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?

[WinePusher]

You know what, this is a marginally relevant issue. Let's assume you're right. Let's assume that the Vatican and the very publishers of the Bible are wrong, and you are right. Let's assume that the portions that are irrefutably undeniably forgeries are actually not forgeries, the portions that are irrefutably undeniably mistranslations ("Mary was a virgin") actually aren't mistranslations etc.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that through centuries of editing, copying and translating of written words which arrived to the anonymous author through who knows how many cycles of verbal telling, somehow the words of the witnesses to the events themselves were preserved exactly.

Let's assume that. Just for the sake of argument.

What does that mean: That a half dozen people claim to have seen a corpse fly. That it wasn't a later addition or forgery or mistranslation. That people who actually were there, claim to have seen a corpse fly.

Are you saying that because a half dozen people claim to have seen a corpse fly, therefore we should believe a corpse actually flew?

Are you kidding me? I have said REPEATEDLY that I approach the issue of the resurrection from two separate positions, from a historical perspective and a scientific perspective. As a purely historical event I think the resurrection has been sufficiently substantiated and I've debated this issue in depth with other, more capable users on this site. As a scientific/ontological event then I would agree with you that it is highly unlikely that it happened because it violates the known laws of the natural order and is inconsistent with our experiences. But, my position is that ultimately, we cannot rule out the possibility of miracles and other supernatural occurrences (meaning that miracles are possible).

Here you are talking about nonsense like scientologists, aliens, cultists, santa, mohammed and here I am trying to have a serious discussion about miracles and the natural order. This is a serious topic and deserves a legitimate debate and apparently I'm not going to get it from you.

I am trying to have a serious discussion as well.

I make a valid point. You may choose to address it or ignore it, you may agree with it or not, but it's wrong for you to just laugh it off as nonsense and allege that you are trying to debate on a serious level and I'm not.

This is my point: You agree that if that which overwhelming empirical data shows to be impossible is indeed impossible, then the resurrection didn't happen, right?

You agree that the only way one can contemplate the Resurrection having happened is if you posit for the sake of argument that it is sometimes possible for the laws of nature to be broken and for that which overwhelming empirical evidence shows to be impossible to actually become possible.

Belief in the resurrection of necessity implies belief in the laws of nature being temporarily suspended, right?

Yes. Show that the laws of nature are completely inviolable and you'll have debunked the resurrection, and every single other miracle claim.

Now. If you allow that the laws of nature can be suspended and that physically impossible things can happen, who are you to say that the Resurrection is an example of such an instance, but Mohammed's ascension to the Heavens on a flying horse isn't?

What is the background knowledge of Mohammed's ascension? Does applying the historical critical method to it validate or invalidate it as a historical event? Is there any evidence that proves Mohammed's ascension in heaven to be a sham?

In the case of the resurrection, there is NOTHING you could cite that would disprove it. Producing the remains of the body of Jesus would disprove it, proving Jesus to be a mythical/fictional character would disprove it, there are a host of things that could disprove it and you have nothing other than these fallacious appeals to science. Science has not shown that it's laws are inviolable, so you're argument has no force.

[WinePusher]

Obviously it is possible that Muhammad flew into heaven on a winged horse

Obviously, are you serious? Obviously?

Unproductive one liners like this are discouraged on this site. Did you read any of the rules or guidelines before you joined? Here, if you read this it should drastically improve your debating skills.

Obviously it is possible that Muhammad flew into heaven on a winged horse. . . .

That well sums up the credulity required to believe in religious mythology, whether Christian or Islamic.

Right. I forgot that you ignore huge chunks of other people's posts during debates. All your other arguments were completely off base to begin with so I'm glad to see that you're backing away from them.

[Danmark]

Obviously it is possible that Muhammad flew into heaven on a winged horse

Obviously, are you serious? Obviously?

Unproductive one liners like this are discouraged on this site. Did you read any of the rules or guidelines before you joined? Here, if you read this it should drastically improve your debating skills.

Obviously it is possible that Muhammad flew into heaven on a winged horse. . . .

That well sums up the credulity required to believe in religious mythology, whether Christian or Islamic.

