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?

[instantc]

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.

Considering that the discussion is about events that went down 2000 years ago, I'd say this statement would be fairly accurate if you replace 'world view' with 'understanding of reality'.

I contend that if the natural laws were suspended somewhere in the ancient history, unfortunately we'll never know about it. For any particular miracle claim, it is much more likely that a natural explanation applies. So yes, given the way the world is now, no amount of historical evidence would convince me that the natural laws have been suspended by God in the ancient history.

[scourge99]

....
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.

You err in your claim that I reject whatever does not conform to my 'world view.' Your error is two fold. 1st, you inaccurately and unnecessarily restate what I wrote as 'my world view.' The second error is when you simplify by suggesting an automatic rejection.

What I suggested is that when testimony conflicts with with science and requires a belief in the supernatural it should be subject to particular scrutiny and skepticism.

We aren't a hive mind. Each of has his or her own worldview. Each of us has a different opinion about the proper level of scrutiny and skepticism. There is no universal agreed upon holy grail standard of skepticism and scrutiny. So I think I'm quite correct in labeling your particular beliefs on skepticism and scrutiny as part of your "worldview".

When the 'testimony' conflicts with itself

Differences in texts are expected. Even eyewitnesses who are immediately questioned have varying and sometimes extraordinary differences in testimony. As a lawyer, I'm sure you are aware of the fallibility of our own mind and accuracy of witnesses recollecting the details precisely. Now pass this filter through a few decades and retellings of events and there certainly will be differences, sometimes major ones. But when the core elements of the story are attested to in multiple accounts, that is where the truth shines through. The resurrection is one of those core elements that is attested to in multiple accounts.

and is not first hand, but 2d, 3rd, or 4th hand and is not recorded contemporaneously with the events described

So too is the documentation of the assassination of Caesar.

, and is written by anonymous authors who have a bias

Certainly the gospels writers are not independent. But Jospheus is. That immediately cripples your claim that they should be rejected because they are all biased. Its actually very very strong evidence because it is an independent confirmation. It makes the gospels claims that much stronger.

, it does not even rise to the level where it should be considered admissible,

Admissible to what? A court of law? Are you bringing up another argument I've already addressed that you ignored?

Here it is again:

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. Unlike in a courtroom, there is no statute of limitations on the truth.

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

let alone sufficient to satisfy supernatural claims.

I've already asked you what would be reasonable evidence to expect that would be "sufficient" to satisfy a supernatural claim. You've repeatedly dodged the question. Care to actually tackle the question this time? Or will you decline, telling me you don't have to respond to everything i say, then later repeat the same argument ad nauseum?

Here is my response, again:

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 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.

The history of science suggests that frequently claims that have been ridiculed and gone contrary to the accepted 'knowledge of the day' have been vindicated. The story of the Austrian physician Semmelweis is a favorite example of this. There are many others. So I agree we should be open to new evidence and new theories. But the testimony claimed about the resurrection does not meet that standard and we've had 2000 years to give it an opportunity for vindication.

The resurrection is not subject to the scientific method. Surely you realize that. It is a singleton. A one time event. It is more akin to a philosophical question. A question of epistemology. Not one of science.

And you keep referring to some nebulous "standard", "higher burden of proof", or "sufficiency" of which the details are conveniently always missing. And of which you never give a straight example of what would convince you. Given this refusal, i thinks it clear you are actually saying "i have a presupposition that if a claim is counter to my worldview i will reject it unless there is an unreasonably large amount of evidence supporting it."

So if a resurrection or some supernatural/extraordinary event did happen. Your fallible methodology would reject it, no matter the evidence, because of a presupposition that prevents you from objectively assessing the merits of such a claim.

[scourge99]

Trimming to the more important parts so I can keep the quality of responses higher...

Ok, two things. First, even if there were multiple eyewitnesses, it wouldn't change the fact that testimony doesn't trump the laws of physics.

If you saw the known laws of physics violated before you eyes, would that count? Or would you commit yourself to the looney bin?

Testimony is accepted by pretty much all philosophers as a valid source of knowledge. You seem to disagree or have special caveats on it.

It takes more than a few people saying that the laws pf physics don't apply, to reasonably assume that the laws of physics don't apply.

How many would it take? Or have i exposed that there is an unreasonable standard you have set?

Independent historians attesting to it.

I will send you $10,000 for every contemporary historian or other non-biblical source which attests Jesus raised from the dead or performed any other supernatural action.

