Was the Resurrection a true, literal and physical event?

[Goose]

I'm not sure what has happened to the other thread. I can not see the second page or my most recent post. I was unable to edit my last post. I suspect it got hacked. So I've started a continuation thread here. If the the other thread is restored perhaps admin can close this one and move the posts back to the original. I wasn't sure what else to do.

[Goose]

Here is my edited last post from the original thread

Goose's post 4 of a possible, but probably not necessary, 10

Well, I'm not sure what the point of continuing is. Zzyzx was the one that challenge me to a head-to-head titled:
"Was the Resurrection a true, literal and physical event?" He then agreed to simply make this "Was the Resurrection True?" I affirm the positive and Zzyzx the negative. However, in his last post Zzyzx has conceded the following:

Zzyzx does NOT seek to show that the “resurrection” is objectively false – realizing that proving non-existence or non-occurrence is a fool’s errand

It seems like Zzyzx has finally woken up and smelt the coffee. If you don't seek to show the Rez objectively false WHY did you challenge me to debate it's truth? I've provided a methodology used by historians for showing the Rez true. Zzyzx has failed to comment on the methodology or offer a clear method of his own. He has also failed to address the evidence and arguments presented in post one of ten and failed to offer any evidence for his own case. I'm always reluctant to claim victory in a debate but what else should I conclude here?


At any rate, we'll continue. Much of Zzyzx's last post is more of the same tired rhetoric and covering old ground. I'm going to trim it down to the relevant parts.

Some new observations:

8. Zzyzx is confusing "convincing" with truth. He seems to think that if I can't "convince" him then the Rez is untrue. However, this thread is "Was the Rez true?" It is NOT "Is the Rez convincing to Sceptics like Zzyzx?" We don't determine truth by whether or not we can "convince" another person - that would make truth subjective. The rational person knows that there are objective truths. If something is true it is objectively true whether or not another person says they are "convinced" or not. I have offered an objective methodology for determining truth. Zzyzx seems to think truth is subjective. Whether Zzyzx or any one else is "convinced" is irrelevant. The Rez is either true or false.

9. Zzyzx's main argument for the explanation of the evidence.

As stated repeatedly, in my opinion, the “best explanation” for the “resurrection” is that it is a fable or legend.

Your fable and legend theory falls flat under scrutiny. Paul was writing far too early for fact to have been replaced by legend and fable. Paul was writing with in twenty years and he affirms the Rez. In fact, even some critical and sceptical scholars (I can provide a list if you wish) concede the creedal passages found in Paul's writings such as First Corinthians 15:1-8 originated with in only months of the crucifixion. Even if we use later dating for the Gospels from 70AD to 100AD it is still too early to have fact entirely replaced by fable. Your fable and legend theory is further obliterated by the lack of explanatory power. Why would the writers propagate and embellish legends and fables that would potentially put themselves and other prospective converts into persecution and even harm's way. Your theory fails to answer this. Also, fables and legends are highly unlikely to convince Paul, an enemy of the church, and James a sceptic. You need to present additional theories to account for why these men converted.

10. Zzyzx has finally given us a definition of what he means by verify - “to establish truth, accuracy, or reality”.

I consider verification to be “to establish truth, accuracy or reality”. Typically that requires “convergence of evidence” – information drawn from a variety of independent (not associated), impartial (if possible) sources

At long last we find out what Zzyzx means by "verified." Now let's apply that to the existence of King Tut. Can Zzyzx establish the truth, accuracy or reality that Tut existed using information drawn from a variety of independent (not associated), impartial (if possible) sources? Let's see if he can. It's his criterion he is requesting of the Rez. He should demonstrate that it can be applied to other historical events such as the existence of King Tut with out failing the existence of King Tut, something Zyzx believes with "no doubt." I would like to see him apply this criterion and method to see if Zzyzx can "verify" the existence of King Tut. This will confirm whether or not Zzyzx employs a double standard. I think he does.

11. Zzyzx's argument over the lack of evidence. I'll demonstrate why this is a stupid argument in a moment. Actually, it's not even an argument it's an unfounded and unqualifiable subjective statement.

12. Taken from the comments thread, but I think relevant here.

I promote no particular “methodology” regarding history, but consider historical claims from a perspective of science.

Yet science cannot answer a historical question using the scientific method. History is strictly speaking non-repeatable or observable and therefore cannot be subjected to the scientific process. This is another categorical fallacy. It would be the same type of fallacy to consider whether logic is logical from a perspective of science. Or to consider whether truth exists from a perspective of science.



Zzyzx post 3 of 10
Part 1 (length limitation)

Mr. Goose,

You are attempting to defend what, if it was true, would be the most important event in human history, a visit from “our creator” which included a claimed demonstration of the ability to “rise from the dead”. What you have presented as “evidence”, claimed or implied, is:

1. “Multiple attestations” by fervent believers (hearsay and testimonials)

You reject their testimony because they ARE believers. That's the Genetic Fallacy.

2. “It is a miracle because goddidit” (an unverified theological claim)

Not quite. A miracle is the best explanation.

3. “It is true because the bible tells me so” (circular “reasoning”, theology)

Still using that silly argument? Already blew that one away with First Clement. But I see rather than conceding you're incorrect you've adjusted your position. We'll get to that.

4. “The principle of embarrassment” (extremely weak non-argument)

Hey, if it's good enough for professional historians it's good enough for me.

5. “The bible is history” (the bible is theology with occasional “history”)

What is the methodology you use to differentiate between history and non-history? At this point it seems to be what you like and don't like.

6. Excuses for lack of evidence

This is your silliest argument of all of them. It's not even an argument. Simply saying there is a lack of evidence is not proof that there is lack of evidence. It's just an unqualifiable personal opinion. I could do that with ANYTHING. Allow me to demonstrate:

Holocaust believer: Here is the evidence for the Holocaust...
Holocaust denier: I don't believe it. If the Holocaust really happened the way people say it did, there should be MORE evidence. It is the most horrific atrocity in modern history. There should be MUCH more evidence!
Holocaust believer: How much more and what kind and where would you expect to see this additional evidence?
Holocaust denier: I don't know. It's the worst atrocity in modern history and you need my help documenting it? Your lack of evidence isn't MY problem!

Stupid non-argument.

7. Demands that personal theories be proved wrong

Where has this been done.


------------------------ Main Points ------------------------------

You appear to be writing for your ego. I am writing for the readers...

My ego isn't big enough to think that readers are swayed by what I have to say. I don't place myself on such a lofty pedestal.

<snipped Zzyzx's off-topic rant and soap-box sermon>

The ironic part here is you have perceived this to be a "Main Point" and spent more time ranting and defending yourself than actually debating the topic.

... I would conclude that you are willing to use any tactic to “win” – and therefore would not trust you to be honest or honorable....

Hey Zzyzx, you should take your own advice:

I suggest that we confine discussion to ideas rather than personalities. Is that possible for you Mr. Goose?

You keep trying to paint me with this "dishonest" brush. Which is of course an ad hominem fallacy. One thing I've found in debating is that when one's opponent has nothing left to say other than just calling you dishonest your opponent has essentially said, "You've
kicked my butt and I can't deal with it."

1. Zzyzx has yet to present ANY direct evidence for his case that the Resurrection is untrue

That is correct. Zzyzx will not present any direct evidence that the resurrection story is untrue...

Then why are we debating? Besides, that's not what you said in our PM's to one another. I'll remind you.

I will present evidence, reasoning, criticism and questions to demonstrate that arguments proposing the theory of a literal “resurrection” has not been substantiated.

Why are you changing your tune?

... – nor will he present (or be expected to present) any evidence that ANY story is untrue. He will not (nor be expected to) demonstrate that a character presented in stories did not do what the stories proclaim.

That's up to you. But it smacks of coping-out.

2. Zzyzx has presented no methodology for establishing whether or not a historical event is true. He is therefore relegated to offering his biased opinion.

That is correct. Zzyzx CLEARLY states that he is presenting his opinion (unless otherwise identified). A statement to that effect appears in his signature.

I encourage Goose to acknowledge when he is stating opinion and identify when he thinks he is stating fact.

The reason you are relegated to the side-line position of opinion only is you have no methodology for establishing a "fact."

HOW exactly are you verifying that a supernatural “miracle” occurred?

I don't know what you mean by "verifying." You throw that word around like it proves something. But you can't even define it in the context that you mean it to be applied.

Thank you for acknowledging that your arguments are NOT based in real world considerations but are supernatural (and thus unverifiable).

Why? Because I don't know what you mean by "verify"?

“Verify” means (according to Merriam Webster) “to establish truth, accuracy, or reality”.

OK. Now how does one do that with a historical question? Let's see you "verify" the existence of King Tut using that definition. On your marks, set, go...

ALL you are saying is “the resurrection is true because the bible says it is true”.

You've got that in quotes. Where did I say “the resurrection is true because the bible says it is true.” Are you even making an attempt to understand the arguments put forth?

You are claiming that “miracles” occur because the bible says they occur.

Wrong.

Are you talking only to yourself and other bible believers? Do you realize that many people do NOT accept the bible as historical, literal, or true?

There are atheist and critical historians and scholars that do accept much of the historicity of the NT (with the exception of the supernatural). Why don't you?

3. He accepts the historicity and death of a person (Tut) for which the evidence is much more dubious than that for Christ. He has yet to offer the actual evidence for Tut.

I leave it to the reader to decide whether the evidence to support the existence and death of a person who has been identified by Egyptologists as an Egyptian Pharaoh identified as King Tutankhamun is “more dubious than that for Christ” – actually for “Christ’s supposed resurrection, the topic of this debate -- (an actual body, actual multiple artifacts, an actual tomb – vs. bible stories).

Still can't find any evidence for the existence of Tut, eh?

If the evidence to support the “resurrection” was as strong as that for the existence of King Tut (by whatever name known), I would NOT argue that it is doubtful to have occurred in reality just as I would NOT argue against the existence of King Tut.

This type of statement would carry SO much more weight if you could ACTUALLY provide the EVIDNCE for Tut. The comical part here is every time you say, "King Tut (by whatever name known)" in the context of certainty. If it was so certain why the caveat by whatever name known. You don't even know his real name! Don't you see the irony here?

4. The core of his position revolves around A) a rejection of the supernatural (though he says he is open to the possibility). B) A rejection of the evidence primarily because it comes from the "Party Handbook." Not because the evidence itself is false. This is the Genetic Fallacy.

More correctly stated:

A) Open to the possibility of supernatural events IF EVIDENCE is presented (not opinions or hearsay).

What kind of evidence do you want?

B) Does not accept bible stories (opinions, hearsay and testimonials) as evidence of supernaturalism. Note: non-acceptance of bible stories is based upon LACK of evidence of truth (not upon source alone). I do not accept claims made in the koran for the same reason.

That's your personal feelings on the matter. What is your methodology for rejecting it when you obviously accept the ancient accounts for the existence of King Tut.

5. Zzyzx has yet to answer the following questions:

1. How do we know anything in ancient history happened, Zzyzx?

I accept existence of some historical events based upon convergence of evidence (information drawn from various sources) and from direct evidence (such as the body, grave goods and tomb associated with King Tut).

No, I don't think you do. Show us the convergence of evidence for the existence of King Tut. At this stage ALL you have is one line of evidence - archaeological. That is NOT a convergence of evidence. You have a double standard. Not to mention a convergence of evidence doesn't prove a historical matter with certainty. We use a convergence of evidence to build an inductive argument. We look for the BEST explanation of that evidence. How is that different than what I've done in post one of ten? It isn't.

Note: we are not discussing general history, but a specific event or non-event that you maintain is literal truth. I ask that the literal truth be shown to exist.

Read my post one of ten.

2. Verified by who? By what standard? "Substantiated" by who? By what standard?

We can also now add to this list of unanswered questions the following:
If a miracle is the BEST explanation for the evidence and all the competing naturalistic theories either fail to account for all the evidence or have no evidence for support, on what grounds would you reject the supernatural explanation?

Zzyzx's response to this question was to assert there is no evidence. He did NOT answer the question

.
A “miracle” can be arbitrarily suggested to “explain” ANY event and CAN be offered as the “best explanation”. There is NO assurance that what is offered as the “best” explanation is a TRUE explanation.

Firstly, you still have not answered the second question Verified by who? By what standard? "Substantiated" by who? By what standard?

