Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

Back to the beginning,

A few days ago a provided an example of a supernatural theory would be preferred over a natural.



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).....................

............

Do you agree that hypothesis 1 would better than hypothesis 2 answer yes or no.

smh. Seriously are you back to this again?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes but 0 in 100 have concluded that someone resurrected because of psychosis.

lol whut?
Do you even know what psychosis is? It seems like you don't.
It is hallmarked by sheer loss of grips with reality and magical thinking.
It's neurons going beserk causing delusion, hallucination (hearing voices, seeing people/things,...)
When left untreated, this state can go on for months.

People suffering from psychosis, could literally anything about anything.
And the delusions will off course be "seeded" with one's own experiences, social network, culture, memories,...

So, especially in those days, having delusions about a street preacher being actually god and all that. Why not have a hallucination about seeing him after he died and have a chat? It's literally what psychosis / schizofrenia does. It's also perfectly possible that nothing at all happened and that this story simply manifested as a (false) memory inside his sick brain.

It's perfectly plausible.


For the record: I don't actually care at all. I'm just humoring you here. Because again: natural explanations, specially with loads of precedents, are ALWAYS better then fantastical ones that require suspension of natural law, with zero precedents.

That argument would only be valid if you show that suspension of natural laws hypothesis are necessarily worst

lol

They are worst because they are indistinguishable from imagination. They are potentially infinite in number.
They are not verifiable in any way. There is nothing there to reflect on or to investigate. There is no data. There is just the claim "magic happened".

They are entirely useless as "explanation" because they have no explanatory power beyond "magic happened".

In fact.............................
Let's pretend here that the Jezus story occurs today and we have unmistakeble bulletproof verifiable evidence that Jezus he was seen 3 days after his supposed crucifixian at gas-station Y. Picked up by traffic cams.

What would the most likely explanation:

1. he was never crucified. Perhaps switched with someone that looked like him.
2. He was crucified, but was taken down and didn't die.
3. He was crucified, died and then magic happened

No it doesn’t have much explanatory power, people with psychosis are not expected to conclude that someone resurrected (that has never happened)

People with psychosis are expected to claim just about anything and are known to draw their own beliefs, fears, culture and social network into the delusions / false memories / hallucinations.

Magical thinking is the natural order of the day for someone suffering from psychosis.

no it doesn’t have explanatory scope, Paul having psychosis doesn’t explain the appearances to the other disciples.

Hearsay

It is completely adhoc, you are assuming a mental illness without any evidence,

You are assuming magic without any evidence.
At lease mental illness is known to be quite common.

it is inconsistent with previous knowledge, people do not conclude that someone resurrected, because they had a psychosis.

You should go sit in with schizofrenics in the hospital suffering from accute psychosis and hear what they say.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Back to the beginning,

A few days ago a provided an example of a supernatural theory would be preferred over a natural.



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).....................

............

Do you agree that hypothesis 1 would better than hypothesis 2 answer yes or no.

We've all replied to this already, when you first posted it. The poster you're responding to just addressed it in the response to which you replied with this repetitious nonsense. Again.

Are you okay?

 

[leroy]

Huh? How did you come to that conculsion?

No, Leroy. You're shifting the burden of proof again.

Huh? "Not expected?" People with psychosis are "expected" to make claims that are not attached to reality.

You mean the claim of the appearance that Paul makes on behalf of other people?

A person making a claim that is detached from reality could be considered evidence of mental illness.

It is consistent with previous knowledge. Human beings are known to suffer from psychosis. On the other hand, resurrections are not known to occur.

Again, people with psychosis don’t conclude that “someone resurrected” that has never been reported.

Why is this so hard to understand?

From: Paul had psychosis

You don’t get

Paul and the disciples concluded that Jesus resurected

No, Leroy. You're shifting the burden of proof again.

The burden proof is on the one who males the claim

You mean the claim of the appearance that Paul makes on behalf of other people?

yes

A person making a claim that is detached from reality could be considered evidence of mental illness.

