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]

Do you or do you not agree that, due to it's more extraordinary nature, the standard of evidence is higher for the resurrection than for Ceasar's assassination?

The evidence itself for each event should be held to the same standard. Otherwise we are discriminating against the evidence on the basis the claim disagrees with our world view. Each event should then either pass or fail on its own merits. Whether or not one is more extraordinary than the other should be irrelevant at the outset.

Have you ever thought critically about the statement Extraordinary Events Require Extraordinary Evidence (EEREE)?

What does that actually mean?
Define what an extraordinary event is.
Objectively qualify and quantify extraordinary evidence. Let's see if we can even agree.

The mantra of EEREE says something but nothing meaningful. It has no practical value because it can't actually be applied objectively. It doesn't advance the discussion in any meaningful way. For any event I find that disagrees with my world view I merely throw out the road block of EEREE to validate my initial non-belief. Voila, discussion over.

[Star]

The evidence itself for each event should be held to the same standard. Otherwise we are discriminating against the evidence on the basis the claim disagrees with our world view. Each event should then either pass or fail on its own merits. Whether or not one is more extraordinary than the other should be irrelevant at the outset.

That's not how it works for anything except conspiracy theory and theist apologetics.

Criminal and civil courts have much different standards of evidence. Criminal is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and civil is based on the preponderance of the evidence. And for good reason.

Evolution has a tremendous amount of evidence from various disciplines showing us that it does in fact happen. In contrast, a biologist wouldn't have to collect the same amount evidence on the duckbill platypus' mating habits to tell us they reproduce sexually.

Likewise, there's enough evidence to suggest Caesar was a real man who was stabbed to death. It doesn't conflict with the laws of physics and is consistent with real evidence. Anthropologists and archaeologists (scientists) have objective methodologies which theologians and apologists lack.

Carl Sagan popularized the saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

This basically means that the more unlikely, important, or seemingly impossible the claim (eg, resurrection by truly dead people), the higher the standard of evidence. I don't even believe video of alleged supernatural events. I invite you to do some critical thinking of your own and consider this information.

You haven't presented sufficient evidence to convince us that Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, you haven't even presented sufficient evidence he actually existed.

[Jax Agnesson]

Do you or do you not agree that, due to it's more extraordinary nature, the standard of evidence is higher for the resurrection than for Ceasar's assassination?

The evidence itself for each event should be held to the same standard. Otherwise we are discriminating against the evidence on the basis the claim disagrees with our world view. Each event should then either pass or fail on its own merits. Whether or not one is more extraordinary than the other should be irrelevant at the outset.

Have you ever thought critically about the statement Extraordinary Events Require Extraordinary Evidence (EEREE)?

What does that actually mean?
Define what an extraordinary event is.
Objectively qualify and quantify extraordinary evidence. Let's see if we can even agree.

The mantra of EEREE says something but nothing meaningful. It has no practical value because it can't actually be applied objectively. It doesn't advance the discussion in any meaningful way. For any event I find that disagrees with my world view I merely throw out the road block of EEREE to validate my initial non-belief. Voila, discussion over.

The objective truth, in a matter of historical judgement, must reside in the truth or otherwise of the facts under consideration. Something either happened or it didn't. The word 'objectivity' is also used to denote a kind of willingness to weigh the available evidence fairly, recognising your own preference, if you have a preference, and allowing for the possibility that such preference can skew one's judgement.
But the process of drawing a 'most probable' scenario from inconclusive evidence is necessarily a subjective one. .
Subjectively, I weigh the probability that a certain event took place by comparing the strength of the evidence for it against the believability of that type of event occurring in the sort of circumstances proposed, and taking into consideration how important it is to get it right.
IOW, if the supposed event is a commonplace one, and the particular case is not terribly important, then I don't require much in the way of evidence. I'll take the speaker's word for it, most of the time.
If the claimed event is something that doesn't happen very often, and on this occasion it really matters, I will want some fairly strong evidence.
If the claimed event is something normally considered completely impossible, then I will want something very strong indeed, if I am to judge it more probably true than any of the alternatives.
For example a short while ago some physicists in Switzerland and Italy seemed to detect some neutrinos travelling faster than light.
These were experienced professional scientists, working with some of the most accurate and sophisticated equipment ever devised by humans. They were not amateurs. They were not fools. They reported that their data looked as though a stream of neutrinos had travelled from one station to another in less time than a stream of photons would have taken.
The evidence was pretty strong. But did anyone believe it? Maybe some journalists wanted to believe it, but very few people actually did. After months of study, a fault was discovered in the equipment.
So: The evidence was good enough to declare a particular phenomenon was triggered by the arrival of a stream of neutrinos. Fine, that's believable under the given circumstances. But when precisely the same data suggests the neutrinos travelled faster than light, that event is not accepted at face value, because the probability is so low.
If neutrinos can travel faster than light, then almost all of modern physics needs re-writing. There is a century of extremely good evidence that such a thing is impossible. So the apparent event is not believed, even on the same evidence that is sufficient to believe other, quite extraordinary things.

