The rationality of the Resurrection

[The Tanager]

The thread this conversation naturally came out of (who knows how long ago) has recently gotten back on the direct original topic, so the Moderator advised us to get back on topic there. So, I figured I should make a new thread should Justin108 want to continue our discussion here and, of course, anyone else can join in.

I just explained to you why it is. Technically speaking, me telling you I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln this morning is a historic claim.

history
hst()ri/
noun
1.
the study of past events, particularly in human affairs.

"This morning" is a past event.

So again I ask, would you a priori assume it is less likely that I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln than that I had breakfast with my girlfriend? Or are both scenarios equally likely?

Again, I agree with you if all we have is a claim. In your breakfast scenario (and others) all we have is your claim. No other evidence to consider. So, I should only look at prior probability. But as soon as you start adding in other pieces of evidence, other facts, then we look at the facts, not prior probability. We look at if Lincoln's tomb is empty or video evidence or whatever you want to claim is a fact. We decide what is a fact and then look at the various possible theories based on those facts.

"Stick to it"? I'm not hellbent on sticking to anything. All I want is sufficient evidence.

Have you ever seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Or maybe it's in The Life of Brian. Where the speaker is saying 'you' in a general sense and a person in the crowd keeps pointing to himself and taking it very specifically? I love those movies.

Anyway, this was a case of me using the general 'you.' You are judging the resurrection (at least by the critique you keep focusing on) by prior probability alone, when you have already agreed with me to consider the extra facts we've talked about. As soon as you start adding in other pieces of evidence, other facts, then we should look at the facts and not prior probability.

If you present me with sufficient evidence that you won the lottery, I would believe you. A priori probability does not mean that these events are impossible. I never suggested that.

I never thought you did.

All it means is that it is far less likely. And because of that, it requires more evidence than most other claims. The claim that I had breakfast with my girlfriend requires less evidence than the claim that I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln. The claim that Julius Caesar was assassinated requires less evidence than the claim that Jesus came back from the dead.

I agree.

The details added to the resurrection account are insufficient to convince me that someone came back from the dead.

So in your mind, any evidence is enough evidence? Or do you recognize that some claims require more evidence than others? You provided evidence, but your evidence is insufficient. Are you familiar with the concept of insufficient evidence?

I never said or implied that any evidence is enough evidence. I'm saying don't just say the evidence is insufficient. I'm asking you to explain why, to show the line of reasoning. Rationally show how it falls short. All you have done to support that claim so far is to say that resurrections are improbable. That doesn't cut it. I explain further why I think that doesn't cut it in the next response...

If I said I had breakfast with my girlfriend instead, would you also doubt me if I provided no evidence? Do you demand evidence for every claim? Probably not. And that's my point. Some claims require evidence, while others do not. Some claims require a lot of evidence while others do not. That's what a priori probability means.

I wouldn't doubt you. I may doubt someone I knew was a pathological liar, but I definitely don't have any reason to believe you are one. I don't demand evidence for every claim. If that is your point than we are talking past each other. I haven't claimed every claim requires evidence.

Philosophically, a priori refers to a proposition being knowable independently of experience. And that is how it has seemed to me that you have been using a priori probability. The probability of an action in general without considering any historical evidence for a specific supposed instance of such an action.

I agree with you that the probability of a resurrection, taken generally, is very low. And so if we are just comparing probability of a resurrection versus someone lying or hallucinating, etc. then a resurrection is less probable.

But we aren't doint that here. We are talking a specific historical claim and we don't have to just rely on a priori probability. We have facts to take into consideration. It's now an a posteriori analysis. When a claim has evidence to take into consideration we should take that evidence into consideration. We should not analyze an a posteriori argument as though it were only an a priori argument. That is what it appears to me that you are doing. You are saying Jesus' specific supposed resurrection is not true because, generally, resurrections are not things that occur. That skips over the evidence, facts we are supposed to be considering.

If it turns out that Michael Jackson's grave was empty, would this fact be enough to support the theory that Michael Jackson came back from the dead and started killing people? We have the additional facts you asked for.

I didn't say that would be enough. And an empty tomb is not all the evidence I presented to tip the scales in favor of the "it's an actual resurrection"-theory.