It is still adhoc

It is consistent with previous knowledge. Human beings are known to suffer from psychosis. On the other hand, resurrections are not known to occur.

Pysiycotic events where people concluded that someone resurrected has never been shown to have happened ether.

 

[leroy]

smh. Seriously are you back to this again?

Atheist number one fails to provide a direct yes or no answer

"Do you agree that hypothesis 1 would better than hypothesis 2 answer yes or no."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Back to the beginning,

A few days ago a provided an example of a supernatural theory would be preferred over a natural.



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).....................

............

Do you agree that hypothesis 1 would better than hypothesis 2 answer yes or no.

Back to the beginning indeed. You are on an infinite loop.

Yes leroy, if we imagine a world in which magical things happen, then in that world it would be logical to include magical things in hypothesis (since they demonstrable occur in the imagination world) and thus in that imagined scenario, it wouldn't be different from a natural hypothesis.


Now get it in your head that we don't live in that imagined world.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again, people with psychosis don’t conclude that “someone resurrected” that has never been reported.

People with psychosis conclude all sorts of things that are not tied to reality.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Because you don't seem to understand what psychosis is?

From: Paul had psychosis

You don’t get

Paul and the disciples concluded that Jesus resurected

You mean the hearsay claims we've already dismissed?

The burden proof is on the one who males the claim


yes


It is still adhoc

It's a rational and natural explanation.

Pysiycotic events where people concluded that someone resurrected has never been shown to have happened ether.

Sure they have. Go hang out in a psych ward sometime. You'll hear all kinds of things that have nothing to do with reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why? Because you say so?

Please stop acting like a child and support your claims………..

Says the guy who casually throws big bang theory claims into the mix without supporting them.
No, instead he asks me to support my "claim" when I point out to him that his casual unevidenced claim is not what big bang theory says.


Oh well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, people with psychosis don’t conclude that “someone resurrected” that has never been reported.

First you need to provide evidence for this claim. second it does not matter. You get hung up over words at times. There are endless cases of people "seeing" the dead. Resurrection is just one explanation. Personally I do not know or really care how they explain it. I can't see why some would not use that explanation. Most people looking into this do not even seem to ask people what their explanation was, they merely note that the person made that claim.

 

[leroy]

We've all replied to this already, when you first posted it. The poster you're responding to just addressed it in the response to which you replied with this repetitious nonsense. Again.

Are you okay?

Atheist number 2 fails to provide a direct yes or no answer

We've all replied to this already

But no direct yes/no answers.

I honestly thought that that you were all tacitly granting that at least in some hypothetical scenarios “supernatural” can be the best hypothesis.

But now I begin to doubt this is why I am asking for direct yes or no answers.



Evidence for the supernatural

I can predict the future, I can predict that I will not get a direct YES nor a direct NO

 

[Subduction Zone]

Atheist number one fails to provide a direct yes or no answer

"Do you agree that hypothesis 1 would better than hypothesis 2 answer yes or no."

Because your silly example has nothing to do with reality.

It is a self defeating argument since you had to invent an even more ridiculous ad hoc hypothesis to defend that of those that are trying to defend the Bible. It is shooting your left foot clean off so that you can hold up your left foot and say "See? No bullet holes here."

 

[leroy]

Back to the beginning indeed. You are on an infinite loop.

Yes leroy, if we imagine a world in which magical things happen, then in that world it would be logical to include magical things in hypothesis (since they demonstrable occur in the imagination world) and thus in that imagined scenario, it wouldn't be different from a natural hypothesis.


Now get it in your head that we don't live in that imagined world.

3 replys zero direct yes or no answers.

I am talking about this world…………..if you make these observations………….. would you conclude that Gohst is a better hypothesis?

YES or NO





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.




---

 

[leroy]

Because your silly example has nothing to do with reality.

