might want to pay attention to that comment this time. What do you offer others with this behavior?

*I'm reminded of song lyrics:

But you and I, we've been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us stop talkin' falsely now
The hour's getting late

Me: "OK. I've already done this, but here's the answer I expect is most likely to be correct. [content deleted] This is a very parsimonious hypothesis. [content deleted] It completely explains the story, and it is quite plausible."

One wonders why did you deleted that content?........... could it be that the original content was you just exposing a hypothesis with one or two words,????????? rather than developing the hypothesis and explaining why is it better than the resurrection as I asked you to?

I know, and that's a problem for you. I no longer expect one. Now, it's just about why that is. Why on earth would anybody post like you do, Leon? What's in it for you to alienate others?


I said that I was going to ignore things that are not related to the OP, so why are you picking me on that?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
That is why I have been suggesting for weeks a different approach.

1 Provide and develop your hypothesis

2 expalin why is that hypothesis better than the resurrection according to the criteria mentioned in the OP
This was in response to, "Leroy, we've all spent hours as well, responding to your posts, refuting your arguments and pointing out where your evidence is lacking. And what do we get from you? Repetition of the EXACT. SAME. POST. Over and over again. Please don't bother trying to admonish us for not addressing your points when that is all we have done over and over again. Seriously."

You even bolded that part yourself.

And what do you respond with?

Repetition of the EXACT. SAME. POST.

:shrug:
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Imaginary hypothesis don't count.
All hypothesis are imaginary but ok

Abiogenesis could have happened twice (agreeeeee? (yes)……………..All I am saying is that NH do not get you universal common ancestor, if say humans and bacteria belong to a different” line” we would have the exact same observations related to NH that we currectly have.

NH is not an exclusive prediction for universal common descend, if there were 2 or 3 o4 or 5 different lines, we would expect to make the same observations.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
This was in response to, "Leroy, we've all spent hours as well, responding to your posts, refuting your arguments and pointing out where your evidence is lacking. And what do we get from you? Repetition of the EXACT. SAME. POST. Over and over again. Please don't bother trying to admonish us for not addressing your points when that is all we have done over and over again. Seriously."

You even bolded that part yourself.

And what do you respond with?

Repetition of the EXACT. SAME. POST.

:shrug:
Can you quote a single argument made by me in this thread that has been refuted? NO

So stop making things up.



But even if you have addressed and refuted all my arguments, that is still not an excuse for not addressing the OP

1 provide and develop a hypothesis,

2 explain why is it better than the resurrection
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
It's another way of saying "right of the bat". It means the same thing.
Well under what basis do you affirm that ne naturalistic hypotheiss are "right of the bat" always better than those that require a suspension of natural laws? (lets call them supernatrual )

You haven’t supported that claim.

And I did refuted your claim with my ghost example.................. my gohst example shows that alteast in principle a supernatrual hypotheiss could be better than naturalistic ones.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Well under what basis do you affirm that ne naturalistic hypotheiss are "right of the bat" always better than those that require a suspension of natural laws? (lets call them supernatrual )

You haven’t supported that claim.
We've all explained it to you a million times by now.
And I did refuted your claim with my ghost example.................. my gohst example shows that alteast in principle a supernatrual hypotheiss could be better than naturalistic ones.
No, it doesn't.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Your "evidence", is the thing that requires faith to be accepted...
No, just investigation.
Which you would then only do because you want to believe it.
I do not want to believe in God, but I am compelled to believe because of Baha'u'llah, which is the evidence for me.
My late husband could easily testify to that if he was still here on earth.
I would not. Why on earth would you think that I would?
It's exactly what I ask for: objectively verifiable evidence.
It's the only evidence that matters.
Correction: Objectively verifiable evidence is the only evidence that matters to you.
You cannot speak for other people and what matters to them because you don't know.
Unverifiable "evidence", isn't evidence at all. It fails to fullfill the whole point of "evidence", which is to render something more plausible.
Adding just another claim to be believed (like unverifiable "testimony"), does not make it more plausible.
Unverifiable "evidence", isn't evidence to you, but it is evidence.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

There are many kinds of evidence, and not all evidence is verifiable. Verifiable evidence is proof because it establishes something as a fact.

Fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact
You wouldn't require faith.
Who said I required faith? It does require faith to believe the claims about God's attributes, such as God is loving, since there is no way to know they are true, but it doesn't require faith to believe that God exists, since there is so much evidence.
I'm well aware of that. You are a fine example.
Unfortunately, when it comes to religions, a lot of theists fail to reason properly and view evidence rationally.
The more fundamentalist they are, the more problems they usually have with that also.
Just because a lot of theists fail to reason properly and view evidence rationally that doesn't mean that all theists fail to reason properly and view evidence rationally. To claim that would be the fallacy of hasty generalization.
Myeah okay... i was assuming people are all rational.
Yes, people who fail at rational reasoning have problems with properly evaluating evidence, you are correct.
Point for you.
You mean you were assuming that everyone thinks like you, which you consider rational.
So anyone who does not think like you fails at rational reasoning ans has problems with properly evaluating evidence.
You do not even bother to evaluate the evidence, you just discount it out of hand, and I don't consider that rational reasoning.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!”​
“Again, a man proclaims: ‘There lies a garden in 104 which there are trees with broken branches bearing no fruit, and the leaves thereof are faded and yellow! In that garden, also, there are flowering plants with no blooms, and rose bushes withered and dying—go not into that garden!’ A just man, hearing this account of the garden, would not be content without seeing for himself whether it be true or not. He, therefore, enters the garden, and behold, he finds it well tilled; the branches of the trees are sturdy and strong, being also loaded with the sweetest of ripe fruits amongst the luxuriance of beautiful green leaves. The flowering plants are bright with many-hued blossoms; the rose bushes are covered with fragrant and lovely roses and all is verdant and well tended. When the glory of the garden is spread out before the eyes of the just man, he praises God that, through unworthy calumny, he has been led into a place of such wondrous beauty!”​
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Good grief. :facepalm:

I gotta get off this broken record train.
This is amazing, you make random claims of my arguments being refuted………….. but you are unable to quote a single one of them

I´ll ask again

Can you quote a single argument made by me in this thread that has been refuted? NO
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
We've all explained it to you a million times by now.
But you can’t quote a single one……..can you? ………… because all you have are answers such as “nature wins because I say so”


No, it doesn't.
Why not?

I provided a hypothetical example where “ghost” (usually labeled as supernatural) would be a better examplanation than “hallucinations” (natural)………… and none of you have disagreed with the statement, so what happened? Did you change your mind?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
This is amazing, you make random claims of my arguments being refuted………….. but you are unable to quote a single one of them

I´ll ask again

Can you quote a single argument made by me in this thread that has been refuted? NO
When you don't listen to the explanations that you demand people will stop playing your silly games with you sooner or later.

You still lost the argument even if no one replies any longer.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I

If you whant to have a serious conversation with me, you have to adress the OP........ provide and develope an alternative hypothesis , and show that the hypothesis is better than the resurection according to the criteria mentioned in that OP.

I will not accept answers such as "naturalism wins because I say so" nor answers such as "I already answered in some post but I will not tell you where"

As a so called "critical thinker " you should repudiate that type of answers


Whithin the las 2 or 3 weeks I spended hours of my time addressing your specific demands and questions.


Why cant you show that same courtesy to me? ...... I am only making 1 specfic request (which is related to the OP)

If I dedicated time to your demands, why wouldn't you do the same with my demands?

