Belief in the Resurrection is the Best Position to Hold

[POI]

After a recent exchange with a Christian, this Christian claimed a positive belief in the resurrection is the best position to hold after critical thought. Reference post 49 of (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 5#p1130835)

Below are the following positions one could take, baring one has performed their due diligence, regarding full investigation for this very large and "extraordinary" claim:

a) believe it did happen
b) believe it did not happen
c) remain 'agnostic', or not convinced, or undecided, doubtful, unbelieving, other...

***********************

For debate:

It is the Christian's burden to support why a positive belief in a resurrection holds to the best conclusion for this claim after critically thinking. --- option (a).

I guess that means it is also the gnostic atheist's position to support why disbelief in a resurrection holds to the best conclusion for this claim after critically thinking. -- option (b).

Option (c) carries no real burden, as one is merely unresolved or undecided on either (a) or (b).

Thus, 'Christians' and 'hard atheists', let the games begin! What is the best position to hold and why --- after sufficient critical thinking; a, b, or c?

[JehovahsWitness]

The belief you are challenging pertains to the existence of an intervener...

No, not at all. As I have explained to you several times the premise upon which your believe is based (whether you know it or not ) is of the possible intervention of a God (who may or may not exist) . May I respectfully remind you of your own words...

(One or more arguments for "God's" existence may be sound, but they only entail a first cause or designer, not an intervener)

So, while you remain agnostic as to the existence of God (and I don"t care to discuss your belief or lack of in that area) you affirm that even if he ie a "God" [not an "intervener" ] A GOD the argument for which {to quote you} " may be sound" you affirm that would only be {again quoting you} [as] a first cause or designer" .


So according to your belief system, while there are possible arguments for a God , [ie the God for whom there may or may not be arguments for him existing as a first cause], that God intervening (and thus making himself "an intervener" ), is not a role you believe in.

My question was simple enough , ...why do you believe a "first cause /designer" God (should he exists) will not make himself subsequently ""first cause /designer God" who chooses at some point to intervene ?

JW

[fredonly]

The belief you are challenging pertains to the existence of an intervener...

No, not at all. As I have explained to you several times the premise upon which your believe is based (whether you know it or not ) is of the possible intervention of a God (who may or may not exist) . May I respectfully remind you of your own words...

(One or more arguments for "God's" existence may be sound, but they only entail a first cause or designer, not an intervener)

So, while you remain agnostic as to the existence of God (and I don"t care to discuss your belief or lack of in that area) you affirm that even if he ie a "God" [not an "intervener" ] A GOD the argument for which {to quote you} " may be sound" you affirm that would only be {again quoting you} [as] a first cause or designer" .

Please note the quotation marks I placed around the term, "God". I did this because the term is ambiguous- the ambiguity surrounds the properties one assumes the hypothetical being possesses.

I referenced arguments for the existence of some such being (arguments that use the term "God") and that I was somewhat agnostic to the soundness of the arguments. But those arguments do not entail "Jehovah" - the being you consider supreme, along with whatever properties you choose to assume it has. In actuality, each argument entails only limited properties of some alleged being.

For example, the Kalam Cosmoligical Argument entails a first cause. Nothing more, not even an intelligent being. The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument entails an ontological ground that exists out of metaphysical necessity. There is no such argument for an intervener.

So your source of confusion is your reading "Jehovah" (replete with assumed properties) into those arguments, treating them as confirming your belief rather than considering what they actually entail.

My question was simple enough , ...why do you believe a "first cause /designer" God (should he exists) will not make himself subsequently ""first cause /designer God" who chooses at some point to intervene ?

Why assume a first cause that may exist out of metaphysical necessity has the ability to intervene in the world ? It's historical ability to initiate the universe does not entail an ability to diverge from the laws of nature intrinsic to the universe. Does this being even continue to exist in an actionable form? Perhaps the universe is the corpse of this being? The possibilities are endless, so it's irrational to make any specific assumptions.

Can you now please comment on the line of reasoning I gave you? See the bold section in my prior post.

[JehovahsWitness]

The belief you are challenging pertains to the existence of an intervener...

No, not at all. As I have explained to you several times the premise upon which your believe is based (whether you know it or not ) is of the possible intervention of a God (who may or may not exist) . May I respectfully remind you of your own words...

(One or more arguments for "God's" existence may be sound, but they only entail a first cause or designer, not an intervener)

So, while you remain agnostic as to the existence of God (and I don"t care to discuss your belief or lack of in that area) you affirm that even if he ie a "God" [not an "intervener" ] A GOD the argument for which {to quote you} " may be sound" you affirm that would only be {again quoting you} [as] a first cause or designer" .