It is a self defeating argument since you had to invent an even more ridiculous ad hoc hypothesis to defend that of those that are trying to defend the Bible. It is shooting your left foot clean off so that you can hold up your left foot and say "See? No bullet holes here."

I am not supporting the bible with this example………..I am showing that atleast hypothetically it is possible to make observations that would be better explained with “supernatrual”

So ether agree or refute this claim

 

[leroy]

First you need to provide evidence for this claim.

No, the burden prove is on the one who claims that “believe in resurrection” was caused by Paul´s psychosis.

second it does not matter. You get hung up over words at times. There are endless cases of people "seeing" the dead. Resurrection is just one explanation. Personally I do not know or really care how they explain it. I can't see why some would not use that explanation. Most people looking into this do not even seem to ask people what their explanation was, they merely note that the person made that claim.

The burden proof is on you

1 Yes many people “see the dead”

2 but unless you show otherwise, people do not conclude that their dead relatives resurrected-.they conclude that they are observing a spirit or a ghost or a divine manifestation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Atheist number 2 fails to provide a direct yes or no answer

And you've utterly failed to notice that Atheist #1 already responded to this. Your reply was to post the exact same thing again.

But no direct yes/no answers.

I honestly thought that that you were all tacitly granting that at least in some hypothetical scenarios “supernatural” can be the best hypothesis.

But now I begin to doubt this is why I am asking for direct yes or no answers.



Evidence for the supernatural

I can predict the future, I can predict that I will not get a direct YES nor a direct NO

RIdiculous.

 

[SkepticThinker]

3 replys zero direct yes or no answers.

I am talking about this world…………..if you make these observations………….. would you conclude that Gohst is a better hypothesis?

YES or NO





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.




---

I responded to this in depth when you posted it the first (or second or third, who knows) time several pages back.
And no, I will not repost it for you. Do your own homework.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, the burden prove is on the one who claims that “believe in resurrection” was caused by Paul´s psychosis.



The burden proof is on you

1 Yes many people “see the dead”

2 but unless you show otherwise, people do not conclude that their dead relatives resurrected-.they conclude that they are observing a spirit or a ghost or a divine manifestation.

When my grandmother was in the hospital she thought the curtains around her bed were ocean waves and she saw her (deceased) sister swimming around in them and waving at her.

People suffering from psychosis are detached from reality. They can/have/do see all sorts of things that are not in any way tied to reality.

 

[leroy]

And you've utterly failed to notice that Atheist #1 already responded to this. Your reply was to post the exact same thing again.

RIdiculous.

I predicted the future What other evidence for the supernatural do you want?

Evidence for the supernatural

I can predict the future, I can predict that I will not get a direct YES nor a direct NO

Honestly, why is it so hard to answer to questions directly?

 

[leroy]

I responded to this in depth when you posted it the first (or second or third, who knows) time several pages back.
And no, I will not repost it for you. Do your own homework.

Agree, it seems to me that you tacitly acknowledge that the supernatural hypothesis would win in this hypothetical scenario.

I simply prefer a direct answer (rather than a tacit one) is that a crime?

If you are constantly accusing me for making strawman arguments, wouldn’t it be good to share direct answers, so that I no longer commit that fallacy?

Or is providing vague answers part of a debate tactic?

 

[leroy]

When my grandmother was in the hospital she thought the curtains around her bed were ocean waves and she saw her (deceased) sister swimming around in them and waving at her.

People suffering from psychosis are detached from reality. They can/have/do see all sorts of things that are not in any way tied to reality.

Did your grandmother proclaimed the resurrection of her sister?

Did she hold that belief in the resurrection long term? (or only during that period of psychosis)?

And even assuming that Paul concluded resurrection because he had psychosis

And what is the next step of your hypothesis?............ did Paul after having an hallucination told everybody that Jesus resurrected and they simply trusted him?

Would you die in the name of the resurrection of your aunt, just because your grandmother told you?......... if not why assuming that Peter and the disciples where any different?