Likewise, the standard of evidence needed to support a claim that a political leader was assassinated does not have to be as strong as the evidence that a guy came back to life after being crucified, verified dead, and left in a stone tomb for 36 hrs. And the evidence that the resurrected guy then flew away into the sky needs to be very very strong indeed.
And for me, (not by habit a believer in magic) I don't think the written accounts are enough.

Assassinations happen very occasionally.
Miraculous resurrections don't.
Ascensions into 'Heaven' are the stuff of myth.

'Not enough evidence, Lord. Not enough evidence.'

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Goose]

I think we’ve flogged these flying reindeer enough and I don’t see where you’ve managed to successfully overturned my arguments showing your analogy for why flying reindeer and Jesus’ resurrection are on equal footing is fallacious.

The belief in flying reindeer requires both a childlike suspension of disbelief and a childlike faith that seemingly impossible things can and sometimes do occur. All that is needed to explain how this happens is a childlike assumption that magic exists, which is to say the ability to overcome the laws of physics at will, and the childlike assumption that Santa not only undeniably exists, but that he also is empowered with magic. At this point flying reindeer become perfectly plausible. Of course we are still confronted with the problem that no such flying reindeer can be produced for examination. But of course that can be explained away by a further appeal to magic, so why let reason and actual fact get in the way of a perfectly good childlike assumption?

The belief in a flying reanimated corpse requires both a childlike suspension of disbelief and the childlike faith that such a thing not only can occur but has in fact occurred. The method by which this was achieved is through a childlike faith in the undeniable truth of an even greater assumption. At this point a flying reanimated corpse becomes perfectly plausible. Of course we are still struck by the undeniable fact that everyone who lived 2,000 years ago died and is still undeniably and reliably DEAD. This despite 2,000 years worth of furious assurances by Christians that Jesus is just about to return again at any moment now. Believing in flying reindeer and the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus are directly comparable in that they both violate all common experience. The only real difference is that most children, nudge-nudge wink-wink, are not expected to continue to believe in childlike stories of reindeer beyond their childhood, but on the other hand have been programmed from birth in the childlike acceptance that Jesus not only arose from the dead, but that he flew away, off up into the clouds. A childlike acceptance of make believe is still a childlike acceptance of make believe however, even when it extends into adulthood.

Let me re-cap your counters so we are clear on how inept they really are. Your argument against the Lazarus Syndrome establishing a baseline of plausibility for a resurrection is fundamentally circular where it assumes the doctors were mistaken because dead people stay dead. In fact, any argument against it will be circular because the facts are quite clear that in each case the patient fulfilled the criteria of being dead and was subsequently declared as such by a qualified medical person to then spontaneously come back to life. Your counter to my argument from the authority of historians establishes a prima facie reason to think these events are not equal in plausibility was misrepresented by you as an argument from popularity.

What Is Lazarus Syndrome?

Lazarus syndrome, more formally known as "auto-resuscitation after failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation," is a recognized medical phenomenon where a patient is pronounced dead after all vital sign have to ceased only to suddenly come back to life. Named after Lazarus, a Biblical figure who was brought back life by Jesus after four days of death, the occurrence of the syndrome is very rare. People who have had Lazarus syndrome include cardiac patients and patients with obstructive airway disease.


