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?

[Nickman]

A premise falsified by the Lazarus phenomenon.

The story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead and what happens to people who naturally resuscitate, are two different things. One is a causal effect of power contained in the man Jesus. The other is a natural occurrence. Unless Jesus didn't really raise Lazarus from the dead and he just got lucky by pure coincidence. The same effect of the Lazarus Syndrome can be replicated via CPR.

Where have I argued they could?

Adherence to the biblical stories doesn't preclude that you are against it.

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.

Both scenarios we have presented show that the disciples most likely were mistaken, or they were devious. Either way, the idea that a person rose from the dead, via magic from God, is not warranted to explain this subject. My assertion brings up the possibility of devious behavior. Your's brings up the idea that they were mistaken. Either argument is more probable than resurrection.

[Inigo Montoya]

Tell you what, Goose. I'm NOT familiar with the minimal facts approach, so mayhap you'd be kind enough to go ahead and lay out your proofs for me?

Secondly, I'd ask you if you didn't see the rather large difference between accepting the assassination of Caesar as fact and accepting the crucified Nazarene coming back to life as fact.

I'm sure you're very smart, but these games try my patience to no end.

There is no such event in history that is going to serve as some ''control'' that's analogous to Jesus rising from the dead and ascending into the heavens.

This is absurd, Goose.

Find another character in history that is believed to have risen from the dead according to our written and oral tradition and you can make a cogent comparison.

I have never understood why it's ok for apologists to cite events in our people's history that are in no way similar as a grounding for comparison.

You can say the evidence for the death of both men is similar. But then you have to stop.

[instantc]

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.

On the contrary, it's a crucial observation.

If there were direct eye-witness account of the resurrection itself, the only thing left to discuss would be the reliability of the data, which I'm not interested in.

Since the conclusion has to be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, in addition to the reliability of the data, I can also contest whether or not resurrection is the best conclusion drawn from those circumstances.

So far you haven't given me a reason to believe in Jesus's resurrection, you have merely made dubious references to approaches used by others arguing for the same conclusion. Do you want me to comment on their case or yours?

[Goose]

The story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead and what happens to people who naturally resuscitate, are two different things. One is a causal effect of power contained in the man Jesus. The other is a natural occurrence. Unless Jesus didn't really raise Lazarus from the dead and he just got lucky by pure coincidence. The same effect of the Lazarus Syndrome can be replicated via CPR.

All irrelevant to the salient point being made. Your opening premise is the universal statement "people don't rise from the dead." All I need is one counter example to falsify this premise. Not withstanding the resurrection of Jesus I have several counter examples in the Lazarus Syndrome. These are medically documented cases of people declared dead by medical professionals who then spontaneously (without medical intervention such as CPR) returned to life.

Both scenarios we have presented show that the disciples most likely were mistaken, or they were devious. Either way, the idea that a person rose from the dead, via magic from God, is not warranted to explain this subject. My assertion brings up the possibility of devious behavior. Your's brings up the idea that they were mistaken. Either argument is more probable than resurrection.

I fail to see how the scenario I presented most likely shows the disciples were mistaken. But even if they were how would you then explain Paul or James conversion? You see, you'll need at least two additional ad hoc theories to account for those facts thus losing on parsimony.

[Whatistruth75]

[Replying to post 1102 by instantc]

Why are you all do desperate for 'evidence'

Either believe or don't. It ain't called the faith for nothing.

I reckon you all want evidence because your conscience is bothering you.

The bible makes my point :

Luke 16

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

So much for evidence! It wouldn't make the slightest difference!

[Inigo Montoya]

The story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead and what happens to people who naturally resuscitate, are two different things. One is a causal effect of power contained in the man Jesus. The other is a natural occurrence. Unless Jesus didn't really raise Lazarus from the dead and he just got lucky by pure coincidence. The same effect of the Lazarus Syndrome can be replicated via CPR.

All irrelevant to the salient point being made. Your opening premise is the universal statement "people don't rise from the dead." All I need is one counter example to falsify this premise. Not withstanding the resurrection of Jesus I have several counter examples in the Lazarus Syndrome. These are medically documented cases of people declared dead by medical professionals who then spontaneously (without medical intervention such as CPR) returned to life.

Both scenarios we have presented show that the disciples most likely were mistaken, or they were devious. Either way, the idea that a person rose from the dead, via magic from God, is not warranted to explain this subject. My assertion brings up the possibility of devious behavior. Your's brings up the idea that they were mistaken. Either argument is more probable than resurrection.

I fail to see how the scenario I presented most likely shows the disciples were mistaken. But even if they were how would you then explain Paul or James conversion? You see, you'll need at least two additional ad hoc theories to account for those facts thus losing on parsimony.

Goose, thumb through your little Lazarus book for me again. Were any of these medically documented occurrences recorded of men or women who'd been dead for 3 days, and further leveraged your soul in the afterlife based on whether or not you believed it?

[no evidence no belief]

Hurray! We have a live one!

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?

