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?

[Goose]

I thought this thread looked interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can’t rule out the possibility Mohammad may have had some type of supernatural experience that night. But the evidence from the later written Hadith seems to imply this may have been a dream.

The Prophet (saws) said, "While I was at the (Sacred) House in a state midway between sleep and wakefulness, (an Angel recognized me) as the man lying between two men. A golden tray full of wisdom and belief was brought to me, and my body was cut open from the throat to the lower part of the abdomen, and then my abdomen was washed with Zam-zam water and (my heart was) filled with wisdom and belief. Al-Buraq, a white animal, smaller than a mule and bigger than a donkey was brought to me and I set out with Gabriel.� - Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.429

Oddly, the Quran itself makes no mention of a flying horse or heavenly ascension, only a night journey from one mosque to another.

�Glory to (God) Who did take His Servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque whose precincts We did bless, - in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things).� - Surah 17.1

If you’d like to argue for a literal flying horse and ascension be my guest. Attempting to force a Christian to accept the Al-Mi'raj in order to also accept Christian supernatural claims does nothing to undermine the supernatural claims of Christianity itself. Supernatural events occurring outside the scope of God’s directing is perfectly compatible with the Christian framework.

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?

Perhaps it would be more productive to focus on the event that makes or breaks Christianity - the resurrection of Jesus. The evidence for the resurrection is quite strong by ancient historical standards. By way of comparison to other ancient events taken for granted (some of which we might even call extraordinary) the evidence for the resurrection is at least as good.

[instantc]

Perhaps it would be more productive to focus on the event that makes or breaks Christianity - the resurrection of Jesus. The evidence for the resurrection is quite strong by ancient historical standards. By way of comparison to other ancient events taken for granted (some of which we might even call extraordinary) the evidence for the resurrection is at least as good.

Please, elaborate.

[10CC]

Perhaps it would be more productive to focus on the event that makes or breaks Christianity - the resurrection of Jesus. The evidence for the resurrection is quite strong by ancient historical standards. By way of comparison to other ancient events taken for granted (some of which we might even call extraordinary) the evidence for the resurrection is at least as good.

Do you mean like lightening beings caused by gods?

[Goose]

Please, elaborate.

All one has to do is pick an event from ancient history they already take for granted as historical. Caesar's assassination is a good control event especially when we consider it was quite an extraordinary event - the leader of a country stabbed to death in broad daylight by dozens of senators where no one interfered. Then run the evidence for that event along side the evidence for the resurrection. We'll find the evidence for the resurrection is just as good. If the evidence is just as good one cannot accept the one and reject the other on evidential grounds while also remaining intellectually honest.

[instantc]

Please, elaborate.

All one has to do is pick an event from ancient history they already take for granted as historical. Caesar's assassination is a good control event especially when we consider it was quite an extraordinary event - the leader of a country stabbed to death in broad daylight by dozens of senators where no one interfered. Then run the evidence for that event along side the evidence for the resurrection. We'll find the evidence for the resurrection is just as good. If the evidence is just as good one cannot accept the one and reject the other on evidential grounds while also remaining intellectually honest.

But, let me ask you this, suppose we take for granted that the eye-witness accounts from around the resurrection are not forgeries.

Now, nobody even claims to have witnessed the resurrection, do they? There is no historical evidence for the resurrection whatsoever.

There is evidence for certain circumstances surrounding the alleged resurrection, how do you get from those circumstances to the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected?

[Goose]

But, let me ask you this, suppose we take for granted that the eye-witness accounts from around the resurrection are not forgeries.

Now, nobody even claims to have witnessed the resurrection, do they? There is no historical evidence for the resurrection whatsoever.

There is evidence for certain circumstances surrounding the alleged resurrection, how do you get from those circumstances to the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected?

I'm not following you here. Are you suggesting we cannot properly infer a resurrection because no one claims to have witnessed Jesus' resurrection? If we apply your reasoning across the spectrum of ancient history think of how much was also not directly witnessed. No one claims to have witness Caesar die from his stab wounds either. So how do we get from the details that have come down to us to the conclusion Caesar died by assassination?

[instantc]

But, let me ask you this, suppose we take for granted that the eye-witness accounts from around the resurrection are not forgeries.

Now, nobody even claims to have witnessed the resurrection, do they? There is no historical evidence for the resurrection whatsoever.

There is evidence for certain circumstances surrounding the alleged resurrection, how do you get from those circumstances to the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected?

I'm not following you here. Are you suggesting we cannot properly infer a resurrection because no one claims to have witnessed Jesus' resurrection? If we apply your reasoning across the spectrum of ancient history think of how much was also not directly witnessed. No one claims to have witness Caesar die from his stab wounds either. So how do we get from the details that have come down to us to the conclusion Caesar died by assassination?

You haven't shown that the two events are analogous, just because we are justified in inferring some historical events doesn't mean we are justified in inferring the resurrection of Jesus. Please explain how do you get to the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected.

[Nickman]

Please, elaborate.

All one has to do is pick an event from ancient history they already take for granted as historical. Caesar's assassination is a good control event especially when we consider it was quite an extraordinary event - the leader of a country stabbed to death in broad daylight by dozens of senators where no one interfered. Then run the evidence for that event along side the evidence for the resurrection. We'll find the evidence for the resurrection is just as good. If the evidence is just as good one cannot accept the one and reject the other on evidential grounds while also remaining intellectually honest.

How is a mob of angry senators killing Caesar an extraordinary event? How is this even on par with the claim that someone rose from the dead? In one story, a person dies just like everyone else. The other story has a person dying and then coming to life again, then going into space without a space suit. This person is also flying.

[Goose]

You haven't shown that the two events are analogous, just because we are justified in inferring some historical events doesn't mean we are justified in inferring the resurrection of Jesus.

I've shown your reasoning, or more precisely your historical methodology, for rejecting the resurrection while accepting the assassination is faulty as you accept the latter while rejecting the former when the latter suffers the same dilemma as the former.

Please explain how do you get to the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected.

The very same way we get to the conclusion Caesar died by assassination. It's the best explanation of the available data.

[instantc]

You haven't shown that the two events are analogous, just because we are justified in inferring some historical events doesn't mean we are justified in inferring the resurrection of Jesus.

I've shown your reasoning, or more precisely your historical methodology, for rejecting the resurrection while accepting the assassination is faulty as you accept the latter while rejecting the former when the latter suffers the same dilemma as the former.

You haven't shown it, you have just asserted it. I have neither rejected or accepted the assassination of Ceasar, so you are attacking a straw man. I'm not interested in Ceasar, I'm interested in hearing how you get to the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected.

It's the best explanation of the available data.

What is this available data that you draw your conclusion from? You haven't presented any data. I cannot comment on your case if you don't present your data and explain your thought process.