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]

Winepusher, would you care to address no evidence no belief's points in post 2397? There are some serious objections there that I think really undermine your position.

No, I have no interest in debating users who are hopelessly misinformed about the facts. But, I will probably take time out of my week to address more capable/knowledgable/serious debaters like scourge99 (if he chooses to reply) and Tired of the Nonsense's post.

[WinePusher]

It's not the frequency of miracle claims that is the problem. It is the total lack of verifiable bonafide and totally undeniable supernaturally originated miracles that is the problem. We have not a single one to point to and examine. This fact certainly DOES affect the probability of the resurrection.

True. Humans, being fallible, are unable to know things to a perfect degree of certainty. So anything COULD be true. Humans ARE able to know things to a very high degree of certainty however, and one of the things we can see very clearly is that while anything COULD be true, not everything IS true.

Both of your statements are compelling and they do make sense, but I simply do not agree with your conclusion. What we know is that miracles are possible because the natural order is not immutable. What we know is that while miracles are highly improbable when taken at face value, the probability of their occurence can be increased when you take background knowledge and circumstancial evidence into account. The resurrection is a miracle, and this fact alone makes it highly improbable to have occured. But, when you take other factors into account it makes belief in it justified. The background knowledge of this event is that God raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus did not spontaenously resurrect of his own accord, rather a purposeful deity intentionally raised Jesus from the dead. This reduces the improbability of the resurrection. Additionally, the circumstancial evidence I listed in a previous post also reduces the improbability of the resurrection.

c) Therefore, the resurrection is a reasonable conclusion to make if and only if the background knowledge and circumstantial evidence supports it (which it does).

Let's see... no one at all recorded the resurrection at the time it was supposed to have occurred. That IS rather pertinent background information that needs to be considered.

No one recorded it, you're right. So what? While no one recorded it was certainly preached throughout Palestine at the time it occured and, subsequently, the entirety of the Roman Empire.

[Student]

[Replying to WinePusher]

Your post appears to me, to be self contradictory.

On the one hand you say that

None of these people mentioned here were explicitly raised by God.

But then, on the other hand you say that Jesus claimed to be God and provided Mark 14:61-62; & John 14:6 as evidence supporting that claim.

So, if Jesus is God as is claimed, then, the Widow of Nain's son, Jairus' 12-year-old daughter, and Lazarus, were all, raised by God.

Conversely if, as you say, none the three were raised by God, then it is a tacit admission that Jesus was just another human, and not God.

Which is it?

[no evidence no belief]

....
The fact that we don't have many reliable reports of dead people coming back to life means nothing. Christianity claims that one person rose from the dead, not many people.
....

That is incorrect. There are many Biblical claims of people being brought back to life.
Widow of Zarephath's son (I Ki 17:17-24) raised by Elijah

The Shunamite's son (II Ki 4:20-37) raised by Elisha

The man tossed into Elisha's tomb (II Ki 13:21)

Widow of Nain's son (Lk 7:11-16) raised by Jesus during a funeral procession as they were carrying the casket to the cemetery.

Synagogue ruler Jairus' 12-year-old daughter (Mk 5:35-43)

Lazarus, who had been dead for four days.

Tabitha also known as Dorcas (Acts 9:36-41) raised by Peter

Eutychus (Acts 20:7-12) raised by Paul after Paul literally bored him to death. OK, I just wanted to say "bored to death" Actually Eutychus may just have fallen asleep causing him to fall. Paul said 'there is still life in him.'

Then of course we have in (Mt 27:51-53) the talk of tombs opening and the bodies of the 'saints' rising from the dead.

Thus it is inaccurate to claim "The resurrection is the event that vindicated Jesus' claim to be the son of God."

Thomas Sheehan* makes a strong case that Jesus never claimed to be God or co-equal with God. As I recall Jesus most frequently referred to himself as the 'Son of Man.'

________________________
*
http://infidels.org/library/modern/thomas_sheehan/

This is becoming much more theologically oriented, but I would say that you have to differentiate between all these resusitation stories and the resurrection. Look at all these biblical stories of resusitation, you have a person being revived back to life by another human being. On the otherhand, the claim being made about Jesus is that he was raised back to life by God himself. None of these people mentioned here were explicitly raised by God. Unlike all these other biblical stories you mention, God himself raised Jesus from the dead. As for your idea that Jesus never claimed to be God:

Mark 14:61-62
But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One? I am, said Jesus. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Ah ah ah!

