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?

[Wootah]

Please Sonofason. No Dungeons & Dragons lore. I don't care how powerful Gandalf is, how wise Aragorn is, how agile Spiderman is, and how knowledgeable of science God is. You have to demonstrate that these entities are real before we discuss them in more detail.

How many non real entities do we use to operate in our daily lives? For instance, numbers - how do you decide that it is ok to conceive and believe in numbers and not other concepts?

[Danmark]

This is a case of giving a guy 'a dose of his own medicine' There can be many unpredictable and beneficial spin-offs from such an exercise. i think NENB can 'take it'.

NENB, has used the melodramatic backdrop of the courtroom many times during this thread. It affords him the ideal opportunity to postulate and prevaricate regarding the 'supernatural'.

NENB: Has been accused by many subscribers on this thread of 'acting in bad faith'

Let's examine the facts.

NENB, did wilfully choose an exact, identifiable unique creature, ie the 'talking' donkey of Numbers
NENB had no provable prior knowledge of the afore mentioned creature.
NENB had to get the exact Numbers reference from the Bible (No evidence to the contrary)
NENB then did wilfully demand 'evidence' for the donkey while simultaneously declaring that his own source material would be 'inadmissible' as evidence'

Are we making new law here? ''Evidence for the inadmissible'' Can it be done NENB, ask your lawyer, Danmark. Is inadmissible evidence for the inadmissible a 'double negative' and if so is it logically 'admissible'. If it is then NENB is guilty of obstruction as charged. Simples.

There may be what they call 'mitigating circumstances' here, even a plea of diminished responsibility. Please, not a plea for leniency. I would suggest a few nights in the stocks.

ps Danmark, please use the phrase 'sub judice' in your summation (I just love the sound of it)

I have not understood this line of argument. NENB has, during this subtopic, agreed that 'evidence' in the way he phrased the OP, means persuasive evidence, not just any evidence. [My 'client' will correct me if I err] In other words, the story in Numbers about Baalam's ass talking is technically evidence. It simply is not persuasive, at least to a secular trier of fact. In a court of law it would be admissible to prove that the Bible contains this story. But it would not be admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted; i.e. that Baalam's ass actually talked.

I confess I find "Is inadmissible evidence for the inadmissible a 'double negative' and if so is it logically 'admissible'" incomprehensible to me. Is it a statement or a question? In any event it seems to me this is not a 'double negative.'

[Danmark]

Please Sonofason. No Dungeons & Dragons lore. I don't care how powerful Gandalf is, how wise Aragorn is, how agile Spiderman is, and how knowledgeable of science God is. You have to demonstrate that these entities are real before we discuss them in more detail.

How many non real entities do we use to operate in our daily lives? For instance, numbers - how do you decide that it is ok to conceive and believe in numbers and not other concepts?

Who is claiming this? Certainly most people believe in concepts other than numbers. We believe in concepts that have real life examples. We have the concept of numbers, truth, even of a tree. We can find real examples of these concepts, or of how close to our 'concept' the example comes.

[scourge99]

You ask a good question, 'What evidence would you expect if there really were a resurrection?'
First I would expect that accounts of it would have been written right away, not 20 or 30 years of gossiping. I would expect those accounts to have been written in the language of the people who witnessed them. I would expect that some of 'the 500' would be named and would have written first hand accounts.

I would expect the 2d coming about 2000 years ago.
I would expect that when Jesus said greater miracles, such as moving mountains, would have taken place; that if anything were asked in his name it would have happened. There's a very long list of what we would expect if any of this were true. I would expect that this fantastic religious story would be special and better supported than it is and better supported than any of the thousand other religious myths that have accompanied man's fear of reality and flight of fancy to escape this mortal coil.

1) are there not reasonable explanations for why these things you demand aren't present?
For example, many ancient historians did not write about events as they happened and often wrote years after the events. Furthermore, literacy among people was very low and paper and writing instruments very very expensive. Usually reserved for those of nobility and the rich.

2) except for patently absurd demands like Jesus having a second coming, i find it doubtful that if there were more written records, contemporary accounts, and writings in the same language, etc, that it would change your mind one bit. These seem like ad hoc rationalizations, not show stopping arguments.

