Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

[Replying to post 1185 by Goose]

Hi Goose, I wanted to make sure you saw my POST which continues our conversation. Please do respond to it whenever you can.

I also have another idea for you to ponder. Just answer this simple question:

In light of the fact that we have conclusive, unassailable, irrefutable, undeniable, unimpeachable, indisputable, incontrovertible, evidence that the earth is NOT flat, does any historic, anecdotal, hearsay, opinion-based non-empirical evidence that the earth is flat matter?

[instantc]

Right, I'll submit that a chain of mass-hallucinations has the same explanatory power as the resurrection and it is more plausible.

Uh, excuse me but a "chain" of mass-hallucinations is not an explanation but rather a, well, chain of multiple explanations. Each instance of an appearance would require a separate hallucination explanation since these appearances took place at different times, in different locations, for different lengths of time (some for days) and to different groups of people in different contexts. Each instance would require you to draw a whole different set of assumptions to justify they were all hallucinations. Again, it fails to the resurrection hypothesis on parsimony which is a single powerful explanation.

It doesn't fail on parsimony, the chain of hallucinations requires just one snap of fingers from God. If we are allowed to suspend the observed regularities of the universe in order to explain certain events, on basis that God can do anything he wants, then it is just as reasonable to believe that he caused a chain of hallucinations than that he caused a bodily resurrection. Just as he could raise someone from the dead by a snap of the fingers, he could cause five hundred hallucinations by a snap of the fingers. There is no explanatory difference. If we assume that an omnipotent God intervened, then every imaginable scenario is equally likely, unless you can provide some data as to what God's motives were back then.

[Goat]

I thought this thread looked interesting.

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

Since you have framed the question in this way I think it only fair you disclose the type of evidence you are asking for and provide good reason why the Christian must admit he has no evidence if he cannot provide the type of evidence you are demanding. I haven’t read all 100+ pages of this thread so it’s possible you’ve done this elsewhere in the thread. If you could provide a link to the post where you did that would be helpful.

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

Not sure what you’re driving at here. Numbers 22 and Matthew 27 is evidence. Perhaps it is the case you feel that evidence isn’t admissible because it isn’t empirical?
.

It seems to me that you are mixing up the claim (the quote in the bible) with evidence for that claim..

The bible is the claim. You are referring to the claim as evidence, when it actually is the claim.

[Star]

You still don't seem to understand the difference between natural events (like assassinations) and supernatural events (Jesus rising up from the dead and literally disappearing).

Extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence.

Murder in Ancient Rome was par for the course, even for emperors.

The amount of evidence for Caesar's assassination absolutely shadows that of Jesus.

And you still don't seem to grasp the fact that anything beyond the usual is by definition extraordinary. The definition of extraordinary is not limited to only that which is supernatural which you erroneously appear to be arguing it is. Since the most ordinary and usual way a person can die, even for a Caesar, is by natural causes any death outside of natural causes is by definition extraordinary. Caesar's assassination is especially extraordinary if we consider the surrounding details. Thus it is subject to the same demand for extraordinary evidence. Now if you argue assassinations are usual and ordinary on the grounds they have been reported throughout history I'll simply make the same argument for resurrections thus making them ordinary as well.

Extraordinary means "very unusual or remarkable". It's also subjective and relative. In the context of this discussion, murder isn't extraordinary at all. Many Roman emperors and politicians were assassinated. Many people were murdered. Their life expectancy at birth was only 20-30 years and only 45-47 at age 10 (Frier, 2001). I'm surprised Caesar lived as long as he did.

Homicide follows humankind wherever it goes, even today. I notice difficulty discerning the not-so-fine line between reality and fantasy. What you describe is unprecedented magic and there's absolutely no evidence it's possible, let alone that it even happened.

Frier, Bruce W. (2001). "More is worse: some observations on the population of the Roman empire."

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to Goose]

No one has a problem with both Caesar's murder and Jesus's resurrection being called "extraordinary".

The problem is that you seem don't seem to realize that one is far more extraordinary than the other.

[no evidence no belief]

You still don't seem to understand the difference between natural events (like assassinations) and supernatural events (Jesus rising up from the dead and literally disappearing).

Extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence.

Murder in Ancient Rome was par for the course, even for emperors.

The amount of evidence for Caesar's assassination absolutely shadows that of Jesus.

