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?

[instantc]

The superior alternative is to not start with the unwarranted presupposition that supernatural/extraordinary events are impossible.

But I don't have that presupposition, do I? My presupposition is that extraordinary/supernatural events are improbable, and that's a reasonably warranted presupposition drawn from my current experience and knowledge of reality.

[scourge99]

The superior alternative is to not start with the unwarranted presupposition that supernatural/extraordinary events are impossible.

But I don't have that presupposition, do I? My presupposition is that extraordinary/supernatural events are improbable, and that's a reasonably warranted presupposition drawn from my current experience and knowledge of reality.

So its your experience that supernatural/extraordinary events do not happen. And you came to that conclusion because you:

1)first assessed some amount supernatural/extraordinary claims with the assumption that they cannot happen and continue to assume they cannot happen for future claims

or

2) first you assessed some amount of supernatural/extraordinary claims, determined those weren't real so you commit the fallacy of a hasty generalization and assume all future claims must not be true as well.

[instantc]

The superior alternative is to not start with the unwarranted presupposition that supernatural/extraordinary events are impossible.

But I don't have that presupposition, do I? My presupposition is that extraordinary/supernatural events are improbable, and that's a reasonably warranted presupposition drawn from my current experience and knowledge of reality.

So its your experience that supernatural/extraordinary events do not happen. And you came to that conclusion because you:

1)first assessed some amount supernatural/extraordinary claims with the assumption that they cannot happen and continue to assume they cannot happen for future claims

or

2) first you assessed some amount of supernatural/extraordinary claims, determined those weren't real so you commit the fallacy of a hasty generalization and assume all future claims must not be true as well.

Neither one seems accurate, try again or ask a better question.

[scourge99]

The superior alternative is to not start with the unwarranted presupposition that supernatural/extraordinary events are impossible.

But I don't have that presupposition, do I? My presupposition is that extraordinary/supernatural events are improbable, and that's a reasonably warranted presupposition drawn from my current experience and knowledge of reality.

So its your experience that supernatural/extraordinary events do not happen. And you came to that conclusion because you:

1)first assessed some amount supernatural/extraordinary claims with the assumption that they cannot happen and continue to assume they cannot happen for future claims

or

2) first you assessed some amount of supernatural/extraordinary claims, determined those weren't real so you commit the fallacy of a hasty generalization and assume all future claims must not be true as well.

Neither one seems accurate, try again or ask a better question.

Then step me through the process of how you first determined that all future supernatural/extraordinary claims you encounter can be summarily dismissed without assessing the evidence and reason.

[instantc]

The superior alternative is to not start with the unwarranted presupposition that supernatural/extraordinary events are impossible.

But I don't have that presupposition, do I? My presupposition is that extraordinary/supernatural events are improbable, and that's a reasonably warranted presupposition drawn from my current experience and knowledge of reality.

So its your experience that supernatural/extraordinary events do not happen. And you came to that conclusion because you:

1)first assessed some amount supernatural/extraordinary claims with the assumption that they cannot happen and continue to assume they cannot happen for future claims

or

2) first you assessed some amount of supernatural/extraordinary claims, determined those weren't real so you commit the fallacy of a hasty generalization and assume all future claims must not be true as well.

Neither one seems accurate, try again or ask a better question.

Then step me through the process of how you first determined that all future supernatural/extraordinary claims you encounter can be summarily dismissed without assessing the evidence and reason.

Perhaps I'm wrong in saying that no amount of historical evidence would in any hypothetical circumstances convince me of a supernatural event. Perhaps if, say, the earth and the sun would have stopped revolving for a few months sometime in the history, everyone would have noticed and that event would now be common knowledge, then I might be convinced of it myself as well.

Let's say that any reasonably conceivable amount of eye-witness accounts would not convince me of a miracle that happened in the ancient history. How can I summarily dismiss all those eye-witness accounts without assessing them? Because given what I know about reality, any reasonably conceivable number of historical eye-witness accounts of a miracle can be better explained in natural terms than in supernatural terms.

[keithprosser3]

So the assassination of Caesar is a meme and myth as well by your reasoning? Or does your analysis only apply to historical claims you don't agree with?

It is your method of analysis that is under examination - I haven't revealed mine.
The point is that the existence of documents X,Y,Z add nothing to the credibility of the events related in document A if they are derived from document A.

