Historical Evidence for the Resurrection (Again)

[liamconnor]

(Preliminary: this thread is not about "The Bible". It is about an historical situation--i.e. the origins of the early church--i.e. the claimed resurrection. No document will be judged "better" or "more reliable" simply on the grounds that "it's in the Bible". We will use the same thing used in all historical investigations--common sense and historical methodology)

It seems that folks on this thread still do not understand how history is done and what amounts to historical evidence; analogies between N.T. studies and present day courtroom scenes are made— since we cannot cross examine so-called eyewitnesses of the N.T., clearly Christianity is a sham. As if we could cross examine ANY historical figure!

As Aristotle pointed out to us, every science yields its own degree of knowledge and to require more is not an indication of the science’s weakness but of your own. History is conducted by analyzing and comparing documents; the degree of knowledge it yields ranges from implausible to beyond reasonable doubt. One can always doubt an historical claim; whether one can do so reasonably is another question. Anybody claiming on a thread entitled “Historical Evidence for the Resurrection� that “eyewitness testimony is not evidence� simply does not know what he is talking about and should refrain from commenting on such threads. There is just no point in debating with such a person on the level of history—stick to geometrical problems.

To reinforce the initial preliminary, I quote DI

The reason that Christianity is a "sham" is because it doesn't merely claim to be history, it claims to be the TRUTH. And it even accuses everyone who refuses to believe in it of having "rejected God" and having chosen evil over good etc.

This is an historical investigation. Please drop all questions about the ancient documents' "divine status"; all assumptions that you know what "Christians believe" or even what "Christianity has believed" about the Bible are to be suspended. We will treat them as we treat Josephus or an anthology of ancient Roman historians.

To begin this thread, I analyze what is probably the earliest Christian creed we have, from 1 Cor. 15. I ask that we do some real, mature history: the kind of history done with all ancient documents.

I care very much for structure, and so here is how I’ve structured my argument: 1) I give the proposition with a defense; 2) I voice a common objection; 3) I meet that objection in a rejoinder; 4) I give my conclusion.

1 Cor 15:1—8: (I have italicized what is probably not part of the original creed—that is, certain phrases which disrupt the rhythm of the Greek, and are “Pauliocentric�. These are most likely editorial or introductory remarks from Paul. I have also emboldened two key words. Everything in plain print I (as well as numerous scholars) believe to be original to the oral tradition.)

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,


that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried,
and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas,
then to the twelve.
6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
7 then He appeared to James,
then to all the apostles;
8 and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1Co 15:1-8 NAS)

Proposition #1 Paul recalls to the Corinthians a list he received of persons whom he claims saw the risen Jesus.

Defense: The two terms in bold are in this context technical terms signifying both the transmission of oral tradition and its reception—Jews highly valued the importance (almost sanctity) of oral tradition; Paul was no different, even when the tradition was regards Jesus and not Torah (Cf. Gal 1:14). The Corinthians received what Paul handed over to them; what Paul handed over to them Paul claims he himself received.

Objection: Paul is lying.

Rejoinder: 1) This is conjecture without any historical warrant: you are just making stuff up. 2) If Paul were lying, he would surely have left out all names, and said that most if not all of the recipients of this encounter were dead. That is how good liars work—leave no room for investigation or keep the circle very, very small. Instead, Paul gives leads for readers to investigate: Peter, James, and just less than 500 whom the Corinthian church could’ve inquired into (i.e. we know they sent him a letter; we know he had visited them). 3) And yet we have no paper trail calling Paul out for a lie. We know that the Corinthian church was not shy of criticizing Paul—yet they never cried out “Liar� regards his list of witnesses. What we do have is at least three independent attestations of one apostle, James (1 Cor, Acts and Josephus). Outside of the Corinthian correspondence we have named apostles who are resident at the letter’s designation (Rom 16:7). People traveled back then more than today; they didn’t have the telephone or the internet; traveling is how information was conveyed—someone somewhere was always traveling with some news. A lie on the level of Paul in 1 Cor. (as well as in other letters where he names apostles) would have exposed him as a sham and the probability of that sham appearing in history is overwhelming--the very fact that Paul's letters continued to circulate as authoritative is evidence that no one called "liar"--and we know from his own letters (GAlatians and Corinthian correspondence) that people were willing to impugn him publicly.
So, 1) We have ZERO paper trail of Paul lying about this list 2) the list itself is vulnerable to investigation—it gives names and is made up of at least 500 individuals.