3) Lastly the reasoning you present doesn't disprove or prove irrational Christian beliefs. All you seem to be saying is that you aren't personally convinced. Certainly the resurrection is an extraordinary event, but you seem locked into a mindset where you dismiss all but the ordinary. Sometimes the extraordinary does happen, like your neighbor winning the lottery (someone must win the lottery because of probability but if you were to win it, it would be extraordinary) , but it seems you have cut yourself off from those possibilities by dismissing all but the ordinary.

[no evidence no belief]

Please Sonofason. No Dungeons & Dragons lore. I don't care how powerful Gandalf is, how wise Aragorn is, how agile Spiderman is, and how knowledgeable of science God is. You have to demonstrate that these entities are real before we discuss them in more detail.

How many non real entities do we use to operate in our daily lives? For instance, numbers - how do you decide that it is ok to conceive and believe in numbers and not other concepts?

Wait, what?

Are you making this argument: "It's reasonable to believe that 1+1=2 therefore it's reasonable to believe that donkeys can talk"?

Please, tell me you're not making that argument.

Please tell me that you're not making the argument that "human brains are sophisticated enough to create abstract conceptual systems that are useful for analyzing the real world, therefore corpses can fly".

Please.

Seriously.

Please tell me you are NOT making that argument.

I really, really, really, need you to write these words: "I am not making the argument that numbers are conceptual therefore zombies are real".

Please nip this in the bud before this gets reeeeeealy silly.

[assisigirl]

Hi Danmark: I have read the first 500 posts on this thread. It is what it is! It seems to be the domain of the 'banned'.

Here's NENB on the Bible

348 Please do something more than asserting that the zombie invasion and the talking donkey are real while providing ZERO evidence other than an old book

378 Ok, what evidence would I find acceptable for a talking donkey?
A talking donkey violates everything we know about biology, chemistry and physics. For me to even CONSIDER the possibility of a talking donkey, you'd have to START by showing me that our scientific understanding of how donkeys CANNOT TALK is wrong.

465 (The Bible)I cannot prove that the forgery happened. You cannot prove that the forgery didn't happen. It could be one, it could be the other. We don't know. The evidence is inconclusive. If I was trying to prove it was a forgery, I would FAIL.
If you were trying to prove it was a supernatural prophecy, you would FAIL.

473 I accept all of those documents - including the Bible - as historical documents. If you want me to accept them as evidence of the supernatural, then the bar is a little higher. Same with the Bible. I accept it as a historical document. But I'm not going to believe in talking donkeys just because an old document mentions them!
483 The fact that an old document makes supernatural claims is not sufficient evidence.


Danmark: You are the lawyer for the defence. Does NENB exclude his source document as admissible evidence. Without the Bible NENB would not have had a third line in the OP. Does he, perhaps inadvertently, set an impossible task for the thread participants who believe in the talking donkey of Numbers. If so, is it possible ,until proven otherwise to convict him of intentional 'obstruction'
Is there a case?

[Danmark]

You ask a good question, 'What evidence would you expect if there really were a resurrection?'
First I would expect that accounts of it would have been written right away, not 20 or 30 years of gossiping. I would expect those accounts to have been written in the language of the people who witnessed them. I would expect that some of 'the 500' would be named and would have written first hand accounts.

I would expect the 2d coming about 2000 years ago.
I would expect that when Jesus said greater miracles, such as moving mountains, would have taken place; that if anything were asked in his name it would have happened. There's a very long list of what we would expect if any of this were true. I would expect that this fantastic religious story would be special and better supported than it is and better supported than any of the thousand other religious myths that have accompanied man's fear of reality and flight of fancy to escape this mortal coil.

1) are there not reasonable explanations for why these things you demand aren't present?
For example, many ancient historians did not write about events as they happened and often wrote years after the events. Furthermore, literacy among people was very low and paper and writing instruments very very expensive. Usually reserved for those of nobility and the rich.

2) except for patently absurd demands like Jesus having a second coming, i find it doubtful that if there were more written records, contemporary accounts, and writings in the same language, etc, that it would change your mind one bit. These seem like ad hoc rationalizations, not show stopping arguments.

3) Lastly the reasoning you present doesn't disprove or prove irrational Christian beliefs. All you seem to be saying is that you aren't personally convinced. Certainly the resurrection is an extraordinary event, but you seem locked into a mindset where you dismiss all but the ordinary. Sometimes the extraordinary does happen, like your neighbor winning the lottery (someone must win the lottery because of probability but if you were to win it, it would be extraordinary) , but it seems you have cut yourself off from those possibilities by dismissing all but the ordinary.