Secondly, we can apply the same reasoning to a naturalistic explanation for an event. A naturalistic theory can be offered for any event as well and there is no assurance it is true either. So your own objection fails your own theory that it is all a fable or legend. This is why the rational person goes with the BEST explanation that has explanatory power and scope and accounts for all the evidence. Do you disagree?

If you reject the BEST explanation BECAUSE it is supernatural you reject the conclusion based upon presuppositions not because of evidence, reason and logic.

6. There are two debates running simultaneously. One has to with the topic for debate. One does not.

Debate 2: Was the Resurrection true? I've offered a methodology for determining the truth of a historical event. A methodology used by historians. I've also offered evidence. Zzyzx has not commented on the methodology I've offered nor offered one of his own. He therefore has no method for showing the Rez to be objectively false. He has offered his opinions. Period.

Zzyzx does NOT seek to show that the “resurrection” is objectively false – realizing that proving non-existence or non-occurrence is a fool’s errand. Instead, I ask that those who make a claim of objective truth provide evidence to support their contentions (something more than conjecture, hearsay and “goddidit”).

Then WHY on God's green earth did you challenge me to a debate on "Was the Rez True?" What a complete waste of time.

Your entire “argument” is an excuse for why there is no real evidence -- only hearsay, opinion and conjecture -- AND a critique of what you see as “logical fallacies” in my position. The REAL logical fallacy is your attempt to argue a case without evidence to support your contentions. [/b]

...except for all the evidence that has presented. You know, all that evidence you've essentially ignored. Why don't you define what constitutes "real evidence" instead of just saying stuff like this.

I have indicated what I consider real evidence with the example of King Tut (by whatever name known).

Of course a mummy, coffin, and tomb are evidence. But evidence of what? When do we get to see the evidence that it IS King Tut? Where is the convergence of evidence you rely so heavily upon? You STILL have not provided any. So I am forced to conclude one of the following:

1. You make unsupported claims.
2. You can't find the evidence.
3. You don't know HOW to find the evidence.
4. You can't be bothered.
5. You are regretting using King Tut now because you are realizing it exposes your bias and are simply hoping no one will notice how silly your argument is looking.
5. All of the above.



I've moved the next part back into the "main points." It's odd that Zzyzx slipped this one, a core part of his arguments that was shown false, into the "secondary points" post but had his little rant about me being dishonest at the beginning of the "main points" post. Go figure.

7. Zzyzx thinks that because the 27 books of the New Testament happen to be bound together in a book called the Bible that this means there is only "one source." However, the NT writings were never contained in a "Bible" when they were written. That is a later development. Further, he is incorrect that ALL the evidence comes from the Bible as we shall see. So to say that everything comes from "one source" (meaning the Bible is the "source") is erroneous.

Kindly list in straightforward manner the evidence for a “resurrected Jesus” NOT from the bible (and not from closely connected church sources).
1.
2.
3.

Notice what Zzyzx has done here. THIS IS IMPORTANT TO TAKE NOTE. Instead of acknowledging he has been shown wrong and his statements erroneous by direct evidence (from First Clement), Zzyzx has changed his position and made another request to fit his new position. It's no longer "one source" (meaning the Bible), but NOW it's "one source" meaning closely connected CHURCH SOURCES. You see, Zzyzx has raised the bar when provided evidence to answer an objection. We are now justified in concluding that there will be no amount of evidence that will convince someone like Zzyzx. He'll just keep changing his position and raising the bar arbitrarily. If I were to meet his pet request (which is really a debating tactic to take the focus off the fact he has been clearly shown wrong) and find 3 sources for his list, he would probably come back and say, "Well that's not enough, I need 5 more. Oh, and they all need to be enemy sources as well." And so on and so forth...



Zzyzx post 3 of 10
Part 2
-------------------------- Secondary Points -------------------------

Zzyzx will NOT show the “resurrection” to be false...

Then it's game over for you.

...– but will continue to state that there is insufficient evidence (other than stories in a single book) to reasonably and rationally conclude that such an event occurred.

Reasonably and rationally by what standard or methodology? Your personal one?

King Tut vs the Rez:

Goose maintains that the resurrection is true (a dead body came back to life). If true the story of the creator of the universe visiting the Earth, being killed and coming back to life – it would be the greatest event in the history of the mankind.

I ask for evidence other than a storybook.

"Other than" - Just can't get away from that can you. Hey, I ask for evidence that King Tut existed OTHER THAN a mummy, coffin and tomb. Now what?

You are attempting to defend a story that, if it was true, would represent the greatest event in the history of the world – involving the greatest person that ever lived. Supposedly the creator of the entire universe visited the Earth for thirty years and performed miracles. Yet what you offer for “evidence” is a SINGLE book written by religious storytellers.

And your job is to show the evidence is false. You need to get busy on that. Whining about what you think is a lack of evidence doesn't make it untrue.

Correction: I will continue to point out to readers that the person making the claim that a dead body came back to life has the burden of proving that the event actually occurred – and that no such proof has been supplied.

Your rhetoric would carry more weight if you could prove, by the same methodology and standard you request the Rez to be proven, that King Tut existed.

You have presented exactly NOTHING that indicates that a dead body actually came back to life OR that the supposed “resurrected” person existed after death (other than stories by “disciples”).

I could say the same about you and the existence of your boyfriend King Tut.

I DO state that there IS evidence for the existence of King Tut (by whatever name known). There IS a body, grave goods and a tomb suitable for a Pharaoh.

Yes, yes, yes. We all know you've stated that many times. But HOW do you KNOW that the mummy IS King Tut. Still waiting...

I do NOT question that King Tut (by whatever name known) existed, died and was buried in a tomb. Do you?

I question it IS King Tut, you have yet to demonstrate that it is. Actually, I'm now inclined to think you haven't got a clue how to even begin to demonstrate that it is King Tut.

Kindly demonstrate to readers that you have evidence for the existence of a “resurrected Jesus” that is as strong as the evidence for the existence of King Tut OR admit that you cannot.

Dude, you don't even know if the unknown mummy even IS King Tut!

You and others who wish to believe that the resurrection occurred based on the thin “evidence” of bible stories and church dogma are certainly welcome to do so. However, when you attempt to convince thinking people that your tales are true, you may be asked to supply more than a SINGLE book and a pack of excuses.

Hey, I'm still waiting for you to pony up some evidence for Tut. So far all you've got is a boy in bag and fancy coffin. But that's enough for Zzyzx to have "no doubt."

Yes, strangely enough, I accept that a dead body in an elaborate tomb IS evidence that the person entombed 1) died, and 2) was an important person – probably a pharaoh.

"Probably" a pharoah? I thought you had "no doubt." Hey I accept that a person entombed is evidence that a person died too. Which Pharaoh and how do you know with "no doubt"?

Is there some reason that I should conclude otherwise? [regarding Tut]

Wouldn't that be the “Prove my claim false – because I cannot prove it true” argument you keep whining about?

Is there comparable evidence to support the tale of Jesus?

Yup, see post one of ten.

You are supposedly attempting to demonstrate that the resurrection occurred. I would “like” for you to demonstrate that exactly or acknowledge that you cannot.

You still haven't told us how we "demonstrate" an event in history to have occurred. You keep making this request as though it means something. "Demonstrate" King Tut existed.




The Party Handbook Analogy:

If an analogy is "fairy representative" by necessity it also contains elements that are NOT representative. Which parts are representative and which are not? We don't know because Zzyzx has failed to offer the EVIDENCE for his pet analogy. He has just assumed his analogy is true and expects people to buy it because he thinks it's "fairy representative."

One is not expected to present “evidence of his pet analogy”. It was properly regarded as an analogy and is not subject to expectation of “proof”.

I think Zzyzx doesn't know where or how to find evidence for his pet analogy. He's been called on it and just says, "One is not expected to present evidence of his pet analogy."

I base this conclusion [fable and legend]on:

1. An absence of “convergence of evidence” from wide and independent sources that a dead body actually came back to life

2. Knowledge that upon death certain, known and studied decomposition processes occur that are considered irreversible (reversibility has not been demonstrated)

3. Refusal to accept a “supernatural” explanation that has NOT been demonstrated to have occurred

1. Yet you accept the existence of King Tut for which you do not have a convergence of evidence 2. Is an appeal to naturalism and a straw man argument. Jesus did not rise by natural means. 3. Is your subjective rejection of the supernatural.

If you could prove your claims true, you would present evidence and would not depend upon repeatedly asking that I prove them false. If you could prove your claims true I would NOT argue.

The method and evidence to prove the Rez true has been provided in post one of ten. You just keep ignoring it and telling us there is no evidence.

You present nothing that can even remotely be considered evidence or proof that a dead body came back to life. Bible stories may be “proof” enough for ardent believers – but you are not debating an ardent believer and the readers of this thread include people who are not ardent believers.

See what I mean?

Christian “arguments” in defense of bible stories often boil down to, “You can’t prove that it isn’t possible that such things happened”. That is NOT a valid defense of ideas put forth as being true.

I agree. And that is exactly what has NOT happened. I've offered a methodology and evidence. You've offered squat.

Thank you for acknowledging that your argument is NOT to present convincing argument but to demand that your claims be “proved false”.

Talk about twisting someone's words. WOW! But you are correct about one thing. I am not trying to present a "convincing" argument. I'm not trying to convince those that are not convincible. I am showing the Rez to be true. I've done this by providing a method used by historians for establishing historical truth and provided the evidence.

Since you raise the issue, were attempts made by the early church to destroy “non-conforming” documents, including Gnostic texts? Were the Gnostic texts preserved by the Catholic Church?

See what I mean? It's part and parcel of the argument. Hey, it's your argument. You show us that you've actually read the primary texts that support the argument and present some evidence for a change. Don't get me to do your homework.

Notice that I asked two questions. I made NO “charge”. I made NO claim to have read “primary texts”.

You ask questions because you've probably heard these arguments from some one else (probably on this forum or in a book) and it sounded good. You've never actually looked into the evidence that supports the arguments. You just believe it's true because it supports your world view. Am I wrong? If so, prove me wrong by supplying some evidence from a primary text to support your own arguments.

Do the questions make you uncomfortable enough to state that I made a “charge”, rather than answering the questions?

Not at all Zzyzx. At this stage all you've done is ask questions. You haven't provided evidence and can't seem to find it so I'll conclude it's wishful thinking on your part.


Regarding the supernatural:

Try stating your case without supernaturalism..

The 5 facts presented are not supernatural themselves. There could be naturalistic explanations for them. We are looking for the BEST explanation.

...(remembering that some who read these comments do not accept supernaturalism or nature-defying “miracles” as being literally true).

That's only a problem if they dismiss the supernatural a priori. If a supernatural explanation is the BEST explanation for a series of facts they should accept the supernatural explanation. That would be rational and consistent with the position that one accepts the possibility of the supernatural.

Therefore, you must accept that there is at least a possibility that the supernatural exists. If the supernatural can possibly exist and it is the best explanation you can not rationally reject it with out committing a logical fallacy.

I accept the possibility that the supernatural exists. I await the evidence. I will not accept stories told by proponents of any of the thousands of different religions and different gods without evidence to substantiate claims.

OK, let's test that claim of yours. Here is a link to ABC News (it's about 2 min) reporting a story of a 65 year old woman that had a severe cerebral haemorrhage. In the report the doctor said she was "essentially considered brain dead." She recovered and the same doctor said he's been there ten years and "never seen anything quite like this before." The doctors have no explanation. The family is deeply religious and claims a miracle. If a miracle is the BEST explanation, why would you reject it?

It has NOT been demonstrated that “a miracle is the best explanation”. ALL that has been shown is that 1) the woman recovered,...

...from death!

2) doctors do not know why or how she recovered,..

..IOW there's no naturalistic explanation.

3) doctors have not seen a similar recovery,...

Correct.

4) a religious family claims it is a miracle

Why do you not believe it?

A “miracle” is defined as: “an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs”

OR “an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment”.

I will accept the SECOND definition – the report indicates an unusual event. However, I will NOT accept that anyone knows that the woman’s recovery is due to divine intervention – because there is no evidence of divine intervention.

Except that the family claims divine intervention probably due them praying for it.

Instead, I would say, quite honestly, that I do not know how or why the woman recovered – and the doctors don’t either – and you don’t either.