Suppose Caesar committed suicide, but the official historian had some reason to lie and say he was assassinated, say to shield Brutus from prosecution. Subsequent historians would repeat his lie that Caesar killed himself in good faith and today we would have plenty of documents to show Ceasar was assassinated and perhaps nothing to show that he committed suicide.

Things would be simple if people only wrote was was true, but there are reasons people write things down than an uninterested desire to tell the unvarnished truth. In fact, people usually write things because they have a special reason to write something. On this very board people write to persuade and influence, not merely to inform and I doubt many posters have not written a 'little white lie' at some point in their stuff.

But not all falsehoods are deliberate. It is possible to passionately believe something that is not really true. I have seen people almost coming to blows about Sydney being the capital of Australia. People do believe Jesus was resurrected. I don't, and the evidence that exists isn't nearly enough to change my mind.

[scourge99]

The superior alternative is to not start with the unwarranted presupposition that supernatural/extraordinary events are impossible.

But I don't have that presupposition, do I? My presupposition is that extraordinary/supernatural events are improbable, and that's a reasonably warranted presupposition drawn from my current experience and knowledge of reality.

So its your experience that supernatural/extraordinary events do not happen. And you came to that conclusion because you:

1)first assessed some amount supernatural/extraordinary claims with the assumption that they cannot happen and continue to assume they cannot happen for future claims

or

2) first you assessed some amount of supernatural/extraordinary claims, determined those weren't real so you commit the fallacy of a hasty generalization and assume all future claims must not be true as well.

Neither one seems accurate, try again or ask a better question.

Then step me through the process of how you first determined that all future supernatural/extraordinary claims you encounter can be summarily dismissed without assessing the evidence and reason.

Perhaps I'm wrong in saying that no amount of historical evidence would in any hypothetical circumstances convince me of a supernatural event. Perhaps if, say, the earth and the sun would have stopped revolving for a few months sometime in the history, everyone would have noticed and that event would now be common knowledge, then I might be convinced of it myself as well.

The resurrection was a local event. Not worldwide. Does every single person in the area have to acknowledge and write down the event? How about some people and independent historians? Because that's what we have.

Let's say that any reasonably conceivable amount of eye-witness accounts would not convince me of a miracle that happened in the ancient history. How can I summarily dismiss all those eye-witness accounts without assessing them? Because given what I know about reality, any reasonably conceivable number of historical eye-witness accounts of a miracle can be better explained in natural terms than in supernatural terms.

So because there is a logically possible alternative explanation then you assume that explanation is true, regardless of the reason and evidence. How isn't that a hasty generalization exactly?

For example, suppose i claim to have won the lottery 30 years ago but spent all the money. The alternative explanation is that i didn't and is the most probable given the odds of winning. But i did win the lottery. You refuse to assess any of the evidence and reasons i provide. I show you newspaper clippings of my win, neighbors and friends testifying, but you refuse to believe.

Doesn't that seem unreasonable?

[instantc]

So because there is a logically possible alternative explanation then you assume that explanation is true, regardless of the reason and evidence. How isn't that a hasty generalization exactly?

No, I assume that the possible alternative explanation is most probably true because of the reason and evidence, evidence being my experience and knowledge of reality and reason being my ability to apply it to the present assertion.

For example, suppose i claim to have won the lottery 30 years ago but spent all the money. The alternative explanation is that i didn't and is the most probable given the odds of winning. But i did win the lottery. You refuse to assess any of the evidence and reasons i provide. I show you newspaper clippings of my win, neighbors and friends testifying, but you refuse to believe.

That doesn't seem very extraordinary in comparison with suspension of the natural laws, people win the lottery all the time.

Low probability as such doesn't entail extraordinarity, they are two different things. For example, the probability of any ten people winning the lottery in a specific order is equally low to the probability of one person winning the lottery ten times in a row, but the latter is definitely more extraordinary.

[no evidence no belief]

Trimming to the more important parts so I can keep the quality of responses higher...

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.

If you saw the known laws of physics violated before you eyes, would that count? Or would you commit yourself to the looney bin?

If I saw the laws of physics violated before my eyes, say, if I saw a woman sawed in half at a carnival, and then she was actually ok, I'd consider both options:

1) Either I indeed saw the laws of nature being suspended

or

2) I made a mistake, I got conned, it was a magic trick, somebody slipped some LSD in my drink, etc.

Most probably, I'd come to the conclusion that option 2 was accurate, unless osme empirical evidence were to rule that out.

