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?

[no evidence no belief]

[Replying to post 1 by no evidence no belief]

This question is based on raw positivism. The assumption is essentially wrong. Not only that which can be proven – by science or any other way – is necessarily true.

First: I am not asking for proof. I'm asking for evidence.

You are absolutely right that stuff for which we have ZERO evidence, and against which we have a LOT of evidence, could nonetheless turn out to be true.

For example we only have the lyrics to "Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer" as evidence that reindeer can fly, and we have everything we know about gravity as evidence AGAINST reindeer flying.

It could be that actually reindeer can fly. All I am saying is that there is no good evidence that reindeer can fly, and there is VERY strong evidence that they cannot.

The EXACT same can be said of Mohammed's flying horse, the zombie invasion in Matthew and the talking donkey of Numbers 22.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is some evidence for your supernatural claims that I am not aware of. Care to present it?

Anyway, science has ‘proven’ itself ‘wrong’ several times in history.

Correct. Science isn't always right. But when scientists (and skeptical people in general) realize they are wrong by discovering new evidence, they will stop believing their previous belief.

I believe that no adequate evidence for the supernatural has ever been presented. The instant you present some, I will change my belief and thank you for educating me.

Even science is based on belief, its that simple.

Yup. And that belief is based on EMPIRICAL DATA.

Scientists believed that Newton's Laws of Motion were the most accurate explanation for the movement of celestial bodies. Then when Einstein proved that Relativity was a better explanation, they modified their belief.

Scientists: Belief based on facts
You: Belief based on fairy tales

[no evidence no belief]

A book written by iron age simpletons....

The fantasy here just goes on and on and on, the evidence ignored, ignored, ignored.

The evidence.....

FACT: The iron age simpletons wrote a book which has persuaded billions of people over thousands of years in every corner of the world.

FACT: Posters in this thread have not been able to offer any evidence at all of having persuaded even a single person to their point of view.

At the very least this proves beyond all doubt that the iron age simpletons exceeded the writing ability and understanding of human nature of posters here (yours truly included) by an immeasurably wide margin.

Truly, truly, truly, most of the adamant atheist posters here and elsewhere are simply intellectual frauds, there's just no more accurate way to say it.

They chant evidence, evidence, evidence all day long until the very first moment they encounter inconvenient evidence, upon which they completely lose interest in evidence.

That's called ideology.

It has nothing to do with reason.

Scientology's rate of growth in its first 60 is MUUUUUUUUUUUCH greater than that of Christianity in it's first 60 years.

If how persuasive an ideology is, is an indication whether it's true, then Scientology is deserving of greater consideration than Christianity.

And besides, we're asking for evidence of the supernatural. Is your argument "Lots of people were persuaded by iron age simpletons that donkeys can talk, therefore donkeys can talk"?

[Nickman]

A person that you meet on the street that claims that they have been abducted by aliens has more credibility than any biblical author. The problem is that this person is here and now and is easily discredited by examining their claims first hand. We can interrogate this individual, ask questions and receive answers, visit the sites that they claim, check their alibi, meet their family members and friends for character verification, and check their sanity. We cannot do this with any of the Biblical authors. This allows for people to rely on faith without any verification. Most claims that the Biblical authors make, are unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiabilty does not equate with reliability, credibility, and veracity. Some claims that Biblical authors make are falsifiable and if we can show these to be false then there is no reason to believe the ones we cannot falsify.

[Goose]

The very notion that testimony can EVER outweigh a worldview based on a lifetime of evidence and experience to the contrary is ABSURD.

It's not absurd if the evidence is strong enough. In the case of the resurrection I believe the historical evidence is strong enough and I've provided a framework to establish the strength of that evidence.

Your "evidence" is nothing more than testimony about things that conflict with a lifetime of evidence and experience to the contrary.

But you offer no argument for why the historical evidence itself is not strong enough to justify my belief that Jesus rose from the dead. You are merely pooh-poohing the evidence because it is testimony which conflicts with your personal world view.

I don't understand how anyone could believe something that contradicts their personal experiences about the world because of testimony unless they are gullible or irrational.

At least I’ve provided an argument to establish why I believe the evidence is strong to justify my belief Jesus rose from the dead. An argument you haven’t even touched, I’ll add. On the other hand you merely present your personal incredulity as evidence the Christian belief in the resurrection is irrational.

No, you haven't. Danmark has questioned your consistency on this matter and you've shown that you are a hypocrite.

Yes I have given my case for why I believe the evidence is strong enough to justify my belief. I gave you a link to the post where I did and you ignored it. Danmark’s question is irrelevant and I’ve explained why it is. I suspect you guys are harping on this Red Herring of essentially asking why I'm not a Muslim to avoid my argument for why I believe the evidence for the resurrection is strong. I certainly seems that way with Danmark anyway.

