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?

[Danmark]

You ask a good question, 'What evidence would you expect if there really were a resurrection?'
First I would expect that accounts of it would have been written right away, not 20 or 30 years of gossiping. I would expect those accounts to have been written in the language of the people who witnessed them. I would expect that some of 'the 500' would be named and would have written first hand accounts.

I would expect the 2d coming about 2000 years ago.
I would expect that when Jesus said greater miracles, such as moving mountains, would have taken place; that if anything were asked in his name it would have happened. There's a very long list of what we would expect if any of this were true. I would expect that this fantastic religious story would be special and better supported than it is and better supported than any of the thousand other religious myths that have accompanied man's fear of reality and flight of fancy to escape this mortal coil.

1) are there not reasonable explanations for why these things you demand aren't present?
For example, many ancient historians did not write about events as they happened and often wrote years after the events. Furthermore, literacy among people was very low and paper and writing instruments very very expensive. Usually reserved for those of nobility and the rich.

2) except for patently absurd demands like Jesus having a second coming, i find it doubtful that if there were more written records, contemporary accounts, and writings in the same language, etc, that it would change your mind one bit. These seem like ad hoc rationalizations, not show stopping arguments.

3) Lastly the reasoning you present doesn't disprove or prove irrational Christian beliefs. All you seem to be saying is that you aren't personally convinced. Certainly the resurrection is an extraordinary event, but you seem locked into a mindset where you dismiss all but the ordinary. Sometimes the extraordinary does happen, like your neighbor winning the lottery (someone must win the lottery because of probability but if you were to win it, it would be extraordinary) , but it seems you have cut yourself off from those possibilities by dismissing all but the ordinary.

There is some merit in some of what you write,

I've made several points and i don't know which one's you refer to. It seems to me you are just putting forth flattery to avoid addressing those points directly.

but you fall into one of Goose's errors in failing to distinguish extraordinary events from those requiring a supernatural explanation.

That is a disagreement completely orthogonal to what has been discussed so far with you. I'm more than happy to address it but please dont pretend the other points are contingent upon this new argument you put forth. You can bring forth new arguments but you need to bring some closure to the other one's first.

I've previously given the example of Krakatoa. Volcanic explosions in themselves may be viewed as extraordinary, tho' there are more of them each year than most people suppose [about 60 eruptions per year], but a volcanic event on the scale of Krakatoa is certainly extraordinary, but not supernatural.

The point in bringing up Caesar was to point out that you believe some unprecedented and unique historical events based on testimony alone. It seems we both agree on that point.

The point of contention is that you reject testimony if it conflicts with your understanding of the world. I. E., if its supernatural in your worldview. This appears to be a presupposition. But its not a presupposition in my worldview. I evaluate the evidence on its own merit.

1) On what basis have you decided to take such a presupposition and reject anything that doesn't conform to your worldview?

2) Is it possible that an event that conflicts with your worldview did in fact happen?

3)If an event that conflicts with your worldview did in fact happen, haven't you cut yourself off from the truth of that because of your fallible presupposition?

Thus, given multiple independent attestations of the resurrection, the willingness of these people to die for their beliefs, and the explosion of Christianity, the existence of the universe, morality, etc, isn't the best explanation that the events as described did in fact happen? All these things point toward a god and a resurrected jesus. It seems you agree but the thing causing you to reject this inevitable conclusion is your presupposition.

Will reason ans evidence prevail or will your arbitrary and fallible presupposition? That is the choice before you.

There's nothing new about the argument that supernatural claims require greater evidence and a higher burden of proof that either extraordinary events or common ones. I have previously outlined in detail the fact the 'evidence' for this supernatural event is weak:
Conflicting statements, by
non eye witnesses,
who are anonymous,
reported many years after the events.

These are all reasons to doubt even normal events, let alone extraordinary ones.
These 'testimonies' would likely not even be admitted in a court of law, let alone be persuasive if they were presented.

And of course here we have events that surpass the extraordinary and require us to suspend everything we know about science and nature.

[Cathar1950]

Danmark:

You ask a good question, 'What evidence would you expect if there really were a resurrection?'
First I would expect that accounts of it would have been written right away, not 20 or 30 years of gossiping. I would expect those accounts to have been written in the language of the people who witnessed them. I would expect that some of 'the 500' would be named and would have written first hand accounts.

I would expect the 2d coming about 2000 years ago.
I would expect that when Jesus said greater miracles, such as moving mountains, would have taken place; that if anything were asked in his name it would have happened. There's a very long list of what we would expect if any of this were true. I would expect that this fantastic religious story would be special and better supported than it is and better supported than any of the thousand other religious myths that have accompanied man's fear of reality and flight of fancy to escape this mortal coil.

Had he returned, as some proclaimed, they would not have wrote the later gospels after Mark. The unknown author of Mark was more interested in divorcing his Pauline Jesus cult for the Zealots and the recent war with the Jews by making it look like Jesus was innocent and had problems with Jews too.

[assisigirl]

Danmark:.....He merely cited the Bible's stories, such as Baalam's talking ass,


assisigirl: He did a little more than that, he used the reference system, intrinsic to the Book in question. It would seem beyond doubt that he knew nothing about said beast until availing of a google search containing something to the effect, 'bible donkey'. The exact location of the reference as contained in the opening post was given to him by enquiry. Then he rejects the evidence that is procured by others in a similar fashion.???? This biblical donkey talked, finito. He definitely made more sense than a parrot would in the same situation.


.

[Danmark]

Danmark:.....He merely cited the Bible's stories, such as Baalam's talking ass,


assisigirl: He did a little more than that, he used the reference system, intrinsic to the Book in question. It would seem beyond doubt that he knew nothing about said beast until availing of a google search containing something to the effect, 'bible donkey'. The exact location of the reference as contained in the opening post was given to him by enquiry. Then he rejects the evidence that is procured by others in a similar fashion.???? This biblical donkey talked, finito. He definitely made more sense than a parrot would in the same situation.

I see no reason to ascribe motives or to assume what he knew or did not know. He wrote what he wrote. It seems simple. He merely asked for evidence (implying evidence in addition to Bibles stories) of talking asses. Samson supposedly slew a thousand with the jawbone of an ass.
But... I've always assumed that meant he used the bone as a cudgel as opposed to putting down the opposition with talk.

[Star]

assisigirl: He did a little more than that, he used the reference system, intrinsic to the Book in question. It would seem beyond doubt that he knew nothing about said beast until availing of a google search containing something to the effect, 'bible donkey'. The exact location of the reference as contained in the opening post was given to him by enquiry. Then he rejects the evidence that is procured by others in a similar fashion.???? This biblical donkey talked, finito. He definitely made more sense than a parrot would in the same situation.

You, a non-believer yourself, are trying to shift the burden to a fellow non-believer.

NENB asked for evidence. Shifting the burden to him won't work.

So what if it's partially a rhetorical question because he already knows there isn't any evidence? I started a thread just like this before he did, and nobody complained to me about setting the apologists up for failure. They came to the thread, eager and willing to debate with all their "evidence".

I don't agree with JohnA on this particular issue, either. Yes, it's all faith, but the thing is, these apologists are trying to convince us. By demonstrating their beliefs are based on faith, not evidence, we might get them to start questioning their religion.

[scourge99]

You ask a good question, 'What evidence would you expect if there really were a resurrection?'
First I would expect that accounts of it would have been written right away, not 20 or 30 years of gossiping. I would expect those accounts to have been written in the language of the people who witnessed them. I would expect that some of 'the 500' would be named and would have written first hand accounts.

I would expect the 2d coming about 2000 years ago.
I would expect that when Jesus said greater miracles, such as moving mountains, would have taken place; that if anything were asked in his name it would have happened. There's a very long list of what we would expect if any of this were true. I would expect that this fantastic religious story would be special and better supported than it is and better supported than any of the thousand other religious myths that have accompanied man's fear of reality and flight of fancy to escape this mortal coil.

1) are there not reasonable explanations for why these things you demand aren't present?
For example, many ancient historians did not write about events as they happened and often wrote years after the events. Furthermore, literacy among people was very low and paper and writing instruments very very expensive. Usually reserved for those of nobility and the rich.

2) except for patently absurd demands like Jesus having a second coming, i find it doubtful that if there were more written records, contemporary accounts, and writings in the same language, etc, that it would change your mind one bit. These seem like ad hoc rationalizations, not show stopping arguments.

3) Lastly the reasoning you present doesn't disprove or prove irrational Christian beliefs. All you seem to be saying is that you aren't personally convinced. Certainly the resurrection is an extraordinary event, but you seem locked into a mindset where you dismiss all but the ordinary. Sometimes the extraordinary does happen, like your neighbor winning the lottery (someone must win the lottery because of probability but if you were to win it, it would be extraordinary) , but it seems you have cut yourself off from those possibilities by dismissing all but the ordinary.

There is some merit in some of what you write,

I've made several points and i don't know which one's you refer to. It seems to me you are just putting forth flattery to avoid addressing those points directly.

but you fall into one of Goose's errors in failing to distinguish extraordinary events from those requiring a supernatural explanation.

That is a disagreement completely orthogonal to what has been discussed so far with you. I'm more than happy to address it but please dont pretend the other points are contingent upon this new argument you put forth. You can bring forth new arguments but you need to bring some closure to the other one's first.

I've previously given the example of Krakatoa. Volcanic explosions in themselves may be viewed as extraordinary, tho' there are more of them each year than most people suppose [about 60 eruptions per year], but a volcanic event on the scale of Krakatoa is certainly extraordinary, but not supernatural.

The point in bringing up Caesar was to point out that you believe some unprecedented and unique historical events based on testimony alone. It seems we both agree on that point.

The point of contention is that you reject testimony if it conflicts with your understanding of the world. I. E., if its supernatural in your worldview. This appears to be a presupposition. But its not a presupposition in my worldview. I evaluate the evidence on its own merit.

1) On what basis have you decided to take such a presupposition and reject anything that doesn't conform to your worldview?