You say you don't know. But not knowing does not negate a miracle. If you do not know you must allow for the possibility of a miracle if you truely hold that the supernatural is possible. If the BEST explanation is a miracle, why reject it? When some one returns from being brain dead and those around that person claim God's intervention - a miracle - and there is no other competing theory or evidence for a competing theory (such as the equipment used to diagnose here death was shown faulty) then I feel confident that a miracle is the BEST explanation. Is it absolutely certain? No. But the rational person goes with the BEST explanation. Only when further evidence shows that explanation false, do we conclude the previous explanation is untrue. Science operates under a similar mandate.

You are claiming that “it must have been a miracle”. Arising from the dead does NOT fit with nature or the real world – so supernatural “explanations” must be claimed (always without evidence that supernatural events actually occur).

Except for the evidence that supernatural events do occur. Like the evidence for the Rez and the link to ABC News.

The occurrence of UNEXPLAINED events is NOT (repeat NOT) evidence of miracles (if miracle implies divine intervention). It is an indication that we do not understand the cause and effect of every situation. It does NOT mean that “goddidit”.

We don't need to know the cause and effect of the situation to draw the conclusion that God performed a miracle. If a miracle is requested or predicted and then claimed to have taken place and it's the BEST explanation for the evidence we are justified in concluding that a miracle happened.

When you state that the resurrection occurred is that statement fact or opinion?

A historical fact (remember I see something that is historically true as a historical fact). The Rez is shown to be a fact by the methodology and evidence in post one of ten. You can't dispute it because you have no methodology and won't touch the evidence or methodology presented.


Other issues:

You may call it whatever you wish. If a “miracle” is claimed, a “miracle” needs to be demonstrated. Hearsay isn’t proof. Ancient tales are not proof.

You mean they are not "proof" to you. You can't speak objectively because you have no objective method for determining proof, evidence or historical truth. It's just your biased opinion. By the way, hearsay can sometimes be evidence. You should look it up. Circumstantial evidence was enough to convict and kill Timothy McVeigh.

You are dead wrong.

Circumstantial evidence and hearsay are NOT interchangeable terms.

McVeigh was NOT convicted on hearsay evidence.

You should pay closer attention. I didn't say McVeigh was convicted on hearsay, but on circumstantial evidence.

The “rule of evidence” in court is clear:

In keeping with the three evidentiary requirements, the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE , prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement). Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by AMBIGUITY , insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/633569

First, we are ASSUMING that the writers were not eyewitnesses. I could build a case that for example Matthew and John were eyewitnesses and wrote their respective Gospels. The evidence for the authorship of these books is just as good as that for other secular works such Caesar's Gallic/Civil War Commentaries. But for the sake of argument and to make it easier for you I've assumed they are hopelessly anonymous. Secondly, you should have kept reading. A few sentences later in your source:

Not all out-of-court statements or assertions are impermissible hearsay. If an attorney wishes the judge or jury to consider the fact that a certain statement was made, but not the truthfulness of that statement, the statement is not hearsay and may be admitted as evidence. Suppose a hearing is held to determine a woman's mental competence. Out of court, when asked to identify herself, the woman said, "I am the pope." There is little question that the purpose of introducing that statement as evidence is not to convince the judge or jury that the woman actually is the pope; the truthfulness of the statement is irrelevant. Rather, the statement is introduced to show the woman's mental state; her belief that she is the pope may prove that she is not mentally competent. On the other hand, a defendant's out-of-court statement "I am the murderer," offered in a murder trial to prove that the defendant is the murderer, is hearsay.

The case in post one of ten does not use the Bible's assertion that Jesus rose from the dead to prove that Jesus rose from the dead. Therefore, the evidence presented in post one of ten isn't necessarily inadmissible hearsay. But most importantly, we aren't looking at a court of law case but a court of history case. The vast majority of history is reported as hearsay, now what?

What IS being offered to convince readers that a “miracle” occurred?

This thread is not about "convincing." It's about determining "Was the Rez true?" Every person requires something a little different to be "convinced." Whether you or anybody else is "convinced" is irrelevant. The Rez is either true or false.

“True or false” is a conclusion based on what is observed or known.

Let's apply that to King Tut. What is observed? A mummy, coffin and tomb. What is known? That a mummy, tomb and coffin exist. Now "convince" me it's true King Tut existed.

The “special plea” that “goddidit” is not accepted as debate – it is pure theology, opinion and conjecture.

Not accepted by who? Let me guess - atheists.

An honorable debater does not expect opinion and conjecture to be accepted as evidence in a debate. An intelligent debater does not expect theology to be accepted as evidence by Non-Theists.

Do you contend that personal opinion and conjecture ARE acceptable as evidence in debate and that Non-Theists should accept theological arguments as evidence?

Zzyzx, all you've offered so far is your opinion and conjecture as evidence so you must think offering an opinion and conjecture IS acceptable in debate. In fact, I don't think you offered ANY evidence for your positions regarding Tut OR the Rez. And where have I presented a theological argument AS evidence?

“Goddidit” is a theological argument.

You don't seem to know the difference between an argument and a conclusion. A miracle occurred is a conclusion to an argument, not an argument. I didn't present a theological argument AS evidence.

I have asked questions that you cannot answer with credibility to defend the claim that a dead body came back to life.

Questions mean jack-squat. They are just questions. I'm not defending the Rez. We are debating whether the Rez was true. Not whether you think my answers are credible.

All you have offered as “evidence” are tales by people who believe in “miracles” saying that they saw a “miracle”.

And you have yet to demonstrate WHY we shouldn't believe them.

Testimonials and hearsay that are unsupported are NOT regarded as reliable. If you wish to believe whatever anyone says or writes that is your business; however, rational people question what they are told.

Rational people do not presume guilt with out evidence. Rational people presume innocence until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Rational people do NOT assume another person is lying until there is conclusive evidence that the person is lying or mistaken. You haven't provided even a shred of evidence to cause us to think the writers were lying or mistaken. If anything there are indicators of truthful accounts such as the inclusion of embarrassing elements.

You claim to know that “goddidit”. I ask that you show me and the readers how you know that.

It's the best explanation for the evidence given the surrounding circumstances or Jesus' life, that's how I know.

I'll ask you to "demonstrate" how King Tut died using the same method you suggest. Right after you show that it even IS King Tut.

Notice that I have NOT claimed to know how King Tut died. In fact, I specifically said that the cause of death is not known.

You have however, claimed that it is King Tut in the tomb. So you can go ahead and "demonstrate" that to be true any time you are ready.

However, you HAVE claimed that a dead body came back to life. I ask you to verify that claim with something other than hearsay, biblical quotations and assumptions. If you cannot do so, you have FAILED to demonstrate that the resurrection is true (which is the subject of this debate).

You can ask for whatever you want. But your preconceived and double standard requests do not prove the Rez false. You're criterion here for a historical event to be true is that it must be "verified" with something other than hearsay, biblical (or biased sources), quotations and assumptions. You defined verified as "to establish truth, accuracy, or reality." I'll make you a deal. You apply that criterion to the existence of King Tut and show us using that criterion that the existence of King Tut is "verified" and I'll see if I can then do it with the Rez.

If you maintain that the processes of nature did NOT apply in the example you cite, you ARE making a special plea. You are claiming that what we know of nature did not apply in the story you tell. And perhaps pigs can fly and gods can ascend in storybook tales.

I've already explained why it's not a Special Plea.

Taken from the link I already gave you here on Special Pleading

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

Agreed: “attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc, without justifying the exemption”.

The “rule or principle” involved is that dead bodies decompose and do not come back to life.

The exception claimed is that the dead body of one known as Jesus DID come back to life.

The “justification” offered is “goddidit”.

No. The justification is that the supernatural can possibly exist. Considering Jesus claimed his Rez would happen it fits the context of events. If the supernatural can possible exist, then God raised Jesus from the dead is the best explanation. When are you going to get this? Like I said earlier the only way one would see this as Special Pleading is if they dismissed the supernatural a priori and assumed that naturalism can solve a historical question. You must commit a fallacy to see this as the fallacy of Special Pleading. Actually, if I am committing the fallacy of Special Pleading you are committing the same fallacy as well. It is a generally accepted truth that the context of Jesus' life is reported to be steeped in the supernatural. Jesus' Rez is claimed by his followers to be a miracle by God. To try and explain his miracles through the eyes of naturalism and assume the supernatural does not exist is a Special Plea.

It might be convincing if you could present evidence for the supposed most important event in the history of mankind that is at least as strong as the evidence that an Egyptian pharaoh died and was buried.

Hey King Tut(by whatever name known) is the most famous pharaoh in popular media. Convince me he existed, died and was buried in the tomb you think he was buried in. Prove to me he wasn't thrown in grave somewhere and the person you think is King Tut is not an impostor.

While I sympathize with the difficulty encountered by those who attempt to defend without evidence, this IS a debate forum and positions ARE expected to be verified by something other than personal opinion and conjecture.

All I ask is that you qualify "verified." Telling us that something isn't "verified" but not telling us how that thing is expected to be "verified" is meaningless. Tell us what you mean so we can apply it to other historical events.

Hey, while you're at it. Let's see you "verify" King Tut.

I am satisfied that readers understand that King Tut (by whatever name known) existed, died, was mummified, and was entombed in an elaborate way suitable for a pharaoh of his era.

You mean you are satisfied with basing a belief on NO evidence?

That is what I mean by “verified”.

All you told us is that you are satisfied that someone was existed, died, was mummified, and was entombed. You are ASSUMING it is King Tut. So if you are satisfied assuming something to be true that means it's verified.

Something we would expect if they were taken from different witnesses to the events. So to say they are dependent on one another for the Resurrection sequence is clearly false.

It is generally accepted that at least some of the gospel writers, whoever they were, copied from one another. Do you dispute this?

That they "copied" the Rez accounts? Yes. If you think the Rez accounts were "copied," you should provide evidence.

I asked if the gospel writers copied from one another – period.

Rather than go down a rabbit trail here and make it easier for the sceptic I've assumed in post one of ten that Mark's gospel was used as a source for some of Matthew and Luke at the points where they agree. However, where they differ we have no reason to assume Matthew or Luke copied from Mark. The Rez sequences in the Gospels beginning with the discovery of the empty tomb differ in emphasis and secondary details. There is no reason to think they "copied" each other here. You are committing the logical fallacy of a non-sequitur. You are jumping from "copied" parts to "copied" the whole thing when the evidence directly shows otherwise.

Copying from other sources to write an account does NOT constitute an original or an independent account.

We don't need all the Gospels to be "independent." Even if we assume for the sake of argument Matthew and Luke are not independent and sat down one afternoon and copied Mark verbatim we still have Mark, John, Acts, First Clement and Paul (and possibly the source "Q"). That's plenty of early independent sources by ancient standards. A boat load compard to that for King Tut.

When a source is known to be NOT original and Not independent in some respects, ALL that is said is subject to doubt – particularly when little or nothing is known about the writers.

You don't KNOW they were not independent you are assuming it. There are other explanations for similar content which I won't go into here. More importantly, to say that because there is similarity between works means ALL that is said is subject to doubt is a non-sequitur.

Paul is independent of the Gospel and implies an empty tomb.

Is Paul independent of the Bible?

Clearly you do not understand what historians mean by "independent."

If you are using a specialized definition of “independent” in debate you are expected to define the term as it is being used.

I seem to recall that we agreed to use standard definitions of words in this debate. Is my memory of that faulty?

You just demonstrated in the previous sequence regarding the alleged "copying" of works what is meant by "independent." You just said this a second ago:

Copying from other sources to write an account does NOT constitute an original or an independent account.

Why are you playing dumb now?

If secular and atheist historians and scholars use the Bible for a source of historical information (the non supernatural of course) why do YOU have such a problem with it? The 5 facts I've presented are non-supernatural and even agreed to by some critical and atheists scholars. What is the real problem?

As stated, the problem is that you are using a single source to “verify itself” – “the resurrection is true because the bible says so” – and nothing more.

You didn't answer the question. I'll repeat it. If secular and atheist historians and scholars use the Bible for a source of historical information (the non supernatural of course) why do YOU have such a problem with it?

In reasoned debate a source is NOT cited to support its own tale – and a single source quoted to verify itself is known by the technical term “circular reasoning”.

