Believers... this is your chance!

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Put up, or pack it in.

Earlier today I created the topic, "Why is the Resurrection Version of Events Plausible?" This represents the perfect opportunity for Christian believers to establish once and for all why their claims and their version of reality is at least plausible. I'm not even asking any of you to "prove" that your beliefs are true. I am simply asking you to establish that they even reach some minimum level of plausibility. A perfectly reasonable expectation, it seems to me, for anyone attempting to debate the truth of Christian claims with non believers on a Christian apologetics debate forum. And the perfect opportunity for Christians to make the case that your beliefs are at least well grounded and viable. And if you are not able to even achieve even some minimum standard of establishing why your beliefs and your claims are at the very least plausible, then what is the point of making them at all? I am not going so far as to suggest that, in the name of reason, anyone should stop believing whatever it is that gives them personal satisfaction to believe in simply because their beliefs appear to be the definition of foolish and silly. I am asking how, if you cannot even meet some minimum standard of establishing that your claims have even some slight level of plausibility, can you reasonably expect to convince others?

My experience throughout life has been that everything which occurs, does so for perfectly natural reasons. The heart and soul of Christian claims is that a supernatural event occurred 2,000 years ago. If this cannot be established to be undeniably and unequivocally true, then the entire claim is without foundation. Supernatural claims which cannot be established to have foundation are simple make believe. Why would anyone expect anyone else to subscribe to their make believe?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Issuing such a challenge to non believers would have resulted in dozens of responses from atheists by now. And yet not a single Christian has seen fit to rise to my challenge in over a week. Of course any Christian who has been on the forum any length of time understands perfectly well that I am more than able of convincingly dismantling their claims in detail. The fact that not a single Christian has chosen to step up and openly defend what it is they claim to believe represents clear proof of that. When one side refuses to defend it's position, the contest is effectively over.

The only way of determining which point of view, belief or non belief, has the better chance of being viable and true is a point by point debate of the various claims. The results appear to be in. Non belief seems to have clearly prevailed.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Well if there is an Almighty Omnipotent God, I don't see what is so "implausible" about him giving back life to one of his creations. It would be as "implausible" as a person switching back on a light that he himself had turned off.

Personal Opinion,

JEHOVAHS WITNESS


Further Reading: The Resurrection of Jesus—Did It Really Happen?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... -of-jesus/

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Well if there is an Almighty Omnipotent God, I don't see what is so "implausible" about him giving back life to one of his creations. It would be as "implausible" as a person switching back on a light that he himself had turned off.

Personal Opinion,

JEHOVAHS WITNESS

Further Reading: The Resurrection of Jesus—Did It Really Happen?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... -of-jesus/

If there is a being called Santa Claus who possesses magical powers then it's not so implausible that reindeer can fly. It also serves to explain how Santa has the ability to visit all of the children in the world on a single night. "If" opens up an infinite amount of possibilities, doesn't it? In fact "if" is the basic component of all make believe.

About 100 years ago scientists had realized that matter is simply a form of energy, and "if" the energy in any given unit of matter could be released all at once, massive amounts of heat, light and radiation would be produced. It would be a truly terrifying new weapon. This particular "if" was based on the best current scientific evidence. During the second world war all of the resources of the US government were brought to bear on producing such a weapon. After three years of intense effort the first atomic bomb was successfully exploded in New Mexico. And "if" became a physical fact.

Christians have been claiming for 2,000 years that Jesus is going to return and usher in the final judgement. The first generation of Christians believed that Jesus would certainly return in their lifetimes. As time passed each successive generation of Christian fully believed that Jesus would return in their lifetimes, or at the very least, the lifetimes of their children. 2,000 years later Christians are still making this claim. "If" Jesus returns and ushers in the final judgement then "if" will become a recognized physical fact, as will the existence of God. "If" it happens. A 2,000 years ongoing record of total futility indicates just about as clearly as it is possible for something to be indicated, however, that this particular "if" is and always was nothing but the sort of "if" that make believe is founded on.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]


JW.org
The Resurrection of Jesus—Did It Really Happen?