Please note the quotation marks I placed around the term, "God". ...

So what?! The point is that you were theorizing about a God/ "God" [defined by you as a "first cause/designer" seperate and apart from what you call an "intervener". Regardless of whether you believe in said god's/Gods/"Gods" existence or not (I don't care either way) , your point was was obviously related to the supposed properties of that which you defined yourself and called "God". Implying that while there may be arguments for a god /first cause /designer (regardless of whether you think them valid: I dont care either way) , there are none for a God [presumably also so defined] that intervenes. So there's no point in claiming, "Oh but I was not talking about God...Inwas only talking about "an intervener" " , since you obviously were as per your introducing the "God" into the equation.


Which bring us full circle: what is the basis for concluding that even if there were arguments of a god/ "God" as a first cause /designer, there can be none for a "God" that intervenes? Note : I'm not asking if you believe in any of this (I dont care one way or the other) , the question would be the same for a die hard, sworn, card carrying atheist. What is the rational for concluding that should a God /first cause designer exist (I dont care where you stand on the question of existence ) he could not or would not choose to become an "intervener"






JW

[fredonly]

Which bring us full circle: what is the basis for concluding that even if there were arguments of a god/ "God" as a first cause /designer, there can be none for a "God" that intervenes?

I never said there couldn't be, but I I've looked and haven't seen one, so I've done my deonontological duty and of course, I remain open to someone presenting evidence and logic that establishes this. I refer you back to the general reasoning I gave you, that you've avoided commenting on.

What is the rational for concluding that should a God /first cause designer exist (I dont care where you stand on the question of existence ) he could not or would not choose to become an "intervener"

I answered that in my last post:

Why assume a first cause that may exist out of metaphysical necessity has the ability to intervene in the world ? It's historical ability to initiate the universe does not entail an ability to diverge from the laws of nature intrinsic to the universe. Does this being even continue to exist in an actionable form? Perhaps the universe is the corpse of this being? The possibilities are endless, so it's irrational to make any specific assumptions.

You seem to assume that "first cause/necessarily existing being" necessarily would have the ability to intervene in the world. That (apparent non-sequitur) seems to be the source of your confusion and frustration.

Please note the quotation marks I placed around the term, "God". [I did this because the term is ambiguous- the ambiguity surrounds the properties one assumes the hypothetical being possesses.]

So what?! The point is that you were theorizing about a God/ "God" [defined by you as a "first cause/designer" seperate and apart from what you call an "intervener".

"Theorizing"? I simply acknowledged that some deistic arguments are possibly sound, and tried to make it clear that their soundness does not entail "God" - as you conceive of it/her/him. Their entailments are narrow, and collectively they do not define a set of properties to apply to a definition because any of them may be unsound.

[JehovahsWitness]

Which bring us full circle: what is the basis for concluding that even if there were arguments of a god/ "God" as a first cause /designer, there can be none for a "God" that intervenes?

I never said there couldn't be, but I I've looked and haven't seen one, ...

Okay, you believe what you believe. You presented your point in a way that gave me the impression that there was more to your beliefs than that but people do tend to regress (when it comes to their beliefs) to a more emotional and less logic based footing, so I cannot fault you on that. You've looked and you havent seen one... Fair enough.



JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[fredonly]

Okay, you believe what you believe. You presented your point in a way that gave me the impression that there was more to your beliefs than that but people do tend to regress (when it comes to their beliefs) to a more emotional and less logic based footing, so I cannot fault you on that. You've looked and you havent seen one... Fair enough.

I'm going to hazard a guess: you've never studied epistemology, even informally.

[TRANSPONDER]

Which bring us full circle: what is the basis for concluding that even if there were arguments of a god/ "God" as a first cause /designer, there can be none for a "God" that intervenes?

I never said there couldn't be, but I I've looked and haven't seen one, ...

Okay, you believe what you believe. You presented your point in a way that gave me the impression that there was more to your beliefs than that but people do tend to regress (when it comes to their beliefs) to a more emotional and less logic based footing, so I cannot fault you on that. You've looked and you havent seen one... Fair enough.



JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

This logical method of not believing (while not denying as though from a position of definite knowledge) where there is not persuasive evidence is basic to materialist and scientific thought. The burden of proof is on the one who claims. The one who says they are not convinced is not obliged to present evidence for any counter - claim (1) as they haven't made one, though I reckon they do have a duty (through intellectual honesty) to give reason why the claimant's evidence is not good enough.