What exactly do you mean by "explain away the resurrection"?

Why would Paul lying about the 500 prove the "it's an actual resurrection"-theory to be wrong?

Your opinion is noted. I disagree. I do not need to rely on someone coming back from the dead in order to fathom the start of a new religion. Religion does not require supernatural origins.

I wasn't making a claim about any new religion starting, but a specific one. Religions start for different reasons.

Christianity took Jews that were strictly monotheistic and who looked forward to a coming political Messiah that would set things right, free them from Rome and that at the end of time would bring back the resurrection of the righteous (among other things) and then...after Jesus dies...this group claims the resurrection happened now to Jesus, that they have seen him, that the Messiah is a crucified-and-risen Messiah, who is God and Israel is not going to be set free from Rome, but the resurrection for them will still be at the end of time (among other things). And these disciples boldly proclaimed this message, despite persecution and were willing to be persecuted and killed for their belief that Jesus did rise from the dead.

That these were hallucinations or the disciples were liars or that Jesus didn't really die, etc. don't explain the start of this specific religion. I've already stated why and you haven't responded to those specific points. So, there is no burden for me to say anything more on those right now.

Your response has been to take an a posteriori argument and judge it by [a]a priori[/i] standards: general probability alone, ignoring evidence that should be taken into consideration. That seems irrational to me. I'd love to hear the reasoning out of why you think it's not.

Conjecture

If you disagree, do you have examples of people dying for what they know to be a lie? I'm open to hearing your support for believing some people would die for something they know is a lie. Not those hundreds of years later thinking it is true, but those who actually devised the lie. And let's not get into the "it's your burden" thing. We should both back up our view. We've definitely come across historical figures recanting a lie when it gets too hot for them to handle. Why would someone die for a lie? I'm willing to talk this out.

Do I have to investigate in depth every single claim ever made in order to avoid being called lazy? Did you investigate every historic claim ever made that you can call me lazy? Did you investigate every religious claim ever made? Or are you just being a self-righteous hypocrite?

You are seriously misreading my posts. I never claimed you (specific or general sense) had to investigate in depth every single claim ever made. I claimed that IF you (general sense) reject a theory because you just don't care to investigate the claims then you are doing so irrationally (blind faith and laziness). That's not calling you lazy unless you feel you fit into that category. I wasn't judging you (specific sense). You are investigating the claim under question with me.

How much time have you spent investigating the claims of Islam? Of Hinduism? Buddhism? Taoism? Scientology? Mormonism? Hellenism? Can you tell me the exact origin of every hero in Hellenism? Can you name every god in Hinduism?

I have been interested in such things ever since I became a Christian the summer before starting college. I'm writing a dissertation on an aspect of Hindu thought as it relates to the Problem of Evil. I have touched upon the various one's you've mentioned (and others) but certainly I haven't exhausted such searches. You can only do so much. When made aware of an important claim, I do try my best to fully analyze it. I will always (I hope) seek to grow in such knowledge and I feel I'm always open to change my mind. This journey in dialoguing with beliefs that aren't mine has been a tremendously beneficial journey to me in so many ways.

Contrary to what you might think, Christianity does not hold some kind of unique privilege where we are forced to contemplate it above all other religions.

I agree. I think many religious (and secular) worldviews are worth our contemplation. Take them as they come.

I have said this countless times already. One does not need to come up with a substitute explanation in order to doubt a given explanation.

And the last time you said it, I agreed. I then tried to clarify the point I was actually making. You can doubt Genghis Khan's resurrection for sufficient or insufficient reasons. Even if you doubt it for insufficient reasons, you could be right in your belief. I'm interested in doubting things for sufficient reasons. Should someone want to argue that Genghis Khan came back from the dead and told me what difference it would make (if true)...and I thought that difference a good enough difference, I would want to rationally doubt it, not to doubt it for insufficient reasons.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by The Tanager]

Justin108 wrote:
I have said this countless times already. One does not need to come up with a substitute explanation in order to doubt a given explanation.