We've already dealt with the "single source" fallacy. Circular reasoning is when you assume the conclusion to be true in one of the premises of the argument. Go back to post one of ten and show me where this is the case. You need to take some time to understand the arguments there. It's a tad advanced, I know, but do try. If you object to the writings in the NT I ask what sources do you have for the existence of King Tut that would not employ "circular reasoning" as you understand it to be applied with the Bible?

You are right. I do NOT accept the bible as proof of anything – I do not accept a single source as proof of anything -- nor do many other people (some of whom are readers of these threads). What are you offering to convince those who do not already believe the biblical tales?

Every time you make this silly statement that there is only "a single source" you reveal a profound ignorance of the evidence at hand. Irenaeus tells us Clement knew Peter and Paul. Paul mentions Clement in his letters. It's possible Clement may have even been a witness to the risen Christ perhaps one of the 500 (but this would be only speculative). Clement wrote his first epistle around the same time as the Gospel of John (some place it earlier than John). Here's what he said about the Rez.

1Clement 24:1-2 Let us understand, dearly beloved, how the Master continually showeth unto us the resurrection that shall be hereafter; whereof He made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, when He raised Him from the dead.

and later

1Clememtn 42:5-6 Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.

Still think ALL we have is one source - i.e the Bible?

Is THIS the “independent source”, Clement, that you cite?

Yup, that's him. He's independent of the Bible and written during the first century just like the NT. You've been shown that the there is more than "one source" - the Bible. But instead of acknowledging your error you just change your position. Nice move!

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

Do you offer as being independent an “epistle” written 100 years CE by a person believed to be a churchman?

It's written 95-97AD (the same time approximately some scholars date the Gospel of John). Are you now changing your tune? Now the sources must be non-biblical AND non-church, is that right?

[Zzyzx]

.
Goose,

Thank you for restarting the thread when the original developed problems.

Zzyzx post 4 of 10

You are claiming that “it must have been a miracle”. Arising from the dead does NOT fit with nature or the real world – so supernatural “explanations” must be claimed (always without evidence that supernatural events actually occur).

Except for the evidence that supernatural events do occur. Like the evidence for the Rez and the link to ABC News.

The occurrence of UNEXPLAINED events is NOT (repeat NOT) evidence of miracles (if miracle implies divine intervention). It is an indication that we do not understand the cause and effect of every situation. It does NOT mean that “goddidit”.

We don't need to the cause and effect of the situation to draw the conclusion that God performed a miracle. If a miracle is requested and then claimed to have taken place and it's the BEST explanation for the evidence we are justified in concluding that a miracle happened.

Thank you. (Underline added)

“If a miracle is requested” and “then CLAIMED to have taken place” and is the “best” explanation (according to you), you conclude that you are JUSTIFIED in stating that a miracle happened.

NO WONDER you believe in miracles. You are not asking for any verification – simply accepting what you are told. That should destroy any credibility you might have had with readers (other than fellow “true believers” who also WANT to believe in “divine miracles”).

If I claim to have requested a “miracle” and claim that it has taken place (and it is the “best” explanation) WILL you conclude that a miracle has occurred?

Zzyzx does NOT seek to show that the “resurrection” is objectively false – realizing that proving non-existence or non-occurrence is a fool’s errand

It seems like Zzyzx has finally woken up and smelt the coffee. If you don't seek to show the Rez objectively false WHY did you challenge me to debate it's truth?

I challenged you to debate the truth of the “resurrection” to demonstrate exactly what has been demonstrated above – that belief in miracles is based upon acceptance of stories without verification – that any claim that a person wants to accept is simply accepted as though it was true.

There is no more evidence that the “miracle of the resurrection” occurred than there is that a “miracle” occurred when a woman recovered from a coma. In both cases those who WANT to believe in miracles see miracles.

I've provided a methodology used by historians for showing the Rez true. Zzyzx has failed to comment on the methodology or offer a clear method of his own. He has also failed to address the evidence and arguments presented in post one of ten and failed to offer any evidence for his own case. I'm always reluctant to claim victory in a debate but what else should I conclude here?

Of course you can claim victory. That fits well with other delusional claims and with the “methodology” and style of Easyrider, Biker, Rusty and Goose.

Zzyzx argues against the resurrection as a scientist, not as an historian – and uses scientific approaches to demonstrate that proposed claims that a dead body came back to life have NOT been substantiated with anything other than stories in a book – to verify that the creator of the universe allowed himself to be killed and then returned to life.

Claims are subject to challenge, particularly incredible claims, particularly when they are supported only by ancient tales. No verification is provided that it is possible for a human body can come back to life after death has occurred.

Since proponents of the resurrection theory CANNOT demonstrate that a body can come back to life, they MUST resort to “goddidit” – a claim that a “miracle” (nature-defying event) occurred.

That, however, does NOT solve the problem but creates a new one. Now they must demonstrate that gods actually perform nature-defying feats – and did so in the example they cite.

Additionally, making such supernatural claims REMOVES their arguments from history and science and makes them pure theology. “Goddidit” IS pure theology.

The ONLY “evidence” offered is in the form of religious texts telling stories – a vested interest source telling unverifiable tales.

Then WHY on God's green earth did you challenge me to a debate on "Was the Rez True?" What a complete waste of time.

I challenged you to debate the issue in order to encourage you to demonstrate that you cannot support the contention that the “resurrection” (the BASIS of Christianity) actually occurred.

I, correctly, expected that you would attempt to avoid admitting that there is no evidence other than storybook tales and that you would claim “supernatural” intervention in earthly affairs (“goddidit”) – without being able to substantiate that gods influence events on Earth.

8. Zzyzx is confusing "convincing" with truth. He seems to think that if I can't "convince" him then the Rez is untrue. However, this thread is "Was the Rez true?" It is NOT "Is the Rez convincing to Sceptics like Zzyzx?" We don't determine truth by whether or not we can "convince" another person - that would make truth subjective.

What is your purpose of this debate, Mr. Goose?

If you do not seek to convince another person (including skeptics) that your arguments are true, and if you realize that you will not likely convince me, WHO are you addressing – yourself?

The rational person knows that there are objective truths. If something is true it is objectively true whether or not another person says they are "convinced" or not.

Are you claiming to possess “objective truth” concerning the “resurrection”?

If so, kindly SHOW your objective truths. Objective truth does NOT mean opinion.

Cite something other than storybook accounts. Show how dead bodies come back to life. Show that gods reverse natural processes. Don’t just claim ‘goddidit” and provide stories by others who claim “goddidit”.

Now let's apply that to the existence of King Tut. Can Zzyzx establish the truth, accuracy or reality that Tut existed using information drawn from a variety of independent (not associated), impartial (if possible) sources? Let's see if he can. It's his criterion he is requesting of the Rez. He should demonstrate that it can be applied to other historical events such as the existence of King Tut with out failing the existence of King Tut, something Zyzx believes with "no doubt." I would like to see him apply this criterion and method to see if Zzyzx can "verify" the existence of King Tut. This will confirm whether or not Zzyzx employs a double standard. I think he does.

Zzyzx and other informed people are aware that a mummy identified as King Tut was discovered in a tomb filled with impressive grave goods. The person has been identified as a young pharaoh who died 3000 years ago, was mummified and placed in a tomb.

WHAT exactly is to be doubted?

I suspect that readers have heard all they wish or need to hear about your doubts (whatever they may be) regarding King Tut, while promoting the resurrection for which there is far less evidence. You may continue to discuss King Tut if you wish. I am satisfied that I have said all that is necessary for readers to understand my position.

12. Taken from the comments thread, but I think relevant here.

I promote no particular “methodology” regarding history, but consider historical claims from a perspective of science.

Yet science cannot answer a historical question using the scientific method. History is technically strictly speaking non-repeatable or observable and therefore cannot be subjected to the scientific process. This is another categorical fallacy. It would be the same type of fallacy to consider whether logic is logical from a perspective of science. Or to consider whether truth exists from a perspective of science.

Claims of those who write “history” CAN be examined scientifically.

For instance, is there any doubt that a claim that a person flew through the air on a chariot drawn by horses (or a sled draw by reindeer) CAN be investigated scientifically?

When a supposedly “historical” account makes claims that are incredible (too extraordinary and improbable to be believed), those CLAIMS can be examined in relation to physics and other natural sciences.

You are attempting to defend what, if it was true, would be the most important event in human history, a visit from “our creator” which included a claimed demonstration of the ability to “rise from the dead”. What you have presented as “evidence”, claimed or implied, is:

1. “Multiple attestations” by fervent believers (hearsay and testimonials)

You reject their testimony because they ARE believers. That's the Genetic Fallacy.

I state that hearsay and testimonials are NOT evidence and that testimony by anonymous people who can have vested interest (including those who promote a belief) CANNOT be regarded as reliable.

Do YOU believe anonymous accounts of incredible feats by different gods? If not, why not?

2. “It is a miracle because goddidit” (an unverified theological claim)

Not quite. A miracle is the best explanation.

A “miracle” may be the best explanation in your OPINION.

A MYTH is the best explanation in my opinion. Others may have different opinions. Fictional stories can be concocted to include all the “facts” mentioned.

4. “The principle of embarrassment” (extremely weak non-argument)

Hey, if it's good enough for professional historians it's good enough for me.

Does your “if it is good enough for professional historians it is good enough for me” apply to the conclusions of other professional historians who regard the resurrection is not literally true? Or, do you simply choose which is “good enough” based on their agreement with your positions?

5. “The bible is history” (the bible is theology with occasional “history”)

What is the methodology you use to differentiate between history and non-history? At this point it seems to be what you like and don't like.

“Goddidit” IS theology. Claims of “miracles” are theology. Gods are theology – NOT history and not science. NO gods can be shown to be anything more than imaginary creations of human minds.

BELIEF in gods may be historical (people do believe in various gods), but gods cannot be shown to be historical. There is NO evidence that ANY of the thousands of gods worshiped, feared or loved by humans are anything more than creations of human imagination. The best “evidences” offered are tales, storybooks and religious dogma – for all of them.

1. Zzyzx has yet to present ANY direct evidence for his case that the Resurrection is untrue

That is correct. Zzyzx will not present any direct evidence that the resurrection story is untrue...

Then why are we debating? Besides, that's not what you said in our PM's to one another. I'll remind you.

I will present evidence, reasoning, criticism and questions to demonstrate that arguments proposing the theory of a literal “resurrection” has not been substantiated.

Why are you changing your tune?

I have presented evidence regarding what occurs to a body upon death – the KEY issue in the debate.

The response was a claim that the resurrection is a “special case” to which known biological processes do not apply. That IS a “special plea” error in logic and debate.

NO verification of the “special case” status is provided other than “goddidit”.

– nor will he present (or be expected to present) any evidence that ANY story is untrue. He will not (nor be expected to) demonstrate that a character presented in stories did not do what the stories proclaim.

That's up to you. But it smacks of coping-out.

“Prove my claim false” (or my story untrue) is a VERY weak “argument” and is a gross error in logic and debate (but is a common apologetic “argument”). It is an admission that the claims made cannot be supported.

2. Zzyzx has presented no methodology for establishing whether or not a historical event is true. He is therefore relegated to offering his biased opinion.

That is correct. Zzyzx CLEARLY states that he is presenting his opinion (unless otherwise identified). A statement to that effect appears in his signature.

I encourage Goose to acknowledge when he is stating opinion and identify when he thinks he is stating fact.

The reason you are relegated to the side-line position of opinion only is you have no methodology for establishing a "fact."

Correction: The reason I identify opinion is that I do NOT claim to know what I do not know. I encourage you to do likewise.

ALL you are saying is “the resurrection is true because the bible says it is true”.

You've got that in quotes. Where did I say “the resurrection is true because the bible says it is true.” Are you even making an attempt to understand the arguments put forth?

That is my understanding of your position. If it is incorrect, kindly supply a more correct version. Notice that I also use quotation marks around “resurrection” and “goddidit” indicating doubt of veracity.

I understand clearly that you are claiming that “goddidit” and you have bible stories to “prove” it (and nothing else).

You are claiming that “miracles” occur because the bible says they occur.

Wrong.

Oh? What other reason are you offering anyone to accept that a dead body actually came back to life?

You are offering a few stories that indicate that some believers or followers or disciples claim to have seen a “risen Jesus”. Is there anything other than those stories that indicate that a dead body actually came back to life?