Right. I forgot that you ignore huge chunks of other people's posts during debates. All your other arguments were completely off base to begin with so I'm glad to see that you're backing away from them.

Do you have any argument besides those that rest on false assumptions about other debaters? When you agree that Muhammed flying into heaven on a winged horse is a possibility you have made a clear statement of your credulity when it comes to religious myths. One does not have to be like the Pharisees and issue a pile of empty phrases when a pithy response will do.

[scourge99]

But, my position is that ultimately, we cannot rule out the possibility of miracles and other supernatural occurrences (meaning that miracles are possible).

"possible" is a bit of a weasel word.
I think most atheists and theists both agree that miracles are LOGICALLY possible. That is, miracles don't necessarily violate any laws of logic.

Also, if you are saying miracles violate our understanding of the world (science) because we could be wrong about our understanding of the world, i think atheists and theists both agree too. No one is claiming absolute certainty. But that isn't a very high bar to set. Unicorns, little green men, greek gods, flying horses, big foot, and all sorts of other logically possible things and things that violate our understanding of the world (psychics, levitation, ghosts, magic carpets, genies, etc) could be possible too.

So this business about something being "possible" is a red herring. We both agree that things aren't true merely because they are "possible".

Can we agree on that much?

Now. If you allow that the laws of nature can be suspended and that physically impossible things can happen, who are you to say that the Resurrection is an example of such an instance, but Mohammed's ascension to the Heavens on a flying horse isn't?

What is the background knowledge of Mohammed's ascension?

What is the background knowledge on Jesus's ascension as compared to Muhammad's that makes Jesus's ascension believable but not Muhammad's?

Does applying the historical critical method to it validate or invalidate it as a historical event?

I'm not aware of the mainstream academic community invalidating the claims in the Koran based on the historical critical method. Are you?

If not then why bring it up?

Is there any evidence that proves Mohammed's ascension in heaven to be a sham?

I'm not aware of any indisputable evidence (or any evidence at all) that proves Muhammad's ascension to be a sham. Are you?

In the case of the resurrection, there is NOTHING you could cite that would disprove it.

The type of reasoning you put forth is odd. We don't believe things, especially extraordinary things, merely because they haven't been disproven. Don't you agree? If you do then why do you insist on telling us how Jesus's resurrection can't be disproven? Shouldn't you be showing how its been proven or why it should be believed? But you seem stuck on repeating that we can't disprove it.

Producing the remains of the body of Jesus would disprove it, proving Jesus to be a mythical/fictional character would disprove it, there are a host of things that could disprove it and you have nothing other than these fallacious appeals to science. Science has not shown that it's laws are inviolable, so you're argument has no force.

By your same standards producing the remains of Muhammad or proving Muhammad a myth would disprove Islam. But I'm not aware of any evidence or reason which has done such things. Yet you don't believe in Muhammad. So it appears these reasons you give for disproving jesus aren't actually all that useful because they fail to disprove jesus or Muhammad. Yet you reject Muhammad.

Please be precise: by what method or reasoning do you reject Muhammad and other extraordinary claims but accept Jesus's resurrection and its associated extraordinary claims? I'd like to see a consistent and clear methodology.

[help3434]

What is the background knowledge on Jesus's ascension as compared to Muhammad's that makes Jesus's ascension believable but not Muhammad's?

As far as I am aware no one claimed to be a witness to Muhammad's night journey.

[Goat]

What is the background knowledge on Jesus's ascension as compared to Muhammad's that makes Jesus's ascension believable but not Muhammad's?

As far as I am aware no one claimed to be a witness to Muhammad's night journey.

When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, no one saw him being resurrected either.

There are CLAIMS that some people saw him after he got crucified, but no first hand accounts of that. There are claims, and even first hand accounts of people seeing Elvis after he was dead and buried.

[WinePusher]

Do you have any argument besides those that rest on false assumptions about other debaters?

Yea, next time why don't you read and respond to the entirety of my post instead of snipping out one sentence.