One does not have to anything, of course. And of course 'doubt' is a psychological frame of mind, perhaps reasonable, perhaps not. I can doubt that the homeless man down the street is really the Pope as he claims; and he can doubt that all my explanations to him as why he can't be. Doubt is a belief; merely the negative of "I believe"; i.e., "I don't believe". It may be rational, it may not be.


And so if one can provide a hypothesis for an historical claim which has explanatory scope and power, as well as a minimal number of ad hoc assumptions, while another cannot, the other's 'doubt' is quite impotent. It amounts to a statement of faith when one says, "Look, I can't explain it in any way that satisfies my worldview, but I just know that your explanation can't be right because it would invalidate my worldview". That is a fundamentalist response.

[Mithrae]

And so if one can provide a hypothesis for an historical claim which has explanatory scope and power, as well as a minimal number of ad hoc assumptions, while another cannot, the other's 'doubt' is quite impotent.

Most of the main hypotheses have explanatory scope and power, so the only real point you're making is with regard to the quantity of ad hoc assumptions. It's worth noting that not all ad hoc assumptions are equally ad hoccy, so merely talking about the number of such assumptions is a little misleading.

More importantly, if one hypothesis has good explanatory scope and power with a minimal quantity of ad hoc assumptions, while another requires only slightly more assumption to achieve equal explanatory scope, it is obviously entirely fallacious to suggest that the latter is "impotent."

Furthermore, note that the sum of all mutually-exclusive possibilities by definition must add up to a 100% certainty that one of them is correct: If there were a 90% probability of mutually-exclusive hypothesis A being correct, all other possibilities can have only a 10% probability between them, otherwise A's probability would be lower.

Therefore even if resurrection were the best hypothesis (which is debatable) and other main hypotheses (eg. fraud, swoon, mistaken identity) were only two-thirds as plausible, we'd still be left with only a 30% probability/plausibility for the resurrection hypothesis (leaving a final 10% free for Christ myth and other miscellanea).

[Justin108]

I just explained to you why it is. Technically speaking, me telling you I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln this morning is a historic claim.

history
hst()ri/
noun
1.
the study of past events, particularly in human affairs.

"This morning" is a past event.

So again I ask, would you a priori assume it is less likely that I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln than that I had breakfast with my girlfriend? Or are both scenarios equally likely?

Again, I agree with you if all we have is a claim. In your breakfast scenario (and others) all we have is your claim. No other evidence to consider. So, I should only look at prior probability.

You're missing the point. My point is that before looking at the evidence, some claims are immediately more believable than others. Some claims are immediately more probable than others. Some claims require less evidence than others. That is all I want you to acknowledge at this point. Before looking at the available evidence, can we agree that some claims will demand more evidence than others? This is what a priori probability means. That some claims, before any investigation into the evidence, is inherently less probable than other claims.

"Stick to it"? I'm not hellbent on sticking to anything. All I want is sufficient evidence.

Have you ever seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Or maybe it's in The Life of Brian. Where the speaker is saying 'you' in a general sense and a person in the crowd keeps pointing to himself and taking it very specifically? I love those movies.

Anyway, this was a case of me using the general 'you.' You are judging the resurrection (at least by the critique you keep focusing on) by prior probability alone

I am not. I am merely pointing out that the evidence provided for the resurrection is insufficient.

when you have already agreed with me to consider the extra facts we've talked about.

The extra facts are not enough.

I never said or implied that any evidence is enough evidence. I'm saying don't just say the evidence is insufficient. I'm asking you to explain why, to show the line of reasoning.

How many times do I need to repeat this? The evidence is insufficient because people do not typically come back from the dead. Because of this, I require far more than an empty tomb and a bunch of people insisting they saw Jesus.

Rationally show how it falls short. All you have done to support that claim so far is to say that resurrections are improbable.

What else do you need??

People lying: improbable
Delusions: improbable
Resurrection: extremely improbable

Based on that, "people lying" or "the disciples were delusional" are more likely than the resurrection. If you can't see how "the resurrection is improbable" is a sufficient explanation then I don't know what else you need.

If I said I had breakfast with my girlfriend instead, would you also doubt me if I provided no evidence? Do you demand evidence for every claim? Probably not. And that's my point. Some claims require evidence, while others do not. Some claims require a lot of evidence while others do not. That's what a priori probability means.

