Real debate of the evidence for resurrection

[Zzyzx]

.
From a current thread:

Testimonials are worth nothing in debate.

Which is why there is so little real debate in any of these forums...opinions abide.

Let's really debate the presence or absence of verifiable evidence that Jesus died and came back to life -- excluding testimonials and opinions.

[The Tanager]

The Tananger in post 31:
"Josephus was biased. He's trying to sell a competing car, to keep the analogy up."

This informs us that Josephus did not believe that Jesus really rose from the dead. If he didn't know it to be true, how can anyone from this day pretend to know that it is true?

How do we know how well-informed he was on that issue? He doesn't address the issue in any depth. Neo-Nazis do not believe the Holocaust occurred. If a prominent one didn't know it to be true, how can anyone 2000 years from today pretend to know that it is true? They look at the data, possible theories to explain the data and then make an inference to the best explanation like I have proposed here.

Right now we are at step 1 (collect the data). We have talked about 1 of the 3 pieces of data I have named. I see no reason to throw out that. I'll gladly continue the discussion on it or move to other data should people want to continue a real debate of the evidence for resurrection.

[bluegreenearth]

They look at the data, possible theories to explain the data and then make an inference to the best explanation like I have proposed here.

*Bold font above was added for emphasis*

People can imagine a number of hypotheses that, if true, would best explain all the available data. Therefore, we need some metric for rejecting all the alternative inferences to the best explanation in order to justify accepting the proposed inference to the best explanation. One such metric is to first determine which hypotheses are possible. In other words, the inference to the best explanation is actually the inference to the best of possible explanations.

Once the list of candidate inferences is narrowed to only those hypotheses which are determined to be possible, there needs to be additional metrics for rejecting all but the most correct hypothesis. One such metric is that the most correct hypothesis will be the least ad hoc. This is a problem for theistic claims because a necessary requirement for having the most explanatory power is that the hypothesis not only account for prior observations but also have predictive success. Therefore, while theistic claims provide an explanation of the known data, they do not make testable predictions. Without the ability to make testable predictions, a theistic inference to the best explanation is no more justified than any other imagined inference with no predictive power.

[The Tanager]

One such metric is that the most correct hypothesis will be the least ad hoc. This is a problem for theistic claims because a necessary requirement for having the most explanatory power is that the hypothesis not only account for prior observations but also have predictive success. Therefore, while theistic claims provide an explanation of the known data, they do not make testable predictions. Without the ability to make testable predictions, a theistic inference to the best explanation is no more justified than any other imagined inference with no predictive power.

There are various metrics (in step 2 of the argument, as I was approaching it). We were still trying to agree on the data to be included (step 1). If you want to bypass that and go to step 2, then we would need to judge the hypotheses by:

1. Explanatory scope - the hypothesis that includes the most relevant data

2. Explanatory power - the hypothesis that explains the data with the least amount of effort and vagueness. I'm not sure why you include the idea about predictive success when talking about history, though.

3. Plausibility - the hypothesis must better cohere with other areas known with confidence

4. Simplicity/Less ad hoc - the hypothesis enlists less assumptions

5. Illumination - the hypothesis provides a possible solution without confusing other areas held with confidence.

[Willum]

Everyone is focusing on the main event, instead of the side shows.

Lazarus and some child who fell from a window were resurrected and survived long after Jesus.

Where is their celebrity? Where are there interviews, their documentation? Their tales of what the afterlife was like?

Why are these not required reading in schools today?

They didn’t happen, that is why.

QED.
End of myth.

[bluegreenearth]

There are various metrics (in step 2 of the argument, as I was approaching it). We were still trying to agree on the data to be included (step 1). If you want to bypass that and go to step 2, then we would need to judge the hypotheses by:

1. Explanatory scope - the hypothesis that includes the most relevant data

2. Explanatory power - the hypothesis that explains the data with the least amount of effort and vagueness. I'm not sure why you include the idea about predictive success when talking about history, though.

3. Plausibility - the hypothesis must better cohere with other areas known with confidence

4. Simplicity/Less ad hoc - the hypothesis enlists less assumptions

5. Illumination - the hypothesis provides a possible solution without confusing other areas held with confidence.

Why did you skip the first metric? Can you demonstrate that the theistic hypothesis is possible?

[The Tanager]

Everyone is focusing on the main event, instead of the side shows.

Lazarus and some child who fell from a window were resurrected and survived long after Jesus.

Where is their celebrity? Where are there interviews, their documentation? Their tales of what the afterlife was like?

Why are these not required reading in schools today?

They didn’t happen, that is why.

QED.
End of myth.

In the accounts themselves Jesus' resurrection is presented as a different kind of thing then the raising of Lazarus and other stories like them. In the others it's Jesus or other prophets doing the action, while with Jesus no external person is doing it. Jesus' raised body is different then their bodies (it can appear in locked rooms, etc.). They are depicted more as temporary resuscitations.

Regardless of that point, however, we must take each story on its own. One being untrue says nothing of the others being untrue. Here we are talking about Jesus' resurrection. Assume all the other stories are false for our discussion. That says nothing against Jesus' supposed resurrection.

[The Tanager]

Why did you skip the first metric? Can you demonstrate that the theistic hypothesis is possible?

I didn't know you were saying the theistic hypothesis was impossible. There is nothing illogical about God resurrecting a person from the dead.

[bluegreenearth]

I didn't know you were saying the theistic hypothesis was impossible. There is nothing illogical about God resurrecting a person from the dead.

I'm not claiming it is impossible. No one has demonstrated the theistic hypothesis to be impossible or possible. As far as I know, the possibility of the theistic hypothesis being true is unknown at this time. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it is possible.

[marco]

I didn't know you were saying the theistic hypothesis was impossible. There is nothing illogical about God resurrecting a person from the dead.

Logic and reason do not apply. We throw logic away when we accept miracles. There is no point in pretending to apply reason: the argument involves reason against faith. Reason uses what we know and faith uses what we don't.

[Willum]

Everyone is focusing on the main event, instead of the side shows.

Lazarus and some child who fell from a window were resurrected and survived long after Jesus.

Where is their celebrity? Where are there interviews, their documentation? Their tales of what the afterlife was like?

Why are these not required reading in schools today?

They didn’t happen, that is why.

QED.
End of myth.

In the accounts themselves Jesus' resurrection is presented as a different kind of thing then the raising of Lazarus and other stories like them. In the others it's Jesus or other prophets doing the action, while with Jesus no external person is doing it. Jesus' raised body is different then their bodies (it can appear in locked rooms, etc.). They are depicted more as temporary resuscitations.

Regardless of that point, however, we must take each story on its own. One being untrue says nothing of the others being untrue. Here we are talking about Jesus' resurrection. Assume all the other stories are false for our discussion. That says nothing against Jesus' supposed resurrection.

[Replying to post 56 by The Tanager]

In the accounts themselves Jesus' resurrection is presented as a different kind of thing then the raising of Lazarus and other stories like them. In the others it's Jesus or other prophets doing the action, while with Jesus no external person is doing it. Jesus' raised body is different then their bodies (it can appear in locked rooms, etc.). They are depicted more as temporary resuscitations.

Regardless of that point, however, we must take each story on its own. One being untrue says nothing of the others being untrue. Here we are talking about Jesus' resurrection. Assume all the other stories are false for our discussion. That says nothing against Jesus' supposed resurrection.

You have avoided the issue, I assume that means you concede, as of course your conclusion is non-sequitur.

Lazarus and the child still should have had recorded lives of much distinction.
There is nothing, because they did not happen, nor did Jesus, same reasons.

QED