Despite the testimony of the eyewitnesses and of the Scriptures, there were and still are those who doubt that Jesus was raised up.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... -of-jesus/

This is one of the most commonly cited "evidences" by all Christians for the truth of the resurrection of Jesus. And yet in truth there are NO actual eyewitness accounts of the supposed resurrection. In fact there is absolutely no historical indication that anything of particular significance occurred in Jerusalem circa 30 AD. Decades later stories were written by largely unknown authors indicating that such an event occurred, but not a single account of it was produced at the time the event was supposed to have happened. The Gospels and acts indicate that the disciples of Jesus spread the rumor that Jesus had risen from the dead, but they provided no actual evidence. In fact they indicated that Jesus bodily flew off up into the sky and disappeared. The rumors were largely ignored at the time for the very pertinent reason that they were neither credible nor believable. Two thousand years later they are still neither credible non believable.

If you actually have confirmed eyewitness testimony that indicates that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, then produce it. If you cannot produce such testimony then honesty dictates that maintaining that such testimony exists is deceptive and not factual, and such claims should be discontinued.


Some say that his body was stolen by his disciples who then claimed to be witnesses to the resurrection. However, the disciples had neither the power nor the influence to overcome the Roman guards who were stationed at the entrance of the tomb.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... -of-jesus/

You know perfectly well yourself how pathetically easily this is explained without any recourse to supernatural claims. Again, honesty dictates that continuing to promote such claims when they clearly are not valid, be discontinued.

My opinion of the JW.org argument is that it represents a case study in misleading and both self serving and self deceiving falderal. It's only a credible argument to those who swallow it on faith.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]

This is my chance to correct some of the parameters you've placed which are theoretically erroneous, as well as some commonly held assumptions:

First,

Why would anyone expect anyone else to subscribe to their make believe?

I don't. I am not here to tell you what you should believe; I am here to tell you why I believe what I do and that my beliefs are quite reasonable. What you do with my reasons is your business.

The heart and soul of Christian claims is that a supernatural event occurred 2,000 years ago. If this cannot be established to be undeniably and unequivocally true, then the entire claim is without foundation.

Incorrect. If we were discussing mathematics or formal logic, this would be true. But as you have noted, this is an historical question. No history provides "undeniable and unequivocal" evidence. None, whether natural or supernatural or preternatural; all events are open to subjective doubt. There are people who do not believe the holocaust occurred. Nothing you say or show will convince them otherwise. They will come up with a thousand alternative explanations, no matter how bizzarre, before agreeing upon the historicity of that event. So long as they can come up with just one explanation, no matter how implausible, no matter how insensitive to the historical context, no matter how many "conspiracy" theories they have to assume, still, they will hold to that.

So your criteria is off and therefore no discussion can occur. If you wish to revise your theory of history (i.e., come to grips with what History can and cannot produce), then perhaps we can work together to devise some historical criteria.

My experience throughout life has been that everything which occurs, does so for perfectly natural reasons.

Highly unlikely. What you experience are habitual patterns (read Hume) and relative "causes". By relative I mean that causes are a chain, dependent upon other causes.
Most scientists disbelieve we can trace that chain, link by link, very far. Remember, anyone can say "yes, but perhaps what caused that natural cause was a supernatural cause, God". Read Aristotle.

Supernatural claims which cannot be established to have foundation are simple make believe.

Any historical claim without foundation is...well, without foundation.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]

This is my chance to correct some of the parameters you've placed which are theoretically erroneous, as well as some commonly held assumptions:

First,

Why would anyone expect anyone else to subscribe to their make believe?

I don't. I am not here to tell you what you should believe; I am here to tell you why I believe what I do and that my beliefs are quite reasonable. What you do with my reasons is your business.

The heart and soul of Christian claims is that a supernatural event occurred 2,000 years ago. If this cannot be established to be undeniably and unequivocally true, then the entire claim is without foundation.

Incorrect. If we were discussing mathematics or formal logic, this would be true. But as you have noted, this is an historical question. No history provides "undeniable and unequivocal" evidence. None, whether natural or supernatural or preternatural; all events are open to subjective doubt. There are people who do not believe the holocaust occurred. Nothing you say or show will convince them otherwise. They will come up with a thousand alternative explanations, no matter how bizzarre, before agreeing upon the historicity of that event. So long as they can come up with just one explanation, no matter how implausible, no matter how insensitive to the historical context, no matter how many "conspiracy" theories they have to assume, still, they will hold to that.

So your criteria is off and therefore no discussion can occur. If you wish to revise your theory of history (i.e., come to grips with what History can and cannot produce), then perhaps we can work together to devise some historical criteria.

My experience throughout life has been that everything which occurs, does so for perfectly natural reasons.