Conclusion: 1) Paul delivers a list of persons who claim they saw the risen Jesus, and this list includes two explicitly named individuals, and perhaps eleven or twelve implicitly named individuals (that no one in Corinth would've asked "who are these twelve?" is preposterous). 2) This list is prior to Paul’s writing to the Corinthians: scholars (of ALL types) agree that the letter was composed about 50 AD (twenty years after the dead of Jesus); hence the creed itself is prior to 50 AD. 3) The list is comprised of eyewitnesses of post-crucifixion appearances. This list, in light of the considerations above, counts as eyewitness testimony. It is not FROM those eyewitnesses; but then we are not in a courtroom--we are doing history. Most of your historical beliefs are based on eyewitness testimony at multiple removes.

Next Question (after hearing reasonable responses): When did Paul receive this creed and from whom? Is there a paper trail of this transmission?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 358 by WinePusher]

So the implication of your analogy is that the moss is just an unintended byproduct of the wall. Even so, this doesn't give any reason to doubt that the wall itself were intelligently designed.

I did mention a cliff didn't I? So the moss could be growing on a purposefully constructed wall, made by humans (but not for the purposes of growing moss, in fact the reason why the wall was constructed has nothing at all to do with moss) OR on the side of a cliff, which is not constructed.

as shown by the fact that any little alteration of the fundamental forces would cause life to die out.

Care to give some examples please? And also explain why, in the event of such a change occurring, there simply cannot be life at all (not life as we recognise it, but no life period)?
I can understand an argument such as "If this area was underwater, then human life here would die out", because humans cannot survive underwater. That environment is inimical to human life.
However to be saying the equivalent of "If this area was underwater, ALL life would die out/could never exist"...

As I have always said, the fine tuning argument, along with the cosmological argument and the ontological argument, establish the existence of a deistic God, not any theistic God.

The only people I have ever encountered who actively make arguments for intelligent design/fine tuning or whatever name they gave it...were people who believed in an active god who interacts with the world/universe e.g. the God of Christianity.
Just saying.

[For_The_Kingdom]

This isn't an argument. I can't create a star either. Does that mean stars aren't possible?

No, but then again stars aren't considered "sentient life", at least not as far as I'm concerned.

You have not refuted my point that everything in every life form known to exist does so within the laws of the universe, and therefore IS possible.

Right, so tell me what "law of the universe" will allow for life to come from nonlife.

You have not refuted my point that every single particle in every life form is "inanimate".

Are you living, or are you NOT living?

Whether or not I can personally replicate a series of chemical reactions has nothing to do with it.

Yes it does...any scientific "theory" that cannot be demonstrated to be true by the means of observation, repeated experiment, and prediction... cannot be considered a fact.

You can speculate how it happened all you like, but what you think is true via speculation, and what you know to be true based on the scientific method...those are two different things.

That's your smoking gun? "Bio-babble", is it? Nothing I've written above is false. You don't have to take my word for it either, you can verify all of it at your leisure. Calling it "bio-babble" is not an argument. If you can cite specific reasons why a particular item listed above is inaccurate (and I wish you the best of luck in that endeavor) you let me know...

It is bio-babble. Dazzling the audience with big and technical words, all sounds good. Sounds great. Sounds very...scientify..But when it comes to actually implementing what you are saying in an actual science lab and producing actual results, that is the tricky part.

Sure, Stanley Miller can dazzle you by using technical words to describe his "experiment". But what he can't do is go in a lab and produce a living cell.

Yes, and the exact things that living cells are made up of are A) inanimate material, and B) exist within the laws of the universe.

Again, cart before the horse fallacy. Notice that when you say "...and the exact things that living cells are made up of"..

