What would it take to prove that Jesus rose from the dead?

[McCulloch]

What would it take to prove that Jesus rose from the dead. giving that it happened way before cameras etc were invented?

P4JC

Good question P4JC.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Pastor4Jesus wrote:

"When Selfish Gene author Richard Dawkins challenged physicist John Barrow on his formulation of the constants of nature at last summer Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowship lectures, Barrow laughed and said, “You have a problem with these ideas, Richard, because you aren''t really a scientist. You''re a biologist ! (Woo Hoo you go Barrow!)"


This is rather like a Catholic mocking a Baptist for not being a "real Christian." Anyone who has ever studied biology knows what a serious and seriously difficult scientific discipline it is.

[cholland]

I notice that I said to Pastor4Jesus that it would require "Some good solid reason to suppose it has even a small chance of being true." That was a good answer. His question was, ""What would it take to prove that Jesus rose from the dead." Some reasonable semblance of proof would be nice. Something that one could look at and say, "well, yes that's reasonable." "Proof" isn't really possible though, is it? To subjective. Well a good solid reason to believe it would be a beginning. Is that too much to ask? And I have put that very question to you repeatedly. I notice that you folks to seem suspiciously bashful about telling us all about what it is you think you believe in. Don't YOU know either? What are you worried about? You know God is on your side.

That's circular. What proof do you need? "Good proof." How good? "Good." How good is good? "Good enough for me."

How about this? "Not good enough."
How about this? "Not good enough."
How about this? "Not good enough."
How about this? "Not good enough."
repeat until death occurs

[cnorman18]

I notice that I said to Pastor4Jesus that it would require "Some good solid reason to suppose it has even a small chance of being true." That was a good answer. His question was, ""What would it take to prove that Jesus rose from the dead." Some reasonable semblance of proof would be nice. Something that one could look at and say, "well, yes that's reasonable." "Proof" isn't really possible though, is it? To subjective. Well a good solid reason to believe it would be a beginning. Is that too much to ask? And I have put that very question to you repeatedly. I notice that you folks to seem suspiciously bashful about telling us all about what it is you think you believe in. Don't YOU know either? What are you worried about? You know God is on your side.

That's circular. What proof do you need? "Good proof." How good? "Good." How good is good? "Good enough for me."

How about this? "Not good enough."
How about this? "Not good enough."
How about this? "Not good enough."
How about this? "Not good enough."
repeat until death occurs

Predicting how one's opponent will react to an argument and then declining to make it on that basis is a common, and transparent, dodge around here. Before one can accuse another of rejecting one's argument for specious reasons, it's pretty much a requirement to give an argument.

Do you have one?

[dgruber]

That's circular. What proof do you need? "Good proof." How good? "Good." How good is good? "Good enough for me."

How about this? "Not good enough."
How about this? "Not good enough."
How about this? "Not good enough."
How about this? "Not good enough."
repeat until death occurs

This is a common technique used by non-theists (I use this term to include atheists in this case) in debate. It happens for a couple of reasons. Non-theists do not want to provide defined parameters in which an opponent could possibly meet the terms of those parameters. Most are aware, and you can reference the A Room on this site to verify, that it is very difficult to bring forth any evidence that they don't have a cause to reject.

So if they say well I would see X as proof, then a distinct value has been laid on the table. It is in the nature of the non theist argument to want to keep theists floundering in non verifiable evidence.

[cholland]

Predicting how one's opponent will react to an argument and then declining to make it on that basis is a common, and transparent, dodge around here. Before one can accuse another of rejecting one's argument for specious reasons, it's pretty much a requirement to give an argument.

Do you have one?

Thanks for the tip cnorman18, but I was showing that BS's argument was circular. The question was asked "what would it take to prove...?" and his answer was "good proof." This thread is not the place to give proof, but to ask what proof would be sufficient. Did you have an answer/argument or simply giving your 2 cents about my post?

[McCulloch]

How about this for a start? Any Roman record of Jesus' trial and execution. Any contemporary Jewish record of Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem and the trouble that he caused them. Any extra-biblical evidence of the existence of the grave, and of Joseph of Arimathea dating to the first century. Any contemporary witness to the zombie saints running amok in Jerusalem or the earthquake that shook the Temple when he died, not from Christian sources. A convincing response to Dan Barker's Easter Challenge.

I am not saying that answering this list will convince me, but without these the conversation cannot even begin. So, what do you have?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

cholland wrote:

"That's circular. What proof do you need? "Good proof." How good? "Good." How good is good? "Good enough for me."

How about this? "Not good enough."
How about this? "Not good enough."
How about this? "Not good enough."
How about this? "Not good enough."
"repeat until death occurs."


Tired of the BS answers back:

How about some proof. A little proof? ANY proof?? You seem unwilling to provide any reason to believe it at all. Do you really expect people to simply accept your personal best wishes and warm good feelings? What are you so afraid of?

According to Hindu belief, the great cosmic dreamer sleeps on a lotus blossom dreaming the dream of the universe. All that we think of as reality is really just a dream. It's all illusion. How does one go about proving that this is either right or wrong? I am afraid I can't find this great cosmic dreamer, and any evidence I might offer is just illusion, according to the claim. The best I can do is to mitigate it's plausibility with reason. Is there any "reason" involved with the things you claim to believe. If there is, you are darned shy about sharing it with the rest of us.

[McCulloch]

What proof do you need? "Good proof." How good? "Good." How good is good? "Good enough for me."

How about this? "Not good enough."
How about this? "Not good enough."
How about this? "Not good enough."
How about this? "Not good enough."
repeat until death occurs

Except that the How about this? section is quite thin on the ground. You make it look as if Christians have as much evidence for the resurrection as biologists have for evolution and the non-theists and other skeptics are just turning a deaf ear.

As far as I can tell what you've got is this: The somewhat contradictory writings of the promoters of a new religion writing decades after the events. And a few secular and Jewish references to the existence of a dedicated community of believers in the late first century.

Correct me if I am wrong. Is there anything else?

Post Script: I forgot the old, "I've got Jesus in my heart" one. And the ever useful, "billions of other people believe it, so it must be true."

[cnorman18]

This is addressed to both cholland and dgruber.

I have said this before: In what field of study does one ask others to provide standards of proof, then set about trying to fulfill them? None.

In this case, if a historian were to go to his colleagues and ask, "What would I have to show to prove X?" their reply would inevitably be, "What have you got?" No reputable historian on Earth would actually ASK for the proper hoops to jump through.

You are claiming that a perfectly routine and normal academic approach to the issue of historical proof is being taken by nontheists for tactical and disingenuous reasons. That's a falsehood.

You want to prove the Resurrection? That burden is entirely on you, including the question of what constitutes "proof." You don't get to ask your opponents for help on that. That isn't anyone's job but yours.

Again: What have you got? That's not a loaded question; it's just the only proper one. Provide your evidence, and then we'll talk about whether it's sufficient. That's how it's done, and there is no other way.

Claiming bias before you give your argument is a straight-up dodge. If bias is present, it will be visible after the debate begins, not before.

[JoeyKnothead]

This is addressed to both cholland and dgruber.

I have said this before: In what field of study does one ask others to provide standards of proof, then set about trying to fulfill them? None.

In this case, if a historian were to go to his colleagues and ask, "What would I have to show to prove X?" their reply would inevitably be, "What have you got?" No reputable historian on Earth would actually ASK for the proper hoops to jump through.

You are claiming that a perfectly routine and normal academic approach to the issue of historical proof is being taken by nontheists for tactical and disingenuous reasons. That's a falsehood.

You want to prove the Resurrection? That burden is entirely on you, including the question of what constitutes "proof." You don't get to ask your opponents for help on that. That isn't anyone's job but yours.

Again: What have you got? That's not a loaded question; it's just the only proper one. Provide your evidence, and then we'll talk about whether it's sufficient. That's how it's done, and there is no other way.

Claiming bias before you give your argument is a straight-up dodge. If bias is present, it will be visible after the debate begins, not before.

Well said.

How can we measure evidence we've yet to see?