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?

[Danmark]

I addressed this before. You dodged with flattery and now you have circled back to it. Unless you bring closure to the arguments you start by addressing my responses directly, then this will continue to happen.

This is the second time you have mentioned a personal judgment of 'flattery.' You mistake politeness for for 'flattery.' You are in error. I simply meant that not everything you said was wrong. You and Goose 'flatter' yourselves in concluding everything you write merits a response.

[Sonofason]

The problem is you don't know everything about science and medicine. When you do, then you can tell me that it is impossible for the dead to live again.

Ah ah! Got you! Argument from ignorance! I haven't seen somebody make that mistake in a while!

"We are ignorant of the totality of scientific knowledge, therefore corpses can come back to life and fly into the sky".

That is as nonsensical an argument as the kind of stuff that cavemen would make:

"I don't understand what lightning is, therefore it's a the farts of a gigantic man in the clouds"

If a human being could be cloned, and if the memories of the person were salvaged by some means, don't you think it possible for the dead, even long dead persons to live again? I do.

You are absolutely right that it is possible that an entity exists with the ability to cause slabs of decomposing maggot infested meat to turn into operating human beings who then fly into the sky.

It's possible.

Here is the questions: Do you have any evidence that such an entity exists?

And I believe that God knows all science. He knows all possibilities, even the possibilities that you nor science will never know.

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.

Yes. The Bible is evidence that such a being may exist. My personal experience and testimony is evidence that such a being may exist. Creation, ie existence is evidence that such a being may exist. Life is evidence that such a being may exist. Now, you show me the evidence that suggests that no such being exists.

[scourge99]

I addressed this before. You dodged with flattery and now you have circled back to it. Unless you bring closure to the arguments you start by addressing my responses directly, then this will continue to happen.

You and Goose 'flatter' yourselves in concluding everything you write merits a response.

Are you purposely repeating arguments I've already addressed? Or are you unaware that you repeat arguments I've given a response to?

Danmark: argument A.
Scourge99: response to argument A.
...
Danmark: argument A.
Scourge99 : i already addressed argument A above. Please address my response.
Danmark: You 'flatter' yourself in concluding everything you write merits a response.
...
Danmark: argument A!!!!
Scourge99:

[Danmark]

....
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.

You err in your claim that I reject whatever does not conform to my 'world view.' Your error is two fold. 1st, you inaccurately and unnecessarily restate what I wrote as 'my world view.' The second error is when you simplify by suggesting an automatic rejection.

What I suggested is that when testimony conflicts with with science and requires a belief in the supernatural it should be subject to particular scrutiny and skepticism.

When the 'testimony' conflicts with itself and is not first hand, but 2d, 3rd, or 4th hand and is not recorded contemporaneously with the events described, and is written by anonymous authors who have a bias, it does not even rise to the level where it should be considered admissible, let alone sufficient to satisfy supernatural claims.

The history of science suggests that frequently claims that have been ridiculed and gone contrary to the accepted 'knowledge of the day' have been vindicated. The story of the Austrian physician Semmelweis is a favorite example of this. There are many others. So I agree we should be open to new evidence and new theories. But the testimony claimed about the resurrection does not meet that standard and we've had 2000 years to give it an opportunity for vindication.

[no evidence no belief]

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

Ok, so I assume you agree with the points I made which you didn't respond to.

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."

As long as it' 100% clear that you misspoke and I can count on you not to make the same error int he future, I'm ok with moving forward.

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.

Ok, two things. First, even if there were multiple eyewitnesses, it wouldn't change the fact that testimony doesn't trump the laws of physics. It takes more than a few people saying that the laws pf physics don't apply, to reasonably assume that the laws of physics don't apply.

Secondly, where did you get the notion that there were any eyewitness accounts? The Gospel was written 60 to 90 years after Jesus's death by anonymous authors.

Independent historians attesting to it.

I will send you $10,000 for every contemporary historian or other non-biblical source which attests Jesus raised from the dead or performed any other supernatural action.

Historian 1:________________
Specific words he wrote claiming the supernatural: ________________


Historian 2:________________
Specific words he wrote claiming the supernatural: ________________


Historian 3:________________
Specific words he wrote claiming the supernatural: ________________

That's $30,000 you could make right there.

I will look like a complete idiot if you can provide these names and exact quotes.

The rapid conversion and growth of Christianity.

Almost half as rapid as the growth of Scientology.

The willingness of the apostles to die for their beliefs.

Wait, what? This is absurd in so many ways.

The folks of heaven's gate were willing to die for their beliefs too. Does this mean that there indeed was a spaceship hiding behind a comet, ready to beam them up to heaven if they committed suicide? Suicide bombers are willing to die for their beliefs. Nazi soldiers were willing to die for their beliefs. What on earth are you trying to say?