But when you say "living", you are presupposing a living cell, when the living cell is exactly what the question is about...how did it become living? Can you go in a lab and produce a "living" cell? No, you can't.

Those things that exist in "LIVING CELLS", like sugars and amino acids and alcohols? They exist in deep space, on things like meteorites and comets (see Murchison meteorite for an example). Apparently you think they are somehow special because living things use them. You are misinformed.

No, it is YOU who is misinformed. "because LIVING things use them". Ok, so what makes things "living", and how did nature accomplish that goal. And if you know how nature accomplished that goal, why can't you accomplish that goal...in a lab?

Hmm.

Actually that isn't true. People have taken organic material, put it inside a lipidic membrane, and made living cells.

Show me any article/link where a living cell was created. Not happening.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/21/venter.qa/

Small excerpt from article...

CNN: Did you create new life?

Venter: We created a new cell. It's alive. But we didn't create life from scratch.

We created. as all life on this planet is. out of a living cell.


See? That isn't life from life...it is "life out of a living cell". Show me an article where a living cell was created from scratch.

But that is really beside the point. We know life exists, we know life is made up of components found in every corner of the known universe, and we know that life exists within the known laws of the universe. Those are facts. No faith required.

Yeah, and we know that the material that Buckingham Palace is made up of existed before the palace was built...we know that the "stuff" existed prior to it being built...But I guess we can go right ahead and conclude that the palace began to exist based on an extremely long period of naturalistic occurrences...and over time...brick by brick...step by step....room by room...glass by glass...the palace was built.

Sure, it took billions of years, but in so much time, anything can happen, right? No intelligent designers needed...no engineering required...no blue prints....just good ole nature...getting the job done.

We know that some molecules (including some that act as RNA ligases) are self replicating all by themselves. We know that meteorites and comets rich in all sorts of organic components exist and fall to Earth all the time. Facts, not faith.

Ok, so go in a lab and simulate the early earth...simulate the right conditions, the right environment...and get life.

What we have zero data or empirical evidence for is any supernatural claim in the entirety of human history...

We don't even have that for the naturalistic claims.

Because the laws of the universe allow for it to happen. It's possible.

Can you prove that?

The universe allows for stars to exist. We can't make those happen either. But I bet you own a pair of sunglasses...

Are stars living? Now of course, I can also mention the fact that we don't know where the "stuff" that makes up stars...where did it come from? Do we know that? No, we don't.

Bad question. Life isn't a matter of intelligence.

It's a matter of chemistry and physics and so forth. Your predisposition to think life takes intelligence to exist is why you would ask such an illogical question in the first place...

It is a legitimate question to ask how is a mindless and blind process (nature) able to do something that intelligent human beings aren't able to do.

The existence of something does not prove how it came to be. The only thing the existence of consciousness proves is that consciousness does indeed exist.

There is no doubt that consciousness began to exist...and everything that begins to exist has a cause. Again, It is a legitimate question; Consciousness began to exist, but where did it come from and how did it get here.

Your inability to answer the question has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the question.

It is false logic to claim that something can only exist if something else created it. It's a self defeating argument.

Straw man. No one is claiming that "something can only exist if something else created it". Hell, I don't even hold that view, so I sure as heck wouldn't argument that point.

If it takes a conscious to create consciousness, where did your god creature's conscious come from? See, self defeating.

It is amazing how you think you have this knock-down refutation, when in reality, you don't.

The argument is that any consciousness which begins to exist requires a conscious cause. And since God never began to exist...well, you get the point, don't you?

Now, we both know that consciousness began to exist, and all I am asking is where did it come from and how do you scientifically explain its origins.

That is a legitimate question that needs to be answered.

Consciousness can never exist because it takes one to create one. Most seasoned cultists already understand this and don't make this mistake in debates.

Consciousness began to exist, Keni. I am sure you admit this FACT, so what is the fuss about?

Oh, I'm sure you want to throw out the "god exception" at this point. You'll want to say that the god creature doesn't need creating, because it either always existed or because it is just god. But now you've just admitted that it doesn't always take a conscious to create consciousness. Self defeating once again.

Again, you are misinformed on the argument. The argument is..