Which is what the debates are about here but, as we know, Believers consistently try to shift the burden of proof to the atheists to prove there is not god. Which is not the argument and is classic strawmanning,

The funny thing is that theists know the principle very well and use it to rebut the claim of abogenesis. The evidence is lacking (or not persuasive) and so abiogenesis is not proven, so they say. But they fail to apply it to their own claim.

The argument (as I follow it) is that there is no valid evidence of a god intervening in the world (despite strenuous apologetics efforts to show there is) and thus no good reason to believe in one, never mind a particular one. The argument is never claiming knowledge that a god must intervene (though it's a fair point) and the lack of decent evidence proves that it doesn't exist, and that is a definite claim and thus the burden of proof falls on the god - denier. It's a neat trick and seems to be the basis of theist apologetics.

"The God - claim is true until 100% proven that it isn't". And all the theists has to do is dismiss, reject and deny the evidence on any excuse, pretext or just on Faith. No wonder that shifting the burden of proof to the atheists is the Holy Gruel of the Theist.

Epistemology aside, the Faithbased foundation of Theist apologetics makes it irrational, illogical and invalid right from the start.

(1) e.g 'Even if you could disprove evolution, that doesn't mean that Goddunnit as to be the default theory. The default is 'we don't know'. This applies also to cosmic origins, Consciousness and NDEs.

P.s Let me see what Steelmanning is again as I can never remember how it is supposed to work.

Hmmph They don't seem to be sure either. I see it used as a type of strawman, a way of refribbing an old argument to make it look valid or even a way of making an argument better. It is supposed to be an invalid argument or one that's made better? Until they decide what a Steelman argument is, I shall leave it on the side of my polemical plate.

[fredonly]

The argument (as I follow it) is that there is no valid evidence of a god intervening in the world (despite strenuous apologetics efforts to show there is) and thus no good reason to believe in one, never mind a particular one.

I actually stated the general argument that it is irrational to believe in the existence of any hypothetical entity if there's neither evidence for it's existence nor can its existence be inferred from other facts.

This explains why it's irrational to believe there's a pink elephant in one's bedroom (no evidence), and why it could one day be rational to believe in a multiverse (if/when it is inferred from a well-grounded scientific theory).

My reasoning doesn't just imply I merely lack the belief in an intervening god; I actually believe such gods don't exist - because that is the more rational position. Lacking belief entails agnosticism - withholding judgement. It would be silly to be withhold judgement about whether or not a pink elephant is in the bedroom. It' equally silly to withhold judgement on the existence of ANY hypothetical entity that's not inferred by evidence or implied by other facts.

You're right that I don't claim knowledge, in the strict sense, but IMO actual knowledge is extremely rare. The attainable objective is justified belief. And since most beliefs are abductive, they should also be falsifiable and subject to revision as more facts become available.

"The God - claim is true until 100% proven that it isn't".And all the theists has to do is dismiss, reject and deny the evidence on any excuse, pretext or just on Faith. No wonder that shifting the burden of proof to the atheists is the Holy Gruel of the Theist.

Agreed, and it applies to a slew of irrational beliefs. It's the basis for conspiracy theories: make a claim rooted in bias, cynicism, or paranoia - then when challenged, respond, "prove me wrong". The problem is always that belief in the theory is unjustified. I see a strong parallel between conspiracy theorists and many theists (not all).

IMO, the only objective "burdens" are the burden to hold only rational beliefs, and in debate: the burden to expose the irrationality of the other person's position.

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you. I get that - the whole burden of proof claim for gods, Ghosts, UFOs or any other 'Super - natural' claim. This covers also the intervening God claim. Suppose there is no good evidence that a god does intervene in the world, the logical hypothesis is not that it has to pretend it isn't there, but it actually isn't there. Which is the preferred theory that best fits the facts, not some supposed proof that a god is not there. It's a difference the theists can't see or don't want to, no matter how much we tell them - the best theory that fits the acts is not a positive claim to know what the facts are.

[The Nice Centurion]

But that admission would seem to undercut the force of your argument. You framed your analysis of Paul's comments in post #2 with the assertion that a genuine sighting would somehow "verify" the resurrection. But it seems that now you're saying that that is not the case.

Yes, as far as I'm aware, the only way for a person in the first century to verify a genuine resurrection occurred would be to:

1. Confirm the person was, in fact, dead. (Granting for the sake of argument)

and

2. Actually see the person in physical reality and preferably, the same thing be witnessed by other present bystanders.

That would be the only way for them to verify an actual Resurrection occurred.

The point is the earliest and only firsthand source regarding the Resurrection does not even meet this necessary condition.