I wouldn't doubt you. I may doubt someone I knew was a pathological liar, but I definitely don't have any reason to believe you are one. I don't demand evidence for every claim. If that is your point than we are talking past each other. I haven't claimed every claim requires evidence.

Yes but you require evidence for some claims. If I claimed I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln, you would demand evidence. And not just evidence, you would demand a great deal of evidence. You have given me evidence for the resurrection, but I demand a great deal of evidence.

I agree with you that the probability of a resurrection, taken generally, is very low. And so if we are just comparing probability of a resurrection versus someone lying or hallucinating, etc. then a resurrection is less probable.

But we aren't doint that here.

What more do we have than claims and an empty tomb?

We have facts to take into consideration. It's now an a posteriori analysis. When a claim has evidence to take into consideration we should take that evidence into consideration.

I did and concluded that the resurrection does not have enough evidence.

You are saying Jesus' specific supposed resurrection is not true because, generally, resurrections are not things that occur.

What's so special about Jesus that he escapes the fact that resurrections generally do not occur?

That skips over the evidence, facts we are supposed to be considering.

It doesn't. Which facts do you think I have yet to consider?

If it turns out that Michael Jackson's grave was empty, would this fact be enough to support the theory that Michael Jackson came back from the dead and started killing people? We have the additional facts you asked for.

I didn't say that would be enough. And an empty tomb is not all the evidence I presented to tip the scales in favor of the "it's an actual resurrection"-theory.

So you acknowledge that there's a difference between "evidence" and "sufficient evidence"?

What exactly do you mean by "explain away the resurrection"?

Why would Paul lying about the 500 prove the "it's an actual resurrection"-theory to be wrong?

It wouldn't. It would just mean that that particular piece of evidence is not enough.

That these were hallucinations or the disciples were liars or that Jesus didn't really die, etc. don't explain the start of this specific religion.

I don't care to explain the start of this specific religion. As already stated, I do not need to come up with a substitute explanation in order to doubt a given explanation.

[The Tanager]

You're missing the point. My point is that before looking at the evidence, some claims are immediately more believable than others. Some claims are immediately more probable than others. Some claims require less evidence than others. That is all I want you to acknowledge at this point. Before looking at the available evidence, can we agree that some claims will demand more evidence than others? This is what a priori probability means. That some claims, before any investigation into the evidence, is inherently less probable than other claims.

I've said I've agreed with this already.

How many times do I need to repeat this? The evidence is insufficient because people do not typically come back from the dead. Because of this, I require far more than an empty tomb and a bunch of people insisting they saw Jesus.

This is why I keep saying you are relying on prior probability alone to come to your conclusion. Why is it rational to rely on prior probability alone here? What kind of evidence would be required to overcome relying on prior probability alone? Not something vague, something specific.

What else do you need??

People lying: improbable
Delusions: improbable
Resurrection: extremely improbable

Based on that, "people lying" or "the disciples were delusional" are more likely than the resurrection. If you can't see how "the resurrection is improbable" is a sufficient explanation then I don't know what else you need.

Because this looks at prior probability alone, which should only be looked at when there is no evidence to consider. When assessing whether Tommy won the lottery you should not look at prior probability unless Tommy winning the lottery is impossible...you look at the evidence of the claim that Tommy won the lottery. Tommy has a lot of new stuff, whatever. Then you take the various theories ...Tommy won the lottery, Tommy is in the mob, Tommy robbed a bank, Tommy is from the future, whatever. And then, forgetting prior probability (at least for now), you guage the theories on the evidence. If the evidence points to different theories equally, then you can be rational by falling back on prior probability.

But you are simply skipping the middle stuff (at least in what you are writing) and falling back on prior probability. If you did the same thing in Tommy's case, then Tommy did not win the lottery in spite of the evidence. The approach you are taking does not seem to me to be a sufficient rational explanation.

Yes but you require evidence for some claims. If I claimed I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln, you would demand evidence. And not just evidence, you would demand a great deal of evidence. You have given me evidence for the resurrection, but I demand a great deal of evidence.