There is some merit in some of what you write, but you fall into one of Goose's errors in failing to distinguish extraordinary events from those requiring a supernatural explanation. I've previously given the example of Krakatoa. Volcanic explosions in themselves may be viewed as extraordinary, tho' there are more of them each year than most people suppose [about 60 eruptions per year], but a volcanic event on the scale of Krakatoa is certainly extraordinary, but not supernatural.

[scourge99]

I've trimmed a bit to get to the main points of disagreement.

Can you please list all the evidence you have of a supernatural claim of your choice, other than people claiming that they saw it happen?

There is no absolute proof available as you demand.

Ok, if you start putting words into my mouth, I will get tired of debating you very quickly.

As I said I don't mind debating you irrespective of your personal beliefs, but I need to know you're taking this seriously, otherwise I will not waste my time.

Please confirm that you understand that I am not asking for "absolute proof" of anything. I am just asking for evidence.

I need you to write "I understand that NENB is asking for evidence, not for absolute proof, and that the two are completely different".

I'll write what you ask if you write the following : " i understand that demanding people write something is patronizing. I also understand that there are more civil and productive ways to express disagreement and clear up a misunderstanding than this and i will strive to do so in the future."

Assume that Jesus did in fact resurrect. What could be provided that would ever satisfy your desire for hard evidence?

I don't know. Provide all the evidence you have, and we can analyze in detail and determine whether it's reasonable to believe in flying corpses on its basis.

Multiple accounts of eye witnesses. Independent historians attesting to it. The rapid conversion and growth of Christianity. The willingness of the apostles to die for their beliefs.

None of these prove 100%. But they are all evidence that point to the same conclusion. That Jesus died and was resurrected.

One must weave a grand tale of conspiracy theories, systematic lying, fraud, and all sorts of improbable and unlikely events to account for this evidence with alternative explanations.

E. G., If we had the spear that pierced jesus it wouldn't prove he resurrected. If we had the cross, or his clothes, or access to the tomb it wouldn't either.

True. You are admitting that it will be very very hard to demonstrate that 2000 years ago the corpse of a carpenter came back to life and then flew into the sky.

You misunderstand. I'm not here to demonstrate corpses coming back to life or anything like that. No demonstrations will be forthcoming. But I'm here to explain that the resurrection is the best and most reasonable explanation for the facts and evidence we have.

What's your point? Are you saying that it's impossible for you to provide good evidence, therefore we should believe it based on bad evidence?

I've asked you before what "good evidence" for a resurrection would be. You dodged. And now you try to turn the question around on me.

The resurrection is the best explanation of the evidence we have.

There is no physical evidence that can provide undeniable proof of an unprecedented event.

I am not asking for undeniable proof. This will be the last post I reply to, if your next one doesn't clearly state that you understand the difference between evidence and undeniable proof.

Im glad we both aren't looking for absolute proof. We both are looking for the best explanation for the evidence.

Its my conclusion that the best explanation for the multiple and independent accounts of jesus resurrection is that it actually happened. What is your explanation for all these authors and historians describing the same event, willingness to live and die by their beliefs, and the explosion of Christianity?

Are you just an ultra skeptic and have no good explanation for the evidence or do you propose some extraordinarily grand conspiracy theory?

There is always wiggle room for alternative explanations.

Sure. I am not asking for undeniable proof. Just sufficient evidence to show that corpses flying in the air are more likely than people making up stories about corpses flying in the air.

So the gospel writers, paul and historians like Josephus, all colluded together in a massive conspiracy theory to promote Christianity? That's not extraordinary??

At least we have evidence of a resurrection. There is nothing to support this conspiracy theory besides speculation.

Again, I'm looking for evidence of supernatural claims other than personal testimony.

What's wrong with testimony?

Do you reject the testimony of historians writing about Caesars assassination because its testimony? Or do you have some magical video of him getting assassinated that proves it to you?
Were you an eyewitness?

It seems you rely on testimony of historians for all sorts of beliefs about history. Why then are you biased against one's that support the Christian narrative?

Ok, let me explain this slowly.

If you tell me "I saw a guy called Steve stare at a brick", that counts as eyewitness testimony.

I would consider it sufficient to believe that what you claim happened, happened.

If you tell me "I saw a guy called Steve stare at a brick and then the brick started hovering a few inches in the air. Steve did this through his supernatural ability to move objects with his mind", that would count as eyewitness testimony.