As for what it would take for a modern person who cares about evidence to be justified in believing a resurrection in the first century occurred, clearly speaking of physical encounters with the person would help but would not be sufficient I don't think. For instance, there are many reports of people seeing Asclepius. Maximus of Tyre (Or. 9.7) even makes sure to clarify his sighting of Asclepius "was not in a dream." He saw Hercules "in waking reality." Do you believe that though? You should, because that's a much clearer claim than Paul just saying Jesus "appeared" to people especially when the same word for "appeared" (ophthe) was used in the Septuagint for when God appeared in visions and dreams to people.

What it would take for a modern person who cares about evidence to be justified in believing a resurrection in the first century occurred
First: It would not hurt if the body were utterly destroyed!
One may ask: How then ist the person supposed toresurrect? But why mot ask the same about how to come back from a decomposed brain?

Second: WITNESSES FOR THE ACTUAL RESURRECTION would be nice! (NOT some HOBO strolling around later, who is claimed to have been the resurrected person much later.)

Third: Give us DETAILS AND MECHANICS of The Resurrection. No one wants to touch this. Everyone avoids that like plague. AND THAT IS MORE THAN SUSPICIOUS!

Fourth: if the RESURRECTED ONE would be alive and well among us until today to talk to and to be examined in a laboratory it would give a hand for believing.
But that might be too much to ask. Though, it might explain why so many christians today claim to speak with Jesus.
They try to FEIGN this kind of evidence.

By "vision" here I assume you mean an internal, subjective experience.

Yes because that's what visions are and what we normally mean by the word "vision." It's an experience outside the normal mode of sense perception.

But, based on the methodology you employed in your original analysis, why do you think Paul is describing a vision?

Because of Gal. 1:16. When people claim to have a "revelation" from God, they normally mean a private spiritual experience, not physically interacting with a revived corpse. The same verb for Paul's "vision" in 1 Cor 15:8 is used for all the "appearances" to the others in 1 Cor 15:5-7 and so there is no evidential based reason to regard them as any different in nature.

What do you mean by "verified"?

Unanimously agreed upon by all scholars such as is the case with Paul.

To be sure, most critical New Testament scholars don't think the gospels were composed by eyewitnesses. But I think most critical scholars would say that the gospels contain at least some eyewitness testimony.

And what about when it comes to the Resurrection narratives?

There is the empty tomb (Paul mentions a burial),

Paul mentions no details regarding the burial or empty tomb narrative from the gospels though...

Moreover, the empty tomb story fits the "missing body" trope which was in fictional literature of the time. The story would be equally expected under the fictional creation hypothesis and, so, is not sufficient to serve as evidence for its own historicity (especially given there is no independent attestation of it since all the other gospel authors seem to have been aware of or copied from Mark).

there are appearances of the risen Christ

Which all grow in the telling and have different witnesses. No gospel matches Paul's appearance chronology.

The story evolves like this:

1. Paul - no evidence of a Resurrected Jesus that remained on the earth or had his formerly dead corpse touched after revivification. Uses a "revelation" (Gal. 1:16) as an "appearance" in 1 Cor 15:8 without distinguishing it from the others in 1 Cor 15:5-7.

2. Mark - no evidence a resurrection narrative existed yet since the original ended at Mk. 16:8.

3. Matthew - appearance in Galilee which some doubt - Mt. 28:17.

4. Luke - totally different appearance in Jerusalem where Jesus makes sure to say he's "not a spirit" but composed of flesh and bone, eats fish and is witnessed ascending to heaven!

5. John - Jesus can teleport through locked doors and we get the Doubting Thomas story.

The last two accounts have clearly stated apologetic motives for invention. This growth in the story is much more expected under the legendary growth hypothesis than it is under the reliable eyewitness testimony hypothesis.

and the simple fact that all early Christian authors refer to Jesus being "resurrected," which in Second Temple Judaism would have invariably meant a return to physical, bodily life.

But in Paul's letters, it's unclear if Jesus' "return to physical, bodily life" involved an earthly sojourn vs just going straight to heaven - Rom. 8:34, Phil. 2:8-9, Eph. 1:20. It's also unclear whether or not Paul understood any of the "appearances" happened before the ascension. If they were all understood as occurring afterwards, it would be quite difficult to verify this "return to physical, bodily life" wouldn't it?

These are, I contend, data that any historical hypothesis has to account for.

Mistaken spiritual experiences and legendary growth accounts for all that. We can even explain the origin of belief without a resurrection ever taking place. viewtopic.php?t=41011&start=20#p1130931