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?

[no evidence no belief]

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.

Ok, good. Let's treat the two separately.

As a purely historical event I think the resurrection has been sufficiently substantiated

I happen to disagree, but I'll concede that for the sake of argument.

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).

Right. we are 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that events that egregiously violate the laws of nature as we understand them cannot happen, but we are not 100% sure.

There is a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that the corpse of Jesus flew into the sky, that Mohammed flew into the sky, that Zeus throws lightning bolts from the sky, that an invisible dragon flew up in the sky, etc, etc, etc.

You are correct. We are as sure as can be humanly possible that these things never happened, but there is still a 0.00000000000000000000000001% chance that we are wrong.

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.

Yup if I can find a way to get us from 99.9999999999999999999999999999% certain to 100% certain that the laws of nature are completely inviolable, I will have completely debunked miracle claims. At that moment, I will also have completely debunked Santa claims, invisible dragon claims, fairy claims and Spiderman claims.

Until I prove with 100% certainty that the laws of nature are inviolable, however silly these claims may sound, there technically still is a tiny chance that they are real.

Is your position that if a claim has a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of being true, we should believe it, and only stop believing it when we are 100% sure it's not true?

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?

I don't know how Mohammed's ascension compares to Jesus's ascension as far as historical evidence goes. I do know for sure that the historical evidence for Heaven's Gate cultists being willing to die for their beliefs is conclusive. It DEFINITELY happened. The scientific evidence for it is close to nil, just like for Jesus and Mohammed, but the historical evidence for it is very very strong.

So, the scientific evidence for Mohammed's ascension, for Jesus's ascension and for Heaven's Gate cultist's ascension are all extreeeeeemely weak, but the historical evidence for the Heaven's Gate cultists' ascension is SIGNIFICANTLY stronger than for Mohammed and Jesus.

By your method, do we therefore conclude that however unlikely the three ascensions are (given that they go against the laws of nature), it is more likely that the Heaven's Gate ascension is real, because the historical evidence for it is strongest?

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

No it wouldn't. If the laws of nature don't apply, it's totally possible that Jesus raised from the dead, ascended to heaven, and then God supernaturally caused a clone of Jesus's corpse to materialize at the tomb, as part of a mysterious plan beyond our understanding. If we start from the assumptions that the laws of have been suspended, no scenario, however unlikely is impossible and no amount of evidence allows us to rule out a supernatural event

, proving Jesus to be a mythical/fictional character would disprove it

Nope. All the evidence for Jesus being fictional could have been supernaturally planted by God has part of a mysterious plan beyond our comprehension, meaning that even if the evidence for Jesus being fictional seemed 100% conclusive, it would actually not be. The evidence points conclusively to Superman being fictional, but if that which is impossible is possible, then it's possible that Superman is simultaneously fictional and real. By virtue of some magic we don't understand and which is impossible but nonetheless possible. Ditto for Jesus.

there are a host of things that could disprove it

Name one that I can't prove you wrong on.

Science has not shown that it's laws are inviolable, so you're argument has no force.

Right. We are 99.999999999999999999999999999999% sure, not 100% sure, that corpses, horses and the souls of suicidal Heaven's Gate cultists can't fly.

Given that, what seems more reasonable to you, to operate under the tentative assumption that corpses, horses and the souls of suicidal Heaven's Gate cultists can't fly based on the 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999% probability that they can't fly, or to operate under the assumption that corpses, horses and the souls of suicidal Heaven's Gate cultists CAN fly, based on the 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001% probability that they can fly?

[no evidence no belief]

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.

It's just a belief that requires the assumption that empirical medical, chemical, biological, physical data that we are 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure is right, is actually fundamentally wrong.

If that's not far-fetched then I dare you to present a belief that is.

[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?

Yes, obviously something is not true just because it is possible.

Hooray. Some common ground.

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.

