all I am saying is that Liconas argument (from the op) is good enough to justify the resurrection as a probable event, unless you affirm that the existence of god is impossible (or very unlikely)
Why are you making this point? It's irrelevant to me. I've already told you what *I* believe and why I consider the biblical resurrection story myth. For example, I've told you that I consider the Abrahamic god nonexistent and gave you my reasons.
Also, what are being called bedrock facts are not facts. The first - Jusus died by crucifixion at the hands of Pilate is also irrelevant as long as he was dead. It's also irrelevant that Paul claimed to see Jesus after Jesus' death even if true.
Also, "Very soon after his death, his disciples reported having experiences which they interpreted as the risen Jesus appearing to them, both individually and in groups" is rejected.
Also, resurrection of a three-days decomposed cadaver is probably impossible. It would violate the laws of physics, and we have no evidence that that is possible or ever occurs. And supernatural gods may be nonexistent and even impossible.
Yet you're making this argument that if we accept that the claims called bedrock facts are true and gods not impossible, that you've made a good argument for resurrection. Two things:
[1] No, it's not a good argument for resurrection even if we grant what you've written here. Earlier, you asked me to accept that this god was 50% likely, and I said that that would make resurrection more likely. Now you are saying not impossible or very unlikely, so now, using that, my conclusion is different.
[2] and even if it were, once again, so what? Why are you telling me that if one has different bedrock beliefs than I do he'll come to different conclusions?
I think there is evidence for a god………… but even without any evidence it doest follow that the existence of god is less probable than 50%. 50% is the default answer, if you have 2 options and you know nothing about any of these alternatives, then you have no other option than assigning a 50% chance to each.
Disagree. You're making a positive claim that something is equally likely to be true as untrue if it's unknown which it is. Both parents carry the same recessive gene. We don't know if the fetus has the trait yet. The chances are not 50/50 that it does.
a 50% possibility is the default position. There is no evidence for intelligent life in other planets, but from that fact it doesn’t follow that there is no intelligent life in other planets, nor that the probability is less than 50%, nor that that “no aliens” should be the default position.
You argue that others cannot make estimates of a low likeliness, yet you would set the default position at 50% with the same information.
If you want to move the wager in favor of “atheism” you need an argument that justifies such a movement in the wager
One need only rejects god claims for lack of sufficient supporting evidence to justify belief. No further argument is necessary.
You would need evidence to reject the market will go UP claim in the same way you need evidnece to reject the “there is a god” claim
One never needs evidence to reject an insufficiently supported claim. Never.
Define “independent source” and explain why aren’t Paul and John for example independent sources?
You've already seen these answers. You call John and Paul independent because they are separate people. That's not enough. So are any pair of witnesses.
I need you to start addressing my objections. I've made them a few times each, and you ignore them while repeating an already rejected argument. You can start with this post. Please address every claim made in it. Really, Leroy. That's the deal. Look at the five or six answers in THIS POST and address them all. Tell me why you consider them incorrect or irrelevant, or don't bother answering. I really don't want to hear what you believe instead again.