The truthful answer, Goose, is that there is nothing other than those stories to indicate that Jesus arose from being dead. All your claimed “methodology” cannot conceal the absence of any supporting evidence.

Are you talking only to yourself and other bible believers? Do you realize that many people do NOT accept the bible as historical, literal, or true?

There are atheist and critical historians and scholars that do accept much of the historicity of the NT (with the exception of the supernatural). Why don't you?

I MIGHT accept some of the NT other than supernatural claims as being historical (that is a different topic of discussion).

HOWEVER, we are discussing the “resurrection” and that IS a supernatural claim.

Secondly, we can apply the same reasoning to a naturalistic explanation for an event. A naturalistic theory can be offered for any event as well and there is no assurance it is true either. So your own objection fails your own theory that it is all a fable or legend.

I offer NO “naturalistic explanation” for the “resurrection” because there is no evidence that such a thing occurred. I am not expected to “explain” a non-event.

Study of nature indicates that dead bodies do NOT “come back to life” – thus no naturalistic explanation is required.

This is why the rational person goes with the BEST explanation that has explanatory power and scope and accounts for all the evidence. Do you disagree?

I disagree. You are claiming to have the “best” explanation for a story that you claim is true. That is your OPINION.

I have a better explanation in MY opinion. I have seen no evidence (only stories in a book) to indicate that any “resurrection” event occurred. I am also aware that “coming back to life” is an incredible claim that defies what we know about nature regarding dead bodies. Therefore, I conclude that the BEST explanation for the tale is that it is a legend (or fable, fiction or fraud).

If you reject the BEST explanation BECAUSE it is supernatural you reject the conclusion based upon presuppositions not because of evidence, reason and logic.

Correction: I reject YOUR suggested “best explanation” because you cannot support your contentions that 1) a “resurrection” occurred and 2) “goddidit”

You are supposedly attempting to demonstrate that the resurrection occurred. I would “like” for you to demonstrate that exactly or acknowledge that you cannot.

You still haven't told us how we "demonstrate" an event in history to have occurred. You keep making this request as though it means something. "Demonstrate" King Tut existed.

It is NOT my problem to demonstrate how to verify an event that YOU claim is true. That is YOUR problem since you made the claim.

What you are indicating is that you cannot substantiate that a dead body came back to life – a claim that is central to Christianity. You are making excuses for why you don’t have evidence, but the case is that you DON’T have evidence – only stories in a book.

You present nothing that can even remotely be considered evidence or proof that a dead body came back to life. Bible stories may be “proof” enough for ardent believers – but you are not debating an ardent believer and the readers of this thread include people who are not ardent believers.

See what I mean?

Do you expect those who prefer natural or real explanations rather than supernatural claims to accept your opinion? Is your opinion “sacred” somehow? Do you possess universal truth?

[ Since you raise the issue, were attempts made by the early church to destroy “non-conforming” documents, including Gnostic texts? Were the Gnostic texts preserved by the Catholic Church?

See what I mean? It's part and parcel of the argument. Hey, it's your argument. You show us that you've actually read the primary texts that support the argument and present some evidence for a change. Don't get me to do your homework.

Notice that I asked two questions. I made NO “charge”. I made NO claim to have read “primary texts”.

You ask questions because you've probably heard these arguments from some one else (probably on this forum or in a book) and it sounded good. You've never actually looked into the evidence that supports the arguments. You just believe it's true because it supports your world view. Am I wrong? If so, prove me wrong by supplying some evidence from a primary text to support your own arguments. [/quote]
YOU raised the issue of Gnostic Texts. It is NOT my argument.

WHY I asked the questions and whether I have read original texts is immaterial. I did ask. After raising the issue initially you seem unwilling or unable to answer simple questions regarding the texts. Is that because truthful answers detract from your position?

Instead, I would say, quite honestly, that I do not know how or why the woman recovered – and the doctors don’t either – and you don’t either.

You say you don't know. If you do not know that it is not a miracle. You must allow for that possibility. If the BEST explanation is a miracle, why reject it?

It is YOUR opinion that a “miracle” is the “best explanation”. Because you believe something is NOT an indication that it is true – because, as you have indicated, you are willing to accept claims without verification.

I see NO evidence upon which to base a conclusion. I do NOT feel compelled to “explain” or to claim that I know why the woman recovered. I am not in a position to make that determination.

Evidently you feel as though you are qualified to decide why the woman recovered. What gives you that insight?

When some one returns from being brain dead and those around that person claim God's intervention - a miracle - and there is no other competing theory or evidence for a competing theory (such as the equipment used to diagnose here death was shown faulty) then I feel confident that a miracle is the BEST explanation.

You are welcome to your OPINION.

In my opinion it is more appropriate to NOT state a cause when a cause is not known. Proposing a “best explanation” is NOT a determination of cause. It is nothing more than conjecture backed by NOTHING but opinion.

You are welcome to that position if you like. It may be difficult to “sell” to analytical thinkers.

Is it absolutely certain? No. But the rational person goes with the BEST explanation.

A wise person might NOT state a position when causes are not known.

An honest person acknowledges when they are expressing OPINONS.

Only when further evidence shows that explanation false, do we conclude the previous explanation is untrue. Science operates under a similar mandate.

Kindly substantiate “science operates under a similar mandate”. That does not fit with the science I studied.

The science I studied does NOT accept unverified claims.

I have asked questions that you cannot answer with credibility to defend the claim that a dead body came back to life.

Questions mean jack-squat. They are just questions. I'm not defending the Rez. We are debating whether the Rez was true. Not whether you think my answers are credible.

Yes, we are debating whether the “resurrection” occurred or not.

Questions and answers (or lack thereof) can be very important in evaluating whether a person presents credible arguments. Ducking critical questions such as how a dead body came back to life does not lend credibility to one’s arguments.

To whom are you addressing your comments, Mr. Goose? Who is evaluating whether your answers are credible?

All you have offered as “evidence” are tales by people who believe in “miracles” saying that they saw a “miracle”.

And you have yet to demonstrate WHY we shouldn't believe them.

Testimonials and hearsay that are unsupported are NOT regarded as reliable. If you wish to believe whatever anyone says or writes that is your business; however, rational people question what they are told.

Rational people do not presume guilt with out evidence.

Agreed.

Rational people ALSO do not presume truth without evidence.

I presume neither truth nor falsehood regarding “resurrection” accounts. I simply state that unsupported testimonials and hearsay are not adequate basis for decision and that there is insufficient evidence to indicate that a “miracle” occurred.

Since the claimed “miracle” is the basis for Christianity, I question the entire belief system because it is based on unsubstantiated claims, testimonials and hearsay.

Rational people presume innocence until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes. However, we are not debating guilt or innocence.

Rational people do NOT assume another person is lying until there is conclusive evidence that the person is lying or mistaken.

A wise person considers what is said by others in relation to other information, knowledge and experience.

In real life, most people do not believe without question what they are told. Anyone who did so would be regarded as extremely gullible.

You haven't provided even a shred of evidence to cause us to think the writers were lying or mistaken.

Correct. I simply state that testimonials and hearsay are not adequate basis for decision – particularly for an event that is claimed is highly significant -- such as the basis of Christianity – and the culmination of an earthly visit by “our creator”.

If anything there are indicators of truthful accounts such as the inclusion of embarrassing elements.

Yes, that is the strongest evidence you have presented “the principle of embarrassment”

You claim to know that “goddidit”. I ask that you show me and the readers how you know that.

It's the best explanation for the evidence given the surrounding circumstances or Jesus' life, that's how I know.

That is your OPINION. My opinion is that the best explanation for the claim that a body came back to life is that the tale is a fable, fiction or fraud.

However, you HAVE claimed that a dead body came back to life. I ask you to verify that claim with something other than hearsay, biblical quotations and assumptions. If you cannot do so, you have FAILED to demonstrate that the resurrection is true (which is the subject of this debate).

You can ask for whatever you want. But your preconceived and double standard requests do not prove the Rez false.

More important, my questions and the “answers” you provide indicate that you cannot substantiate the claim that the resurrection actually occurred. THAT is why I ask the questions – to help you demonstrate to readers that you cannot provide rational answers.

The more you go on (while assuming “victory”), the more irrational your position becomes – as indicated by the opening quote of this post.

If you maintain that the processes of nature did NOT apply in the example you cite, you ARE making a special plea. You are claiming that what we know of nature did not apply in the story you tell. And perhaps pigs can fly and gods can ascend in storybook tales. [/b]

I've already explained why it's not a Special Plea.

You have tried to excuse your special plea. I leave it to readers to decide whether your excuse is convincing.

The “justification” offered is “goddidit”.

No. The justification is that the supernatural can possibly exist.

“Can possibly exist” is NOT any indication of “did occur”.

It is “possible” that Satan was Jesus. Does that mean that it is true?

Considering Jesus claimed his Rez would happen it fits the context of events.

If one is conditioned to believe that they are told (or what is written in a book) they may conclude that prophesy occurred. An alternative explanation is that the story is fiction.

If the supernatural can possible exist, then God raised Jesus from the dead is the best explanation. When are going to get this?

I am NOT going to “get this” because it is simply your OPINION that I do not share.

Whether the supernatural is possible or not, there is NO assurance that “god raised Jesus from the dead”. That is your OPINION – nothing more.

There is no assurance that Allah raised (or did not raise) Jesus from the dead. You choose to believe that a “raising” did occur and that your favorite god was responsible – based upon stories in a book -- and a personal desire to believe.

[Goose]

Goose's post 5 of 10

I've provided a methodology used by historians for showing the Rez true. Zzyzx has failed to comment on the methodology or offer a clear method of his own. He has also failed to address the evidence and arguments presented in post one of ten and failed to offer any evidence for his own case. I'm always reluctant to claim victory in a debate but what else should I conclude here?

Of course you can claim victory. That fits well with other delusional claims and with the “methodology” and style of Easyrider, Biker, Rusty and Goose.

Zzyzx responds with an ad hominem. So, you concede the debate then.

This will probably be my last post in this thread unless Zzyzx can up his game from the intellectually bankrupt position "there is no evidence" combined with an anti-supernatural bias. Also, these posts are getting long, going off topic and covering old ground. I'll keep this as short as possible as I've already presented my arguments and evidence which Zzyzx has yet to touch in any detail.

More observations:

13. We have seen that Zzyzx raises the bar when presented direct evidence that meets a request or shows his assertion untrue. This was made obvious with his repeated assertions that the Rez has for evidence only "a single source" meaning the Bible . He was shown this to be incorrect with First Clement written during the same time as the NT. Zzyzx then changed his position to be "NOT from the bible (and not from closely connected church sources). We will never be able to meet Zzyzx demands. He can't even meet his own demands for historical issues - that's the irony.

14. Zzyzx has been repeatedly requested to prove King Tut existed using the methodology he demands for the Rez. He won't apply the methodology he requests for the Rez to the existence of King Tut to show us that his methods aren't merely stemming from a bias. He continues to tell us we should believe King Tut existed - he is satisfied therefore we should be - and not believe Jesus rose from the dead because he doesn't think it's reasonable to believe such a thing based on the evidence. Zzyzx thinks he has "verification" King Tut existed because he has a mummy, coffin and tomb and a convergence of evidence. What Zzyzx really has is an inductive argument that King Tut existed, much the same as the Rez. He has presented the BEST explanation for the evidence - a young pharaoh named King Tut is the mummy in the tomb. In reality he applies the same methodology I do to a degree. He just doesn't want to see it. He has no more "verification" or "substantiation" for the existence of King Tut than Christians have for the Rez, yet he believes King Tut existed wholeheartedly with "no doubt" and mocks Christians for their belief.


Let's deal with this first:

This is why the rational person goes with the BEST explanation that has explanatory power and scope and accounts for all the evidence. Do you disagree?

I disagree...

On what grounds would a rational person disagree with that statement?

... You are claiming to have the “best” explanation for a story that you claim is true. That is your OPINION.

Let's compare explanations to see if it can be objectively shown which explanation is better.

God raising Jesus and appearing alive explains:

1. Why the tomb was found empty. This is quite simple. If Jesus was still found in the tomb He was obviously still dead.
2. It explains the disciples sincere belief Jesus appeared to them. It further explains why the disciples turned from abandoning Jesus from fear before the crucifixion to proclaiming that Jesus was the Christ and that He rose from the dead despite persecution and even possibly death after the crucifixion.
3. The conversion of a church enemy Paul and his subsequent prolific career as an apostle despite hardships, persecutions and ultimately martyrdom.
4. The conversion of James, a sceptic prior to the crucifixion, and subsequent role as a leader in the church.