And you still don't seem to grasp the fact that anything beyond the usual is by definition extraordinary. The definition of extraordinary is not limited to only that which is supernatural which you erroneously appear to be arguing it is. Since the most ordinary and usual way a person can die, even for a Caesar, is by natural causes any death outside of natural causes is by definition extraordinary. Caesar's assassination is especially extraordinary if we consider the surrounding details. Thus it is subject to the same demand for extraordinary evidence. Now if you argue assassinations are usual and ordinary on the grounds they have been reported throughout history I'll simply make the same argument for resurrections thus making them ordinary as well.

Extraordinary means "very unusual or remarkable". It's also subjective and relative. In the context of this discussion, murder isn't extraordinary at all. Many Roman emperors and politicians were assassinated. Many people were murdered. Their life expectancy at birth was only 20-30 years and only 45-47 at age 10 (Frier, 2001). I'm surprised Caesar lived as long as he did.

Homicide follows humankind wherever it goes, even today. I notice difficulty discerning the not-so-fine line between reality and fantasy. What you describe is unprecedented magic and there's absolutely no evidence it's possible, let alone that it even happened.

Frier, Bruce W. (2001). "More is worse: some observations on the population of the Roman empire."

Hi Star,
I appreciate your effort to counter Goose's absurd arguments, but I must say that you and several other atheists on this thread have been tricked into a wild goose chase (pun acknowledged). This comparison between the "extraordinary" status of the assassination of Caesar and resurrection of Jesus is an absurd red herring, and a feeble attempt to derail the conversation away from the crux of the matter.

Whether it's typical or rare for Ancient Roman politicians to be assassinated, whether Caesar's death is well documents or not when compared to Jesus's life, etc, is all completely irrelevant.

Here is the only response needed to Goose's attempt to sidetrack the debate:

Assassinations of politicians, whether extraordinary or not, whether well documented or not, are events that fall squarely within what is possible according to the laws of physics.

The spontaneous reversal of the denaturing of enzymes in a decomposing brain-dead corpse is impossible according to THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

The same knowledge, technology and overwhelmingly solidly established evidence and know-how that allows us to perform heart transplants and brain surgeries, that allows us with a simple pill or shot to make a blinding headache disappear in a matter of minutes or make us permanently immune to diseases that killed millions in the past, that allows us to put satellites in orbit thousands of miles above the planet and land unmanned vehicles on planets millions of miles away, that allows us to have video conversations for free with people on the other side of the planet and create explosions that mimic the power that fuels the sun itself, etc, tell us with almost absolute certainty that decomposing brain-dead corpses do not come back to life.

Period.

It doesn't matter one iota if iron age simpletons' opinion that dead bodies come back to life is historically documented with strength comparable to Caesar's assassination or any other event.

Assassinations are physically possible (duh!), spontaneous resurrection of decomposing brain-dead corpses are physically impossible. The iron age idiots who thought otherwise and wrote as much... WERE WRONG. End of story.

Close off this stupid tangent guys, and thus force the Gooses of the world to answer the real question: Why do you hold beliefs that are scientifically, demonstrably, irrefutably, conclusively not true?

[no evidence no belief]

[Replying to Goose]

No one has a problem with both Caesar's murder and Jesus's resurrection being called "extraordinary".

The problem is that you seem don't seem to realize that one is far more extraordinary than the other.

If I may be so bold as to correct you, it's not that one event is "more" extraordinary than the other. That's not the important part.

To say that the a resurrection is more extraordinary than an assassination is like saying that a 300 pound bachelor's wife is heavier than a 15 pound chihuahua dog.

Sure, it's true that 300 is a bigger number than 15, but that's not the point.

The difference between a bachelor's wife and a chihuahua is that a bachelor's wife is physically impossible. Who cares about how much they weigh!

Let's not get mired into the silliness that Goose is trying to drag us into in an effort to avoid the issue that he truly cannot answer.

Goose, why do you believe things that are demonstrably not true?

[Star]

[Replying to post 1194 by no evidence no belief]

That was a long post for an issue you don't want to discuss anymore.

[no evidence no belief]

[Replying to post 1194 by no evidence no belief]

That was a long post for an issue you don't want to discuss anymore.

It's not that I don't want to discuss it anymore. I want to discuss it more effectively.