A. Consciousness began to exist on this earth

B. The consciousness that began to exist on this earth owes its existence to a "Super conscious being".

C. The "Super Being" that created consciousness cannot owe its existence to anything outside of itself.

In a nut shell, the argument is stating that mental states aren't physical, but immaterial...therefore, no naturalistic explanation can be given to explain the origins of any immaterial "thing".

And this is not special pleading for God, it is simply appealing to the best explanation.

(It's also self defeating because if a being always existed then it can never arrive at this point and time to create anything. there is no middle of infinity, but that is for another discussion)...

God didn't "arrive" at any point in time to create...but he CAUSED the entire chain of causation to BEGIN. But yeah, that is another discussion.

There is evidence of abiogenesis. We know life started simply a long time ago (instead of just magically appearing into modern animals).

"Simply" is an understatement.

We know all living things are related.

Only in the sense that God created all living things. Of course, as a theist, I prefer the common designer hypothesis over the common ancestor one.

We know that there are basic molecules that self-replicate, which is all that living things are but on a larger scale.

Please explain how did ANYTHING get to the point of living after existing in a nonliving state. Please explain how this is done.

We know of viruses, that do not fit the definition of alive yet can self replicate (they are a stage between life and non-life in other words).

I am talking about sentient life.

We know life does not violate any law of the universe.

But its origins does.

We know that one of the primary building blocks to life (amino acids) exist all over the place (as do sugars and alcohols and other organic molecules).

Where did it all come from?

The only other option, the "creation" option, has exactly zero empirical data supporting it. There isn't even one single shred of evidence that the supernatural exists.

I am convinced by the evidence that the supernatural not only exists, but is absolutely necessary...considering the fact that we live in a universe that began to exist.

Since there is a lack of evidence for supernatural claims, and there IS evidence of a natural beginning to life (which you conveniently omit from your copy and paste job), that means the obvious conclusion is that life began naturally.

It is impossible for life to began naturally based on the arguments against infinite regress...the argument from consciousness...and also the LACK OF EVIDENCE for abiogenesis.

There's evidence for supernaturalism? Thanks for claiming it, how about providing it now?

In progress.

And you'd be wrong on both theories (because evolution and abiogenesis are not the same theory).

One requires the other...they are related...you can't have evolution without abiogenesis, and if abiogenesis is negated, evolution is impossible.

Not sure where evolution got thrown into this by the way, since we were talking about abiogenesis.

One conversation leads to another...

But since you brought it up, the amount of evidence supporting the theory of evolution is enormous. If you want to start a thread on that particular scientific theory, please do so.

You start it, I will be there.

The possibility that a god exists does not mean one does. False logic. I (and many other atheists in this forum) will immediately tell you that we cannot state with 100% certainty that a god creature of some sort does not exist. Perhaps one does.

What you've done is tripped and fell right into the Modal Ontological Argument. Unfortunate for you.

That being said, you are simply wrong. If God's existence is possible, he must exist, because his existence would be a necessary truth. So If God's existence is necessary (meaning he cannot fail to exist), then if it is possible for God to exist, he must actually exist.

Why? Because a proposition cannot be possibly necessarily true, but actually false.

So just by admitting that God could exist, you are admitting that God exists. This argument is very abstract..so I will let it all marinate for you. I will start a thread on it soon.

But we will also tell you that there is no evidence at all that there is such a creature. Perhaps we just haven't found the evidence yet, but until we do there is no logical reason to think that one does exist. The only rational conclusion to reach, given the available information to date, is that there is no reason to believe in supernatural critters, hence atheism.

I am going to start new threads on all of the existence of God (at least all of the ones that I like), where I will present evidence and put this "there is no evidence for God thing to rest".

I don't know, maybe they do. How do you know they don't? We have verifiable laboratory data that particles pop into and out of existence all the time. Everything in the universe, like money and cars and bikes, are made out of these particles. Seems you don't deny that it happens, you just want them to happen in more complex groupings of particles. Start a research fund and see what you can find out...

First off, I disagree that the particles pop out of nothing. I understand that in physics, the word "nothing" has been equivocated a lot, thanks to Lawrence Krauss and others.