Premise 1: Jesus is God
Premise 2: A bunch of people were raised from the dead by Jesus
Conclusion: These people were not raised from the dead by God

Ah ah ah ah ah!

How does he do it? ah ah ah! How does he manage to pack such a stupendous amount of hilarious self-contradiction in so little space. It just gets better with every post. OMG my belly hurts from laughing too hard.

Winepusher is Jesus's resurrection a suspension of the laws of nature relating to the reversal of death, contingent upon the existence of God?

Is the coming back to life of every other Bible character also a suspension of the laws of nature relating to the reversal of death, contingent upon the existence of God? If it's not, are you saying that it's possible for people to come back from the dead without it being a suspension of the laws of nature contingent on the existence of God?

In any case, people come back from the dead rather frequently in Biblical times, don't they?

Resurrections were sort of the iPhone of the 1st century.

[no evidence no belief]

Winepusher, would you care to address no evidence no belief's points in post 2397? There are some serious objections there that I think really undermine your position.

No, I have no interest in debating users who are hopelessly misinformed about the facts. But, I will probably take time out of my week to address more capable/knowledgable/serious debaters like scourge99 (if he chooses to reply) and Tired of the Nonsense's post.

Don't worry Boosh, with the volume of activity I've had on this thread, I've began to spot patterns to the ways theists debate.

Winepusher is on the exact same path Goose was.

He walked into the thread like he owned it, had several exchanges with me, got his clocks cleaned out, diverted to debating with other people on my thread and completely ignored me. His next step will be to create separate threads that discuss the exact same topic in the hope that I will not follow him there too, and eventually he'll just go away.

I've seen it before. It's the theist equivalent to admitting defeat.

[no evidence no belief]

The background knowledge of this event is that God raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus did not spontaenously resurrect of his own accord, rather a purposeful deity intentionally raised Jesus from the dead. This reduces the improbability of the resurrection.

This is what you're saying:
Of course Jesus didn't raise from the dead of his own accord, that's impossible. He was raised from he dead by a purposeful deity.

That's like saying this:
Of course Spiderman can't shoot webs from his wrists of his own accord. that's impossible. He can shoot webs from his wrists because he was bit by a radioactive spider.

That's like saying this:
Of course Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer can't fly of his own accord, that's impossible. He can fly because he is under the power of Santa's magic.

That's like saying this:
Of course Frodo can't become invisible on hs own accord, that's impossible. He can become invisible because he's wearing a magic ring.

The valid evidence for God, radioactive spiders, Santa and magic rings is just as scant as the evidence for the resurrection, radioactive spiders, Rudolph and invisible hobbits.

You can't say that an invalid claim is rendered valid by the support of another invalid claim.

You remember the Laurel & Hardy sketch where one is on a ladder painting the ceiling and says "hey, go ahead and take away the ladder", and the other says "But aren't you gonna fall?", "No you idiot, I'll remain attached to the paintbrush".

"Hey, go ahead and take away any valid evidence for the Resurrection"
"But isn't the claim going to fail?"
"No you idiot, it will remain attached to the 'God Did It' claim".

Hardy is not attached to the ceiling, he is attached to the paintbrush, but the paintbrush is not attached to the ceiling either. That's why they both fall.

The resurrection claim is not attached to reality, it is attached to the "God exists" claim, but the "God exists" claim is not attached to reality either. That's why they both fail.

Additionally, the circumstancial evidence I listed in a previous post also reduces the improbability of the resurrection.

Does this theory that circumstantial evidence substantially reduces the improbability of claims that violate the laws of nature apply to ALL claims, or just to the ones you like?

If I present a claim for which there is overwhelming evidence against, but for which the circumstantial evidence for is stronger than for the resurrection, will you believe that claim?

If so, I have a teleportation to a spaceship to sell you. It comes with complementary rat poison and vodka.