There are bad atheist arguments and bad theist arguments. I think the argument that miracles are impossible is a bad one. I don't think most intelligent atheists say such things. What i think they say, is something more like this:
(a) We've never had reliable reports of a dead person come back to life in such a manner or similar manner
(b) the resurrection contradicts our understanding of how the world works
(c) therefore the resurrection is not a reasonable conclusion to make based on ancient documents.

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.

That does not follow.

If i make miraculous predictions of the future or perform magical feats in front of you, would you become credulous to ANYTHING i say or tell you? Even if Jesus magically rose from the dead or performed magic healings, that doesn't logically necessitate that anything he says is true. His claims don't suddenly become more credible or reasonable. His claims, every one of them, stand on their own merits. To believe his claims because his previous claims have been shown as true is gullibility and to engage in fallacious thinking. Not that i think Jesus is a conman, but this sounds a lot like confidence tricks which are used by conmen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick

Our emotions and gut feelings sometimes lead us astray from better judgement. One must remain vigilant by sticking to the facts and recognizing faulty reasoning. And that means not becoming credulous.

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.

A man performing SUPERNATURAL healings, walking on water, and MAGICALLY rising from the dead and subsequently FLYING into the sky is not "far-fetched"? If that isn't an extraordinary tale, I don't know what is! Surely you can sympathize that such tales, to those who don't already believe they are true, are extraordinary.

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.

I'm unaware of historians using the criterion of embarrassment in other works to establish the historicity of an account. It seems that only religious scholars who argue for jesus' existence put such heavy stock in the usefulness of the criterion of embarrassment. Is it just a coincidence that historians do not use the criterion of embarrassment as some major sticking point for historicity or is this an example of some Christian scholars trying to put lipstick on a pig? It seems to me its the latter.

Furthermore, the criterion of embarrassment sets up a false dichotomy. The only options aren't:
1) its probably true because its embarrassing
Or
2) someone made it up.

That's an argument from a lack of imagination.

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.

Plenty of people die for their beliefs. Jim Jones, Heavens Gate, Joseph Smith, and many Mormons. Arguing that people died or were persecuted for their beliefs therefore the beliefs MUST be true or are more likely true is very very poor reasoning. It does not follow.

The Conversion of Paul to Christianity
First, let's present the facts. It's a fact that Paul was a persecutor of Christians,

Its a fact? Why? Because Paul says so?

Once again, you are assuming that the claims within a story are true or likely true because they are internally consistent or because the author says so. If you read another testimony, do you simply accept the word of the author on mere assertion?

1) Explain what happened to the physical body of Jesus

3) Explain the cause of the conversion of Paul to Christianity

I don't know. Its a story.
What happened to the body of Muhammad if he didn't fly into the sky on a winged horse?
What happened to Buddha if he didn't reach enlightenment and transcend?
What happened to the Golden Plates of Joseph Smith if they weren't taken by the angel Moroni?
What happened to the spaceship behind the comet Hale-Bop if the Heaven's Gate believer's souls didn't travel there and onto heaven in a spaceship?

Just because a story has a storyline doesn't mean its actually true or MUST have some knowable explanation. Just like there doesn't have to be an explanation or a story behind what happened to the Elder Wand in Harry Potter. Over and over again it seems you are simply ASSUMING the conclusions of your preferred religion rather than assessing the evidence and reason on its own merits.

2) Explain the cause of early christianity

A reasonable explanation is that the same thing as Mormonism, Islam, and other religions. Religions grow and spread at different rates. Sometimes quickly like Mormonism and Islam. Their spread has ZERO RELEVANCE to their truth.

[no evidence no belief]

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.

That is a laughable proposition.

If I claimed "I have photographic memory, I'm a billionaire, I won the marathon, my IQ is in the top 0.01 percentile, I was a close personal friend of Nelson Mandela, I've jammed on guitar with Paul McCartney and I've had sex with Naomi Campbell and Julia Roberts at the same time" and ONE of those extraordinary claims turns out to be true, it does NOT, quote "necessarily follow" that all my other claims are true as well.

How in the world could it possibly occur to you to say that?