Testimony is accepted by pretty much all philosophers as a valid source of knowledge.

Sure, except for when it directly conflicts with superseding strong contradictory data. If I presented testimony that I saw a bachelor's wife, would you accept that? If not, why not?

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.

How many would it take? Or have i exposed that there is an unreasonable standard you have set?

No number of people claiming to have witnessed a suspension of the laws of physics is by itself sufficient in the absence of empirical data to back up their claim.

Millions saw David Copperfield make the statue of liberty disappear. So?

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.

How many contemporary historians attest to Caesars assassination? Do you believe the non-contemporary accounts? if so then contemporary accounts are not the issue for establishing historical events. If contemporary accounts aren't as issue then why do you demand that the accounts testifying to the resurrection be contemporary? That would indicate you have a double standard; a fallacy.

The bar for alleged events which violate the laws of nature is higher than for rare events that do not violate the laws of nature.

"Double standard" is when you apply two different standards to two similar things. It's not when you apply two different standards to two DIFFERENT things.

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?

All the evidence taken together make the case for the resurrection. Just as a bloody knife doesn't prove a murderer guilty. But a bloody knife, finger prints, camera footage, and other combinations of evidence together do prove a murderer guilty. You can cherry pick any one of those evidence and explain why on its own it is insufficient. But you are missing the forest for the trees.

No amount of invalid evidence adds up to anything. If the blood on the knife turns out to be chicken blood, if the fingerprints turn out to be too fragmented to give a positive ID, if the video footage appears to be doctored, then you got nothing.

you're not adding pennies until you have a dollar. You're adding counterfeit pennies. They will not add up to any mount of money, no matter how many you have.

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.

Letys recap what i actually said:

1) Testimony: the gospels, paul, and others.

Hearsay, highly unreliable testimony written decades later by people who had never met anybody who had ever met anybody who had ever met Jesus.

2) Independent historians: Josephus. There are other historians but they only testify to to the beliefs of Christians.

So does Josephus! Here is what he says: "those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day". He is just reporting what the apostles allegedly claimed. If Charlie Sheen says "I am an extraterrestrial" and CNN reports "Sheen claims he is an extraterrestrial", the CNN report of what Sheen said does not count as an independent account of the events. They are just repeating what Charlie said. CNN would report Sheen's words irrespective of whether Sheen is truthful or untruthful in his claim.

3) rapid growth

Average growth.

4) Followers willing to die

They were not. One of the apostles pretended not to know Jesus when his life was on the line, and the other outright betrayed him. As far as ability to inspire his followers to die for the cause, Jesus has NOTHING on Bin Laden, Hitler, and the leader of any one of several suicide cults.

All of these facts combines make for a powerful argument to the truth of the resurrection. You can cherry pick any one of those and explain why on its own it is insufficient. But you are missing the forest for the trees.

It's not a forest if there aren't any trees in it! Every one of your arguments is not just weak alone but helpful overall. Each of your claims is patently false. There is no eyewitness accounts, there are no independent historical accounts, there is no inexplicable growth of the religion, there are no followers willing to die for their beliefs.

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0

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!

It takes far more than that.

You have to have an unlikely string of events all multiplied together:
1) all the writers of the gospels lying

Yes, a half dozen people lying.

2) Josephus a reputable historian, lying

He doesn't have to be lying. He is simply reporting what people are claiming. If CNN reports that Charlie Sheen claims he is an alien, CNN is not claiming Charlie Sheen is an alien. CNN and Josephus are simply reporting what is being claimed.

3) other reputable historians lying about Christians and their beliefs

There is no dispute that early christians believed what they believed. The Gospel authors made a claim (an untrue claim), people believed that claim, and historians reported that people believed that claim. The historians are perfectly honest, the people believing the claims are perfectly honest.

4) A rapidly expanding Christianity converting large amounts of people that are all in on the lie

Nope. They don't have to be in on the lie. All the average Joes who believed Bush when he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction weren't "in on the lie". They just believed a statement that actually turned out to be untrue. If I tell you a lie and you believe me, that doesn't make you a liar. You understand that, right?

5) Followers dying for things they believe are lies.

Original apostles weren't willing to die for their beliefs. They abandoned ship at the first sign of trouble, at least two of them did. The subsequent believers who may or may not have been willing to die for their beliefs, most probably honestly held those beliefs. They genuinely believed the testimony of the Gospel authors. That doesn't mean those authors reported the truth.