If not, you've demonstrated that you yourself realize the core absurdity of your "circumstantial evidence outweighs overwhelming empirical evidence" argument.

[instantc]

If I present a claim for which there is overwhelming evidence against, but for which the circumstantial evidence for is stronger than for the resurrection, will you believe that claim?

If so, I have a teleportation to a spaceship to sell you. It comes with complementary rat poison and vodka.

What's the evidence against the idea that there's a spaceship waiting for us in the afterlife?

[Goat]

If I present a claim for which there is overwhelming evidence against, but for which the circumstantial evidence for is stronger than for the resurrection, will you believe that claim?

If so, I have a teleportation to a spaceship to sell you. It comes with complementary rat poison and vodka.

What's the evidence against the idea that there's a spaceship waiting for us in the afterlife?

The fact that Heaven's gate members killed themselves to get one that was trailing behind the comet Hale Bop. They wouldn't have killed themselves for a lie, now would they?

[instantc]

If I present a claim for which there is overwhelming evidence against, but for which the circumstantial evidence for is stronger than for the resurrection, will you believe that claim?

If so, I have a teleportation to a spaceship to sell you. It comes with complementary rat poison and vodka.

What's the evidence against the idea that there's a spaceship waiting for us in the afterlife?

The fact that Heaven's gate members killed themselves to get one that was trailing behind the comet Hale Bop. They wouldn't have killed themselves for a lie, now would they?

I was curios about the evidence against that claim. Against the resurrection we have the observed regularity of the natural laws, but do we have evidence against this kind of an afterlife fantasy?

[Danmark]

....
The fact that we don't have many reliable reports of dead people coming back to life means nothing. Christianity claims that one person rose from the dead, not many people.
....

That is incorrect. There are many Biblical claims of people being brought back to life.
Widow of Zarephath's son (I Ki 17:17-24) raised by Elijah

The Shunamite's son (II Ki 4:20-37) raised by Elisha

The man tossed into Elisha's tomb (II Ki 13:21)

Widow of Nain's son (Lk 7:11-16) raised by Jesus during a funeral procession as they were carrying the casket to the cemetery.

Synagogue ruler Jairus' 12-year-old daughter (Mk 5:35-43)

Lazarus, who had been dead for four days.

Tabitha also known as Dorcas (Acts 9:36-41) raised by Peter

Eutychus (Acts 20:7-12) raised by Paul after Paul literally bored him to death. OK, I just wanted to say "bored to death" Actually Eutychus may just have fallen asleep causing him to fall. Paul said 'there is still life in him.'

Then of course we have in (Mt 27:51-53) the talk of tombs opening and the bodies of the 'saints' rising from the dead.

Thus it is inaccurate to claim "The resurrection is the event that vindicated Jesus' claim to be the son of God."

Thomas Sheehan* makes a strong case that Jesus never claimed to be God or co-equal with God. As I recall Jesus most frequently referred to himself as the 'Son of Man.'

________________________
*
http://infidels.org/library/modern/thomas_sheehan/

This is becoming much more theologically oriented, but I would say that you have to differentiate between all these resusitation stories and the resurrection. Look at all these biblical stories of resusitation, you have a person being revived back to life by another human being. On the otherhand, the claim being made about Jesus is that he was raised back to life by God himself. None of these people mentioned here were explicitly raised by God. Unlike all these other biblical stories you mention, God himself raised Jesus from the dead. As for your idea that Jesus never claimed to be God:

Mark 14:61-62
But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One? I am, said Jesus. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Are you claiming that when Elijah and others brought people back to life they performed their miracles under their own power, not God's?

I agree the gospels put these words into Jesus mouth. But a claim to be the Messiah was not a claim to be God. There were many who claimed to be the Messiah. It is only in Christianity that we see this claim that the 'Messiah' is god himself. 'Messiah' meant 'anointed' or 'the anointed one.' It refers to a ritual involving anointing by laying on holy oil. The word is used throughout the Hebrew Bible in reference to a wide variety of individuals and objects.

Even if we consider the words of John as historical [John of course is the most theologically oriented gospel] these words mean that Jesus is a path to god, not as god. The words show a distinction between Jesus and God, not a union.

Jesus makes this distinction clear when he says Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone."