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]

How is a mob of angry senators killing Caesar an extraordinary event?

How is not? Would your contention be this is an ordinary every day type of occurrence? If so, when was the last time you witnessed the leader of a country stabbed to death in broad daylight by a large group of politicians?

How is this even on par with the claim that someone rose from the dead?

They are both extraordinary.

In one story, a person dies just like everyone else.

False. Caesar doesn't die like everyone else - that's the point - as most people die ordinary by natural causes. Caesar dies extraordinarily. I'm sure how you can argue his death was ordinary.

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.

In other words, both stories are extraordinary.

[Nickman]

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.

The best explanation of Jesus is that he died, rose again, and flew into space? There are simpler explanations that don't require magical thinking.

[Goose]

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.

I jumped the gun and assumed you accepted Caesar's assassination as most rational people do, my mistake. Allow me to offer you the opportunity to throw your hat over the fence. Do you accept Caesar's assassination or do you reject it? Remember we are using this event is a control. Attempting to circumnavigate it doesn't serve you well.

What is this available data that you draw your conclusion from?

Are you familiar with the Minimal Facts Approach? I'm asking to save some time.

[instantc]

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.

I jumped the gun and assumed you accepted Caesar's assassination as most rational people do, my mistake. Allow me to offer you the opportunity to throw your hat over the fence. Do you accept Caesar's assassination or do you reject it? Remember we are using this event is a control. Attempting to circumnavigate it doesn't serve you well.

I haven't personally examined the circumstances and the thought process that have led to the conclusion that Ceasar was assassinated, nor am I interested in any of that.

What is this available data that you draw your conclusion from?

Are you familiar with the Minimal Facts Approach? I'm asking to save some time.

Yes.

Please go on and present your data and your thought process.

[Goose]

The best explanation of Jesus is that he died, rose again, and flew into space? There are simpler explanations that don't require magical thinking.

I'm all ears. There will always be other explanations. Just like there are other explanations for how Caesar really died. But the question is, do those other explanations have the scope and power to explain all the data?

[Goose]

I haven't personally examined the circumstances and the thought process that have led to the conclusion that Ceasar was assassinated, nor am I interested in any of that.

That you haven't examined the circumstances and process that lead to the conclusion Caesar was assassinated was made quite obvious when you objected to the inference of an event on the grounds no one claims to have witnessed it.

You don't need to be interested in the assassination per se.I'm using the assassination as a control. In doing so we've already seen your historical methodology is quite faulty.

Yes.

Then you know the available data from which I draw the conclusion Jesus was resurrected.

[Nickman]

The best explanation of Jesus is that he died, rose again, and flew into space? There are simpler explanations that don't require magical thinking.

I'm all ears. There will always be other explanations. Just like there are other explanations for how Caesar really died. But the question is, do those other explanations have the scope and power to explain all the data?

1) people don't rise from the dead.
2) people cannot survive in space without oxygen
3) people cannot fly
4) probably the man Jesus died and his followers created stories via hysteria that he rose again. This is most probable since the followers were given promises. When he died and these promises were not able to be fulfilled, stories came about that hand-waved the contradiction brought on by his death. This is more probable than the original claim which defies reality.

[instantc]

I haven't personally examined the circumstances and the thought process that have led to the conclusion that Ceasar was assassinated, nor am I interested in any of that.

That you haven't examined the circumstances and process that lead to the conclusion Caesar was assassinated was made quite obvious when you objected to the inference of an event on the grounds no one claims to have witnessed it.

If you read more carefully, I didn't object to that. Since the resurrection has not been directly observed by anyone, I asked you to please present your data and explain your thought process that led to the said conclusion.

Yes.

Then you know the available data from which I draw the conclusion Jesus was resurrected.

So far you haven't presented any kind of a case for the resurrection of Jesus, and I'm losing hope in that you ever will.

[Goose]

1) people don't rise from the dead.

A premise falsified by the Lazarus phenomenon.

2) people cannot survive in space without oxygen
3) people cannot fly

Where have I argued they could?

4) probably the man Jesus died and his followers created stories via hysteria that he rose again. This is most probable since the followers were given promises. When he died and these promises were not able to be fulfilled, stories came about that hand-waved the contradiction brought on by his death. This is more probable than the original claim which defies reality.

You are arguing from probability. Are you loosely throwing around the term probably or have you actually done the statistical work to back your argument? If so, please present it. Since you are most likely just throwing around the term "probably" as though that has meaning I'll do it too. It's more probable that the followers of Jesus believed they had witnessed a risen Jesus than knowingly making up stories regarding Jesus' resurrection and distributing them in the face of persecution and possible death.

[Goose]

If you read more carefully, I didn't object to that. Since the resurrection has not been directly observed by anyone, I asked you to please present your data and explain your thought process that led to the said conclusion.

That's how it started and when I asked you to explain your reasoning you responded in post 1086, "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." So it would appear you do wish to object to the inference Jesus was resurrected.

In either case, whether you do or not, the salient point is your observation that no one claims to have witnessed the resurrection is irrelevant, tantamount to a Red Herring, since it is evident by the example of Caesar's assassination we do not need that type of evidence to infer an event in history.

So far you haven't presented any kind of a case for the resurrection of Jesus, and I'm losing hope in that you ever will.

Since you are familiar with the Minimal Facts Approach you are familiar with the case I would present. So I don't see how you can rightly complain I haven't presented any kind of case.

I'm trying to lay a foundation for rational and fair discourse by introducing the control of other historical events. That you wish to bypass that step is quite suggestive.