The Empty Tomb!

[POI]

When discussing/debating the 'facts' for a resurrection claim, theists often cite 'the empty tomb.' But we must first ask ourselves, why should doubters, skeptics, agnostic atheists, scoffers, etc., even consider that a crucified Jesus was placed into a tomb, guarded by Roman soldiers, in the first place?

For debate: Is it even plausible that Jesus's deemed "blasphemous" body was merely chucked into an unmarked hole or grave, along with others of various committed 'crimes'? Or maybe He was not really buried at all? Or maybe buried alone in the ground? Or maybe He was left for the buzzards? Or maybe many other options?

If not, why not? Why MUST He have been placed into a tomb, which was guarded by Roman soldiers, for arguably three days?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to 1DoubtingThomas in post #318]

You'd have to define what you mean by "true Christian" and "pseudo-christian" for me to answer your question accurately. I consider myself a Christian or a disciple of Christ, but people mean so many things by that, so you may need to get more specific in your questions.

And I'm male.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #315]

That's a cop out. Come on, stop lying to yourself. No one sacrificed their life if they live. Geez, you fear fairytale land hell that much?

I'm open to being shown rational reasons that I am wrong in anything I've said. You seem to be thinking that "sacrificing one's life" and "living" are logically contradictory. But why? Why is dying and then resurrecting logically contradictory? Dying and not dying is contradictory. Dying and not resurrecting, but still being living would be contradictory. But not dying and resurrecting.

[POI]

Wow, this exchange sure went sideways fast... Here is exactly what you stated in your previous post:

I agree with that link. It doesn't address the question we are, though. If you think otherwise, pull out the part that proves premise 2.

Now you look to be pivoting/avoiding, as I demonstrated P2). Why? Because we know that once a death stage is established, it cannot be reversed. This renders P2) valid.

[Replying to POI in post #317]

What I'm trying to get you to realize is that you are assuming the truth of naturalism throughout your posts. Do you believe assumptions make a premise true or an argument sound? If not, then please give an argument for the truth of naturalism. Pointing to articles that don't do this, but assume it's truth is not sound arguing.

If you are speaking from a 'philosophical sense', then nothing can be 'proven.' If you want to stoop to this level, then we might as well have no debate about anything at all. Everything is just a "faith based assumption" position. Is this what this exchange has resorted to now?

I'm also trying to get you to realize that the opposite of 'impossible' is 'possible'. One only needs to offer a logical possibility, an "if", to refute someone who says X is impossible. If you disagree, then please give an argument to back that up. Rhetoric built off of those assumptions doesn't do this.

Why do you believe your god is a logical possibility? Why is your believed upon god not a logical contradition?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #323]

There are different philosophical senses of 'prove.' I'm not talking about 100% certainty, but inferences to the best explanation, which also is the standard for scientific truths. I haven't changed what I'm asking of you once, so please move the discussion forward rationally by supporting your naturalistic beliefs that undergird your claims about the dead necessarily staying dead.

You are saying that a God creating matter and then later reversing the process of death through resurrection is a logical contradiction. It is your burden to show that. What is contradictory between a God existing, creating all of matter, and then reversing death through resurrection? What parts of the definitions cause a contradiction?

[POI]

You are saying that a God creating matter and then later reversing the process of death through resurrection is a logical contradiction. It is your burden to show that. What is contradictory between a God existing, creating all of matter, and then reversing death through resurrection? What parts of the definitions cause a contradiction?

You cannot pick and choose Tanager. If you were merely arguing for some absent generic creating prime mover type of god here, and nothing more, then I would agree. But you are arguing for the Christian God. Do you believe this God is logical in all of it's claimed attributes? Why is YOUR claimed god a logical possibility?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #325]

No, I'm critiquing your claim that a resurrection is impossible, not claiming anything about what God I think exists or that Jesus was actually resurrected. And you just admitted there is a possible scenario that proves your previous claim is wrong. I'm glad we are agreed.