Not to mention how Danmark applies his historical methodology has been soundly demonstrated to be inconsistently applied by him. Yet, you say nothing about that.

Danmark asked whether you would trust the testimony of other holy books, belief systems, or religions and you refused to answer directly.

False. In my first post to nenb I acknowledged the possibility that Muhammad may have had a supernatural experience. Now, if you’d like to make an argument that the historical evidence for that event is as strong as the resurrection, I’ll listen.

Its clear to me and everyone else reading your responses that you are irrationally biased towards Christian testimony of supernatural claims and not any other. Yet you claim that testimony is strong evidence regardless of the religion or holy book. That inconsistency makes you a hypocrite, or perhaps worse, a liar.

Since I’ve given my argument for why I believe the resurrection is supported by strong historical evidence (an argument you haven’t even touched), I’ve granted the possibility of supernatural claims outside Christianity and since you’ve merely asserted I’m a hypocrite or perhaps a liar without sufficient justification I’ll kindly ask you to withdraw your accusation.

Incorrect and inaccurate . I am biased. I am biased against testimony that contradicts my lifetime of experiences and observations of the real world.

Now who’s being irrational? To reject testimony (or any form of evidence for that matter) a priori on the soul grounds it conflicts with your experiences and observations is irrational since our experiences and observations are finite and do not represent the entirety of all possible experiences and observations. How can such an approach claim to be open minded? I’d rather take the approach of evaluating the strength of the evidence (regardless of the form of that evidence) for a claim on its own merits rather than simply discarding it a priori because I don’t like what it may be suggesting. I guess that’s the fundamental difference between us, eh.

But unlike you, i am not a hypocrite who selectively accepts testimony from their preferred religion but rejects testimony from other sources. Instead, I reject all testimony, across the board, when it conflicts with my experiences and understanding of the world.

And as such your approach is irrational.

You still don't get it do you?

I don't reject all testimony. I reject testimony that conflicts with my lifetime of experiences and observations about the real world.
For example, someone getting assassinated (Caesar) doesn’t conflict with my understanding of the world. Someone magically flying into the sky or rising from the dead does.

For me, I don’t reject the evidence for a claim a priori on the soul basis it conflicts with my world view. If I feel the evidence is strong enough for belief then the evidence is strong enough to warrant belief - period. In the case of the resurrection I believe the historical evidence is strong enough. Would you like to examine my argument for why I believe that is the case or are you going to continue to dance around it like everyone else seems to be doing?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Goose]

Good. I'm glad to hear you accept the position that Paul and Luke met with witnesses. The fallacy in the rest of your argument is that you argue for the historical accuracy of the text only when it suites you while ignoring the text when it is against you. It's disingenuous.

I accept that reindeer exist. I accept that reindeer can be formed into a team and used to pull a sleigh. I am frankly NOT however compelled to accept a story of a team of flying reindeer pulling a sleigh through the sky. Given what can be observed concerning the nature of reindeer, and the nature of flight, there is nothing disingenuous about rejecting the story of a team of flying reindeer outright for cause. The story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus is very comparable to the story of the team of flying reindeer in terms of reason, logic, and observable fact. Both stories are unrealistic to the point of foolishness and we have every reason to reject them outright for cause. As such both stories should necessarily require a good deal more evidence then "that's what I heard," or "that's what so-and-so said," for rational adults to even begin to give the story credibility. This is where unrealistically low levels of skepticism and unnecessarily high levels of gullibility come into play. The ability to be able to differentiate between what is realistically plausible and what is clearly make believe is one of the hallmarks of growing to competent adulthood after all. And we're not simple superstitious shepherds any longer. Could the story of the traveling teacher who ran afoul of the authorities and ended up being crucified be true? It may or may not be true, but there certainly is nothing which would obviously mitigate against the story had it ended right there. And perhaps there actually is a white bearded old man who lives in the far north country and favors red clothing. But stories of a corpse which came back to life and flew away are no more believable then stories of flying reindeer. Taking such a view is hardly disingenuous.

I believe there is compelling historical evidence and I've attempted to lay the foundation to answer why I believe there is here.

Here is the factual nature of your "compelling evidence." According to the time frame established by the Gospels, Jesus was executed circa 27-30 AD. For the next quarter of a century not a single reference is made either to the execution of Jesus, or to his purported resurrection from the dead. No glorious accounts of the miraculously risen Christ. Whole hoards of dead people came up out of their graves and wandered the streets of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' resurrection, according to Matthew 27:52-53. And yet no one mentions any of this at the time. There is no indication of alarm, consternation, fear or joy occurring among the population of Palestine at all. In fact the very people in the best position to have known what occurred first hand, uniformly rejected the story as a hoax perpetrated by the followers of Jesus. The greatest event in the history of humankind, according to Christians, provoked not the slightest mention or notice from anyone for a quarter of a century after it was supposed to have occurred. Only silence.

Circa 55 AD Paul of Tarsus wrote his first letter to the Christian church in Corinth. In this letter Paul talks about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. This letter, 1Corinthians, represents the FIRST EVER historical mention of the story of the resurrection of Jesus. In his letter Paul asserts that on one particular occasion more than five hundred of Jesus' followers communed, walked and talked with the risen Jesus. This reference is typically used by Christians to establish the factual truth of the risen Jesus. Surely hundreds of eyewitness cannot be dismissed. The problem here of course is that we don't actually have hundreds of eyewitness accounts. We have one account, that of Paul who was not personally present for the event he claims occurred. Paul was not himself a witness to the life and ministry of Jesus, to his death, or to any resurrection after his death. Paul never met the living Jesus. Paul converted to Christianity some years after the execution of Jesus, and was by his own account an apostle "born of due time." Paul also mentions by name, Cephas, James, and the apostles, as being witness to the risen Jesus. This is consistent with the first chapters of Acts, which indicates that as many as 120 followers of Jesus gathered in Jerusalem some six weeks after the execution with the intention of spreading the story of the risen Jesus. Who witnessed the risen Jesus? His followers, and only his followers, according to his followers. And what happened to the risen man? He flew away, up into the clouds. According to his followers, and only his followers. So from the very beginning the "risen" man was not provided as proof of the claim. Only the silent witness of the empty tomb. What did the chief priests and Pharisees tell Pilate that they expected the disciples intended to do? They felt a plot was afoot to move the body and to then proclaim that Jesus had risen from the dead. Which is exactly what occurred.

So we in the 21st century are faced with reaching a rational conclusion. Which is the more likely, that an empty grave is probably the result of actions taken by the living, or that the empty grave is more likely the result of actions taken by the corpse? And the answer is overwhelmingly obvious. As long as the followers of Jesus are the obvious and logical suspects, with the means, motive and opportunity to have moved the body and spread the false rumor of the risen Jesus, then the possibility that the corpse of Jesus actually returned to life and flew away has no more probability for being true then stories of a team of flying reindeer are likely to be true.

[Philbert]

And how is my age relevant here?

I was going to grant you an age based waiver if you were to apply.

If I'm three times your age, I should show a bit more mercy than I have been.

But of course, if you've been an adult human being for a whole ten years, then of course you would know more about religion than the billions of people who have lived thousands of years before you, and so no mercy would be necessary.

[Philbert]

A person that you meet on the street that claims that they have been abducted by aliens has more credibility than any biblical author. The problem is that this person is here and now and is easily discredited by examining their claims first hand. We can interrogate this individual, ask questions and receive answers, visit the sites that they claim, check their alibi, meet their family members and friends for character verification, and check their sanity. We cannot do this with any of the Biblical authors. This allows for people to rely on faith without any verification. Most claims that the Biblical authors make, are unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiabilty does not equate with reliability, credibility, and veracity. Some claims that Biblical authors make are falsifiable and if we can show these to be false then there is no reason to believe the ones we cannot falsify.

All this goes away if we focus on the parts of Christianity which already are what everybody says they wish it was.

Focus on does not equal converting to Christianity.

Focus on equals being practical and logical, scooping up whatever is useful, discarding what is not, and keep on moving forward.

[Goat]

The very notion that testimony can EVER outweigh a worldview based on a lifetime of evidence and experience to the contrary is ABSURD.

It's not absurd if the evidence is strong enough. I think it is and I've made my case for why I think it is. You on the other hand have merely offered your bias against testimony. Which is itself absurd since most of what we know about ancient history comes down to us via testimony - second hand testimony at that. Shall we just rip pages and pages out of our history books?

Well, you have convinced yourself. However, the evidence you presented is not convince anybody else. Just think about it. Someone objects to something you say, and you have to accuse them of an anti-supernatural bias. If your evidence was actually convincing, you would not have to appeal to magical stuff for other people to see and accept it.

[instantc]

And how is my age relevant here?

I was going to grant you an age based waiver if you were to apply.

If I'm three times your age, I should show a bit more mercy than I have been.

But of course, if you've been an adult human being for a whole ten years, then of course you would know more about religion than the billions of people who have lived thousands of years before you, and so no mercy would be necessary.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but I didn't question whether or not billions of people are convinced that the Bible is true. It doesn't follow from here that the book itself has convinced billions of people. Rather, I suspect that most of these people have been convinced by other people to believe what the book says.

[no evidence no belief]

I can get into why the historical evidence is very weak, but I don't have to. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the historical evidence is not weak. It is countered by MUCH MUCH MUCH stronger physical, chemical, biological, medical evidence. Thus it is moot, irrelevant, invalid.