There are a number of theories as to how Lazarus syndrome can occur. The spontaneous reanimation may be due to the delayed effects of the medications that are given to the patient. For example, in heart patients, there may be a delay of the effects of the administration of adrenalin. In hyperkalemic patients, the effects of bicarbonate may take longer than expected to work. When these medications do finally take action, however, circulation is spontaneously reinitiated.

There may also be a buildup of endovascular plaque, which upon administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, is dislodged after a delayed period of time. Although delayed, this action subsequently allows the heart to restart. Finally, in patients with obstructive airway disease, hyperventilation and an inability to properly exhale create a significant amount of pressure in the chest. Once vital signs have ceased and the patient stops breathing, there may be a relief of this hyperinflation and resulting pressure, allowing normal body function to begin.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-lazarus ... youknowout

A systematic review of autoresuscitation after cardiac arrest.
Hornby K, Hornby L, Shemie SD.
Division of Critical Care, Montreal Children's Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
There is a lack of consensus on how long circulation must cease for death to be determined after cardiac arrest. The lack of scientific evidence concerning autoresuscitation influences the practice of organ donation after cardiac death. We conducted a systematic review to summarize the evidence on the timing of autoresuscitation.
DATA SOURCES:
Electronic databases were searched from date of first issue of each journal until July 2008.
STUDY SELECTION:
Any original study reporting autoresuscitation, as defined by the unassisted return of spontaneous circulation after cardiac arrest, was considered eligible. Reports of electrocardiogram activity without signs of return of circulation were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION:
For each study case, we extracted patient characteristics, duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, terminal heart rhythms, time to unassisted return of spontaneous circulation, monitoring, and outcomes.
DATA SYNTHESIS:
A total of 1265 citations were identified and, of these, 27 articles describing 32 cases of autoresuscitation were included (n = 32; age, 27-94 yrs). The studies came from 16 different countries and were considered of very-low quality (case reports or letters to the editor). All 32 cases reported autoresuscitation after failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation, with times ranging from a few seconds to 33 mins; however, continuity of observation and methods of monitoring were highly inconsistent. For the eight studies reporting continuous electrocardiogram monitoring and exact times, autoresuscitation did not occur beyond 7 mins after failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation. No cases of autoresuscitation in the absence of cardiopulmonary resuscitation were reported.
CONCLUSIONS:
These findings suggest that the provision of cardiopulmonary resuscitation may influence autoresuscitation. In the absence of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, as may apply to controlled organ donation after cardiac death after withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies, autoresuscitation has not been reported. The provision of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, as may apply to uncontrolled organ donation after cardiac death, may influence observation time. However, existing evidence is limited and is consequently insufficient to support or refute the recommended waiting period to determine death after a cardiac arrest, strongly supporting the need for prospective studies in dying patients.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20228683

State of the heart: A brief look at Lazarus Syndrome?

The paper most importantly points out that “death is not an event, but a process…a process during which various organs supporting the continuation of life fail�. As their review points out, the ceasing of circulation and respiration is a good example. Obviously, the absence of heartbeat and respiration are the “traditional and the most widely used criteria� to certify that someone has died, but the Lazarus phenomenon demonstrate that on their own they are not a sign of definitive death.
http://drmarkgriffiths.wordpress.com/20 ... %E2%80%AC/

This whole Lazarus Syndrome nonsese of your's really IS is beating to death a straw man. No one in the medical community seriously believes that auto-resuscitation after failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation represents the reanimation of the dead. Death simply does not always occur abruptly. And doctors sometimes get it wrong.

Oh, and let’s not forget the Al-Baraq rabbit trail. But if in your mind that establishes the connection better than you thought I wouldn’t be surprised at all considering how much weight you give to your appalling Paul hadn’t eaten or drank for three days argument.

I suspect that Paul probably lost considerable weight after not eating or drinking for three days. My appalling argument was drawn directly from the pages of Acts however. Recourse to the actual facts is sometimes inconvenient in a religious discussion, I realize. I have also read the entire Bible cover-to-cover, which a good many Christians have found to be inconvenient over the years.