2) Is it possible that an event that conflicts with your worldview did in fact happen?

3)If an event that conflicts with your worldview did in fact happen, haven't you cut yourself off from the truth of that because of your fallible presupposition?

Thus, given multiple independent attestations of the resurrection, the willingness of these people to die for their beliefs, and the explosion of Christianity, the existence of the universe, morality, etc, isn't the best explanation that the events as described did in fact happen? All these things point toward a god and a resurrected jesus. It seems you agree but the thing causing you to reject this inevitable conclusion is your presupposition.

Will reason ans evidence prevail or will your arbitrary and fallible presupposition? That is the choice before you.

There's nothing new about the argument that supernatural claims require greater evidence and a higher burden of proof that either extraordinary events or common ones.

And what reasonable proof would you expect there to be to satisfy that higher burden? I presume there is no reasonable proof possible of meeting that burden. So what you've actually done is set forth a burden by which nothing "supernatural" can ever hope to satisfy. This tells us more about how your presuppositions than it does about some objective standard for determining truth.

Essentially you are saying:
My worldview is perfect and infallible so things counter to my worldview cannot be accepted unless there is an unreasonably large amount of evidence supporting them.

Otherwise the evidence indicates that this extraordinary thing did in fact happen.

Once again, 1) On what basis have you decided to take such a presupposition and hold such a high standard to anything that doesn't conform to your worldview?

2) Is it possible that an event that conflicts with your worldview did in fact happen?

3)If an event that conflicts with your worldview did in fact happen, haven't you cut yourself off from the truth of that because of your fallible presupposition?

I have previously outlined in detail the fact the 'evidence' for this supernatural event is weak:
Conflicting statements, by
non eye witnesses,
who are anonymous,
reported many years after the events.

I addressed this before. You dodged with flattery and now you have circled back to it. Unless you bring closure to the arguments you start by addressing my responses directly, then this will continue to happen.

These are all reasons to doubt even normal events, let alone extraordinary ones.

There is always room for doubt. That there is doubt isn't a rational excuse for dismissing a rationally justified conclusion.

These 'testimonies' would likely not even be admitted in a court of law, let alone be persuasive if they were presented.

1) Courts are not solely interested in truth. There are conflicting goals in a courtroom that must be balanced with compromises. For example, they must balance things like the right to a speedy trial with finding the most likely verdict. There is no statute of limitations on the truth.

2) Appealing to the rules of court really isn't useful unless you give the underlying reasoning why those same rules should apply outside the court for our discussion.

And of course here we have events that surpass the extraordinary and require us to suspend everything we know about science and nature.

Well it doesn't overturn and suspend everything. Jesus coming back from the dead doesn't mean every body in the morgue will behave differently than before. But it certainly does imply that our knowledge of the universe is incomplete.

And its unknown whether this supernatural event is a violation of nature or not.

[Star]

1) Courts are not solely interested in truth. There are conflicting goals in a courtroom that must be balanced with compromises. For example, they must balance things like the right to a speedy trial with finding the most likely verdict.

What do you mean by "finding the most likely" verdict?

[scourge99]

1) Courts are not solely interested in truth. There are conflicting goals in a courtroom that must be balanced with compromises. For example, they must balance things like the right to a speedy trial with finding the most likely verdict.

What do you mean by "finding the most likely" verdict?

If you are actually innocent but some unfavorable coincidences make you appear guilty, you are probably going to be found guilty.

[Sonofason]

Hi Sonofason,
I feel compelled to attempt to save you from a state of error. You will most likely resist my efforts, but however. Your postings regarding 'laughter at the damned' are very sad. They are an exact parallel to the worst quotes of Islam that we see constantly on this forum from fundamentalist Muslims.

More importantly these sentiments are at total loggerheads with any, any, Jesus that a sane person could extract from a reading of the NT. You say that the Holy Spirit is a Comforter and a spirit of Jesus but try to realise that this is a person who mixed with the poor, the downtrodden , the sick and the sinful.

This guy admonished a sinful woman by telling her to 'go and sin no more'

He did not need the props of scaremongering and you are bigger than this as well.

You have erred in a very human way here, Zeal for your Father's house has overcome you. People take things to the enth degree, look at medical researchs efforts to overcome death, look at human sport searching for the ultimate winner and look at your poor self. You have run out of runway in your efforts to fly. Now you dwell with the other creatures in the scrub grass. Repent, is the word that is commonly used here. Do not persist in attempting to retain the untenable.

Thankfully, I don't answer to you, but I do appreciate your concern. I'd be more worried about the poor atheist who hasn't got a prayer, if you know what I mean.

[Sonofason]

The Holy Spirit has never been visible to me. When the Holy Spirit is notably present in me, it does however induce a physical response in me that can be seen.

Like demons induce a physical response in sufferers of epilepsy? What about people suffering from anxiety disorder who suddenly are overcome by fear and start shaking and sweating due to panic attacks? Which supernatural entity is responsible for that?

I try not to speak for other people Artie. Demons exist, but it's been quite some time since I had one.