Burden of Answers

[liamconnor]

Both sides have questions which they want satisfactory answers; but are all questions fare?

For instance, many questions raised against Christians are clearly subjective, since they deal with what we might call the 'psychology of God': i.e., Why did Jesus only show himself to his closest disciples? Why did God not immediately eradicate sin within minutes of the so-called Fall? Why choose one man (Abraham) to concentrate on and not communicate universally to all men?

And some Christians require of atheists natural explanations for every aspect of reality: i.e., where does our sense of objective morality come from (note: when they ask this, they are not asking for the origins of the herd-instinct)? If we are naturally evolved from animal ancestry, how did our senses become so dull? How is it that each evolvement of a species consisted in a myriad of changes coinciding simultaneously and compatibly? How is it that we alone have Reason? If the Big Bang happened, what caused it?

(in my experience, a number of atheists here will 'think' they have an answer to all of the questions posed in the second paragraph. Most scientists, of any persuasion, would demur. At any rate, that is not the question for debate, and if you think you know the answers to all those questions, this debate is probably not for you).

QforD: What (in 'your' opinion) are legitimate, reasonable, demands which the opposite side should satisfy before consenting to, or even simply respecting, their position? Examples: Positing the biblical god, are Christians required to know the thought process behind his every action? Or, are naturalists required to explain what caused the Big Bang, or why it happened in one way and not another?


I am hoping this debate does not turn into a focus on each demand and the evidence (or lack there of) for it; this is about 'reasonable expectations' for finite creatures.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 70 by benchwarmer]

This is all based on IF Paul was telling the truth. Note I'm not suggesting Paul was intentionally lying. There are many options:
1) Paul flat out lied and made up the whole story.
2) Paul heard the story and embellished it so that there were 500 witnesses.
3) Paul just repeated exactly what he heard.

Note that no option has Paul directly witnessing Jesus himself, so clearly he either heard this, heard this and embellished it, or simply made it all up. What other options are there?

At best, the entire story is hearsay with no corroboration from any other sources, let alone disconnected sources. And you see no problem with that?

I'd like to add to the above statement. At no point is there a requirement that we actually find out exactly what happened with Paul, which naturalistic statement is true (there could be a fourth story, it could have been something he made up without intentionally doing so, there is such a thing as being detached from reality).
While yes, it would be a great thing if we could indeed find out what exactly happened with Paul, simply because we don't know (yet) does not mean we then turn to the supernatural explanation. After all...the natural explanations have not been disproved.
To turn to the supernatural explanation would be a god of the gaps argument.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 63 by liamconnor]

Please point to a place where I said, "Well, they claimed it, therefore it must be true."

I wasn't saying you had said that. You asked
So what is the fool-proof, easy explanation for some 500+ disciples claiming their dead leader was not merely raised, but resurrected?

and the answer to that question is "They claimed it". You didn't ask why.

Probabilities:

Paul is lying about this 500?

The people who told Paul about this 500 are lying?

The 500 are lying?


Please demonstrate by good historical arguments which of these has the highest probability?

Okay...please explain how when calculating probability, your preferred supernatural explanation is somehow more likely (has a higher probability) than any of the above three?
In the real world, we are aware of plenty of examples of people lying (and it doesn't just have to be intentionally lying, as in telling a story to someone knowing full well that it is a lie with the intention of deceiving. It can be honest mistakes as well, something you don't care to list there).

Other than this claim of Jesus resurrecting, do we have any a priori examples of resurrections we can point to that both of us already accept?

What does it take for 500 1st. Palestinian Jews (the details are important: if you do not know a thing about 1st c. Palestinian Jews, perhaps study up on the beliefs common to them) to claim that they collectively (all at once) encountered their dead leader alive and well?