If anything of importance rode on your claims and my conclusions on the actual truth, I'd require evidence of you eating with your significant other, too. If nothing of importance rode on your claims, yes I'd doubt Honest Abe ate pancakes with you more than if your significant other did because I've only got prior probability to consider...until you give me evidences to consider. And then I consider the various theories in light of the evidences, forgetting (at least for now) about prior probability since probability doesn't determine truth.

I don't know what you mean by "a great deal of evidence," though. We said a long while ago that the evidence required for a rational argument was that it was the inference to the best explanation. I've presented the case with the resurrection. I've laid out the various alternatives, including your "I don't know what, but it must be something else" and shown why I think them highly unsupported, given the various facts we've talked about. You have not specifically addressed why my analysis of those specific theories fail at all.

You have only responded to the general "I don't know what, but it must be something else" and give these reasons (as far as I can tell)

(1) My facts are not enough...without saying why they aren't enough beyond a vague "I need more...". You have even said you don't need to consider the start of this religion, when that is one of the facts I've been pointing to. You may have considered the facts more than you have shared, but you aren't showing me the reasoning you went through, so all I've got here is your conclusion, not the support for your conclusion. You therefore return to:

(2) Prior probability, which should only play a role here if it rules a theory out (you've agreed it doesn't) or the theories are equally as likely given the facts (which you haven't argued). I've argued they aren't as likely given the facts. You haven't responded to one bit of my analysis on those. You simply return to prior probability. Something you wouldn't do in the lottery scenario because prior probability should not be the determining factor.

What's so special about Jesus that he escapes the fact that resurrections generally do not occur?

That's going about it the wrong way. If we think the resurrection is the best explanation, then we conclude there is something special about one who is resurrected. It's a conclusion, not a premise of the argument.

[Inigo Montoya]

Soooo many words. So much posturing. All to convey an incredibly simple idea. When we're not sidetracked arguing probability and bias, that is..

You believe a man was raised from the dead. Why? Stories passed between a pre-scientific and superstitious culture were written down and mostly preserved. A religion sprang up from belief in the claims made. Miracles can't be shown to be impossible, and anyone making that case shows an a priori bias against the supernatural. Riveting stuff.

Why do you believe Jesus was raised from the dead, Tanager? Can you answer without invoking a god? If your aim is historical, it can't be demonstrated beyond what amounts to the following: You believe that other people believed, and that is sufficient two thousand years later. What other possible data do you get to consider? X believed A, told Y, Y knew B, who was the brother of Q . You're unable to recreate, demonstrate, or validate the claim on anything more substantial than the recordings of stories, references to them and their characters later, and the fact that Christianity began and won the popularity contest.

One zillion threads on the matter. In the end you have an extraordinary claim you have to squarely face. If a god is part of your justification for acceptance, or that a church rose from the stories, that's grand. History cannot relate the miracle by its own method. Only that the claim was made. Can you justify your belief? Probably. Who cares though? Can you demonstrate the occurrence actually happened? Not historically you can't. Can you take someone to task for abusing probability or bias? Yes you can. Have you accomplished anything remotely useful in validating a claimed resurrection historically? No. What you folk have is faith, and arguments to convince yourself it's a rational faith at that.

And I love the inference to the best explanation bit. On what planet is "he was raised from the dead" going to be the best explanation? Not this one. Oh gosh, was that me demonstrating an a priori bias against the supernatural? Well what's the opposite of that? What do you call a worldview that holds open the door for miracles to fill in the blanks of history, and reinforce it with a method unable to deal with miracles?

Sadly we are no closer to being shown a resurrection occured.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 4 by Justin108]

If I claimed I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln, you would demand evidence. And not just evidence, you would demand a great deal of evidence. You have given me evidence for the resurrection, but I demand a great deal of evidence.

Could you please explain why one claim would demand more evidence than any other claim? Does it demand more evidence for the claim to actually be true? Or, does it demand more evidence simply for you to believe it?

Could something actually be true, even though there is very little evidence? Could something be false, even though there is a great amount of evidence that it is true?

Years ago, there was a great amount of evidence that the Earth was flat, and that the Sun revolved around the Earth. So much so, that most, if not all people believed this to be true, including the scientists at the time, because there was a great amount of evidence to support such a belief.