When you agree that Muhammed flying into heaven on a winged horse is a possibility you have made a clear statement of your credulity when it comes to religious myths. One does not have to be like the Pharisees and issue a pile of empty phrases when a pithy response will do.

You brought up a host of points regarding the court of law, historical evidence, miracles, etc. I challenged your reasoning on these points and you ignored everything I wrote. Good job

[WinePusher]

But, my position is that ultimately, we cannot rule out the possibility of miracles and other supernatural occurrences (meaning that miracles are possible).

"possible" is a bit of a weasel word.
I think most atheists and theists both agree that miracles are LOGICALLY possible. That is, miracles don't necessarily violate any laws of logic.

Also, if you are saying miracles violate our understanding of the world (science) because we could be wrong about our understanding of the world, i think atheists and theists both agree too. No one is claiming absolute certainty. But that isn't a very high bar to set. Unicorns, little green men, greek gods, flying horses, big foot, and all sorts of other logically possible things and things that violate our understanding of the world (psychics, levitation, ghosts, magic carpets, genies, etc) could be possible too.

So this business about something being "possible" is a red herring. We both agree that things aren't true merely because they are "possible".

Can we agree on that much?

Yes, obviously something is not true just because it is possible. But from what I have read, most of the arguments against the resurrection are based on this type of fallacious thinking. IE: We've never seen a dead person come back to life therefore the resurrection is impossible. So, the reason why I brought up the issue regarding the possibility of miracles was to refute this absurd argument.

What is the background knowledge of Mohammed's ascension?

What is the background knowledge on Jesus's ascension as compared to Muhammad's that makes Jesus's ascension believable but not Muhammad's?

I don't know anything about Islam or Muhammad so don't ask me. No evidence no belief was the person who originally brought up all these non sequitors. However, I would see the ascension of Jesus into heaven as a logical consequence of the resurrection. If Jesus did rise from the dead and his claim to be the son of God was vindicated, the ascension necessarily follows along with the other miracle claim in the New Testament.

Does applying the historical critical method to it validate or invalidate it as a historical event?

I'm not aware of the mainstream academic community invalidating the claims in the Koran based on the historical critical method. Are you? If not then why bring it up?

I didn't bring it up. I was responding to another user who brought up all these issues. I haven't studied the Quran.

In the case of the resurrection, there is NOTHING you could cite that would disprove it.

The type of reasoning you put forth is odd. We don't believe things, especially extraordinary things, merely because they haven't been disproven. Don't you agree? If you do then why do you insist on telling us how Jesus's resurrection can't be disproven? Shouldn't you be showing how its been proven or why it should be believed? But you seem stuck on repeating that we can't disprove it.

The reason why I am bringing up the fact that it can't be disproven is to show that the resurrection isn't some far fetched, unbelievable fantasy that nonbelievers are making it out to be. And yes, I've already had many debates on this site regarding the historical evidence for the resurrection.

Producing the remains of the body of Jesus would disprove it, proving Jesus to be a mythical/fictional character would disprove it, there are a host of things that could disprove it and you have nothing other than these fallacious appeals to science. Science has not shown that it's laws are inviolable, so you're argument has no force.

By your same standards producing the remains of Muhammad or proving Muhammad a myth would disprove Islam. But I'm not aware of any evidence or reason which has done such things. Yet you don't believe in Muhammad. So it appears these reasons you give for disproving jesus aren't actually all that useful because they fail to disprove jesus or Muhammad. Yet you reject Muhammad.

Please be precise: by what method or reasoning do you reject Muhammad and other extraordinary claims but accept Jesus's resurrection and its associated extraordinary claims? I'd like to see a consistent and clear methodology.

Actually, I'm willing to look at the evidence for Muhammad if you'd be so kind as to present it here. Honestly, this is not an academic interest of mine nor is it the religion that I belong to. I have looked at the evidence regarding Jesus and I would like to see if the tale of Muhammad can stand up to it. I'll present the evidence below, but I really doubt that Muhammad's ascension has evidence that is equal to or greater than the evidence for the resurrection. You don't have to feel obligated to respond to every single point:

The Authenticity of the Resurrection narratives in the Gospels
The criterion of dissimilarity states that the probability of an alleged event increases if the written content is dissimilar to the authors agenda. As in to say, I would not write down something that harms my credibility unless it actually happened. Within the Gospel narratives, we have two things that meet this criterion: the initial discovery of the tomb by women and the tomb being provided by a member of the Sanhedrin, the council that condemned Jesus to death.

The Empty Tomb
Before we talk about the implications of the empty tomb, let's first establish that the tomb was actually empty cause I've seen some atheists deny this. Evidence that the tomb was empty includes: the impossibility of the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in the region of Judea had the tomb not actually been empty and the presupposition of the empty tomb by Jewish Polemic. The tomb being empty implies that Jesus body was not there, which is consistent with the claim that he rose from the dead.

The Genuine Claim of the Disciples to have seen Jesus risen from the dead
After Jesus' death and burial something sparked a strong conviction in the disciples that lead to their strong evangelism despite persecution by both Jews and Romans. The persecution and marginalization of Christians confirms the genuiness and sincerity of their claim, and apart from the resurrection, it remains a mystery as to why the disciples decided to preach and spread their message in the face of persecution.

The Conversion of Paul to Christianity
First, let's present the facts. It's a fact that Paul was a persecutor of Christians, it's also a fact that Paul later became a strong advocate for Christianity. Paul explains that he converted due to a personal experience with the risen Jesus. Again, apart from the resurrection Pauls conversion to Christianity remains a mystery.

My questions for McCulloch are fairly simple:

1) Explain what happened to the physical body of Jesus
2) Explain the cause of early christianity
3) Explain the cause of the conversion of Paul to Christianity

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=15790

[Danmark]

Do you have any argument besides those that rest on false assumptions about other debaters?

Yea, next time why don't you read and respond to the entirety of my post instead of snipping out one sentence.

When you agree that Muhammed flying into heaven on a winged horse is a possibility you have made a clear statement of your credulity when it comes to religious myths. One does not have to be like the Pharisees and issue a pile of empty phrases when a pithy response will do.

You brought up a host of points regarding the court of law, historical evidence, miracles, etc. I challenged your reasoning on these points and you ignored everything I wrote. Good job

Were you go wrong is in dismissing entirely the process used in a court of law. The rules of evidence and the burden of proof provide a Centuries long standard for getting as close to the truth as we can.
The alternative leaves us with acceptance of Mother Goose fairy tales, 'winged horses' flying people to heaven, flying carpets, and reanimated corpses as 'possibilities' no matter how improbable.

In a court of law, mere possibilities are not recognized. They do not constitute evidence that should even be considered, let alone be persuasive.

When you combine 'mere possibilities' including winged horses and reanimated corpses ascending into 'heaven' with the multiple conflicting stories not contemporaneously recorded, but compiled up to 70 or more years after the fact, you arrive at 'possibilities' that no serious, rational person should take seriously.

That you consider such obvious fairy tales as 'possible' is instructive.

[Danmark]

The reason why I am bringing up the fact that it can't be disproven is to show that the resurrection isn't some far fetched, unbelievable fantasy that nonbelievers are making it out to be.

That's exactly what it is, a 'far fetched, unbelievable fantasy,' that forces you to include people flying to 'heaven' on winged horses as an equally valid possibility. That is the problem with accepting such nonsense as 'possible.' It forces you to accept other nonsense as 'possible.' Where is the limit of such fantastic beliefs? Why not accept astrology or phrenology as 'possible' and therefore worthy of consideration?

You go on to talk about the empty tomb, yet fail to mention the gospels disagree with each other about the details. The tomb being empty, by itself proves nothing. The key question is why and how did it become empty.

You mention Paul's delirium produced after the fact and self serving 'claim' of a vision. This issue has been debated ad naseum, but the fact remains that 'Paul' claimed his vision immediately after he had been bedridden and dehydrated for days, IF you accept his version of events.

Any trial lawyer worth his salt would have a field day putting 'Paul' on the stand.
First question the lawyer would have fun with, is 'What's your name?'

It would all go down hill after that, with snickers of laughter from the jury.