How many contemporary historians attest to Caesars assassination? Do you believe the non-contemporary accounts? if so then contemporary accounts are not the issue for establishing historical events. If contemporary accounts aren't as issue then why do you demand that the accounts testifying to the resurrection be contemporary? That would indicate you have a double standard; a fallacy.

The rapid conversion and growth of Christianity.

Almost half as rapid as the growth of Scientology.

The willingness of the apostles to die for their beliefs.

Wait, what? This is absurd in so many ways.

The folks of heaven's gate were willing to die for their beliefs too. Does this mean that there indeed was a spaceship hiding behind a comet, ready to beam them up to heaven if they committed suicide? Suicide bombers are willing to die for their beliefs. Nazi soldiers were willing to die for their beliefs. What on earth are you trying to say?

All the evidence taken together make the case for the resurrection. Just as a bloody knife doesn't prove a murderer guilty. But a bloody knife, finger prints, camera footage, and other combinations of evidence together do prove a murderer guilty. You can cherry pick any one of those evidence and explain why on its own it is insufficient. But you are missing the forest for the trees.

No other religion, not even Scientology, has such strong evidence in support of it to my knowledge.

None of these prove 100%. But they are all evidence that point to the same conclusion. That Jesus died and was resurrected.

Let's recap your "evidence":

Eyewitnesses: There weren't any.
Independent historians: There weren't any.
Rapid growth: Didn't happen. It wasn't significantly faster than any other religion. Significantly slower than several
Apostles willing to die for beliefs: People are willing to die for all sorts of stuff, and you have yet to prove that the apostles were among this group of idiots.

Letys recap what i actually said:

1) Testimony: the gospels, paul, and others.
2) Independent historians: Josephus. There are other historians but they only testify to to the beliefs of Christians.
3) rapid growth
4) Followers willing to die

All of these facts combines make for a powerful argument to the truth of the resurrection. You can cherry pick any one of those and explain why on its own it is insufficient. But you are missing the forest for the trees.

One must weave a grand tale of conspiracy theories, systematic lying, fraud, and all sorts of improbable and unlikely events to account for this evidence with alternative explanations.

Really? This is ALL it takes to explain the events without using the supernatural:

A few people claimed that they saw Jesus rise from the dead, even though it is not true.

That's all one must assume for all of it to make sense: That some people made stuff up. Period.

Either some people made stuff up, or everything we know about medicine, chemistry, biology, physics is wrong. Come on, man!

It takes far more than that.

You have to have an unlikely string of events all multiplied together:
1) all the writers of the gospels lying
2) Josephus a reputable historian, lying
3) other reputable historians lying about Christians and their beliefs
4) A rapidly expanding Christianity converting large amounts of people that are all in on the lie
5) Followers dying for things they believe are lies.

What is the probability that all those things happening? Seems its more of a miracle to believe all that than to reject what the evidence, people, historians, and our rational minds tell us.

What's your point? Are you saying that it's impossible for you to provide good evidence, therefore we should believe it based on bad evidence?

I've asked you before what "good evidence" for a resurrection would be. You dodged. And now you try to turn the question around on me.

The resurrection is the best explanation of the evidence we have.

Again, you can keep asserting that till you're blue in the face, but it will get you nowhere. Copy and paste it 100 times if you like. It changes nothing.

The laws of nature being suspended is simply NOT the best explanation possible for the fact that a half dozen people wrote down decades later that the laws of nature were suspended. Dishonesty, confusion, superstition, hallucination, exaggeration, are all overwhelmingly more likely explanations.

I've asked you several times what "good and reasonable evidence" for a resurrection would be. You've dodged several times. Care to actually take up the challenge? Or does clearly and directly answering reveal a weakness you don't want exposed?

There is always wiggle room for alternative explanations.

Sure. I am not asking for undeniable proof. Just sufficient evidence to show that corpses flying in the air are more likely than people making up stories about corpses flying in the air.

So the gospel writers, paul and historians like Josephus, all colluded together in a massive conspiracy theory to promote Christianity? That's not extraordinary??

Please give me that exact quote from Josephus which mentions the supernatural and I'll immediately wire $10,000 to you.

Book 18, Chapter 3, section 3, Josephus mentions that Jesus was crucified and then returns from death on the third day.
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

I'll take the $10,000. But I'm sure you won't make good on it anyways.

At least we have evidence of a resurrection. There is nothing to support this conspiracy theory besides speculation.

You have yet to provide any evidence for the laws of physics being suspended, other than "some people wrote down that the laws of physics were suspended".

This "conspiracy theory" you keep bringing up is a massive straw man. I am not implying that any kind of massive conspiracy theory happened.

I am willing to admit that everything about early Christianity happened exactly as you clam it happened, with one minor difference: The half dozen people who claim to have seen a corpse come back to life and fly into the sky.... didn't!

That's all it takes to explain the whole thing: A half dozen people claiming to have seen something that they actually didn't see. What's the problem?

If the Jesus did resurrect and did fly off into heaven, what type of evidence would you expect? What more could be reasonably provided other than the testimony of believers, of historians, and devotion of believers, and the explosion of converts?

You reject the possibility of a resurrection before even considering the evidence.

Again, I'm looking for evidence of supernatural claims other than personal testimony.

What's wrong with testimony?

Do you reject the testimony of historians writing about Caesars assassination because its testimony? Or do you have some magical video of him getting assassinated that proves it to you?
Were you an eyewitness?

It seems you rely on testimony of historians for all sorts of beliefs about history. Why then are you biased against one's that support the Christian narrative?

Ok, let me explain this slowly.

If you tell me "I saw a guy called Steve stare at a brick", that counts as eyewitness testimony.

I would consider it sufficient to believe that what you claim happened, happened.

If you tell me "I saw a guy called Steve stare at a brick and then the brick started hovering a few inches in the air. Steve did this through his supernatural ability to move objects with his mind", that would count as eyewitness testimony.

I would NOT consider it sufficient to believe that what you claim happened, happened.

Do you agree or disagree that whether the same amount of evidence (eyewitness testimony) is sufficient to establish whether a claim is true, depends on the nature of the claim?

Do you agree that a person swearing he saw a pig and a person swearing that he saw a flying pig are different? Somebody saying that he saw a pig is possibly sufficient to establish that there was a pig. Somebody saying he saw a flying pig is definitely not sufficient to establish that there actually was a flying pig.

If multiple, independent people and historians reported that a pig flew or that Steve caused a brick to float, that wouldn't make you reconsider?

$10,000 for each historian.

If these people were also willing to die and be tortured for their claim, would it make you reconsider?

Please present evidence of anybody being willing to be tortured for their claim, when denying the claim would have let them escape the torture.

People who are tortured will often say anything to stop their torture. The Inquisition tortured Jews and others to admit absurd crimes like having sex with the demons, casting spells, or making a pact with the devil. That early Christians would die from torture without recanting their beliefs tells of the great conviction of their beliefs.

If there was also a great following of Steve'ites who claim to have witnessed his feats, would you not reconsider?

There isn't a great following of people who claim to have witnessed Jesus's feats. There are only anonymous texts written decades later. Of all the alleged "multitudes" who allegedly witnessed these feats, NOBODY EVER wrote any of it down. EVER.

How many people is it reasonable to expect write down such a thing given the time? Literacy was extremely rare. And writing instruments and paper expensive. Oral traditions were the norm. Yet even amongst those odds, 4 gospels were written and survived the test of time.

Suppose Steve actually could float bricks or there was a flying pig, is there any evidence or testimony that is reasonably expected to exist that would convince you?

Sure. Direct empirical evidence.

SO unless you cna personally examine Steve you won't believe it? If Steve died 200 years ago you'd never believe it, no matter what evidence or testimony remains?

The Bible claims that Jesus was supernatural, and that those who believed would be immune to poison. That's an easy claim to verify. Wanna try it?

That section of scripture is a known interpolation.

[scourge99]

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.

I contend that if the natural laws were suspended somewhere in the ancient history, unfortunately we'll never know about it.

We do know about it. People wrote it down. Several people. Even an independent historian. Among other lines of evidence and reasoning that point to the conclusion.

I think what you mean to say is "I won't accept it because I've decided that no amount of evidence or reason can adequately support a supernatural claim.

For any particular miracle claim, it is much more likely that a natural explanation applies. So yes, given the way the world is now, no amount of historical evidence would convince me that the natural laws have been suspended by God in the ancient history.

So if a supernatural event did happen, you willingly concede that no amount of evidence or reason could convince you to believe the truth of the event because you employ methodology that you concede is flawed.

That's interesting because when most people recognize flaws in their methodology and reasoning, they seek to remedy them. Especially when there are superior alternatives available. Instead you seem proud of the flaws in your methodology and wallow in its failure.

[keithprosser3]

You have to have an unlikely string of events all multiplied together:
1) all the writers of the gospels lying
2) Josephus a reputable historian, lying
3) other reputable historians lying about Christians and their beliefs
4) A rapidly expanding Christianity converting large amounts of people that are all in on the lie
5) Followers dying for things they believe are lies.

What is the probability that all those things happening? Seems its more of a miracle to believe all that than to reject what the evidence, people, historians, and our rational minds tell us.

Given the 'meme' of the resurrection arises somehow, the probability is quite high because lying or conspiracy is not involved. The problem is that 2-5 follow on from 1. They aren't independent strands of evidence they are linked as cause and effect and are the same 'evidence' over again.

Many people would bet their house that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and will pass on to others that George Washington chopped down a cherry in good faith, not because they are liars or a conspirators but because the myth has become accepted as the truth.

The cherry tree legend can be traced to a single unreliable source, so the plethora of later repetitions of that legend obviously count for nothing in establishing it as true.

[assisigirl]

Hi Star,


I am warming to your contributions here

May I ask you a question? I just did,didn't I? Oops! there's another one.




Has NENB, not just bought himself a 'wonky donkey' here? He will never get rid of it, you know, it is his for keeps now.

Would it not be more productive to question and demand proof for something that is absolutely fundamental to many faith systems, the obvious being, the existence and nature of an 'afterlife'. It is the contrivance of outlook regarding this that spawns the nuances of 'earthly' religions.(Christianity and Islam, Hinduism etc) If you want to get a theist out on a limb, which would seem to be the purpose of the OP, why not ask them about heaven. That will make them question their beliefs because at least the debate is on a level playing field.

The atheist would not have all the donkeys of the world to back him up.

[scourge99]

You have to have an unlikely string of events all multiplied together:
1) all the writers of the gospels lying
2) Josephus a reputable historian, lying
3) other reputable historians lying about Christians and their beliefs
4) A rapidly expanding Christianity converting large amounts of people that are all in on the lie
5) Followers dying for things they believe are lies.

What is the probability that all those things happening? Seems its more of a miracle to believe all that than to reject what the evidence, people, historians, and our rational minds tell us.

Given the 'meme' of the resurrection arises somehow, the probability is quite high because lying or conspiracy is not involved. The problem is that 2-5 follow on from 1. They aren't independent strands of evidence they are linked as cause and effect and are the same 'evidence' over again.

Many people would bet their house that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and will pass on to others that George Washington chopped down a cherry in good faith, not because they are liars or a conspirators but because the myth has become accepted as the truth.

The cherry tree legend can be traced to a single unreliable source, so the plethora of later repetitions of that legend obviously count for nothing in establishing it as true.

So the assassination of Caesar is a meme and myth as well by your reasoning? Or does your analysis only apply to historical claims you don't agree with?

[instantc]

So if a supernatural event did happen, you willingly concede that no amount of evidence or reason could convince you to believe the truth of the event because you employ methodology that you concede is flawed.

Yes.

That's interesting because when most people recognize flaws in their methodology and reasoning, they seek to remedy them. Especially when there are superior alternatives available.

But there aren't any, the only method available is to apply our experience and knowledge of reality to determine what is the best historical explanation for the available facts. For any particular miracle claim in the ancient history, it seems much more probable that a natural explanation applies, as long as there is a possible natural explanation.

Instead you seem proud of the flaws in your methodology and wallow in its failure.

That's how it seems to you, huh? Great, good comment!

[instantc]

The Lord of the Rings is evidence that Gandalf may exist.

Is it? Does it support that assertion? I don't think so. Unlike the authors of the Bible, the author of Lord of the Rings has conceded that the story is a product of his imagination. Therefore the latter doesn't support the truth of anything, while the former claims to be an account of real events.

[scourge99]

So if a supernatural event did happen, you willingly concede that no amount of evidence or reason could convince you to believe the truth of the event because you employ methodology that you concede is flawed.

Yes.

That's interesting because when most people recognize flaws in their methodology and reasoning, they seek to remedy them. Especially when there are superior alternatives available.

But there aren't any, the only method available is to apply our experience and knowledge of reality to determine what is the best historical explanation for the available facts.

The superior alternative is to not start with the unwarranted presupposition that supernatural/extraordinary events are impossible. To consider the merits of the claim without making a predetermined judgement as you have.

For any particular miracle claim in the ancient history, it seems much more probable that a natural explanation applies, as long as there is a possible natural explanation.

Its more probable than not that i didn't win the lottery. But if i have evidence i won the lottery will your presupposition that its more probable that i didn't, prevent you from objectively assessing that evidence? It seems so. You narrowly apply this same type reasoning to the extraordinary/supernatural.

If the supernatural claim isn't logically impossible then its irrational to arbitrarily rule it out without first examining the evidence/reasoning. Your unjustified presupposition is that you won't even consider the merits of an extraordinary/supernatural claim. This is the flaw in your reasoning.