The Resurrection is it provable?

[Subduction Zone]

Again, nobody is forcing you to do anything, if you want to talk to me about WLC , you have to do what I asked you to do……….. if you don’t want that is ok, perhaps someone else would want to address the topic by your rules.




1 Richar Career claims that James was not the biological brother of Jesus but rather sort of “spiritual brother”

2
I think his is wrong, multiple sources (Paul, Gospels, Josephus, Clement etc. ) refer to James as the biological brother of Jesus


You are expected to do the same with WLC, This wasn’t too much work,

Nope, you need to show a little initiative. I could link the video for you again. If you refuse to be reasonable then I will simply point out that you ran away from another debate. We are discussing the video so requiring you to listen to a small snippet of it is not unreasonable.

And we were not even discussing Carrier, so why did your bring him up?

 

[leroy]

Tha



Yes, your brothers would likely know if you had been buried in a tomb, and I would have no reason to think that they had made that up unless they were known to have a reason to do so, but even then, I would only believe their report tentatively. It's a habit of thought for me to estimate how certain I feel about any belief. I would believe the tomb story more if I had seen the burial and the tomb than if somebody told me about it. It sounds to me that you don't make that distinction. You seem to ask, "Why would they lie?" and assume that because you don't know a reason why they would lie, they aren't. That doesn't comport with life experience. And if I were telling somebody about it, I wouldn't say that Leroy was buried in a tomb, but that his brothers told me was. If I asked, I might add that I have no reason to disbelieve them, but I don't know if they're lying or mistaken, since I don't know for sure that there is such a tomb or that you were in it if I was taken to a tomb.

Agree, I don’t know “for sure” that Jesus was buried, all I am saying is that this event is likely to be true.

That's still not good evidence for resurrection. You can't think of any explanation for that which doesn't involve resurrection? I can think of several.

Granted, the empty tomb by itself is not strong evidence .it’s part of a cumulative case. … but it is still a correct prediction and it is still evidence in the sense that given the empty tomb the resurrection becomes more likely than without the empty tomb.

Not quite. I'm asking you what people might have seen that could be interpreted as a resurrection and ascension. If it's only a body being place in a tomb that wasn't there three days later, as I just wrote, that's not good evidence for resurrection or ascension. At a minimum, we'd need to see what we thought was a dead body revivify for the resurrection, and leave the earth for the ascension. And I can tell you that while I would consider that a spectacle, I would consider it an illusion before considering it a miracle. So what did these people see that you think convinced them that a miracle had occurred? Just an unexpectedly empty tomb?

I am not sure If I understood the question, but I would say that they saw a real physical body of the resurrected Jesus

I would consider it an illusion before considering it a miracle.

Well let’s say that you saw you’re friend who just died 3 days ago and you whant to determine if it was an illusion or a real experience (he really appeared physically)

If it was an illusion and you go to his grave, you would expect to find his body, if the experience was real you would expect to find the tomb empty….. so in this sense the emty tomb counst as a correct prediction .

 

[leroy]

Nope, you need to show a little initiative. I could link the video for you again. If you refuse to be reasonable then I will simply point out that you ran away from another debate. We are discussing the video so requiring you to listen to a small snippet of it is not unreasonable.

And we were not even discussing Carrier, so why did your bring him up?

Ok then provide a step by step guide on how the conversation is expected to flow

let’s say that I watched then video, then what? what would be the next step?

(yes please link the video again)

And we were not even discussing Carrier, so why did your bring him up?

It was just an example meant to refute your claim that I am “demanding too much work”

 

[Kenny]

Those are just subjective platitudes to be fair, they don't mean anything at all in terms of objective evidence or fact. I mean try and think how pointless it is to tell someone that you know is an atheist, what you believe Jesus said.

I think I have pointed that out! Well said!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok then provide a step by step guide on how the conversation is expected to flow

let’s say that I watched then video, then what? what would be the next step?

(yes please link the video again)



It was just an example meant to refute your claim that I am “demanding too much work”

Then my first question would be if you understood how it refuted Craig.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are expected to do the same with WLC

I haven't been paying attention to this discussion, and didn't look at the video, but you asked about mistakes Craig made. I'd say that the following disqualifies him as an intellectual and philosopher:

First, his Kalam argument, which contains the most extreme non sequitur I've seen in any argument ever: “If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.” I doubt that I need to point out the problem with that to you.

Also, he said this: "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right."

Critical thinker? I think not. He's telling us that he can't identify a logical fallacy in the first quote, where he commits an atrocious one, and that is mind is closed to evidence if it conflicts with what he believes by faith in the second one.