The Rez is the best explanation because it combines explanatory power and scope given the context of Jesus' life and accounts for all the evidence that passes a rigorous criteria. We need no other disconnected and ad hoc theories. In this light it can be objectively seen this is the BEST explanation. All other explanations require additional speculative theories to account for evidence left unattended to. The rational position is to go with the best explanation. When one particular explanation far outstrips other explanations it is rational to conclude this explanation is true in historical enquiries.

Zzyzx's explanation:

I have a better explanation in MY opinion...I conclude that the BEST explanation for the tale is that it is a legend (or fable, fiction or fraud).

Let's use Zzyzx's explanation to see if it accounts for all the evidence and has explanatory power and scope.

A legend (or fable, fiction or fraud) that Jesus rose from the dead would not adequately account for:

1. The disciples sincere belief that Jesus appeared to them. People do not subject themselves to persecution or death for what they know to be lies and legends.
2. The conversion of Paul, an enemy.
3. The conversion of James, a sceptic.

Zzyzx needs more disconnected theories that have no evidence for support to account for these.

Additionally, Zzyzx ignored this in the last post

Your the fable and legend theory falls flat under scrutiny. Paul was writing far too early for fact to have been replaced by legend and fable. Paul was writing with in twenty years and he affirms the Rez. In fact, even some critical and sceptical scholars (I can provide a list if you wish) concede the creedal passages found in Paul's writings such as First Corinthians 15:1-8 originated with in only months of the crucifixion. Even if we use later dating for the Gospels from 70AD to 100AD it is still too early to have fact entirely replaced by fable. Your fable and legend theory is further obliterated by the lack of explanatory power. Why would the writers propagate and embellish legends and fables that would potentially put themselves and other prospective converts into persecution and even harm's way. Your theory fails to answer this. Also, fables and legends are highly unlikely to convince Paul, an enemy of the church, and James a sceptic. You need to present additional theories to account for why these men converted.

Other issues:

NO WONDER you believe in miracles. You are not asking for any verification – simply accepting what you are told. That should destroy any credibility you might have had with readers (other than fellow “true believers” who also WANT to believe in “divine miracles”).

No wonder you DON'T believe in miracles. You've requested it to be "verified" but can't even apply your own criterion of "verifying" to other things you accept as true such as the existence of King Tut. You've manufactured a method that is a double standard and will allow you to never believe in the supernatural. That should destroy your credibility with any reader.

Zzyzx does NOT seek to show that the “resurrection” is objectively false – realizing that proving non-existence or non-occurrence is a fool’s errand

It seems like Zzyzx has finally woken up and smelt the coffee. If you don't seek to show the Rez objectively false WHY did you challenge me to debate it's truth?

I challenged you to debate the truth of the “resurrection” to demonstrate exactly what has been demonstrated above – that belief in miracles is based upon acceptance of stories without verification – that any claim that a person wants to accept is simply accepted as though it was true.

And your attempt to show "that any claim that a person wants to accept is simply accepted as though it was true" has failed. It's failed because I've provided a transparent method which can be applied across the spectrum of history and you could show where it is faulty. I've also provided evidence which you could show false. But you've not even attempted to do either. You've provided nothing but your double standards and subjective opinions. Additionally, you are still using the word "verified." But I've noticed you can not "verify" the existence of King Tut, a person you have "no doubt" about, in the same manner you request of the Rez so your own criterion and request for "verification" of the Rez and Biblical accounts is bogus.

There is no more evidence that the “miracle of the resurrection” occurred than there is that a “miracle” occurred when a woman recovered from a coma. In both cases those who WANT to believe in miracles see miracles.

Anybody can deny a miracle even when it is the best explanation. Just default to, "Duh, I can't explain what happened, therefore it wasn't a miracle. There MUST be a naturalistic explanation somewhere out there!" Or, find a naturalistic explanation that either has no evidence for support or fails to account for the existing evidence and lacks explanatory power. In other words, take the irrational position of accepting a weak unsupported explanation(s) as true.

Zzyzx argues against the resurrection as a scientist, not as an historian – and uses scientific approaches to demonstrate that proposed claims that a dead body came back to life have NOT been substantiated with anything other than stories in a book – to verify that the creator of the universe allowed himself to be killed and then returned to life.

Use the scientific method to "substantiate" that King Tut existed.

Then WHY on God's green earth did you challenge me to a debate on "Was the Rez True?" What a complete waste of time.

I challenged you to debate the issue in order to encourage you to demonstrate that you cannot support the contention that the “resurrection” (the BASIS of Christianity) actually occurred.

I, correctly, expected that you would attempt to avoid admitting that there is no evidence other than storybook tales and that you would claim “supernatural” intervention in earthly affairs (“goddidit”) – without being able to substantiate that gods influence events on Earth.

In other words, you committed the Genetic Fallacy in rejecting the evidence because it comes from the Bible followed by the fallacy of Begging the Question that the supernatural does not exist. Saweeeet!

8. Zzyzx is confusing "convincing" with truth. He seems to think that if I can't "convince" him then the Rez is untrue. However, this thread is "Was the Rez true?" It is NOT "Is the Rez convincing to Sceptics like Zzyzx?" We don't determine truth by whether or not we can "convince" another person - that would make truth subjective.

What is your purpose of this debate, Mr. Goose?

My purpose is irrelevant. The question for debate is "Was the Rez True?" I've shown it to be true with a method used by historians and evidence. You've whined about the evidence and haven't said boo about the methodology.

The rational person knows that there are objective truths. If something is true it is objectively true whether or not another person says they are "convinced" or not.

Are you claiming to possess “objective truth” concerning the “resurrection”?

Yes, as objective as historical enquiry can be. If YOU have a better method for objectively determining the truth of a historical event than the one I've presented in post one of ten you should get busy presenting it so we can apply it across the spectrum of history. And stop whining about the one I've presented.


Regarding Zzyzx's methodology and double standards:

Now let's apply that to the existence of King Tut. Can Zzyzx establish the truth, accuracy or reality that Tut existed using information drawn from a variety of independent (not associated), impartial (if possible) sources? Let's see if he can. It's his criterion he is requesting of the Rez. He should demonstrate that it can be applied to other historical events such as the existence of King Tut with out failing the existence of King Tut, something Zyzx believes with "no doubt." I would like to see him apply this criterion and method to see if Zzyzx can "verify" the existence of King Tut. This will confirm whether or not Zzyzx employs a double standard. I think he does.

Zzyzx and other informed people are aware that a mummy identified as King Tut was discovered in a tomb filled with impressive grave goods. The person has been identified as a young pharaoh who died 3000 years ago, was mummified and placed in a tomb.

WHAT exactly is to be doubted?

That the mummy IS King Tut and that King Tut actually existed. How did you identify the mummy was King Tut? You are assuming it is. Come on Zzyzx, stop playing games. Let's see you "verify" Tut's existence and that the mummy IS Tut with your own methods or admit you can not. Then, when you are done "verifying" it you can "demonstrate" that it IS King Tut and that he existed and "substantiate" it. Let's see it...

I suspect that readers have heard all they wish or need to hear about your doubts (whatever they may be) regarding King Tut, while promoting the resurrection for which there is far less evidence. You may continue to discuss King Tut if you wish. I am satisfied that I have said all that is necessary for readers to understand my position.

You haven't said anything about Tut or provided any evidence. You've linked us to wiki and told us to believe Tut existed because Egyptologists believe he existed. Your position is blatantly obvious. You arbitrarily accept things from history with out the same evidence or "verification" you expect of other things you don't like. You apply a double standard - that much is obvious.

Yet science cannot answer a historical question using the scientific method. History is technically strictly speaking non-repeatable or observable and therefore cannot be subjected to the scientific process. This is another categorical fallacy. It would be the same type of fallacy to consider whether logic is logical from a perspective of science. Or to consider whether truth exists from a perspective of science.

Claims of those who write “history” CAN be examined scientifically.

Let's see you use the scientific method to "demonstrate" Julius Caesar was assassinated or crossed the Rubicon. Don't forget your time machine. Ready, set go...

When a supposedly “historical” account makes claims that are incredible (too extraordinary and improbable to be believed), those CLAIMS can be examined in relation to physics and other natural sciences.

How are you qualifying "too extraordinary and improbable to be believed?" Is that your subjective anti-supernatural opinion talking? How can you say that about something BEFORE you look at the evidence to support the claim? You must Beg the Question again. You are also confusing feasibility through the eyes of naturalism with how we determine the truth of an historical event as though one proves or disproves the other. Whether something is shown to be feasible or not by science does not preclude it from being possible or having actually happened or not. Science is a valuable discipline but it's NOT the all encompassing one you think it is.

You reject their testimony because they ARE believers. That's the Genetic Fallacy.

I state that hearsay and testimonials are NOT evidence and that testimony by anonymous people who can have vested interest (including those who promote a belief) CANNOT be regarded as reliable.

Would you reject the testimony of Holocaust survivors? Probably not. You are back to the Genetic Fallacy. You reject the source of the information because of who they are not because the information has been shown to be false. Also, most of history is reported by anonymous works. But, you accept the reliability of the biased and anonymous accounts that are equally hearsay in nature for the existence of King Tut. You can't get away from this double standard. It's killing your non-arguments.

Do YOU believe anonymous accounts of incredible feats by different gods? If not, why not?

Let's put this Red Herring to rest. I don't doubt supernatural events outside the Bible simply because they are supernatural or credited to other gods. That would be Begging the Question (you know, the fallacy you are committing). I would subject a supernatural claim to the same methodology in post one of ten. The supernatural can exist outside of God's direct influence and still be compatible with Christian belief. I'm not worried about this, in fact, I expect it.

4. “The principle of embarrassment” (extremely weak non-argument)

Hey, if it's good enough for professional historians it's good enough for me.

Does your “if it is good enough for professional historians it is good enough for me” apply to the conclusions of other professional historians who regard the resurrection is not literally true? Or, do you simply choose which is “good enough” based on their agreement with your positions?

That's probably your best question of the entire debate. I've often wondered WHY secular or atheist historians that believe the non-supernatural events of the NT reject the supernatural when their own methodologies show the supernatural every bit as true as the non-supernatural. I guess that's where presuppositions toward the supernatural come into play for the atheist.

5. “The bible is history” (the bible is theology with occasional “history”)

What is the methodology you use to differentiate between history and non-history? At this point it seems to be what you like and don't like.

“Goddidit” IS theology. Claims of “miracles” are theology. Gods are theology – NOT history and not science. NO gods can be shown to be anything more than imaginary creations of human minds.

So your methodology is essentially if it's a miracle it's not history. That's called Begging the Question (a.k.a. circular reasoning).

The response was a claim that the resurrection is a “special case” to which known biological processes do not apply. That IS a “special plea” error in logic and debate.

I'll say this ONE more time and I hope it sinks in. To claim it is a "Special Plea" you must FIRST commit the logical fallacy of Begging the question that the supernatural does not exist. Not to mention the logical fallacy of a straw man argument - Jesus was not reported to be raised by natural means.

You are claiming that “miracles” occur because the bible says they occur.

Wrong.

Oh? What other reason are you offering anyone to accept that a dead body actually came back to life?[/quote]The ABC News report of a woman returning from being brain dead by a miracle would be a start. But you can't comment with any credibility on that because you have no methodology. Further, you just play dumb with, "I don't know how the woman recovered" when presented evidence that miracles occur.

The truthful answer, Goose, is that there is nothing other than those stories to indicate that Jesus arose from being dead. All your claimed “methodology” cannot conceal the absence of any supporting evidence.

What supporting evidence are you expecting? Let's play your game. Kindly, list the sources with a brief explanation why you would expect them to confirm the Rez.
1.
2.
3.

There are atheist and critical historians and scholars that do accept much of the historicity of the NT (with the exception of the supernatural). Why don't you?

I MIGHT accept some of the NT other than supernatural claims as being historical (that is a different topic of discussion).

You reject the supernatural a priori then. If you insist that you do not, give us your methodology for determining what is historical and what is not.