Kudos to you for being overwhelmed with posts from skeptics/atheists and keeping on.
That ganging up seems to be the way of the atheist/skeptics on this forum. I know the feeling and how, for me, it becomes impossible to keep answering the many and super long replies from what appears to be a determination not to understand what you are saying.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Kudos to you for being overwhelmed with posts from skeptics/atheists and keeping on.
That ganging up seems to be the way of the atheist/skeptics on this forum. I know the feeling and how, for me, it becomes impossible to keep answering the many and super long replies from what appears to be a determination not to understand what you are saying.
Really? There was no "ganging up". He was just shown to be wrong time after time.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Really? There was no "ganging up". He was just shown to be wrong time after time.

Maybe, I have not been keeping up with reading the posts. I am going on my experience of what seems to happen and of course whether @leroy was wrong or not is a matter of opinion.
But you skeptics do have a habit of going on and on and on and on about the same things and making your posts longer and longer, even to the extent of breaking up sentences into parts and complaining about each part of the sentence and in the process, losing the whole gist of what was said and the reasoning behind it.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
One wonders why did you deleted that content?........... could it be that the original content was you just exposing a hypothesis with one or two words,????????? rather than developing the hypothesis and explaining why is it better than the resurrection as I asked you to?
That's logically possible. Why don't you investigate for yourself? Try the search function I showed you. You've got key words quoted and a date.

The reason I deleted that content was twofold. First, I told you that I would not do your job. If you won't go find it, then it's not for you to know.

Second, I'm no longer willing to discuss the subject with you, and I felt that giving you my answer would lead to you going into repeating yourself without acknowledgement of what is written to you. I have no interest in doing that with you any longer.
I said that I was going to ignore things that are not related to the OP, so why are you picking me on that?
You ignore everything.
Can you quote a single argument made by me in this thread that has been refuted?
Yes, but why bother? Why refute you again and again just to have you write posts like that? As you said, it's boring and tedious. Up your game, and you might get some takers. To do that, you're going to need to begin paying attention to what is written to you and responding to it responsively.

There's a saying that if three different people at a party say you're too drunk to drive home, even if you disagree, you should give them your keys. Brian thinks people are ganging up on you because they all report the same problem, but maybe you should consider the possibility that they might be on to something.
what appears to be a determination not to understand what you are saying.
Why do you think that you aren't understood? You're being disagreed with and told how, where, and why.

And do you think that applies to Leroy now? Do you think that he just isn't being understood? If so, you've got it backwards. Leroy doesn't understand or cannot assimilate the refutations of the OP. He hasn't understood or cannot remember seeing the alternative hypotheses to resurrection. He doesn't or won't understand the principle of parsimony in hypothesis formation.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Maybe, I have not been keeping up with reading the posts. I am going on my experience of what seems to happen and of course whether @leroy was wrong or not is a matter of opinion.
But you skeptics do have a habit of going on and on and on and on about the same things and making your posts longer and longer, even to the extent of breaking up sentences into parts and complaining about each part of the sentence and in the process, losing the whole gist of what was said and the reasoning behind it.
No, it is far from being "just an opinion". Perhaps your own losses have tainted your judgment.

Some background, the argument used was supposed to be a rational one. That is what the OP tried to claim. It wasn't. It was a failed argument.

The good news, just because it is a terribly failed argument it does not mean that your beliefs are automatically wrong. It only means that they are highly irrational and are not supported by reliable evidence.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
That is why I have been suggesting for weeks a different approach.

1 Provide and develop your hypothesis

Paul had a psychosis
2 expalin why is that hypothesis better than the resurrection according to the criteria mentioned in the OP
3 in 100 people experience psychosis at least once in their life. So it's not rare.
Contrary to the OP, psychosis doesn't require natural law to be suspended. Not only is natural law suspension "rare", it is pretty much akin to "impossible".
When we call something "impossible", most of the time we mean that it would require suspension of natural law.

So, hypothesis one is a common occurence in humans and a perfectly valid possible explanation
Hypothesis 2 is akin to being impossible.

Guess which one is "better".

Done.
 
Top