If you would now like to prove your belief that the Christian God is illogical, lay out your case. What do you think contradicts?

[1DoubtingThomas]

[Replying to 1DoubtingThomas in post #318]

You'd have to define what you mean by "true Christian" and "pseudo-christian" for me to answer your question accurately. I consider myself a Christian or a disciple of Christ, but people mean so many things by that, so you may need to get more specific in your questions.

And I'm male.

^^^The Tanager,

Wow, thank you for responding to my serious questioning, whereas for the most part, Christians don't respond and run away from questions like I have proposed to you! Good for you!

In any event, a True Christian follows their Jewish God's words within the Bible to the letter, with absolutely no namby-pamby-lame-brained excuses not too, and as your God Jesus tells you to do in the first place in Luke 11:28! .... But, when they do follow the aforementioned verse that Jesus as God stated, and in some instances, True Christians can be sent to prison, where the worst case scenario, is they would have life sentences! Therefore, True Christians are in a "Catch-22" situation where they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't follow their God's inspired words, where HELL comes to mind if they don't (Revelation 21:8)!

On the other hand, a Pseudo-Christian does not follow Jesus' direct words to the letter within His Christian Jewish Bible because they cannot murder other Jewish Christians (Romans 1:26-27, 32) when their God's words tell them to do so, as in Luke 11:28 so states. .... As in another instance, they cannot beat their children with a rod when said child gets out of line (Proverbs 23:13-14), where that would leave terrible bruises that Atheists and others would have to question to save the child further beatings! And of course, there are a myriad of other factions where Jesus as god says to murder others in the name of their faith, which there are too many to list.

Therefore, which faction as shown in the 2 examples above relative to your Christianity do you follow?

Awaiting your truthful answer, and thanking you in advance once again .......




.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #325]

No, I'm critiquing your claim that a resurrection is impossible, not claiming anything about what God I think exists or that Jesus was actually resurrected. And you just admitted there is a possible scenario that proves your previous claim is wrong. I'm glad we are agreed.

If you would now like to prove your belief that the Christian God is illogical, lay out your case. What do you think contradicts?

I agreed to nothing because you have been offering apologetics for the Christian God the entire time. I only stated I would agree and move forward if you instead were only arguing for a rising god, and nothing more. The Christian God makes all sorts of claims, and "rising from the grave" is one of many claims issued from your believed upon god. As I already stated, you cannot pick and choose.

In light of these many claims, I ask again, why is your god logically possible here? Is your god logically consistent? If so, then I should not be able to find logical fault in any of the claims from the Christian God. If I can demonstrate that your god is not logically consistent among all its claims, then your god can be logically excluded.

[The Tanager]

I agreed to nothing because you have been offering apologetics for the Christian God the entire time. I only stated I would agree and move forward if you instead only arguing for a rising god, and nothing more. The Christian God makes all sorts of claims, and "rising from the grave" is one of many claims issued from your believed upon god. As I already stated, you cannot pick and choose.

In light of these many claims, I ask again, why is your god logically possible here? Is your god logically consistent? If so, then I should not be able to find logical fault in any of the claims from the Christian God. If I can demonstrate that your god is not logically consistent among all its claims, then your god can be logically excluded.

I have not offered apologetics for the Christian God the entire time. We talked about the crucifixion and burial, then got to the end of our contributions there and I was fine ending there, but you made a claim that resurrections were impossible, so I addressed your claim as given, not implications you read into that. I'm not always trying to argue for Christianity as a whole.

I'm good talking about the Christian God specifically, if you will clarify your position on what I was talking about. Forgetting Christianity, do you believe resurrections are logically impossible?

As to whether the Christian God is logically contradictory, what do you think contradicts, so that I can address why I think it doesn't or agree with your reasoning?

[POI]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #329]

It's all implied Tanager. Anywho, I just created a new topic, in your honor. Lets keeps this argument in it's own lane.