I would NOT consider it sufficient to believe that what you claim happened, happened.

Do you agree or disagree that whether the same amount of evidence (eyewitness testimony) is sufficient to establish whether a claim is true, depends on the nature of the claim?

Do you agree that a person swearing he saw a pig and a person swearing that he saw a flying pig are different? Somebody saying that he saw a pig is possibly sufficient to establish that there was a pig. Somebody saying he saw a flying pig is definitely not sufficient to establish that there actually was a flying pig.

If multiple, independent people and historians reported that a pig flew or that Steve caused a brick to float, that wouldn't make you reconsider? If these people were also willing to die and be tortured for their claim, would it make you reconsider? If there was also a great following of Steve'ites who claim to have witnessed his feats, would you not reconsider?

Suppose Steve actually could float bricks or there was a flying pig, is there any evidence or testimony that is reasonably expected to exist that would convince you?

Lets make a detailed comparison of two relevant eyewitness testimonies you mentioned:

Testimony 1 (caesar's assassination): I saw a guy get stabbed to death

You think that the historian who reported Caesars assassination was an eyewitness?

And it wasn't just any guy. It was Caesar. Its the difference between "a guy got stabbed to death" and "Barack Obama was stabbed to death while in the oval office". BIG difference, wouldn't you say?

Testimony 2 (Jesus's resurrection): I saw a guy get nailed through hands and feet, stabbed in the heart, bleed to death, dumped in a tomb. Once in a tomb, this brain-dead and heart-dead cadaver started a process of decomposition: Its lungs collapsed, it's liver, kidneys, intestine, stomach and all other vital organs failed. Whatever blood was left in its veins after massive blood loss, clotted completely inside veins and arteries. The bacteria in the intestine started producing methane, bloating or even bursting the belly. The pancreas started digesting itself, causing green goo to ooze out of the carcass's mouth, nose and anus. While bacteria and enzymes were eating the body from within, flies laid thousands of eggs over the open wounds, which hatched into maggots which started borrowing into the flesh and eating it from the outside in. After 3 days of this, this cadaver came back to life. The brain went from a bloodless lump of dead flesh, back to a perfectly functioning operating system, with all cognitive abilities, memories, etc, fully intact. The blood unclotted itself, and started feeding nutrient to denatured and decomposed cells thanks to the pumping of a decomposed and dead heart. This fully restored slab of maggot-infested putrid meat strolled into town, chatted with me, and then I saw him fly into the sky like Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer.

Last time I checked the historical accounts do not describe it in as much detail and in the manner you do. You seem to be adding your own version of events and interpolating. And doing so in bad faith.

Can you see why I might tentatively believe Testimony 1, but would disbelieve testimony 2?

Both are eyewitness testimony. The evidence in favor of both claims is the same. The evidence against each claim is very different.


Caesar's assassination.
Evidence in favor: Eyewitness testimony.
Evidence against: Pretty much nothing. There is no conflicting evidence

Jesus's resurrection:
Evidence in favor: Eyewitness testimony.
Evidence against: EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT MEDICINE, BIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY, PHYSICS.

Do you understand?

If not, consider this scenario:
Miami Heat scored 46 points. This was sufficient for them to win the game against the Knicks.
Chicago bulls scored 46 points. This was NOT sufficient for them to win the game against the Celtics.

You might say "The two teams scored the same points, why is it that one team won but the other lost"? It's because you have to match what each team scored, against what the opposing team scored.

If Miami Heat scored 46 and the opposing team scored 12, then they won.

If Chicago Bulls scored 46 and the opposing team scored 380, then they lost.

If the evidence for Caesar's assassination is eyewitness testimony, and opposing evidence is very little, then Ceasar's assassination is believable.

If the evidence for Jesus's resurrection is eyewitness testimony, and opposing evidence is overwhelmingly strong physical empirical evidence, then Jesus's resurrection is not believable.

The only point in bringing up Caesar was to point out that you believe some unprecedented and unique historical events based on testimony alone. It seems we both agree on that point.

The point of contention is that you reject testimony if it conflicts with your understanding of the world.

1) On what basis have you decided to take such a hard line approach?
2) Is it impossible that an event that conflicts with your worldview did in fact happen?

3)If an event that conflicts with your worldview did in fact happen, haven't you cut yourself off from the truth of that because of your presuppositions?