You could have a mountain of circumstantial evidence that I committed a crime, but if there is empirical evidence that I was in a different country when the crime was committed, then the circumstantial evidence that I committed a crime becomes INVALID. .

You are wanting to invalidate the evidence for a position on the grounds that you believe the evidence against that position is stronger.

Well, do you disagree that in principle, if a claim which has circumstantial evidence is contradicted by a mutually exclusive claim which has overwhelmingly strong empirical evidence, then of necessity the circumstantial evidence for the first claim becomes invalid?

Forget about the resurrection for a moment.

Assume there is a LOT of evidence that an athlete stabbed a girl at 8pm on a Sunday. There is a knife with his fingerprints on it, there is a history of animosity between the suspect and the victim, there is an eyewitness who is "somewhat" sure he saw the athlete committing the crime. In other words, assume there is enough evidence, in the absence of contradicting evidence, to put the guy behind bars. BUT if at the exact same time of the crime, the athlete is in the center of a stadium in front of millions of people quarterbacking a superbowl, then the evidence that he killed the girl becomes IRRELEVANT.

Do you understand and agree with this simple concept?

go to flatearthsociety.com They provide a LOT of evidence for the earth being flat. Does any of it matter? If not, why not?

All I am saying is that "evidence" for talking donkeys, zombie invasions, etc doesn't matter if it's only circumstantial/historical/anecdotal at best, and is countered by overwhelmingly strong empirical evidence.

Is this how evidence is treated in a trial? Let’s use your example of you allegedly committing a crime. What you are wanting is for the evidence you are guilty to be invalidated on the soul grounds you believe you have stronger evidence for your innocence. That’s not how a trial works.

Yes it is. It's called an ALIBI.

All evidence, for and against, which passes the criteria of admissibility is valid. In a trial, evidence is invalid only if it doesn’t pass the criteria of admissibility. The evidence for or against isn’t made invalid on the basis that the other side has stronger evidence – think about it. Even if you are cleared as innocent the evidence for your alleged guilt isn’t made invalid on that basis alone as evidence is only made invalid if it is inadmissible for some reason.

Ok, so here we may have an innocent misunderstanding about semantics.

If by "valid evidence" you mean evidence that is worthy of being considered, then ABSOLUTELY, the scribblings of iron age barbarians are totally "valid". We should absolutely consider this evidence, just like we should consider evidence for Peter Pan and Spiderman. I'm totally in favor of considering all evidence.

If by "valid evidence" you mean evidence that is sufficient to posit that the claim is true, then no, the scribblings of those simpletons are NOT "valid". Why not? Because they are INVALIDATED by overwhelmingly stronger contradicting evidence, namely everything we know about science.

The situation is so simple.
A book written by iron age simpletons says that zombies and talking donkeys are real. The same science that allows us to perform heart transplant, create nuclear bombs and land on Mars, tells us zombies and talking donkeys are not real.

Either the iron simpletons who thought the earth was flat were wrong, or the entire body of scientific knowledge that allows us to perform heart transplants, build nuclear bombs and land on Mars is wrong.

I’ve made my case for why I believe the evidence for the resurrection is strong enough to justify the Christian’s belief. You seem reluctant to get into it which speaks volumes.

I'd be delighted to get into the specifics, as soon as you agree that anectodal/historical/circumstantial evidence for any claim is trumped and invalidated by overwhelmingly strong contradicting empirical evidence.

It is scientifically possible for people who were brain dead to come back to life. It isn't a supernatural event! It's just a very very rare event! It happens. Zack Dunpal was brain dead but he came back to life!

Thank you so much for clearing that up. When Jesus and Zack Dunlap returned to life after being brain dead it was NOT a miracle. It was just a very rare event. It does NOT constitute evidence for the supernatural.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, buddy. I will be sure to use the Zack Dunpal argument whenever anybody tries to make the absurd claim that Jesus's resurrection is evidence of the supernatural.

It is NOT, and you proved it! THANK YOU!

I’m glad to hear you concede it’s possible for a brain dead person to come back to life. In light of that, I think we’re all done here. Don’t forget to turn out the lights and lock the door when you leave.

Hey, by the way, where’s my $1,000? Tell you what, I’ll settle for 1,000 tokens.

Well, I am forced to admit that brain-dead bodies can come back to life.

You are forced to admit that the entirety of Christianity falls apart because resurrections are NOT supernatural events, and the mere fact that Jesus came back from being brain-dead doesn't mean he's the son of God.

By tricking you into providing a single article about a rare medical event, I made you dismantle the very foundation of 2000 years of Christianity.

I say it was 1000 tokens well spent.

Everybody welcome Goose, the newest atheist on this forum! He finally realizes that there was nothing supernatural about Jesus.