I hope that's relevant to your discussion.

Granted, the empty tomb by itself is not strong evidence .it’s part of a cumulative case

Do you have more of this case to present than you already have? The case you've made for resurrection simply isn't convincing. You would see that if somebody made the case to you that Muhammad was resurrected based on the report of an empty tomb. Add whatever you like to that to make it as good a claim as you like. Say that the Qur'an reports whatever you like - Mohammed was witnessed alive after his death, and was seen to perform miracles. Maybe people died for that belief. Maybe the king of Persia mentions it in another book. Would you be a believer that there was a miraculous, bona fide resurrection? I doubt it. And if not, why not?

but it is still a correct prediction and it is still evidence in the sense that given the empty tomb the resurrection becomes more likely than without the empty tomb.

Agreed, but infinitesimally more likely. It's like me saying that you not being at home makes it more likely that you've been abducted by extraterrestrials. Mundane findings don't do much to validate extraordinary claims.

I would say that they saw a real physical body of the resurrected Jesus

OK. Why do you think they saw that? Why isn't this sighting reported in scripture? If they reported NOT seeing Him in the tomb, wouldn't you expect them to also have reported that they saw Him and that they knew in advance that the tomb must be empty? And if they saw Jesus, did they just stand there or try to speak to Him? What did they say to Him and what did He say in return? Why do we have none of this expected evidence if Jesus was actually seen? And what would make them think he went to heaven rather than back to preaching? If you had any of this, this would be your best evidence, and still not enough to declare that a miracle had occurred.

Well let’s say that you saw you’re friend who just died 3 days ago and you want to determine if it was an illusion or a real experience (he really appeared physically). If it was an illusion and you go to his grave, you would expect to find his body, if the experience was real you would expect to find the tomb empty….. so in this sense the empty tomb count as a correct prediction .

I don't find this analogous.

 

[leroy]

Then my first question would be if you understood how it refuted Craig.

A]

OK obviously you are not interested in a serious conversation……….. so I´ll tell you what………I will watch the video and whenever you are interested in focusing in a specific point on the video you are welcome to contact me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I haven't been paying attention to this discussion, and didn't look at the video, but you asked about mistakes Craig made. I'd say that the following disqualifies him as an intellectual and philosopher:

First, his Kalam argument, which contains the most extreme non sequitur I've seen in any argument ever: “If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.” I doubt that I need to point out the problem with that to you.

Also, he said this: "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right."

Critical thinker? I think not. He's telling us that he can't identify a logical fallacy in the first quote, where he commits an atrocious one, and that is mind is closed to evidence if it conflicts with what he believes by faith in the second one. There is not one argument of his that does not fail badly when rationally analyzed.



Do you have more of this case to present than you already have? The case you've made for resurrection simply isn't convincing. You would see that if somebody made the case to you that Muhammad was resurrected based on the report of an empty tomb. Add whatever you like to that to make it as good a claim as you like. Say that the Qur'an reports whatever you like - Mohammed was witnessed alive after his death, and was seen to perform miracles. Maybe people died for that belief. Maybe the king of Persia mentions it in another book. Would you be a believer that there was a miraculous, bona fide resurrection? I doubt it. And if not, why not?



Agreed, but infinitesimally more likely. It's like me saying that you not being at home makes it more likely that you've been abducted by extraterrestrials. Mundane findings don't do much to validate extraordinary claims.



OK. Why do you think they saw that? Why isn't this sighting reported in scripture? If they reported NOT seeing Him in the tomb, wouldn't you expect them to also have reported that they saw Him and that they knew in advance that the tomb must be empty? And if they saw Jesus, did they just stand there or try to speak to Him? What did they say to Him and what did He say in return? Why do we have none of this expected evidence if Jesus was actually seen? And what would make them think he went to heaven rather than back to preaching? If you had any of this, this would be your best evidence, and still not enough to declare that a miracle had occurred.



I don't find this analogous.

In the video Sean's first point is that Willy is assuming that fine tuning exists. We do not know that this is so. It is an unjustified assumption and that alone refutes Craig's argument. We do know the values of those constants to a fair number of decimal places, but the fine tuning argument assumes that they could have been different and we do not know if they could be or couldn't be different.

There have been constants in the past that could have been said to be "fine tuned" until we learned more physics and could understand why those values existed. An easy one to understand are the constants and rules of Kepler's Laws. Newtonian gravity gave the reason for those constants and the shape of orbits of planets. Until then they looked "fine tuned".