Highly unlikely. What you experience are habitual patterns (read Hume) and relative "causes". By relative I mean that causes are a chain, dependent upon other causes.
Most scientists disbelieve we can trace that chain, link by link, very far. Remember, anyone can say "yes, but perhaps what caused that natural cause was a supernatural cause, God". Read Aristotle.

Supernatural claims which cannot be established to have foundation are simple make believe.

Any historical claim without foundation is...well, without foundation.

I don't. I am not here to tell you what you should believe; I am here to tell you why I believe what I do and that my beliefs are quite reasonable. What you do with my reasons is your business.

Everyone here understands what you believe. There is nothing reasonable about believing that a corpse came back to life and flew away. Declaring it to be reasonable cannot change that.

Incorrect. If we were discussing mathematics or formal logic, this would be true. But as you have noted, this is an historical question. No history provides "undeniable and unequivocal" evidence. None, whether natural or supernatural or preternatural; all events are open to subjective doubt. There are people who do not believe the holocaust occurred. Nothing you say or show will convince them otherwise. They will come up with a thousand alternative explanations, no matter how bizzarre, before agreeing upon the historicity of that event. So long as they can come up with just one explanation, no matter how implausible, no matter how insensitive to the historical context, no matter how many "conspiracy" theories they have to assume, still, they will hold to that.

Historians do not stand alone. They work within the parameters of common modern knowledge. There is in fact massive "unequivocal evidence" that a corpse cannot come back to life and fly away. This particular line of reasoning on your part always returns to the same question. Provide some examples of supernatural occurrences which are not part of your personal belief system and which are widely and generally considered to be historically factual. Until you do you are simply spinning your wheels, and no one is paying any attention. You do of course have every right to believe as you choose. But you cannot convert your unsupported personal beliefs into an genuinely effective argument.

So your criteria is off and therefore no discussion can occur. If you wish to revise your theory of history (i.e., come to grips with what History can and cannot produce), then perhaps we can work together to devise some historical criteria.

Unless you can provide actual supporting evidence, something more than your personal beliefs and gut feelings, all discussion will never get anywhere.

Highly unlikely. What you experience are habitual patterns (read Hume) and relative "causes". By relative I mean that causes are a chain, dependent upon other causes.

Everything we can see is the effect of an earlier cause WITHOUT FAIL, this is true. How this supports your belief in a creator Being escapes me.

Most scientists disbelieve we can trace that chain, link by link, very far. Remember, anyone can say "yes, but perhaps what caused that natural cause was a supernatural cause, God". Read Aristotle.

Aristotle lived in the 4th century BC. He was brilliant. Vastly smarter than I am. But I have the advantage of an extra 2,400 years of accumulated knowledge at my disposal. Aristotle knew nothing of E=MC^2, or quantum mechanics. With an extra 2,400 years of accumulated knowledge to draw from I know VASTLY more about the nature of the universe than Aristotle did.

Any historical claim without foundation is...well, without foundation.

Which historical claims do you consider to be without foundation?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Well if there is an Almighty Omnipotent God, I don't see what is so "implausible" about him giving back life to one of his creations. It would be as "implausible" as a person switching back on a light that he himself had turned off.

Personal Opinion,

JEHOVAHS WITNESS


Further Reading: The Resurrection of Jesus—Did It Really Happen?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... -of-jesus/

If there was an almighty omnipotent god it wouldn't need human sacrifice to do it. In fact there wouldn't need to be a reason for it to sacrifice a human to begin with as an omnipotent God could make its creation blemish free.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Hello TOTN!! Always an extreme pleasure to converse. I am not exactly sure what you desire in this topic from Christians. Men don't come back to life after 3 days, at least from a human standpoint. We however, are not talking about what is human, but rather what is of God. If God can give life from dirt, is it a far stretch to give life to a human form that has no breath?

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Well if there is an Almighty Omnipotent God, I don't see what is so "implausible" about him giving back life to one of his creations. It would be as "implausible" as a person switching back on a light that he himself had turned off.

Personal Opinion,

JEHOVAHS WITNESS


Further Reading: The Resurrection of Jesus—Did It Really Happen?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... -of-jesus/

If there was an almighty omnipotent god it wouldn't need human sacrifice to do it. In fact there wouldn't need to be a reason for it to sacrifice a human to begin with as an omnipotent God could make its creation blemish free.

Hello DTD!!

God never needed the human sacrifice, we did!