Nice try. Homer, Theocritus, Euripides and Virgil all wrote of a race of one-eyed giants known as the Cyclops – in poems and plays! Genre, my friend, genre. That’s the first sign why we recognize it as mythology. But to answer your question since you feel it is so compelling, yes, there are reasons to question. However, there’s reasons to question any story. Whether or not you have reason to question the resurrection itself, though, is irrelevant to what I’m arguing.

Homer, Hesiod, Theocritus, Euripides and Virgil, as well as much of the rest of the Mediterranean world, fully believed in the existence of this race of one eye giants called the Cyclops. Modern scholars have speculated that this prevalent ancient belief in the existence of the Cyclops was due to the discovery of massive mastodon skulls which were widely displayed, with the mistaking of the central nasal cavity where the trunk is attached for a huge single eye socket. There was more tangible reason to believe in the Cyclops in ancient times it would seem, then in flying reanimated corpses. Neither happens to be real in the light of modern reason, however.

The point you’re missing is that despite the fact the Gallic Wars doesn’t self identify, was written in the third person, and has late problematic attestation to authorship no classical scholar would dream of arguing it was anonymous. Yet, the Gospels, which have at least as strong external evidence, are asserted to be anonymous by folks like you. So either the standard is unfairly higher for the Christian texts or the Gospels authorship shouldn’t be questioned anymore than the authorship of the Gallic Wars is if the same standard were employed.

"Commentarii de Bello Gallico" represents the only real source available to historians on the Gallic Wars. Could it be partly or even largely fabricated to make Caesar look better? YOU BET IT COULD! But it remains our main source of information for what occurred, such as it is.

Oh, but there are reasons to doubt the assassination. It is quite hard to swallow the notion the leader of a country was stabbed to death by eighty senators in plain view of the senate which may have had as many as 900 people without a single senator or Praetorian guard interfering at all. It’s easier to believe and more probable that Caesar died of natural causes. It’s easier to believe the assassination was fabricated to fuel political ideologies. See how easy it is to question a story? Just put on your hyper-sceptical hat and you’re off to the races.

Your reasoning on this specific point is highly questionable, but your main point is that a good deal about what we think we know about history could very well be wrong. And on that point I agree without reservation.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
This is Paul's recounting of the events. But remember, Paul was the afflicted man, by his own account, blinded and disoriented at the time. Both are symptoms of dehydration and heat stroke. Afflictions not unnatural when traveling in a dry arid clime. We can never know what those who were journeying with Paul actually saw or experienced however, since they left no such record. We are left with the understanding that Paul collapsed during his journey to Damascus and had to be brought into the city by his fellow travelers. There is nothing unrealistic about that.

Goose wrote:
As I said earlier this argument is based on such an incredibly appalling reading of Acts 9 it’s not worth any more of my time.

I don't wonder that you would choose to ignore it. It doesn't happen to correspond to your lifetime of programming concerning your interpretation of the nature of Paul's conversion. The facts are contained in your book of revealed truth however and your stuck with them.
Paul collapsed while on a trip to Damascus and was taken into the city by his fellow travelers where he was left at the home of a Christian man. Profoundly ill and while being tended to and prayed over by a Christian man, Paul became convinced that Jesus, who had been executed some years earlier, came to him and spoke to him. As a result Paul became a confirmed Christian. It's all right there in the pages of Acts, like it or not.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
The historical evidence is that nothing especially unusual occurred in Jerusalem circa 30 AD based on the undeniable fact that there is no record at the time of anything of particular interest happening. Certainly nothing so spectacular as various and sundry dead people coming back to life, leaving their graves, and wandering about. It is reasonable to suspect that certain stories might have been in circulation, based on what begins to be recorded a quarter of a century later. The nature of the claims overwhelmingly mitigate against the realistic possibility of them being historically accurate however. This is clearly supported by the fact that the very people who were in the best place to have known what actually happened at the time overwhelmingly and resolutely denied that any such thing occurred.

Goose wrote:
More inept arguments from silence which have been obliterated by the lack of early abundant accounts of the apparently infamous event of Caesars’ assassination. This and arguments by ridicule seem to be the bulk of your arsenal and they’re growing old very quickly.