Besides, the only account we have of whether apostles were willing to die for their belief in Jesus is in the Bible itself. If we assume the accounts are true, then two out of twelve apostles were most definitely NOT AT ALL willing to die on the basis of their belief and loyalty to Jesus. At the first sign of trouble, Peter pretended he didn't even know Jesus, not to mention that Jesus's "divine nature" was so unconvincing to those who knew him best, that one of the apostles chose 30 pieces of silver over following Jesus. 17% of those who knew Jesus best quit on him. Jesus had a lower employee retention rate than Walmart.

Seriously, please provide evidence that any apostle chose death over abandoning Jesus, under circumstances where abandoning Jesus would have resulted in his life being spared.

Apostle:______________________
Specific text demonstrating he chose loyalty and death, in circumstances where the option of disloyalty and survival existed: ________________________________

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

Let's recap your "evidence":

Eyewitnesses: There weren't any.
Independent historians: There weren't any.
Rapid growth: Didn't happen. It wasn't significantly faster than any other religion. Significantly slower than several
Apostles willing to die for beliefs: People are willing to die for all sorts of stuff, and you have yet to prove that the apostles were among this group of idiots.

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.

Really? This is ALL it takes to explain the events without using the supernatural:

A few people claimed that they saw Jesus rise from the dead, even though it is not true.

That's all one must assume for all of it to make sense: That some people made stuff up. Period.

Either some people made stuff up, or everything we know about medicine, chemistry, biology, physics is wrong. Come on, man!

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.

Ok. You have the right to assert that, but it's completely baseless and absurd.

The most reasonable explanation for the fact that a few people said that the laws of physics were suspended... is that the laws of physics were actually suspended? Are you kidding me?

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.

Again, you can keep asserting that till you're blue in the face, but it will get you nowhere. Copy and paste it 100 times if you like. It changes nothing.

The laws of nature being suspended is simply NOT the best explanation possible for the fact that a half dozen people wrote down decades later that the laws of nature were suspended. Dishonesty, confusion, superstition, hallucination, exaggeration, are all overwhelmingly more likely explanations.

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?

Again:

Authors: Anonymous, decades later, never met anybody who had ever met anybody who had ever met Jesus.
Historians: $10,000 for every one you quote
Willingness to die for belief: Please provide evidence for this, and once you do explain how it is different from Heaven's Gate people's willingness to die for their beliefs.
Explosion of Christianity: Explosion of the Nazi Movement? Explosion of Scientology? Explosion of Beatlemania? Explosion of the internet? Explosion of the use of the automobile? Society sometimes changes explosively. So?

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

No grand conspiracy. Just a half dozen fishermen embellishing a story. Fishermen are notorious for doing that ("I swear, that fish was this big").

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??

Please give me that exact quote from Josephus which mentions the supernatural and I'll immediately wire $10,000 to you.

New Testament writers making stuff up: No more extraordinary than thousands of religious leaders making stuff up all throughout history.

Certainly not even close to as extraordinary as the things they said actually having happened!

Why is it so difficult to contemplate the notion that somebody may write down something that actually isn't true?

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

You have yet to provide any evidence for the laws of physics being suspended, other than "some people wrote down that the laws of physics were suspended".

This "conspiracy theory" you keep bringing up is a massive straw man. I am not implying that any kind of massive conspiracy theory happened.

I am willing to admit that everything about early Christianity happened exactly as you clam it happened, with one minor difference: The half dozen people who claim to have seen a corpse come back to life and fly into the sky.... didn't!

That's all it takes to explain the whole thing: A half dozen people claiming to have seen something that they actually didn't see. What's the problem?

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?

$10,000 for each historian.

If these people were also willing to die and be tortured for their claim, would it make you reconsider?

Please present evidence of anybody being willing to be tortured for their claim, when denying the claim would have let them escape the torture.

If there was also a great following of Steve'ites who claim to have witnessed his feats, would you not reconsider?

There isn't a great following of people who claim to have witnessed Jesus's feats. There are only anonymous texts written decades later. Of all the alleged "multitudes" who allegedly witnessed these feats, NOBODY EVER wrote any of it down. EVER.

Very suspicious.

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?

Sure. Direct empirical evidence.

In the absence of that, I'd take indirect empirical evidence. For example, if somebody said "Steve can float bricks with his mind, and those who believe in him are immune to poisonous snakes", and it turns out that those who believe in him are indeed immune to poison, I would definitely take a second look at the claim.

The Bible claims that Jesus was supernatural, and that those who believed would be immune to poison. That's an easy claim to verify. Wanna try it?

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?

You think the people who wrote the Bible were eyewitnesses?

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?

Right. A testimony of a public figure being stabbed would be much more reliable because more easily falsifiable. Thanks for bringing that up.

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.

Which portion of my description of what happens to bodies when they die do you contest? Are you saying that his heart didn't stop beating? Are you saying that his brain didn't stop generating electrical impulses? Are you saying his blood didn't clot?

Which portion of my standard medical description of most-mortem mechanics is unreasonable to assume?

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.

When it doesn't directly contradict with overwhelmingly strong empirical, falsifiable, verifiable factual medical, biological, chemical and physical evidence, yes.

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

It's not just about my personal understanding of the world. It's overwhelmingly strongly established societal understanding of the world.

It's an understanding that allows us to perform heart transplants, fly airplanes, build computers, land unmanned vehicles on planets millions of miles away.

If corpses can fly, then all of our understanding of reality is wrong, and heart transplants wouldn't work, and airplanes wouldn't fly, computers wouldn't run.

If the same understanding that tells us corpses can't fly is actually flawed, how do you explain that we can perform heart transplants and fly planes?

1) On what basis have you decided to take such a hard line approach?

On the basis of the extreme weakness of the evidence for the claim, and on the basis of the overwhelmingly strong evidence against the claim

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

Well, maybe Mohammed flew into heaven on a magic horse. Maybe lightning is caused by Zeus throwing spears from the clouds. Maybe the decomposing corpse of a carpenter came back to life and flew into the sky.

None of these are technically impossible, but do you have sufficient evidence for any of the them to counter the overwhelming evidence against them? Or do you just have a half dozen folks writing stuff down?

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?

If an event that is based on a supernaturalistic worldview in fact DIDN'T happen, haven't you cut yourself off from the truth of that because of your presuppositions?

[Star]

1) Courts are not solely interested in truth. There are conflicting goals in a courtroom that must be balanced with compromises. For example, they must balance things like the right to a speedy trial with finding the most likely verdict.

What do you mean by "finding the most likely" verdict?

If you are actually innocent but some unfavorable coincidences make you appear guilty, you are probably going to be found guilty.

Yes, unfortunately it happens.

I thought maybe you said they consider what's most likely correct, as in not guilty vs. guilty. The prosecution either proves the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or they don't. Circumstantial evidence isn't supposed to be enough.

[no evidence no belief]

The problem is you don't know everything about science and medicine. When you do, then you can tell me that it is impossible for the dead to live again.

Ah ah! Got you! Argument from ignorance! I haven't seen somebody make that mistake in a while!

"We are ignorant of the totality of scientific knowledge, therefore corpses can come back to life and fly into the sky".

That is as nonsensical an argument as the kind of stuff that cavemen would make:

"I don't understand what lightning is, therefore it's a the farts of a gigantic man in the clouds"

If a human being could be cloned, and if the memories of the person were salvaged by some means, don't you think it possible for the dead, even long dead persons to live again? I do.

You are absolutely right that it is possible that an entity exists with the ability to cause slabs of decomposing maggot infested meat to turn into operating human beings who then fly into the sky.

It's possible.

Here is the questions: Do you have any evidence that such an entity exists?

And I believe that God knows all science. He knows all possibilities, even the possibilities that you nor science will never know.

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.

Yes. The Bible is evidence that such a being may exist.

The Lord of the Rings is evidence that Gandalf may exist.

My personal experience and testimony is evidence that such a being may exist.

My personal experience and testimony is evidence that an invisible dragon may exist

Creation, ie existence is evidence that such a being may exist.

Well if our existence is evidence of a creator, then the existence of a creator is evidence of an entity that created him. Who created God, buddy?

Life is evidence that such a being may exist.

Again, false, absurd, and baseless, but I don't need to go into that. If our existence of necessity demonstrates the existence of an unverifiable, untestable entity, then of necessity his existence demonstrates the eixtence of an entity that must have created him. Who created God, buddy?

Now, you show me the evidence that suggests that no such being exists.

The lack of valid evidence for a claim is sufficient for me to disbelieve in that claim.

[Star]

Now, you show me the evidence that suggests that no such being exists.

Neither debate nor evidence works this way.

We don't need to show evidence something doesn't exist in order to lack a belief in it. Lack of evidence is enough to lack belief.

Haven't you figured this out yet?

[Goat]

The Holy Spirit has never been visible to me. When the Holy Spirit is notably present in me, it does however induce a physical response in me that can be seen.

Like demons induce a physical response in sufferers of epilepsy? What about people suffering from anxiety disorder who suddenly are overcome by fear and start shaking and sweating due to panic attacks? Which supernatural entity is responsible for that?

I try not to speak for other people Artie. Demons exist, but it's been quite some time since I had one.

Can you provide evidence that 'demons exist'. I would love to see someone's pet demon.

[no evidence no belief]

The Holy Spirit has never been visible to me. When the Holy Spirit is notably present in me, it does however induce a physical response in me that can be seen.

Like demons induce a physical response in sufferers of epilepsy? What about people suffering from anxiety disorder who suddenly are overcome by fear and start shaking and sweating due to panic attacks? Which supernatural entity is responsible for that?

I try not to speak for other people Artie. Demons exist, but it's been quite some time since I had one.

Evidence please?