What is the probability that all those things happening? Seems its more of a miracle to believe all that than to reject what the evidence, people, historians, and our rational minds tell us.

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 =0

Every one of your arguments above is demonstrably false/meaningless/irrelevant.

All that one has to assume for all of this to make sense without resorting to the supernatural is this: The half dozen people who claim to have seen a corpse fly into the sky.... actually didn't.

That's all it takes.

This assumption of dishonesty takes nothing away form the honesty of the historians who reported that people made those claims, it takes nothing away from the honesty of the populace who were persuaded by these claims, it takes nothing away from the remarkable speed of growth (almost as fast as Scientology), etc.

None of the historical truths about early christianity fail to make sense if we assume the initial claim by a half dozen people is not truthful.

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.

I've asked you several times what "good and reasonable evidence" for a resurrection would be. You've dodged several times. Care to actually take up the challenge? Or does clearly and directly answering reveal a weakness you don't want exposed?

I would need to see a corpse come back to life and fly into the air under laboratory conditions.

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.

Book 18, Chapter 3, section 3, Josephus mentions that Jesus was crucified and then returns from death on the third day.

Nope. Josephus writes that the followers CLAIMED that Jesus came back. That's like CNN reporting that Charlie Sheen claims to be an extraterrestrial.

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?

If the Jesus did resurrect and did fly off into heaven, what type of evidence would you expect? What more could be reasonably provided other than the testimony of believers, of historians, and devotion of believers, and the explosion of converts?

You are right, no more evidence could be provided for an event that happened 2000 years ago. This evidence is clearly insufficient. Tough luck.

Are you saying we don't have any convincing evidence, so we should believe in flying corpses based on insufficient evidence?

You reject the possibility of a resurrection before even considering the evidence.

I am considering the evidence. It's insufficient to counter the overwhelmingly stronger empirical evidence.

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.

People who are tortured will often say anything to stop their torture. The Inquisition tortured Jews and others to admit absurd crimes like having sex with the demons, casting spells, or making a pact with the devil. That early Christians would die from torture without recanting their beliefs tells of the great conviction of their beliefs.

I don't doubt that the Muslims tortured at Gitmo who didn't betray Bin Laden although they could have, and the early Christians subjected to similar treatment were absolutely honest in their beliefs. That doesn't mean their beliefs are accurate. They could be honestly believing things that actually aren't true.

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.

How many people is it reasonable to expect write down such a thing given the time? Literacy was extremely rare. And writing instruments and paper expensive. Oral traditions were the norm. Yet even amongst those odds, 4 gospels were written and survived the test of time.

ONE Gospel was written. The Gospel of Mark. The other three are not original, they are based off of Mark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markan_priority

In any case, 1, 5, 100, 1000. Testimony of the physically impossible is not sufficient to assume the physically impossible.

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.

SO unless you cna personally examine Steve you won't believe it? If Steve died 200 years ago you'd never believe it, no matter what evidence or testimony remains?

The debate just got silly. I'm very close to dropping it. I said that I'd take direct or INDIRECT empirical evidence. You erase the part in which I mention the indirect, and then say "What, you'd only accept direct evidence?".

Man, I said I'd be willing to debate with you, but you have to do so honestly. I'll give you an opportunity to rethink this.

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?

That section of scripture is a known interpolation.

WHAAAAAAAAT????

Are you saying that there are portion of the testimony that is not reliable?

I thought you said that if we assumed that portions of the Gospel were inaccurate the whole of Christianity must be assumed to be a giant conspiracy theory that all believers are in on.

Are you saying that some of the actions and words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels might possibly not be accurate reports of what Jesus actually said and did?

Let me get this straight:

Some portions of the Gospels:Extremely reliable, sufficiently strong evidence to assume that the laws of nature ceased to apply on their basis.
Some other portion of the same Gospels attributed to the same authors, talking about the same person: Just forgeries.

On the one hand you have the theory that everything we know about medicine, biology, chemistry, physics is wrong. On the other hand, you have a book with several demonstrable forgeries, inaccuracies and errors, and all you have to assume that the story of the flying cadaver is one among the several erroneous reports.

Are we done?

[Sonofason]

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.

Wait, you say that sometimes, and unfortunately, that the innocent are found guilty of crimes. How exactly is proving that an innocent man is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt even possible? How can you prove that something false is true. Apparently guilt and innocence have absolutely nothing at all to do with truth.

What exactly do we call evidence that convicts an innocent man?