The video is interesting because he admits that it is the best argument that Craig has for a God. He lists the reasons that it is a good argument from a scientific basis, and then eviscerates it.

Craig can only convince those that are already believers. To anyone that reasons rationally all of his arguments fail. As you pointed out the Kalam is just a special pleading fallacy. "It is different when God is the subject".

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK obviously you are not interested in a serious conversation……….. so I´ll tell you what………I will watch the video and whenever you are interested in focusing in a specific point on the video you are welcome to contact me.

LOL! If you understand the video you will understand that Craig left carrying his donkey in his hands. I am ready to have a serious discussion. Why didn't you watch it first?

 

[leroy]

I haven't been paying attention to this discussion, and didn't look at the video, but you asked about mistakes Craig made. I'd say that the following disqualifies him as an intellectual and philosopher:

First, his Kalam argument, which contains the most extreme non sequitur I've seen in any argument ever: “If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.” I doubt that I need to point out the problem with that to you.

No please do point to the problem

Also, he said this: "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right."

Critical thinker? I think not. He's telling us that he can't identify a logical fallacy in the first quote, where he commits an atrocious one, and that is mind is closed to evidence if it conflicts with what he believes by faith in the second one.

I hope that's relevant to your discussion.

You are taking his comments out of context………..what he said is that many people (including him) believe in God mainly because they had a personal experience……… then he claims that it is perfectly rational to trust your experiences and assume they are real until evidence to the contrary is presented. …

Do you find anything wrtong with that?

Do you have more of this case to present than you already have? The case you've made for resurrection simply isn't convincing. You would see that if somebody made the case to you that Muhammad was resurrected based on the report of an empty tomb. Add whatever you like to that to make it as good a claim as you like. Say that the Qur'an reports whatever you like - Mohammed was witnessed alive after his death, and was seen to perform miracles. Maybe people died for that belief. Maybe the king of Persia mentions it in another book. Would you be a believer that there was a miraculous, bona fide resurrection? I doubt it. And if not, why not?

1 Jesus Died

2 was burried

3 the tomb was found emty

4 people saw somethign that they interpreted as havign seen the risen Jesus

5 these people where willing to die for the truth of christianity

6 the existance of God (and therefore miracles) is possible......(there is no conclusive evidnece agaisnt th eexistance of God)


given these 6 points the resurection becomes the most probable explanation, or atleast that is what I woudl argue

OK. Why do you think they saw that? Why isn't this sighting reported in scripture? If they reported NOT seeing Him in the tomb, wouldn't you expect them to also have reported that they saw Him and that they knew in advance that the tomb must be empty? And if they saw Jesus, did they just stand there or try to speak to Him? What did they say to Him and what did He say in return? Why do we have none of this expected evidence if Jesus was actually seen? And what would make them think he went to heaven rather than back to preaching? If you had any of this, this would be your best evidence, and still not enough to declare that a miracle had occurred.

The gospels describe events where the disciples talked to Jesus , ate with him, touched him etc…. so the authors are clear on that they are proclaiming a fiscal resurrection (not sure if this answers your question)

 

[Subduction Zone]

No please do point to the problem





You are taking his comments out of context………..what he said is that many people (including him) believe in God mainly because they had a personal experience……… then he claims that it is perfectly rational to trust your experiences and assume they are real until evidence to the contrary is presented. …

Do you find anything wrtong with that?





1 Jesus Died

2 was burried

3 the tomb was found emty

4 people saw somethign that they interpreted as havign seen the risen Jesus

5 these people where willing to die for the truth of christianity

6 the existance of God (and therefore miracles) is possible......(there is no conclusive evidnece agaisnt th eexistance of God)


given these 6 points the resurection becomes the most probable explanation, or atleast that is what I woudl argue






The gospels describe events where the disciples talked to Jesus , ate with him, touched him etc…. so the authors are clear on that they are proclaiming a fiscal resurrection (not sure if this answers your question)

LOL! No. Even with your six points there are other far more likely and therefore far more reasonable explanations. You made the mistake of trusting a dishonest source.

 

[leroy]

In the video Sean's first point is that Willy is assuming that fine tuning exists. We do not know that this is so. fail. .

In the context of the Debate what Carol means is that we that we are not 100% sure that there is a FT problem, which is obviously true and WLC doesn’t deny it…………. That doesn’t mean that there is no evidence for FT, Carol even writes papers where he proposes solutions to those problems.

So of course this doesn’t counts as a “mistake” on WLC because he is not claiming otherwise.