[no evidence no belief]

The criterion of dissimilarity states that the probability of an alleged event increases if the written content is dissimilar to the authors agenda.

Right, except it was totally the agenda of the anonymous authors of the Gospels to describe Jesus as the Son of God, wasn't it?

The Gospels were written 30 to 90 years after Jesus's death by anonymous authors that never met anybody who had ever met anybody who had ever met Jesus. The Gospels were written right as Christianity was becoming a powerful movement, and those at the head of it would have had tremendous monetary, political and social incentive to cement their position of power and authority. Thus it would absolutely have been in their interest to make the Jesus narrative as appealing to the masses as possible, by exaggerating portions of the story and making other portions up entirely.

Saying that Jesus was supernatural was NOT contrary or dissimilar to the authors' agenda. It was CENTRAL AND VITAL to the author's agenda of cementing their power as the leaders of a budding religion and massive social movement.

As weak and unnecessary as your argument is in any case, if one chooses to waste a few minutes looking at it, it becomes clear that it it points towards the already overwhelmingly well supported hypothesis that corpses can't fly, not against it.

Are we done? Are YOU done?

[help3434]

The Gospels were written 30 to 90 years after Jesus's death by anonymous authors that never met anybody who had ever met anybody who had ever met Jesus.

That is quite a bold and unsupported claim. Why are you making this claim?

[help3434]

[Replying to post 2379 by no evidence no belief]

This there any evidence that the Gospel writers gained tremendous monetary, political and social gains or cemented their position of power and authority by writing the Gospels? It seems like you going out on a limb and speculating here.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to help3434]

This there any evidence that the Gospel writers gained tremendous monetary, political and social gains or cemented their position of power and authority by writing the Gospels? It seems like you going out on a limb and speculating here.

Acts 4
[33] And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
[34] Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
[35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
[36] And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
[37] Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Being a revered holy man has always been a very lucrative profession if one is able to round up enough of a "flock" to make it work. A fact not lost on "holy men" right down to this very day, the most successful of which do very well for themselves indeed.

[Danmark]

[Replying to help3434]

This there any evidence that the Gospel writers gained tremendous monetary, political and social gains or cemented their position of power and authority by writing the Gospels? It seems like you going out on a limb and speculating here.

Acts 4
[33] And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
[34] Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
[35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
[36] And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
[37] Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Being a revered holy man has always been a very lucrative profession if one is able to round up enough of a "flock" to make it work. A fact not lost on "holy men" right down to this very day, the most successful of which do very well for themselves indeed.

For some reason I cannot explain I'd never thought of this before. Thanks. Those of us who were raised in the church have been fed the line so often that there was no motive or any reason for the writers of the NT to make any of this up, that I guess it never occurred to me that this argument is a crock of goose grease. When you juxtapose the first Christian writers and leaders with the very well paid TV evangelists of today it really clears things for me.

Just one example among many:

Private jets, 13 mansions and a $100,000 mobile home just for the dogs: Televangelists 'defrauded tens of million of dollars from Christian network'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2nBgtFFbH

[no evidence no belief]

The Gospels were written 30 to 90 years after Jesus's death by anonymous authors that never met anybody who had ever met anybody who had ever met Jesus.

That is quite a bold and unsupported claim. Why are you making this claim?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics

Please see the link above for a definition and description of the discipline of mathematics. It is useful for doing things like calculating the number of years that elapsed between the death of Jesus comparing it with the life expectancy of people at the time, and obtain an estimate of the minimum number of times the story must have been retold before it was reportedly written down.

In order to handle the calculation, you will need to be familiar with the following subsets of mathematics:
Addition,
Subtraction,
Multiplication,
Division

Here are the numbers: Jesus died in 30AD, John was written in 100AD, the average life expectancy at the time was probably 35, and the average age at which people had children was probably 16.

Using addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, can you calculate the minimum number of times the story must have been retold before getting to the person who wrote it down?

If you are stuck, I'll give you a hint, in exchange for 100 tokens