If the virtual particles can pop in to nothing, then so should everything else.

Once again I must point out that you are making statements with a general lack of knowledge about the topic that you are discussing. In Physics it is well known that empty space is actually more unstable, more volatile than space with stuff in it. Please research this more to better your understanding of the nature of quantum fluctuations in empty space.

And once again, I must point out that you are equivocating the term "nothing". Nothing is "nothing". If the empty space you are referring to is "nothing" in the sense that there isn't a single entity within it (whether natural or supernatural), then all of this "unstable" stuff is nonsense.

You saying that "empty space" (if you are using it synonymously with "nothing) is unstable is no different than saying that "nothing" is the color red..or that "nothing" weighs 5 lbs. It is nonsense.

Krauss has been called out on this equivocation, and his followers have fallen suit with the same nonsense behind him.

It's only a problem when you don't understand the basics of quantum mechanics and the fluctuations of empty space. You don't need infinity to have something. The previously mentioned physics forums or blogs online are a great source to find succinct explanations about these natural phenomena.

Sorry, charlie. The problem of infinite regression applies to ANYTHING. You can take whatever cosmological model you like. It has nothing to do with a heavy understanding of physics, or a poor understanding of physics. It just doesn't matter. You can appeal to it all you want, but it won't do you any good.

The fact of the matter is...the entire cause/effect chain cannot be past eternal. Point blank, period.

I do not claim that anything is more correct than anything else. I am presenting to you the current understanding of some of the basics of quantum mechanics and things like virtual particles. These things are based on mathematical calculations, experimentation, and observation. These things fall under the general consensus of scientific understanding and are generally agreed to be accurate and reliable. Other things do not, but we aren't talking about those other things.

All of that stuff exist within time/space, though...and the infinity applies to it.

Except it isn't a philosophical problem, as I've explained above.

I hope you have the time to research some of these topics further. They are fascinating to read about.

It is a philosophical problem. If it happens in time, it is subject to the problem.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Your assumption is dead wrong...........no matter what consistent states compose reality that we humans define as scientific laws.......if they didn't exist, then some other consistent states comprising that reality would exist.

Then the question of origins would be directed towards those states, instead of the the current states. Either way, the whole thing would still be contingent so multipying explanations does nothing for the naturalistic case.

There is absolute nothing special about that or its precision........the only characteristic of them is they are consistent and as a result predictable.

According to Roger Penrose' calculations, the odds of our universe being life permitting by mere chance (based on the cosmological constants) is one part in: 10^100000000000000------>(that is the #10 as the exponent, followed by 120 zero's.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/multiverse.htm

So for you to sit there and say that there is "nothing special about that or its precision" is to either be completely ignorant of the cosmological constants as it relates to a life permitting universe, or you are being flat out disingenuous.

Our universe is mathematically fined tuned for intelligent life. You don't get that kind of precision from randomness and chaos. You get it from an intelligent mind.

Now it just so happens to be the ones that are consistent in our reality (aka universe) which have resulted in our existence so we see them as special and therefore any variation of them could invalidate our existence so we claim that precision as to having a designer..........its misinformed nonsense.

If any of the constants that govern our universe were off by the tiniest degree, life would not be possible. There was no room for mistakes, and nature would have had to "get it right" the first time, from the very moment of the big bang. There was no trial and error process. There was only one try, and nature "got it right" on the first try.

That is not how entropy works, buddy.

It doesn't matter what kind of universe would be formed or not......the consistency of the conditions leading to whatever kind of reality they produce would be considered precise and guided/designed if that universe had a conscious entity rising out of it to contemplate this observation but it wouldn't prove anything......

I don't follow.

Its like marveling at how when you pour water into any kind of container it magically fills the shape of the container and finds a level no matter what the shape of the container........if the container had a conscious entity within it......this entity might think that water has such a unique property that it fits perfectly the shape of that container that it had to be designed to fit that way......when it fact water will fill all containers regardless of the shape, size the same way.........

We are talking probabilities here. It takes a certain amount of water to fill a certain sized container. What is the probability of the water filling the container under other astronomically improbable circumstances? That is what we are dealing with here when it comes to the universe.