I hope your video has something better than this

 

[leroy]

LOL! No. Even with your six points there are other far more likely and therefore far more reasonable explanations. You made the mistake of trusting a dishonest source.

other far more likely and therefore far more reasonable explanation

care to share 1 of those explanations?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the context of the Debate what Carol means is that we that we are not 100% sure that there is a FT problem, which is obviously true and WLC doesn’t deny it…………. That doesn’t mean that there is no evidence for FT, Carol even writes papers where he proposes solutions to those problems.

So of course this doesn’t counts as a “mistake” on WLC because he is not claiming otherwise.


I hope your video has something better than this

You miss the point. The fine tuning argument claims that fine tuning exists. It needs fine tuning to exist to even begin to a valid argument. And that is an unjustified assumption. That takes away fine tuning as evidence.

And you misunderstood what Carroll does. His papers would show how some of those numbers are not "fine tuned."

In an earlier post I mentioned the constants in Kepler's laws. They looked "fine tuned" until we learned via Newton how planets orbited. When the cause of a "fine tuned" constant is understood it is no longer fine tuned.

 

[Sheldon]

Miracles are never acknowledged by secular historians as historically accurate.

Neither are unicorns, and for much the same reason. A miracle by definition, is simply an appeal to mystery.

 

[Sheldon]

Quran also verifies that past miracles and destroyed nations of the past, become forgotten over time, and that people assume miracles didn't happen and that whatever cities are left with no people are left for natural reasons.

The only assumption I see is yours, that miracles are possible. We know natural reasons are possible, this seems to be what you can't demonstrate for miracles, since they are simply an appeal to mystery.

 

[leroy]

You miss the point. The fine tuning argument claims that fine tuning exists. It needs fine tuning to exist to even begin to a valid argument. And that is an unjustified assumption. That takes away fine tuning as evidence.

And you misunderstood what Carroll does. His papers would show how some of those numbers are not "fine tuned."

In an earlier post I mentioned the constants in Kepler's laws. They looked "fine tuned" until we learned via Newton how planets orbited. When the cause of a "fine tuned" constant is understood it is no longer fine tuned.

Again

The claim that the universe is FT (the way WLC defines this term) is largely uncontroversial in the scientific community and Sean Carol Agrees.

Of course Carol is also right in pointing out the fact that “we are not 100% sure” since WLC has never claimed 100% certainty you cant count this as example of a mistake

 

[Sheldon]

You miss the point. The fine tuning argument claims that fine tuning exists. It needs fine tuning to exist to even begin to a valid argument. And that is an unjustified assumption. That takes away fine tuning as evidence.

And you misunderstood what Carroll does. His papers would show how some of those numbers are not "fine tuned."

In an earlier post I mentioned the constants in Kepler's laws. They looked "fine tuned" until we learned via Newton how planets orbited. When the cause of a "fine tuned" constant is understood it is no longer fine tuned.

Fine tuning is a metaphor used to explain certain physical characteristics of the universe, just as language is a metaphor used to describe DNA, but physicists no more claim the universe is literally fine tuned, than geneticists claim DNA is literally a language,

Creationists just leap on these metaphors with their gotcha nonsense, partly out of ignorance, and partly out of duplicity. The real irony is how they love to cite science when they mistakenly think it evidence some vague notion of a deity, then deny it whenever it actually contradicts their beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again

The claim that the universe is FT (the way WLC defines this term) is largely uncontroversial in the scientific community and Sean Carol Agrees.

Of course Carol is also right in pointing out the fact that “we are not 100% sure” since WLC has never claimed 100% certainty you cant count this as example of a mistake

No, WLC always pretends to be far surer than the evidence merits. As shown in your belief of his "six points". Some of which are not even justified as being points. In a debate Bart Ehrman easily came up with a more reasonable possibility.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So

Fine tuning is a metaphor used to explain certain physical characteristics of the universe, just as language is a metaphor used to describe DNA, but physicists no more claim the universe is literally fine tuned, than geneticists claim DNA is literally a language,

Creationists just leap on these metaphors with their gotcha nonsense, partly out of ignorance, and partly out of duplicity. The real irony is how they love to cite science when they mistakenly think it evidence some vague notion of a deity, then deny it whenever it actually contradicts their beliefs.

Yes, just as they jump on the word "code" or "information".

But moving on. Craigs second unjustified assumption is that life could not exist if the constants were different. How does he know that? Now one could argue that human life could not exist, but we don't know if other life forms could or could not exist with other rules. That argument is totally BS. Do you agree @leroy ?