You were the one asserting that the evidence for the flying reanimated corpse story was as overwhelming as it was undeniable. Now you are arguing "from silence" that the the total lack of evidence derived from the time the events were supposed to have occurred is not all that unusual. You don't really get to have it both ways.

You still haven’t overturned Paul as a witness. Even if you were able to he is still stands as a former enemy and contemporary who met witnesses.

If Paul was an actual witness to the ministry of Jesus he was apparently completely unimpressed with what he witnessed at the time. Because as you say, Paul was originally highly antagonistic to Christians and Christianity. But Paul, by his own accounting, was an apostle born of due time. I do not deny that Paul was acquainted with individuals who were spreading the rumor that Jesus had risen from the grave and ultimately flew away, up into the clouds. If you GENUINELY can not see any valid reason to question such a claim, then the term "childlike" is far too mild.

We need not go to the extreme of assuming pseudonymity when Peter himself provides a strong enough explanation for the very good Greek. That is the use of an amanuensis which wasn’t unprecedented even by Greek writers such as Paul.

�Through Silvanus, our faithful brother (for so I regard him), I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God.� – 1 Peter 5:12

Even if we do not grant the use of an amanuensis then surely the 30 years from Jesus’ death/resurrection to the time the letter was written, if written by Peter, was sufficient time for Peter to become fluent enough to account for the high quality of Greek in the letter.

First Epistle of Peter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Graham Stanton rejects Petrine authorship because 1 Peter was most likely written during the reign of Domitian in AD 81, which is when he believes widespread Christian persecution began, which is long after the death of Peter.[2] Current scholarship has abandoned the persecution argument because the described persecution within the work does not necessitate a time period outside of the period of Peter.[3] Many scholars also doubt Petrine authorship because they are convinced that 1 Peter is dependent on the Pauline epistles and thus was written after Paul the Apostle’s ministry because it shares many of the same motifs espoused in Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastoral Epistles.[4] Others argue that it makes little sense to ascribe the work to Peter when it could have been ascribed to Paul.[3] One theory used to support Petrine authorship of 1 Peter is the "secretarial hypothesis", which suggests that 1 Peter was dictated by Peter and was written in Greek by his secretary, Silvanus (5:12). John Elliot, however, suggests that the notion of Silvanus as secretary or author or drafter of 1 Peter represents little more than a counsel of despair and introduces more problems than it solves because the Greek rendition of 5:12 suggests that Silvanus was not the secretary, but the courier/bearer of 1 Peter,[5] and some see Mark as a contributive amanuensis in the composition and writing of the work.[3][6] On the one hand, some scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman[7] are convinced that the language, dating, literary style, and structure of this text makes it implausible to conclude that 1 Peter was written by Peter; according to these scholars, it is more likely that 1 Peter is a pseudonymous letter, written later by one of the disciples of Peter in his honor. On the other hand, some scholars argue that there is not enough evidence to conclude that Peter did not write 1 Peter. For instance, there are similarities between 1 Peter and Peter's speeches in the Biblical book of Acts,[8] and the earliest attestation of Peters authorship comes from 2 Peter (80-90 CE) and the letters of Clement(70-140ce).[3] Ultimately, the authorship of 1 Peter remains contested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Peter

The problem is overblown. Matthew having been a tax collector was likely educated in both the Greek and Hebrew languages. There’s no compelling reason to think he could not have first written a Gospel in the Hebrew dialect and then later written one in Greek. Or even translated his own Hebrew version into a Greek one without leaving signs of translation.

Which leaves open the question of why the apostle Matthew, presumably an eyewitness to the events surrounding the life and death of Jesus, should rely on a non eyewitness in the person of Mark, to provide the overwhelming bulk of his own Gospel? It also calls into question your original statement: "Not exactly true. We can establish a link." Your direct link has now devolved into your contention the Gospel Matthew is something that the apostle Matthew COULD have written. Gospel Matthew COULD have been written by the emperor Vespasian as well, I suppose. But there is no evidence to support such an assertion.