HOWEVER, we are discussing the “resurrection” and that IS a supernatural claim.

Why is this different? If you hold that the supernatural is possible as you claim, WHY would you all of a sudden change your tune merely because it is a supernatural claim rather than a non-supernatural one? I'll bet it's because you don't really hold that the supernatural is possible. You'll no doubt demand better or more convincing evidence because it is a supernatural claim. That shows your bias.

You are supposedly attempting to demonstrate that the resurrection occurred. I would “like” for you to demonstrate that exactly or acknowledge that you cannot.

You still haven't told us how we "demonstrate" an event in history to have occurred. You keep making this request as though it means something. "Demonstrate" King Tut existed.

It is NOT my problem to demonstrate how to verify an event that YOU claim is true. That is YOUR problem since you made the claim.

No, no. That's YOUR straw man argument AGAIN. You have placed this criterion of "demonstrating" the Rez is "verifiable." It's a criterion you can't intelligently even apply to your own belief that King Tut existed. So I see absolutely no reason why I should be expected to meet a double standard you can't meet yourself for your own beliefs.

What you are indicating is that you cannot substantiate that a dead body came back to life – a claim that is central to Christianity. You are making excuses for why you don’t have evidence, but the case is that you DON’T have evidence – only stories in a book.

I have no problem admitting that I will never be able to meet your double standard. But I'm not too concerned. You can't meet your own standard with your own beliefs about Tut, so it must be a bogus standard designed to fail Christianity.

You ask questions because you've probably heard these arguments from some one else (probably on this forum or in a book) and it sounded good. You've never actually looked into the evidence that supports the arguments. You just believe it's true because it supports your world view. Am I wrong? If so, prove me wrong by supplying some evidence from a primary text to support your own arguments.

YOU raised the issue of Gnostic Texts. It is NOT my argument.

Actually, it is your argument. I was just one step ahead of you.

WHY I asked the questions and whether I have read original texts is immaterial. I did ask. After raising the issue initially you seem unwilling or unable to answer simple questions regarding the texts. Is that because truthful answers detract from your position?

In other words, Zzyzx hasn't looked into the evidence. My answer is that there were no "attempts made by the early church to destroy “non-conforming” documents." If you can find evidence to the contrary, you present it and I'll humbly stand corrected.

However, make sure the evidence you present fits your own standards. It can't be biased or by anyone with a vested interest. It can't be hearsay, so you'll need to "verify" the author was an eyewitness and the work isn't anonymous. Then you'll need to "verify" the claim with a convergence of evidence. It should be "substantiated" to my personal satisfaction. But I'll have a different standard for that than other historical claims because I don't like the consequences. Once you've presented the evidence (if there is any) that non-conforming books were destroyed by the church I'll just claim it was a legend and fable and there is no evidence other than hearsay and testimonials. I won't need to show false a story of the church attempting to destroy non-conforming texts that I know never happened. If you ask me to prove your claim false, it just shows you can't prove your own claim true. Sound familiar?

Instead, I would say, quite honestly, that I do not know how or why the woman recovered – and the doctors don’t either – and you don’t either.

You say you don't know. If you do not know that it is not a miracle. You must allow for that possibility. If the BEST explanation is a miracle, why reject it?

It is YOUR opinion that a “miracle” is the “best explanation”. Because you believe something is NOT an indication that it is true – ...

Do you have a better explanation other than "I don't know"?

...because, as you have indicated, you are willing to accept claims without verification.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I see NO evidence upon which to base a conclusion. I do NOT feel compelled to “explain” or to claim that I know why the woman recovered. I am not in a position to make that determination.

How convenient. Just play dumb and say, "I do NOT feel compelled to “explain”..." when presented with evidence for a miracle.

Rational people do not presume guilt with out evidence.

Agreed. Rational people ALSO do not presume truth without evidence.

You've been given the evidence and the method to determine truth. You just continue to ignore it.

In real life, most people do not believe without question what they are told. Anyone who did so would be regarded as extremely gullible.

No one said one shouldn't question. That is precisely why we use a methodology. This helps makes sure our methods are objective and not simply dictated by our biases. People that assume someone else is lying or mistaken with out evidence that this is so and rest that judgement on their own experiences and limited knowledge are considered arrogant and over confident.

You haven't provided even a shred of evidence to cause us to think the writers were lying or mistaken.

Correct. I simply state that testimonials and hearsay are not adequate basis for decision – particularly for an event that is claimed is highly significant -- such as the basis of Christianity – and the culmination of an earthly visit by “our creator”.

But you accept the existence of King Tut for which we don't even have "testimonials and hearsay." You have an unidentified mummy and a tomb, that's it.

If anything there are indicators of truthful accounts such as the inclusion of embarrassing elements.

Yes, that is the strongest evidence you have presented “the principle of embarrassment”

What do you have to show the writers were lying or mistaken? Your biased opinion and double standard.

However, you HAVE claimed that a dead body came back to life. I ask you to verify that claim with something other than hearsay, biblical quotations and assumptions. If you cannot do so, you have FAILED to demonstrate that the resurrection is true (which is the subject of this debate).

You can ask for whatever you want. But your preconceived and double standard requests do not prove the Rez false.

More important, my questions and the “answers” you provide indicate that you cannot substantiate the claim that the resurrection actually occurred. THAT is why I ask the questions – to help you demonstrate to readers that you cannot provide rational answers.

Your questions are bogus. You can't even answer your own questions when they are directed back to you about a person you have "no doubt" - King Tut. You've claimed King Tut existed, I've asked you several times to "verify that claim with something other than hearsay, [interested Egyptian parties]quotations and assumptions."It's the same critical criterion you request of the Rez. Surely you can "substantiate" your own position that King Tut existed. If you can not just concede that you employ a double standard because you don't like Christianity and don't WANT it to be true.

[Zzyzx]

.
Zzyzx post 5 of 10


Hi Mr. Goose,

Here is a demonstration of the defects in your “arguments” and in your thinking.

You are claiming that “miracles” occur because the bible says they occur.

Wrong.

Oh? What other reason are you offering anyone to accept that a dead body actually came back to life?

The ABC News report of a woman returning from being brain dead by a miracle would be a start. But you can't comment with any credibility on that because you have no methodology. Further, you just play dumb with, "I don't know how the woman recovered" when presented evidence that miracles occur.

We both read a report that a woman recovered from a “brain-dead” condition. Neither of us knows the woman, has seen her, has read medical reports of the case, knows anything about her doctors, or has any detailed information concerning the case – only a news report. Neither of us is an expert on medical matters.

I make no attempt to diagnose her condition or her recovery because I realize that there is insufficient information on which to base a decision AND I recognize that I am not a medical expert. Even if I was a medical expert, I would NOT attempt a diagnosis or interpretation from reading an account with no further evidence.

You accuse me of “playing dumb” when I very accurately state that I do not know why she recovered.

You state that you KNOW why she recovered – that your favorite “god” performed a “miracle” and caused the woman to recover BECAUSE the family requested a miracle and believes that one happened. You offer NO verification (or substantiation, support, documentation, or proof) that “goddidit”. You ASSUME that you know that your favorite god (and no other) performed a magical, nature-defying trick – a “miracle”.

Your claim that a “miracle” was involved in the woman’s recovery is just as irrational and illogical as your claim that a “miracle” was involved in a dead body coming back to life. Neither can be shown to have occurred as a “miracle”.

A “miracle” may be the best explanation IN YOUR OPINION; however, your opinion is not objective truth. It is nothing more than an opinion.


And, here is a demonstration of the value of your statements

This will probably be my last post in this thread unless Zzyzx can up his game from the intellectually bankrupt position "there is no evidence" combined with an anti-supernatural bias.

Mr. Goose, do you ACTUALLY intend to stop posting in this thread OR is this statement another ploy or strategy. Is it an example that what you say cannot be taken seriously?

I will carefully NOT “up my game” and will continue to insist that “there is no evidence” to support the “miracle claim of the resurrection”.

You are welcome to stop posting, to resign, to declare yourself victorious, or whatever you wish. However, I intend to make use of five more posts to focus attention on the LACK of evidence to support the incredible claim that a dead body came back to life.

Are you just talking again Mr. Goose?

Since you are unlikely to resign, perhaps you can explain to readers why a “supernatural bias” is somehow superior to an “anti-supernatural bias”.

As stated many times, I am open to consider supernaturalism upon presentation of EVIDENCE – NOT hearsay, legends, ancient writings, church dogma and threats and promises. Religious claims that “supernaturalism is there but you can’t detect it unless you believe” is not very convincing to me nor, I suspect, to others.



As noted previously, my intent is not to “win points” for myself or for my convictions (or to “win” a debate), but rather to encourage you to expose, for the consideration of readers, defects in your arguments and the religion you promote.

Here are five specific questions for this post (as mentioned earlier) that I challenge you to answer honestly and openly for the consideration of all.

1. Are there ANY “facts” that you have presented that could NOT be accounted for by a mythical or fictional account?

2. If the “creator of the universe” actually visited this planet is it likely that “his” presence would be known only to a tiny group of “chosen” humans and that there would be no evidence of his having visited other than tales by “believers”?

3. The “resurrection” is presented as a grand finale in a series of “miracles” performed by the “creator”. WHAT besides “believer” accounts demonstrates that a dead body actually came back to life?

4. Similarly incredible claims are made by worshipers of different gods. Is there any valid reason to accept the incredible claims regarding one “god” and dismiss the claims regarding others (i.e., accept polytheism)?

5. What, exactly, about the mummy in the tomb do you regard as false?


The claim that a “miracle” is the “best” explanation for the “facts” that you claim to present completely ignores the obvious possibility that the best explanation may well be that the entire tale is a legend. That would account for the absence of evidence and for the supposed supernatural implications. In legends and fiction anything is possible – such as existence of “gods”, dead bodies coming back to life and bodies “ascending” into heaven. Legends need no evidence or verification (just like your “arguments”). Legends can be recorded in a single book (of multiple “independent” chapters if necessary).

So, you concede the debate then.

As I said, you are welcome to resign and think that you have “won” something. You may even declare yourself “winner”.

13. We have seen that Zzyzx raises the bar when presented direct evidence that meets a request or shows his assertion untrue. This was made obvious with his repeated assertions that the Rez has for evidence only "a single source" meaning the Bible .

Is “meaning the bible” YOUR statement or mine?

He was shown this to be incorrect with First Clement written during the same time as the NT. Zzyzx then changed his position to be "NOT from the bible (and not from closely connected church sources).

Notice that my statement identifies the “single source” being church-produced writings. I do NOT regard an “epistle”(letter) written by a churchman as a separate source.

In my “Party Handbook” analogy, “First Clement” can be represented by one of the letters written by a promoter of the party that was NOT chosen to be included in the handbook. Citing it later as a “separate source” demonstrates the LACK of supporting documentation.

We will never be able to meet Zzyzx demands.

That is correct because you have no evidence other than tales told by “believers” or “disciples” or “followers”.

He can't even meet his own demands for historical issues - that's the irony.

He has demonstrated how evidence of past events CAN be presented (body, tomb, etc) as evidence that a person lived, died, was mummified and was buried in an elaborate tomb. THAT is not hearsay or legend.

This is why the rational person goes with the BEST explanation that has explanatory power and scope and accounts for all the evidence. Do you disagree?

I disagree...

On what grounds would a rational person disagree with that statement?

First, my exact statement was

I disagree. You are claiming to have the “best” explanation for a story that you claim is true. That is your OPINION.

I have a better explanation in MY opinion. I have seen no evidence (only stories in a book) to indicate that any “resurrection” event occurred. I am also aware that “coming back to life” is an incredible claim that defies what we know about nature regarding dead bodies. Therefore, I conclude that the BEST explanation for the tale is that it is a legend (or fable, fiction or fraud).

Why did you omit significant parts of my statement Mr. Goose?

Second, I have provided – in the part of my statement that you failed to quote -- a very rational alternative – that the entire tale could well be a legend.

My opinion does NOT depend upon “miracles” because no nature-defying magical tricks have EVER been shown to have occurred. Simply calling unexplained occurrences “miracles” is irrational. It is far more appropriate, in my opinion, to call unexplained phenomena by the technical term “unexplained” – acknowledging that we do NOT know everything about nature.