We now know they were completely wrong, even though there was a great amount of evidence to suggest they were right.

At any rate, I have heard this sort of thing before on other threads. I believe it was said there, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Well, I do not get it? If ordinary evidence is enough for ordinary claims, then why would one insist on extraordinary evidence in order to believe extraordinary claims?

I think it could be that we simply have lazy folks, or they are simply not all that interested. In other words, if I were to say, "I had lunch with my wife today", you more than likely would believe with ease, because there is nothing there to doubt, on top of the fact that you really, more than likely could not care less. With this being the case, you would not even attempt to check the claim, or the evidence that I indeed had ate with my wife.

However, I could say, "I had lunch with Abraham Lincoln", and you would more than likely not believe such a claim, simply because it is highly unlikely. Something being highly unlikely is not evidence at all.

Therefore, in order for one to believe such a claim, they do not want to have to do the hard work of investigating the ordinary evidence, rather they want it handed to them, without any work at all, and demand extraordinary evidence that will convince them without any work at all.

There are many extraordinary claims in the world. Some of these claims I do not believe in the least, and it is not because they are highly unlikely, but rather because I have examined the evidence and have become convinced by the evidence that they are not true.

However, there are other extraordinary claims, and it is not as though I do not believe them, rather I simply highly doubt them. The reason I highly doubt them is because, I am not really interested one way or the other, and really do not want to take the time to investigate such claims. But it is not as though I would demand that the evidence for such a claim, be extraordinary.

[Justin108]

This is why I keep saying you are relying on prior probability alone

And I keep saying I am not

Why is it rational to rely on prior probability alone here?

All evidence considered, it is still extremely unlikely that someone came back from the dead.

What kind of evidence would be required to overcome relying on prior probability alone? Not something vague, something specific.

What kind of evidence would be required to believe that I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln this morning? Specifically?

What else do you need??

People lying: improbable
Delusions: improbable
Resurrection: extremely improbable

Based on that, "people lying" or "the disciples were delusional" are more likely than the resurrection. If you can't see how "the resurrection is improbable" is a sufficient explanation then I don't know what else you need.

Because this looks at prior probability alone, which should only be looked at when there is no evidence to consider.

I am not looking at prior probability alone. Given the evidence, the resurrection can be explained by people lying and people having delusions. Both of these conclusions are based on the evidence, and both of these conclusions, even after considering the evidence, are still more likely than a resurrection.

You seen to be under the impression that the fact that evidence exists suddenly means prior probability disappears. It doesn't. Even if we consider the empty tomb, the witness testimony and the new religion, it is still extremely unlikely that someone came back from the dead.

When assessing whether Tommy won the lottery you should not look at prior probability unless Tommy winning the lottery is impossible...you look at the evidence of the claim that Tommy won the lottery.

Yes and we look at the prior probability to determine what is enough evidence for Tommy's claim. Some claims require more evidence than others. The prior probability of the resurrection claim demands an extreme amount of evidence for the resurrection. There is not an extreme amount of evidence for the resurrection, ergo I do not believe the resurrection happened.

Yes but you require evidence for some claims. If I claimed I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln, you would demand evidence. And not just evidence, you would demand a great deal of evidence. You have given me evidence for the resurrection, but I demand a great deal of evidence.

If anything of importance rode on your claims and my conclusions on the actual truth, I'd require evidence of you eating with your significant other, too. If nothing of importance rode on your claims, yes I'd doubt Honest Abe ate pancakes with you more than if your significant other did because I've only got prior probability to consider...until you give me evidences to consider. And then I consider the various theories in light of the evidences, forgetting (at least for now) about prior probability since probability doesn't determine truth.

What is the minimum evidence you would need in order to believe I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln?

I've laid out the various alternatives, including your "I don't know what, but it must be something else" and shown why I think them highly unsupported, given the various facts we've talked about. You have not specifically addressed why my analysis of those specific theories fail at all.

I don't care about those specific theories. I care about the theory that Jesus came back from the dead. And there is not enough evidence to support that theory.

(1) My facts are not enough...without saying why they aren't enough beyond a vague "I need more...".

The facts are not enough because they do not point to a resurrection being the most plausible explanation.

You have even said you don't need to consider the start of this religion, when that is one of the facts I've been pointing to. You may have considered the facts more than you have shared, but you aren't showing me the reasoning you went through, so all I've got here is your conclusion, not the support for your conclusion.

I have considered the fact that it started a new religion, and the best response to that that I can think of is "so what?". Religions have started from less, so why do you insist that THIS religion started from a supernatural event?

You therefore return to: (2) Prior probability, which should only play a role here if it rules a theory out (you've agreed it doesn't) or the theories are equally as likely given the facts (which you haven't argued). I've argued they aren't as likely given the facts. You haven't responded to one bit of my analysis on those. You simply return to prior probability. Something you wouldn't do in the lottery scenario because prior probability should not be the determining factor.

Ok without appealing to prior probability, please explain what is wrong with this substitute theory:

After Jesus' death, an invisible alien spacecraft came to earth, stole Jesus' body, and replaced him by a shapeshifter who then fooled all his followers into thinking that he came back from the dead. Please, without referring to prior probability, explain what is wrong with my theory.

My theory has the following evidence
- Jesus' tomb is empty
- his followers saw him after his death

[Realworldjack]

Soooo many words. So much posturing. All to convey an incredibly simple idea. When we're not sidetracked arguing probability and bias, that is..

You believe a man was raised from the dead. Why? Stories passed between a pre-scientific and superstitious culture were written down and mostly preserved. A religion sprang up from belief in the claims made. Miracles can't be shown to be impossible, and anyone making that case shows an a priori bias against the supernatural. Riveting stuff.

Why do you believe Jesus was raised from the dead, Tanager? Can you answer without invoking a god? If your aim is historical, it can't be demonstrated beyond what amounts to the following: You believe that other people believed, and that is sufficient two thousand years later. What other possible data do you get to consider? X believed A, told Y, Y knew B, who was the brother of Q . You're unable to recreate, demonstrate, or validate the claim on anything more substantial than the recordings of stories, references to them and their characters later, and the fact that Christianity began and won the popularity contest.

One zillion threads on the matter. In the end you have an extraordinary claim you have to squarely face. If a god is part of your justification for acceptance, or that a church rose from the stories, that's grand. History cannot relate the miracle by its own method. Only that the claim was made. Can you justify your belief? Probably. Who cares though? Can you demonstrate the occurrence actually happened? Not historically you can't. Can you take someone to task for abusing probability or bias? Yes you can. Have you accomplished anything remotely useful in validating a claimed resurrection historically? No. What you folk have is faith, and arguments to convince yourself it's a rational faith at that.

And I love the inference to the best explanation bit. On what planet is "he was raised from the dead" going to be the best explanation? Not this one. Oh gosh, was that me demonstrating an a priori bias against the supernatural? Well what's the opposite of that? What do you call a worldview that holds open the door for miracles to fill in the blanks of history, and reinforce it with a method unable to deal with miracles?

Sadly we are no closer to being shown a resurrection occured.

Why do you believe Jesus was raised from the dead, Tanager? Can you answer without invoking a god?

I most certainly can answer without "invoking a god!" In fact, I have been here on this site for a good number of years, and have never, "invoked a god" while explaining why it is I believe, "Jesus was raised from the dead."

What has been my experience here is, it is those who are opposed to, Jesus being raised from the dead, who are the ones who continue to bring up some sort of god. Just like right now!

In fact, there is a Biblical author who explains how he received his information concerning Jesus, and he never, "invokes a god."

[Willum]

I haven't been able to follow the rational and non-rational positions on the thread, however, how about this very simple one:

It is unlikely that even a being with ultimate power at his disposal, is capable of returning to life a man three days dead.

Barring the sophomoric, "God can do anything," if we explore a creature with omnipotence, it is very likely that even such a creature would not be able to restore molecule and atoms to a living state.

Try it: Propose a mechanism by which a creature with unlimited power could resurrect something.

I am pretty sure there is no way. Using molecular tweezers for example - the tweezers would do more damage than they restored.

But go ahead...