If a case for the historical resurrection of Jesus is wrong, it does not mean that believing that someone rose from the dead is irrational.
Yes, it does. A belief is either the product of valid reasoning applied to premises or evidence (justified belief, sound conclusion) or believed by faith. If you got there using reason, your belief is rational. All other belief sidesteps reason, which is what the roots in irRATIOnal mean.
Ir- is the privative prefix,
-ratio- is reason, and
-nal is the suffix for the adjectival form of the noun reason
There is no burden of proof. It is not a matter of proof, it is a matter of faith
Leroy, like the author of the OP and the source he quotes (Licona), thinks he has a good argument for believing that a resurrection actually occurred, not a faith-based belief.
I can understand your frustration when someone says they have answered a point and will not point to where or repeat the answer.
But I did. I gave him a roadmap to the answer. I gave him my answer twice, and when he asked for it again, I showed him how to do an RF thread archives search, which he didn't acknowledge seeing, so he probably can't perform a search, can't find the post now, and probably is unaware that it exists. That's all I'll do for him. If he's frustrated, whose fault is that?
I'd gladly show you both my answer to why scripture reads as it does regarding resurrection and the instructions on how to perform a search, but I won't do either for Leroy again, so you'll either have to do that search yourself or remain in suspense with Leroy.
Comparing the life of Jesus to some ancient mythical religious figure is ridiculous.
Not to a critical thinker. Jesus is also an "ancient mythical religious figure," although legendary may be more accurate than mythical if the gospel accounts of a first century itinerant Hebrew fundamentalist and reformer have some basis in fact and history.
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?
The problem is that you unwittingly transform ideas and paraphrase them incorrectly the rare instances where you acknowledge seeing something written to you. It's a very common phenomenon on these threads and elsewhere. Someone says Paul may have been psychotic and that morphs into claiming that Paul was psychotic. On a recent thread, I noted that consciousness may well be an epiphenomenon of physical reality and that morphed into a claim of fact. Agnostic atheists tell theists that they do not have a god belief and this morphs into believing that there are no gods.
So sharing answers with you isn't the solution. What doesn't seem to penetrate is that you are considered unteachable. You keep posting as if people should view you as somebody who can process arguments, but you show that you can't. It seems like about 90% of the material goes by you unseen and another 10% is mangled in translation into what then are strawman representations of the actual argument. The solution is not to write more words to you to
What you don’t seem to understand is that as a debater your “job” is to support your claims…..your job is not to “educate me” or “teach me lessons”
That last part was a bonus - a constructive act of good will that might have been valuable to you. Your principal difficulty here is a thread full of posters with the same complaint and your nonreaction to that. It's put you at an impasse with them all. Nobody is willing to do things your way.
Regarding debating, there is no debating here beyond rebutting your same argument with the same rebuttal, which is no more a debate than ping-pong in which returned serves are never defended against is a volley. There's nothing more to do if you won't engage. You'd like me to repeat myself again, but you've also made me unwilling to do that by refusing to do YOUR job in a debate.
Like I keep saying, you need to occasionally ask yourself what's in it for the other guy to continue with you? And this applies to all aspects of life. Why should this employer keep paying me? Why should this woman remain my wife? Why should these people elect me? If you are indifferent to their needs, they are apt to disengage from you as many of us have done with you.
Too bad you reject so much constructive advice out of hand. There's some wisdom in these words. I'm a friend, not a foe, but you distrust me. I also can't hand feed a squirrel in the park unwilling to approach and meet me or let me get close to him. All I can do is leave my offering on the ground and hope he searches for and finds it.
If your claim is that you already answered to a question your job is to show that to be true by quoting the question and the answer.
I have no further duty to you. Your job was to pay attention to what was read to you and address it with rebuttal the first time. Your job was to make this a mutually beneficial exercise by engaging in dialectic. Your job was to search for the posts you let pass by unacknowledged and later claimed didn't exist, since you weren't paying attention the two or more times I gave you my hypothesis to account for the scriptural claim of resurrection and witnesses.
If your claim is that I made a mistake your job is to quote my comment and explain why is it wrong. If your claim is that I made logical fallacies, your job is to quote my comments and explain why are they fallacious. (as I do repeatedly with your posts.
Done. Your job was to read it, understand it, and assimilate it. You didn't, and now you are seeing why you should have.
That is your job regardless if I will ignore your comments or not………this is not about me….. External readers might beneficiate from your contribution.
I AM writing to them. Writing to you has been fruitless. Or did you think I expect these words to have any impact on you? I don't. I don't expect you to remember seeing them five minutes from now. I don't expect anything at all about you change no matter what I write, so I need another reason to keep writing, don't I?
So @It Aint Necessarily So do you really think that external observers will beneficiate form answers such as "I already answered to that, but I will not tell you where, nor I will quote the post where I wrote that answer" ?
Yes. Nobody but you needs to see me post that reply again, and if I did, you still wouldn't see it.
And the word is benefit, not beneficiate, a term from metallurgy. That's for the thread, since I don't expect you to beneficiate from my words if you get my drift.
sow that your hypothesis is better according to these criteria do the complete job.
- Explanatory scope - does the hypothesis account for all the data
- Explanatory power - how well does the hypothesis explain the data
- Plausibility - is the hypothesis compatible with or implied by facts that are generally accepted as known
- Less ad hoc - does the hypothesis go beyond what is known and makes unevidenced assumptions
I would say that resurection clearly wins in 3 of these points (in green)...................But I will allow you to develop your hypothesis and prove me wrong
I'd say that resurrection is equally explanatory - not more - as any naturalistic hypothesis, since they all explain the existence of those scriptures, but has no explanatory power since there is no mechanism known for supernaturalism or reason to believe it is possible, and is thus more ad hoc and less plausible than any naturalistic explanation.
I won't be repeating this. Look at it now. Read it now. Rebut it now if you think you can. Try not to go back into your routine this time.
A bad naturalistic hypothesis is worst than a good “supernatural hypothesis” “It is logically possible for a supernatural hypothesis to win” Do you agree
Never, unless the naturalistic explanation is impossible.
the big bang violates our current understanding of scientific laws
No, it doesn't.
0 in 100 have concluded that someone resurrected because of psychosis.
So what?
That argument would only be valid if you show that suspension of natural laws hypothesis are necessarily worst, otherwise you don’t win by default
Already done. Maybe not to you, but that doesn't matter except to you.
Paul having psychosis doesn’t explain the appearances to the other disciples.
Did you mean alleged appearances to others? So what? That fact doesn't support supernaturalism as the explanation for why we read what we do in scripture.
you are assuming a mental illness without any evidence
No, he's not. That's wrong twice. He's not assuming a mental illness and there is evidence to suggest that that might be the case. Hallucination and delusion are part and parcel of psychosis. This is not necessarily what happened. The report could be a fabrication by Paul. But it is evidence supporting that possibility.