I realize that many fervently believe in miracles; however, fervent belief and large numbers of believers do NOT guarantee truth and accuracy. When believers attempt to convince others that “miracles” are produced by their gods, they have the obligation to demonstrate that they speak the truth (with something other than tales and quotes from ancient writings).

... You are claiming to have the “best” explanation for a story that you claim is true. That is your OPINION.

Let's compare explanations to see if it can be objectively shown which explanation is better.

God raising Jesus and appearing alive explains:

1. Why the tomb was found empty. This is quite simple. If Jesus was still found in the tomb He was obviously still dead.

The claim that the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb is NOT substantiated. The tomb is NOT identified. Both are contained in a book of stories that some choose to believe and some choose to not believe.

The story of guards and an “angel” is hearsay at best. There is no evidence that any such thing as “angels” exist any more than there is for the existence of fairies and goblins.

The claim that the tomb was found empty is a religious claim by believers / followers and is reported ONLY by such sources.

Your assumption that an empty tomb (if such a thing occurred) would prove that Jesus was not dead is a gross error in reasoning. If a dead body is placed in a tomb today and the tomb is found empty three days later, do we assume that the body came back to life?

Or, do we look for a more rational explanation? I would tend to favor the latter. It does not take much thought to come up with several alternatives that would account for a missing body from a tomb today. Why should that be any different for a story about an empty tomb thousands of years ago?

2. It explains the disciples sincere belief Jesus appeared to them. It further explains why the disciples turned from abandoning Jesus from fear before the crucifixion to proclaiming that Jesus was the Christ and that He rose from the dead despite persecution and even possibly death after the crucifixion.

Stories written in a book long after the supposed events report certain behaviors by certain people.

Some believers choose to place great emphasis upon the stories of biblical characters – other people do not. I am among the latter. Likewise, I do not place great emphasis upon stories told about characters in other “god stories” or in other works of fiction.

I regard it as strange that many who dismiss tales of various gods as being false accept claim that their favorite gods are “true” based on similar unverified stories and no more evidence. How does anyone know for certain that their favorite god is the “one true god” among the thousands available?

3. The conversion of a church enemy Paul and his subsequent prolific career as an apostle despite hardships, persecutions and ultimately martyrdom.

Conversion of an enemy is NOT verification of truth – nor is endurance of hardship, persecution or martyrdom.

4. The conversion of James, a sceptic prior to the crucifixion, and subsequent role as a leader in the church.

If one’s claim of truth for what should be the most important event in human history depends upon tales of “conversion” of enemies and skeptics the claim is VERY suspect.

The Rez is the best explanation because it combines explanatory power and scope given the context of Jesus' life and accounts for all the evidence that passes a rigorous criteria.

The “evidence” is tales in a book.

“Explanatory power” and “scope” is nothing more than believing unverified tales because they are told in a favored book.

That the resurrection tale is a legend is a MUCH better explanation for the “evidence” (claims) than the “miracle explanation” in my opinion. Legends can tell of wondrous, magical, impossible feats – without limitations imposed by truth or accuracy or reality.

We need no other disconnected and ad hoc theories.

Those who proclaim that they KNOW what happened have no need to question the “evidence” or to seek alternative explanations for “miracles” or fanciful tales. They have their “truth” and will defend it even with the weakest of “evidence”.

Others may conclude that the “evidence” is suspect and that “miracle” claims need verification. Miracles are, by definition, nature-defying events – claims that some force or “god” caused events contrary to what nature reliably produces – such as dead bodies coming back to life (which cannot be shown to happen in real life).

The claim that, “It happened one time because my favorite god made it happen” is a conjecture that needs support with something other than the story itself.

In order to accept miracle claims, one must set aside knowledge of nature and conclude that “things fall up sometimes” – such as that Jesus “ascended into heaven” (levitated by will of gods) – after “coming back to life” (as told by believers and followers).

In this light it can be objectively seen this is the BEST explanation.

“Objectively seen” as you use the term means your opinion. There is no objectivity in restating your opinion.

Kindly demonstrate that the “miracle tale” is OBJECTIVELY seen as “best explanation”.

All other explanations require additional speculative theories to account for evidence left unattended to.

There is no evidence to be “left unattended to”. There are only stories in ancient writings making supernatural claims that cannot be verified except by the stories themselves.

The rational position is to go with the best explanation. When one particular explanation far outstrips other explanations it is rational to conclude this explanation is true in historical enquiries.

The “best explanation” is, in my opinion (notice that I correctly identify my opinion) is that the “resurrection” tale is a legend (or fable or fiction or possibly fraud).

Zzyzx's explanation:

I have a better explanation in MY opinion...I conclude that the BEST explanation for the tale is that it is a legend (or fable, fiction or fraud).

Let's use Zzyzx's explanation to see if it accounts for all the evidence and has explanatory power and scope.

A legend (or fable, fiction or fraud) that Jesus rose from the dead would not adequately account for:

1. The disciples sincere belief that Jesus appeared to them. People do not subject themselves to persecution or death for what they know to be lies and legends.
2. The conversion of Paul, an enemy.
3. The conversion of James, a sceptic.

Zzyzx needs more disconnected theories that have no evidence for support to account for these.

Correction: Anyone can make up a tale, long after a supposed event, to include all three of the “proofs” you cite. Do you doubt that such a fictional tale can be written?

Do you realize how weak the above arguments are when they are they are cited as the ONLY evidence to support a claim that the most important event in human history occurred as stated?

Additionally, Zzyzx ignored this in the last post

Your the fable and legend theory falls flat under scrutiny. Paul was writing far too early for fact to have been replaced by legend and fable. Paul was writing with in twenty years and he affirms the Rez.

Paul is one of the characters in the story book. Fiction can include claims of any events or occurrences that need not be connected to reality. What a character in the story is supposed to have said about the story is NOT evidence that the story is true.

In fact, even some critical and sceptical scholars (I can provide a list if you wish) concede the creedal passages found in Paul's writings such as First Corinthians 15:1-8 originated with in only months of the crucifixion. Even if we use later dating for the Gospels from 70AD to 100AD it is still too early to have fact entirely replaced by fable.

And other scholars are convinced that the gospels were written long after “months after the crucifixion”. I request that you provide documentation in the form of exact quotes and sources from credible scholars who maintain that the gospels were written within months.

Your fable and legend theory is further obliterated by the lack of explanatory power. Why would the writers propagate and embellish legends and fables that would potentially put themselves and other prospective converts into persecution and even harm's way.

People often express orally or in writing, ideas that would put them or others in jeopardy.

Your theory fails to answer this. Also, fables and legends are highly unlikely to convince Paul, an enemy of the church, and James a sceptic. You need to present additional theories to account for why these men converted.

Anyone can account for ANYTHING in a fictional or mythical tale.

As I stated previously, lies, fables, untruths, distortions, legends, etc CAN be used to convince people (including “Paul”).

You are citing information from WITHIN the tale as “evidence” that it is true. That is known as circular “reasoning” and is typical of biblical “proofs”.

NO WONDER you believe in miracles. You are not asking for any verification – simply accepting what you are told. That should destroy any credibility you might have had with readers (other than fellow “true believers” who also WANT to believe in “divine miracles”).

No wonder you DON'T believe in miracles. You've requested it to be "verified" but can't even apply your own criterion of "verifying" to other things you accept as true such as the existence of King Tut. You've manufactured a method that is a double standard and will allow you to never believe in the supernatural. That should destroy your credibility with any reader.

I am comfortable letting the readers decide whether my request for verification of incredible tales is a “double standard” or not.

I have shown an openness to consider evidence of things from the past – such as the existence of a body and a tomb.

I do NOT accept tales that are supported only by themselves as being true and accurate.

Zzyzx does NOT seek to show that the “resurrection” is objectively false – realizing that proving non-existence or non-occurrence is a fool’s errand

It seems like Zzyzx has finally woken up and smelt the coffee. If you don't seek to show the Rez objectively false WHY did you challenge me to debate it's truth?

I challenged you to debate the truth of the “resurrection” to demonstrate exactly what has been demonstrated above – that belief in miracles is based upon acceptance of stories without verification – that any claim that a person wants to accept is simply accepted as though it was true.

And your attempt to show "that any claim that a person wants to accept is simply accepted as though it was true" has failed. It's failed because I've provided a transparent method which can be applied across the spectrum of history and you could show where it is faulty. I've also provided evidence which you could show false. But you've not even attempted to do either. You've provided nothing but your double standards and subjective opinions. Additionally, you are still using the word "verified." But I've noticed you can not "verify" the existence of King Tut, a person you have "no doubt" about, in the same manner you request of the Rez so your own criterion and request for "verification" of the Rez and Biblical accounts is bogus.

No matter how often you repeat a claim that evidence of the “resurrection” is contained within bible stories, it is still circular “reasoning”. The story says that the story is true based upon tales that cannot be verified told in hearsay accounts.

“My holey book is true because it says it is” (generic).

There is no more evidence that the “miracle of the resurrection” occurred than there is that a “miracle” occurred when a woman recovered from a coma. In both cases those who WANT to believe in miracles see miracles.

Anybody can deny a miracle even when it is the best explanation. Just default to, "Duh, I can't explain what happened, therefore it wasn't a miracle. There MUST be a naturalistic explanation somewhere out there!" Or, find a naturalistic explanation that either has no evidence for support or fails to account for the existing evidence and lacks explanatory power. In other words, take the irrational position of accepting a weak unsupported explanation(s) as true.

Anybody can make up a story of a “miracle” and use the story itself as “evidence” that the supposed magical trick occurred.

IF a dead body came back to life there is need for investigation of the process. HOWEVER, there is NO evidence (other than hearsay) that such an event occurred.

Since there is no evidence that of the event other than the tale itself, the BEST explanation is NOT that a “miracle” occurred, but that the tale is not literally true.

Zzyzx argues against the resurrection as a scientist, not as an historian – and uses scientific approaches to demonstrate that proposed claims that a dead body came back to life have NOT been substantiated with anything other than stories in a book – to verify that the creator of the universe allowed himself to be killed and then returned to life.

Use the scientific method to "substantiate" that King Tut existed.

Presence of a body, elaborate tomb, grave goods indicates that an important person died, was mummified, and was entombed. What about that do you doubt?

Then WHY on God's green earth did you challenge me to a debate on "Was the Rez True?" What a complete waste of time.

I challenged you to debate the issue in order to encourage you to demonstrate that you cannot support the contention that the “resurrection” (the BASIS of Christianity) actually occurred.

I, correctly, expected that you would attempt to avoid admitting that there is no evidence other than storybook tales and that you would claim “supernatural” intervention in earthly affairs (“goddidit”) – without being able to substantiate that gods influence events on Earth.

In other words, you committed the Genetic Fallacy in rejecting the evidence because it comes from the Bible followed by the fallacy of Begging the Question that the supernatural does not exist. Saweeeet!

I may have committed all sorts of “errors” in your eyes; however, your opinion is of no consequence to me. I present ideas for the consideration of the people who read this thread now and in the future. As of now there have been well over 600 views by people that I consider intelligent and capable of evaluating what is said.

You claim to have evidence to support the tale that the “creator of the universe” visited this planet, allowed himself to be “killed”, then rose from the dead. You offer as “proof” . . . . . tales by believers that it happened . . . . Perhaps that convinces people who suffer from a supernatural biases and wishful thinking.

The rational person knows that there are objective truths. If something is true it is objectively true whether or not another person says they are "convinced" or not.

Are you claiming to possess “objective truth” concerning the “resurrection”?

Yes, as objective as historical enquiry can be. If YOU have a better method for objectively determining the truth of a historical event than the one I've presented in post one of ten you should get busy presenting it so we can apply it across the spectrum of history. And stop whining about the one I've presented.

Thank you for demonstrating that you have no idea what “objective truth” means.

I have presented a body, a tomb and grave goods as an indication that events of the past CAN be shown to have occurred with EVIDENCE. There is NO doubt in the mind of a rational person that a person died, the corpse was mummified and buried in an elaborate tomb suitable for a pharaoh.

I cite a contrast between actual evidence (body and tomb) and the TALES written in a book by “believers” (including “converts”) that the greatest event in the history of the world occurred as claimed.


In the unlikely event that you actually stop posting in this thread, I thank you for helping bring contrasting ideas to the attention of present and future readers. Thinking, discriminating people will evaluate the merits of what is said and may use the information in making their own decisions regarding supernaturalism.