It is easy to just ignore the improbability and focus on the end result, isn't it?

Our observations of consistencies in our reality (aka laws of nature) are just like water and our universe is like the container...........nothing special here.......no matter what the container or universe.......there will be some kind of "water" or consistencies that will fill the container shape just right and be mistaken as specially designed just for that container.........

Sorry charlie, but you are wrong here. Again, this was not some infinite trial and error process at which there was all the time in the world, and nature had many "tries" to get it right.

The big bang was a one-time event, one try, and it got it right.

It is like if there was a gaZillion black balls in a giant container, and among the gazillilon black balls, there is one white ball.

If someone blindfolded you and put a gun to your head, and told you to reach in the container and pick the ONE white ball, and if you pick any ball BESIDES the one white ball, you will be executed...and you only have ONE try.

Now sure, each ball has the SAME PROBABILIY of being picked, but it is improbable to think that you will pick the one white ball.

The same thing with the universe, if it started dff with a big bang, it was highly improbable (see Penrose's calculations) that we would have wound up with a life permitting universe. If there was no divine hand orchestrating the process, it would have be more probable for there to be a life prohibiting universe than a life permitting one, in the same way it would be more probable for you to pick a black ball than the one one.

And with only one try, nature got it done? It overcame those astronomical odds?? You believe that?

.......all you need to know about why the Bible is nonsense is to apply the instructions of James Ch 5 verses 13 through 16 with someone suffering from a burst appendix and you have no more need to waste anymore time believing in any of it.........

Prayer works.

[Clownboat]

Your assumption is dead wrong...........no matter what consistent states compose reality that we humans define as scientific laws.......if they didn't exist, then some other consistent states comprising that reality would exist.

Then the question of origins would be directed towards those states, instead of the the current states. Either way, the whole thing would still be contingent so multipying explanations does nothing for the naturalistic case.

There is absolute nothing special about that or its precision........the only characteristic of them is they are consistent and as a result predictable.

According to Roger Penrose' calculations, the odds of our universe being life permitting by mere chance (based on the cosmological constants) is one part in: 10^100000000000000------>(that is the #10 as the exponent, followed by 120 zero's.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/multiverse.htm

So for you to sit there and say that there is "nothing special about that or its precision" is to either be completely ignorant of the cosmological constants as it relates to a life permitting universe, or you are being flat out disingenuous.

Our universe is mathematically fined tuned for intelligent life. You don't get that kind of precision from randomness and chaos. You get it from an intelligent mind.

Now it just so happens to be the ones that are consistent in our reality (aka universe) which have resulted in our existence so we see them as special and therefore any variation of them could invalidate our existence so we claim that precision as to having a designer..........its misinformed nonsense.

If any of the constants that govern our universe were off by the tiniest degree, life would not be possible. There was no room for mistakes, and nature would have had to "get it right" the first time, from the very moment of the big bang. There was no trial and error process. There was only one try, and nature "got it right" on the first try.

That is not how entropy works, buddy.

It doesn't matter what kind of universe would be formed or not......the consistency of the conditions leading to whatever kind of reality they produce would be considered precise and guided/designed if that universe had a conscious entity rising out of it to contemplate this observation but it wouldn't prove anything......

I don't follow.

Its like marveling at how when you pour water into any kind of container it magically fills the shape of the container and finds a level no matter what the shape of the container........if the container had a conscious entity within it......this entity might think that water has such a unique property that it fits perfectly the shape of that container that it had to be designed to fit that way......when it fact water will fill all containers regardless of the shape, size the same way.........

We are talking probabilities here. It takes a certain amount of water to fill a certain sized container. What is the probability of the water filling the container under other astronomically improbable circumstances? That is what we are dealing with here when it comes to the universe.

It is easy to just ignore the improbability and focus on the end result, isn't it?

Our observations of consistencies in our reality (aka laws of nature) are just like water and our universe is like the container...........nothing special here.......no matter what the container or universe.......there will be some kind of "water" or consistencies that will fill the container shape just right and be mistaken as specially designed just for that container.........