You’re making the same mistake Eusebius made by interpreting Papias as referring to two different Johns. And remember Eusebius didn’t like Papias for some of his views. More to the point it’s important to note that we don’t need Papias to establish authorship as we have ample testimony aside from him anyway. Muddying the water with Papias doesn’t undermine the testimony of others such Iranaeus. But Papias’ words here referencing “the elder John�, in context, can also be understood to be referring to the aforementioned “John� the disciple because in your version where “presbyter� appears it can also be translated as “elder.� Further, it’s not unprecedented for the term “elder� to be used in the context of “apostle� (1Peter 5:1).

One of the reasons Eusebius "didn't like Papias" was because Papias indicated that Gospel John was not written by the apostle John. Papias lived in the 2nd century. Eusebius, who died in the 4th century, apparently knew better than Papias did concerning who Papias knew and didn't know. No one really has to interpret Papias here however. We only have to look at his words. " If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice." Papias clearly identifies two Johns, the apostle, generally known by the term "the evangelist," and John the presbyter, or elder. And the author of 2John and 3John clearly identifies himself as "The Elder." Once again your assertions are confounded by those confound facts which exist right there in your book of undeniable truth. Dagnab it!

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
At a time when the average life expectancy wasn't much over 40, it's not even "very highly likely" that Luke had been born yet when Jesus was executed. I do not deny that there were individuals spreading the story of the risen Jesus. It's what, if anything, that they were actually witness to that is in question, given the nature of what they were claiming.

Goose wrote:
Which assumes a much later dating for Luke. But even with a later dating we have ample evidence from sources such as the results of a Vespasian census recorded by Pliny the Elder and Lucian’s Long Lives) of people living to well over 100 years of age. So there’s no reason to think Luke couldn’t have been around long enough to have met witnesses and write his works. Same goes for John by the way.

I am content to stay with the common dating of Gospel Luke, which is circa 80. And in a time before modern doctors and modern medicine, long life was very rare indeed. Possible for the nobility and gentry class, but highly unlikely for the common working man. People typically wore themselves out through hard work. Fifty was old. Here is a table of life expectancy in Roman Egypt contemporary with the time of Jesus. Notice how drastically life expectancy drops off once the age of sixty is achieved. It's especially noticeable for laborers working in the cities.
http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/age/roman.html

Canonicity isn’t the issue. The issue is being early enough to have been written during the life time of possible witness which 1 Clement certainly was, although barely.

In summary, once again, you haven’t presented anything that would knock the historical evidence for resurrection back far enough that we would call it weak when we compare its strength to the evidence for the assassination.

As long as you assume that these individuals were in their teens when they knew Jesus, and all lived to be in their nineties, then all your assertions are neatly tied together in a bow of assumptions. I have merely been pointing out to you however, that the obvious answer to the question of an empty grave and a missing corpse is that it overwhelmingly more likely to have been the result of actions taken by the living, as opposed to actions taken by the corpse. As long as the followers of Jesus are the likely suspects, with the means, motive and opportunity to have moved the body and spread the false rumor that the corpse came back to life, then the assertion that the corpse unquestionably came back to life and flew away is, well, childlike. You might as well be arguing for the truth of flying reindeer. Which, were such a thing contained in your book of unassailable truth, I suspect you now would be doing, and with the same dogmatic fervor.

[Philbert]

Now hold on just one second there buddy!

I mean, let's cut to the chase!

Do you have any guacamole???

Huh? Do you? Do you?

I didn't think so!

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 1453 by Philbert]
I am dipping cheesy twists in guacamole at this very mo!
Spooky or what?

[Star]

Goose can't have it both ways.

If Jesus had Lazarus syndrome, then he didn't magically rise from the dead. There would be a natural, medical explanation for it, and he remained a mortal, living human, subject to the biological constraints every other animal is, including you and I.

But if Jesus magically came back to life from a decaying corpse which was truly dead (resurrection), then it couldn't have possibly been due to naturally-occurring Lazarus syndrome (autoresuscitation). That, by definition, isn't what Lazarus syndrome is.

Autoresuscitation is natural. Resurrection is supernatural.

There is no evidence the supernatural exists. In fact, all the evidence suggests it can't exist.

[Philbert]

I am dipping cheesy twists in guacamole at this very mo! Spooky or what?