You are correct.
Numbers 22 is evidence that donkeys can talk.
Matthew 27 is evidence that zombies are real.
The lyrics to Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer is evidence that reindeer can fly.
The latest Marvel summer blockbuster is evidence that Wolverine is real.
Ancient indian mythology is evidence that the earth rests on a giant plate on the back of a turtle
The website www.theflatearthsociety.com is evidence that the earth is flat.
This youtube clip is evidence for Bigfoot
The fact that I am hereby claiming "I HAVE AN INVISIBLE DRAGON IN MY BASEMENT" is evidence that I have an invisible dragon in my basement.
A drawing of a worldmap that my 6 year old made is evidence that New York City is in the Mid West.

There are three major problems with considering this evidence valid.

First, as you said, it's non empirical.
Second, it's solidly and overwhelmingly countered, debunked and destroyed by an AVALANCHE of opposing empirical, testable, discrete, measurable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence.
Third, in terms of basic worldview, if you choose to lower your standard to the point that you accept one example of ridiculous and completely debunked "Evidence" as true, then for the sake of consistency, you are required to accept all similarly "strong" evidence for other claims.

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.

First mistake. "It's quite strong by ancient historical standards". Ancient historical standards are sufficiently high for determining the accuracy of claims that DO NOT VIOLATE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. Not high enough to courter overwhelmongly strong and conclusive physical, chemical, biological, medical evidence.

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.

Oh God. This is gonna be gruesome.

Ok, buddy. Imagine a scenario for me if you could:

Two guys are sitting in front of you.

The first one says to you: Hi my name is Steve, I won the lottery and am now a millionaire.

The other one says to you: Hi my name is John, I have the ability to fly without any mechanical assistance, I can become invisible at will, I can transform iron into gold just by touching it, I have the ability to breathe underwater, I can teleport to any moon of Saturn just by willing it, and my dog Fido poops diamonds every thursday.

The evidence for the story by Steve and the evidence of the story by John is equally strong: Direct first hand testimony.

They are both rather extraordinary testimonies.

Does the fact that your evidence for both claims is first hand testimony, and the fact that both claims are extraordinary, mean that you should take both claims equally seriously? Does it mean they have the same likelihood of being true?

Obviously not. Why not?

Because the first story, while unlikely and extraordinary, DOES NOT VIOLATE EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, BIOLOGY, MEDICINE, MATHEMATICS AND PRETTY MUCH EVERY OTHER EVIDENCE-GATHERING DISCIPLINE KNOWN TO MAN.

The second story does.

The evidence for the truth of the first story must be sufficient to counter nothing more than the low statistical probability of winning the lottery.

The evidence for the truth of the second story must be sufficient to counter EVERYTHING we have learned about the universe.

So lets look at the resurrection:
Evidence for: An anonymous author from the iron age who had never met anybody who had ever met anybody who had ever met anybody who had ever met anybody who ever met Jesus wrote it down.
Evidence against: Everything we know about science.


Alright. How was that? Are we done?

[Danmark]

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.

And when comparison is made to the life and death of Caesar we find the evidence much better in the case of Julius Caesar then for Jesus. "Running the evidence along side" should lead you to conclude you are wrong, there is much less evidence for even the existence of Jesus compared to the evidence of the life of Julius Caesar, let alone for a supernatural event such as the resurrection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Cae ... assination

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html

[Re: this last, I don't cite it for its "Jesus didn't exist" rant, but for its list of evidence about the life of Julius Caesar.

[Jax Agnesson]

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?

There is ample material evidence that people die from mulitple stab-wounds. There are plenty of examples of politicians being assassinated in public. There are even recent examples of political leaders being executed in full view of their supporters. (Saddam Hussein, Nicolae Ceaucescu.)
There is no example anywhere of a dead guy walking around talking to people, and then flying away into the sky.

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

They are both extraordinary.

Unusual is not the same as extraordinary, which is itself not the same as unprecedented, which is not the same as physically impossible.

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.

Be a good academic, goose; learn to make non-crude comparisons.

[Nickman]

The story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead and what happens to people who naturally resuscitate, are two different things. One is a causal effect of power contained in the man Jesus. The other is a natural occurrence. Unless Jesus didn't really raise Lazarus from the dead and he just got lucky by pure coincidence. The same effect of the Lazarus Syndrome can be replicated via CPR.

All irrelevant to the salient point being made. Your opening premise is the universal statement "people don't rise from the dead." All I need is one counter example to falsify this premise. Not withstanding the resurrection of Jesus I have several counter examples in the Lazarus Syndrome. These are medically documented cases of people declared dead by medical professionals who then spontaneously (without medical intervention such as CPR) returned to life.

Spontaneous, lets define:
1.performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus.

This is different from having Jesus providing the external stimulus. If you want me to concede the issue that I didn't make properly, I will. People do rise from the dead, but they do so spontaneously without external influence. There is no evidence that another human has power to make another person come back to life as told in the Lazarus story.

I fail to see how the scenario I presented most likely shows the disciples were mistaken. But even if they were how would you then explain Paul or James conversion? You see, you'll need at least two additional ad hoc theories to account for those facts thus losing on parsimony.

I explain them the same way that I explain how David Koresh was wrong. Jim Jones was also. They were true believers and gave up their lives also. Marshall Applewhite is no different. People who claim to have been abducted by aliens are just as valid as Paul and James. Do you believe a person who claims to have been abducted by aliens? If not, why?