I understand quite well what the mainstream orthodoxy of the day was for 1st century Palestinian Jews. I'm pointing out that it's not strange for societies, nations, civilisations to have a fringe group that have beliefs and claims that lie outside the mainstream. For example, in the United States, Christianity is right now the dominant religion. Has been for centuries. That didn't stop thousands of sects popping up here and there, for example the Branch Davidians where David Koresh claimed to be the Messiah of Christianity. His followers claimed he had all sorts of magic powers, all the while the majority of the country didn't accept those claims.

Very good! Not sure what site you got that from, but it is appropriate.

However, there are common denominators, and I have these in mind.

...I wrote it? You seem to be treating 1st century Palestinian Jews as though they were all one block, that all believed the same thing, that it's somehow impossible for a 1st c. Palestinian Jew to believe something that the vast majority of his neighbours didnt, and that if he does believe something that is not mainstream, the most likely explanation is his claim is true.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 31 by liamconnor]

Let's say that all of that is unhistorical and even theologically bogus. Let's say the entire O.T. is just the product of the primitive imagination. Let's say that, if there were a good god, it most certainly was not behind the events and ethics of the O.t.

So what? We still have to historically answer for the origins of Christianity. What happened that made several hundred Jews proclaim that their crucified Messiah was raised?

THAT is what historians ask, and try to answer.

I don't know. That is my answer as an armchair thinker. It is far more likely to be one of several natural hypotheses than he rose from the dead, and as of this moment in time, I have no reason to discard any and all potential natural hypotheses.
It would be wonderful if we knew for a fact, yes, I won't disagree with you on that...but at the end of the day, I have to acknowledge what I or should I say we, know and do not know. What we have evidence for and what we do not have evidence for.
30s AD was two thousand years ago. Documents can be lost in that time span quite easily.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 69 by Justin108]


"My evolution? At what point did I talk about evolution? Try reading what I said a few more times and try to make a proper response, ok? Can you do that for me?"

Sorry, you're religious.

Must have missed it.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 69 by Justin108]


"My evolution? At what point did I talk about evolution? Try reading what I said a few more times and try to make a proper response, ok? Can you do that for me?"

Sorry, you're religious.

Must have missed it.

I am not religious

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 73 by rikuoamero]

What we have evidence for and what we do not have evidence for.
30s AD was two thousand years ago. Documents can be lost in that time span quite easily.

I recognize that later evidence can alter (either by strengthening or weakening) a current position based on the extant evidence. Detectives take in a suspect based on the evidence; later evidence arises which exonerate him. Doesn't mean their former logic was wrong. In fact, as far as the evidence goes, it was perfectly right.

Thus withholding judgment because 'their might be missing evidence' is not, in my mind valid. Now, it is valid to say that sometimes no conclusion can be derived from the evidence. However, if conclusions can be derived from a particular case, it is not sound.

I don't know. That is my answer as an armchair thinker. It is far more likely to be one of several natural hypotheses than he rose from the dead,

as an armchair thinker, you need to think not only historically, but philosophically. "Far more likely" does not apply to the question of whether a power beyond the universe rose Jesus from the dead. It certainly applies to any proposition that Jesus NATURALLY rose from the dead. That would be absurd by all accounts. But how can you say it is improbable that God had a design for the world. No doubt, it is hard to understand, or even appreciate that design, but to say it is improbable? With what universes are you comparing this scenario?

and as of this moment in time, I have no reason to discard any and all potential natural hypotheses.

Come now, Riku, I think you are better than that. So you are saying that all natural hypotheses have equally very high explanatory power and scope, are innocent of ad hoc assumptions, and are highly probable? So, It is highly probable that the Roman soldiers mistook him for dead (though he had been hanging unconscious, i.e., not breathing, and the two other victims had died by the same treatment, and he was stabbed by a spear), that somehow he convinced his disciples that he was resurrected. Somehow he disappeared naturally, but managed to avoid attempts to track him?


Look, I am not asking you to accept a miracle. But let us agree in the name of Reason to admit that some natural explanations are preposterous and should be abandoned. Swoon theory and Conspiracy being two of them.

Would it not be far more reasonable position to say: so far, I do not know what happened. We can rule out Conspiracy, Swoon, and Miracle?