Sorry charlie, but you are wrong here. Again, this was not some infinite trial and error process at which there was all the time in the world, and nature had many "tries" to get it right.

The big bang was a one-time event, one try, and it got it right.

It is like if there was a gaZillion black balls in a giant container, and among the gazillilon black balls, there is one white ball.

If someone blindfolded you and put a gun to your head, and told you to reach in the container and pick the ONE white ball, and if you pick any ball BESIDES the one white ball, you will be executed...and you only have ONE try.

Now sure, each ball has the SAME PROBABILIY of being picked, but it is improbable to think that you will pick the one white ball.

The same thing with the universe, if it started dff with a big bang, it was highly improbable (see Penrose's calculations) that we would have wound up with a life permitting universe. If there was no divine hand orchestrating the process, it would have be more probable for there to be a life prohibiting universe than a life permitting one, in the same way it would be more probable for you to pick a black ball than the one one.

And with only one try, nature got it done? It overcame those astronomical odds?? You believe that?

.......all you need to know about why the Bible is nonsense is to apply the instructions of James Ch 5 verses 13 through 16 with someone suffering from a burst appendix and you have no more need to waste anymore time believing in any of it.........

Prayer works.

I think you misunderstand (or misrepresent) statistical considerations of the likelihood of our universe.

Imagine that the probability of getting any specific universe is 10^100000000000000 or whatever number you would like to claim. What would be the probability of getting a universe (any one)? It will be 1. Amazing huh? So, our universe is just the one that happened to materialize out of the 10^100000000000000 possible universes.

If I use your approach to statistics, then I can prove that I will never die.
- The probability that I will die at any precisely given moment of time is of the order of 10^(-30). Since it is so highly improbable that I will die at a given moment of time, I am nearly immortal!

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 288 by For_The_Kingdom]

You are admitting that the tomb was empty, but you are not explaining WHY the tomb was empty...and you are certainly not drawing your conclusion based on the Biblical narrative, which IS the whole Resurrection thing.

I have repeatedly explained in great detail the most obvious natural reason for the empty tomb, based entirely on the Biblical narrative. But I will happily do so again. If my critique is at variance with the Biblical narrative, please explain how, and where.

1) Jesus was crucified and died on the Friday before Passover.
2) The body of Jesus was turned over to his followers (Joseph and Nicodemus) that same day by the Roman governor.
3) The body of Jesus was taken to the personal tomb of Joseph to be washed and prepared because the tomb was conveniently close to the place where Jesus was crucified.(John. 19:42)
4) The body of Jesus was heavily wrapped and coated with 100 pounds mixture of aloe/myrrh.(John.19:39)
5) The entrance to Joseph's tomb was covered with a large stone and the disciples departed.(Matt.27:60)
6) The Next day (Saturday) the chief Jewish priests asked for and received permission from the Roman governor to place a guard at Joseph's tomb, which they did, also placing seals on the closed tomb.
7) The next morning (Sunday) Joseph's tomb proved to be empty.

The clear and obvious reason that Joseph's tomb proved to be empty on Sunday morning is because the body of Jesus was already gone when the Jewish priests took possession of the tomb. Why?

Matthew 27:
[64] lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

The entire question of the missing corpse and story of the "risen" Jesus can be explained in this verse. Because exactly what the priests feared would occur is exactly what DID occur. Except that the disciples did not have to "steal" the body. Joseph had every legal right to bury the body where ever he chose to.

Six week later, upon their return from Galilee, the apostles and early followers of Jesus began to spread the rumor of the "risen" Jesus as detailed in the first few chapters Acts. All of which proved that the suspicions of the Jewish priests had been justified all along.

My conclusion is that the best explanation for the empty tomb is that living human agents, the disciples of Jesus who were in fact already in possession of the body of Jesus, never intended that Joseph's new tomb should be the final resting place for the body of Jesus, and relocated the body to it actual intended final resting place. Which they had every right to do.

The Christian conclusion on why the tomb proved to be empty is that the corpse of Jesus returned to life, left the tomb of it's own volition, and then subsequently flew off up into the sky.