[Danmark]

Danmark: You are the lawyer for the defence. Does NENB exclude his source document as admissible evidence. Without the Bible NENB would not have had a third line in the OP. Does he, perhaps inadvertently, set an impossible task for the thread participants who believe in the talking donkey of Numbers. If so, is it possible ,until proven otherwise to convict him of intentional 'obstruction'
Is there a case?

No. No case. The judge would rule there is insufficient probable cause to hold him liable to the charge of intentional obstruction. He merely cited the Bible's stories, such as Baalam's talking ass, as an example that at least some Bible stories are fantastic, and should not be taken seriously. There is nothing to prevent his opponent from offering evidence to support this story as fact. His opponent can use evidence from any source. Whether the evidence is admitted, and whether it is persuasive are separate questions.

For example if someone presented evidence of a modern, sentient, verbal ass [not mentioning any names ] that would be admissible to at least show the story in Numbers is possible.

[scourge99]

You ask a good question, 'What evidence would you expect if there really were a resurrection?'
First I would expect that accounts of it would have been written right away, not 20 or 30 years of gossiping. I would expect those accounts to have been written in the language of the people who witnessed them. I would expect that some of 'the 500' would be named and would have written first hand accounts.

I would expect the 2d coming about 2000 years ago.
I would expect that when Jesus said greater miracles, such as moving mountains, would have taken place; that if anything were asked in his name it would have happened. There's a very long list of what we would expect if any of this were true. I would expect that this fantastic religious story would be special and better supported than it is and better supported than any of the thousand other religious myths that have accompanied man's fear of reality and flight of fancy to escape this mortal coil.

1) are there not reasonable explanations for why these things you demand aren't present?
For example, many ancient historians did not write about events as they happened and often wrote years after the events. Furthermore, literacy among people was very low and paper and writing instruments very very expensive. Usually reserved for those of nobility and the rich.

2) except for patently absurd demands like Jesus having a second coming, i find it doubtful that if there were more written records, contemporary accounts, and writings in the same language, etc, that it would change your mind one bit. These seem like ad hoc rationalizations, not show stopping arguments.

3) Lastly the reasoning you present doesn't disprove or prove irrational Christian beliefs. All you seem to be saying is that you aren't personally convinced. Certainly the resurrection is an extraordinary event, but you seem locked into a mindset where you dismiss all but the ordinary. Sometimes the extraordinary does happen, like your neighbor winning the lottery (someone must win the lottery because of probability but if you were to win it, it would be extraordinary) , but it seems you have cut yourself off from those possibilities by dismissing all but the ordinary.

There is some merit in some of what you write,

I've made several points and i don't know which one's you refer to. It seems to me you are just putting forth flattery to avoid addressing those points directly.

but you fall into one of Goose's errors in failing to distinguish extraordinary events from those requiring a supernatural explanation.

That is a disagreement completely orthogonal to what has been discussed so far with you. I'm more than happy to address it but please dont pretend the other points are contingent upon this new argument you put forth. You can bring forth new arguments but you need to bring some closure to the other one's first.

I've previously given the example of Krakatoa. Volcanic explosions in themselves may be viewed as extraordinary, tho' there are more of them each year than most people suppose [about 60 eruptions per year], but a volcanic event on the scale of Krakatoa is certainly extraordinary, but not supernatural.

The point in bringing up Caesar was to point out that you believe some unprecedented and unique historical events based on testimony alone. It seems we both agree on that point.

The point of contention is that you reject testimony if it conflicts with your understanding of the world. I. E., if its supernatural in your worldview. This appears to be a presupposition. But its not a presupposition in my worldview. I evaluate the evidence on its own merit.

1) On what basis have you decided to take such a presupposition and reject anything that doesn't conform to your worldview?

2) Is it possible that an event that conflicts with your worldview did in fact happen?

3)If an event that conflicts with your worldview did in fact happen, haven't you cut yourself off from the truth of that because of your fallible presupposition?

Thus, given multiple independent attestations of the resurrection, the willingness of these people to die for their beliefs, and the explosion of Christianity, the existence of the universe, morality, etc, isn't the best explanation that the events as described did in fact happen? All these things point toward a god and a resurrected jesus. It seems you agree but the thing causing you to reject this inevitable conclusion is your presupposition.

Will reason ans evidence prevail or will your arbitrary and fallible presupposition? That is the choice before you.