Not spooky! Clear compelling evidence of Sri Baba Bozo's supernatural psychic powers!

[Sonofason]

The evidence itself for each event should be held to the same standard. Otherwise we are discriminating against the evidence on the basis the claim disagrees with our world view. Each event should then either pass or fail on its own merits. Whether or not one is more extraordinary than the other should be irrelevant at the outset.

That's not how it works for anything except conspiracy theory and theist apologetics.

Criminal and civil courts have much different standards of evidence. Criminal is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and civil is based on the preponderance of the evidence. And for good reason.

Evolution has a tremendous amount of evidence from various disciplines showing us that it does in fact happen. In contrast, a biologist wouldn't have to collect the same amount evidence on the duckbill platypus' mating habits to tell us they reproduce sexually.

Likewise, there's enough evidence to suggest Caesar was a real man who was stabbed to death. It doesn't conflict with the laws of physics and is consistent with real evidence. Anthropologists and archaeologists (scientists) have objective methodologies which theologians and apologists lack.

Carl Sagan popularized the saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

This basically means that the more unlikely, important, or seemingly impossible the claim (eg, resurrection by truly dead people), the higher the standard of evidence. I don't even believe video of alleged supernatural events. I invite you to do some critical thinking of your own and consider this information.

You haven't presented sufficient evidence to convince us that Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, you haven't even presented sufficient evidence he actually existed.

Why do so many atheists insist that there is an abundance of evidence for evolution, but they never provide any evidence? So please show me evidence. I don't want to see some book of fiction written by some scientist with a social agenda. I want to see real evidence of evolution. If eye witness accounts of Biblical authors are not admissible evidence for the existence of God, then your eye witness accounts in your science text books are also inadmissible evidence for the existence of evolution. Show me evidence of evolution. I don't want your personal opinions. I want proof. I don't want your textbook myths. I want proof. So, now, prove that evolution is a reality.

[no evidence no belief]

The evidence itself for each event should be held to the same standard. Otherwise we are discriminating against the evidence on the basis the claim disagrees with our world view. Each event should then either pass or fail on its own merits. Whether or not one is more extraordinary than the other should be irrelevant at the outset.

That's not how it works for anything except conspiracy theory and theist apologetics.

Criminal and civil courts have much different standards of evidence. Criminal is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and civil is based on the preponderance of the evidence. And for good reason.

Evolution has a tremendous amount of evidence from various disciplines showing us that it does in fact happen. In contrast, a biologist wouldn't have to collect the same amount evidence on the duckbill platypus' mating habits to tell us they reproduce sexually.

Likewise, there's enough evidence to suggest Caesar was a real man who was stabbed to death. It doesn't conflict with the laws of physics and is consistent with real evidence. Anthropologists and archaeologists (scientists) have objective methodologies which theologians and apologists lack.

Carl Sagan popularized the saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

This basically means that the more unlikely, important, or seemingly impossible the claim (eg, resurrection by truly dead people), the higher the standard of evidence. I don't even believe video of alleged supernatural events. I invite you to do some critical thinking of your own and consider this information.

You haven't presented sufficient evidence to convince us that Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, you haven't even presented sufficient evidence he actually existed.

Why do so many atheists insist that there is an abundance of evidence for evolution, but they never provide any evidence? So please show me evidence. I don't want to see some book of fiction written by some scientist with a social agenda. I want to see real evidence of evolution. If eye witness accounts of Biblical authors are not admissible evidence for the existence of God, then your eye witness accounts in your science text books are also inadmissible evidence for the existence of evolution. Show me evidence of evolution. I don't want your personal opinions. I want proof. I don't want your textbook myths. I want proof. So, now, prove that evolution is a reality.

Dude, the evidence for evolution is conclusive. The fact that the subject matter is too complicated for you to understand, doesn't mean that the evidence isn't there.

I could give you very strong evidence right now, but I would have to use a bunch of words you don't understand.

Eh, I'll try. Here's the simplest piece of evidence for evolution I can think of: A second inactive centomere and a centrally located talomere are present in human chromosome 2.

There you go. Did nothing for you, right? I promise, once you hit 8th grade it will all make sense.