The question now becomes, which conclusion is more PLAUSIBLE!

[marco]

Sorry charlie, but you are wrong here. Again, this was not some infinite trial and error process at which there was all the time in the world, and nature had many "tries" to get it right.

The big bang was a one-time event, one try, and it got it right.

It is like if there was a gaZillion black balls in a giant container, and among the gazillilon black balls, there is one white ball.

If someone blindfolded you and put a gun to your head, and told you to reach in the container and pick the ONE white ball, and if you pick any ball BESIDES the one white ball, you will be executed...and you only have ONE try.

Your model is wrong. It would be absurd to think that we are talking about one single trial. We have all the time in the world to go on trying gazillions of times, and on one occasion we will generate the sequence that arises from picking your white ball.

Remote probabilities are regarded as impossible, as far as finite, earthly populations go, but when dealing with cosmic events we do have the vast numbers and the vast amount of time to make remote probabilities perfectly viable.

[JLB32168]

So - am I correct by inferring that the main argument is, "There are discrepancies in the Gospels. The supernatural doesn't exist. No resurrection took place?"

Or is there a different one?

[rikuoamero]

So - am I correct by inferring that the main argument is, "There are discrepancies in the Gospels. The supernatural doesn't exist. No resurrection took place?"

Or is there a different one?

No. Here's how I would word the argument.

"The claim is given that a specific person, Jesus Christ, the central figure of the religion of Christianity, was tried by the authorities of his day, sentenced to death and nailed to a cross. After some time, he died. He was put in a tomb of a follower of his and embalmed. The following Sunday, some female followers of his journeyed to the tomb (despite knowing it was closed by a heavy rock and having no menfolk with them to roll it back), saw it was empty and went back into town, proclaiming that they had been told that Jesus had returned from death.
The claim of returning from death is a fantastical claim. This means the claim describes an event that, heretofore, is not known factually to happen. As far as all scientific knowledge goes, a human body, once it dies, it is dead forever. A body that comes back to life violates this, as well as other scientific laws (such as entropy).
The claim is so fantastical, so unusual (unusual in the sense that it is not known to have ever happened, not confirmed), that it requires fantastical evidence.
However, this evidence is not forthcoming.
Since the burden of proof has not been met, I cannot justify believing the claim. I cannot justify saying that the claim is true. I remain at the null hypothesis - a disbelief in the claim.
Could Jesus have returned to life? For all I know, he did. However, since there is not enough evidence in favour of it, (to say nothing of the evidence against it) I see no reason to believe the claim"

[JLB32168]

No. Here's how I would word the argument.

No insult intended, but your version of the argument are essentially the same.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

So - am I correct by inferring that the main argument is, "There are discrepancies in the Gospels. The supernatural doesn't exist. No resurrection took place?"

Or is there a different one?

This is a debate forum dedicated to the question of whether Christian claims are even vaguely plausible and represent even the slightest possibility of being true. The foundation point upon which Christian claims either stand or fall is the claim that a man died, and three days later his corpse suddenly returned to life and then subsequently flew off up into the sky. Non believers have continuously pointed out, quite correctly, that the main Christian argument of a corpse coming back to life and flying away violates all reason, logic, observation, experience with the capabilities of things which are dead, and therefore all known natural law. The bottom line for Christians is their belief that there exists a Being who can accomplish anything, therefore anything that Christians choose to claim is justified.

How is this any different from simply declaring, "God did it, I believe it, and that settles it?" Unless believers can actually provide some genuine and unassailable facts to support their clearly unrealistic claims, how is any genuine debate between believers and non believers even possible? "It's all true because I say so because that is what I believe," is not really an argument and is not really subject to being debated.

On the other hand, if believers genuinely have a strong case for the truth of their beliefs then this is the perfect opportunity, the perfect place, to make your case unequivocally. And if you CANNOT MAKE SUCH AN UNEQUIVOCAL CASE, should the fact that your claims violate all reason, logic, observation, experience with the capabilities of things which are dead, and therefore all known natural law, not reasonably count for SOMETHING? And therefore at what point should you begin to question your own beliefs yourselves?