Resurrection vs. Alien abduction / Big Foot

[Justin108]

Evidence for resurrection:
- Eyewitness testimony
- Empty tomb

Evidence for alien abduction
- Eyewitness testimony
- Missing persons
- Photos of UFO's
- Video of UFO's

Evidence for alien abduction
- Eyewitness testimony
- Photos of Big Foot
- Video of Big Foot


Considering the fact that the resurrection has about as much evidence as alien abduction and Big Foot, is one who believes in the resurrection obligated for the sake of consistency to also believe in alien abduction and Big Foot?

liamconnor's main defense for the resurrection seems to be "why would Paul lie?" To liam I ask why would these people lie?

[liamconnor]

Evidence for resurrection:
- Eyewitness testimony
- Empty tomb

Evidence for alien abduction
- Eyewitness testimony
- Missing persons
- Photos of UFO's
- Video of UFO's

Evidence for alien abduction
- Eyewitness testimony
- Photos of Big Foot
- Video of Big Foot


Considering the fact that the resurrection has about as much evidence as alien abduction and Big Foot, is one who believes in the resurrection obligated for the sake of consistency to also believe in alien abduction and Big Foot?

liamconnor's main defense for the resurrection seems to be "why would Paul lie?" To liam I ask why would these people lie?

First, we have no reason to believe that these people were lying. They probably believed they had seen BF or a UFO. In fact, I think it quite likely that they did see something which they interpreted as such. The question is what? What might lead to this interpretation. An inexplicable and brief light in the sky? Someone wearing a gorilla suit 300 yards away in a dense forest? A moose seen from a distorting angle?

The same question should be asked of the resurrection case: what caused these people to believe they had encountered the risen Jesus?

Nor are the parallels really just.

First, the reports on the so called 'sightings' are described as sightings for a reason: they are frustratingly brief. This does not appear to be the case with the gospel narratives; nor is it required by Paul's account in 1 Cor. 15. No doubt a hyperskeptic will find it quite easy to accept that 500 people pointed off to a figure ducking behind a rock 300 yards away and on this fugitive experience concluded that Jesus had risen from the dead. But I do not take hyperskepticism very seriously. The explanation with the most power and scope is that these people experienced something which they interpreted as 'interacting with Jesus': conversations.

Second, the numbers of 1 cor 15 is mixed. Paul and James were not supporters of Jesus during his ministry. How many BF/UFO cases do we find that the eyewitnesses were skeptical of the very existence of such entities? The few I have read about, there was an a priori acceptance, even eagerness. Thus the alleged 'sighting' did not revolutionize their world-view, as the supposed encounters with Jesus did.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

An empty tomb is evidence:
Of wild animals.
Of grave robbers.
Of shenanigans.
Of placing the body in the wrong tomb.

But not of a resurrection.

Even the "dead" walking around for a day or so would only be proof to the gullible. An impostor, or some other non-sustainable trick is the more likely hypothesis.

The only real proof would be Lazarus.
Fortunately we have plenty of documentation about his trip to the afterlife. His discussions with local rulers and even the Emperor of Rome was curious, if skeptical, to hear about what it was like to be dead.

I can't seem to locate his descriptions of the afterlife, but they are certainly classics:
Would anyone mind posting them?

That should be the end of the matter.

[liamconnor]

Evidence for resurrection:
- Eyewitness testimony
- Empty tomb

Evidence for alien abduction
- Eyewitness testimony
- Missing persons
- Photos of UFO's
- Video of UFO's

Evidence for alien abduction
- Eyewitness testimony
- Photos of Big Foot
- Video of Big Foot


Considering the fact that the resurrection has about as much evidence as alien abduction and Big Foot, is one who believes in the resurrection obligated for the sake of consistency to also believe in alien abduction and Big Foot?

liamconnor's main defense for the resurrection seems to be "why would Paul lie?" To liam I ask why would these people lie?

First, we have no reason to believe that these people were lying. They probably believed they had seen BF or a UFO. In fact, I think it quite likely that they did see something which they interpreted as such. The question is what? What might lead to this interpretation. An inexplicable and brief light in the sky? Someone wearing a gorilla suit 300 yards away in a dense forest? A moose seen from a distorting angle?

The same question should be asked of the resurrection case: what caused these people to believe they had encountered the risen Jesus?

Nor are the parallels really just.

First, the reports on the so called 'sightings' are described as sightings for a reason: they are frustratingly brief. This does not appear to be the case with the gospel narratives; nor is it required by Paul's account in 1 Cor. 15. No doubt a hyperskeptic will find it quite easy to accept that 500 people pointed off to a figure ducking behind a rock 300 yards away and on this fugitive experience concluded that Jesus had risen from the dead. But I do not take hyperskepticism very seriously. The explanation with the most power and scope is that these people experienced something which they interpreted as 'interacting with Jesus': conversations.

Second, the numbers of 1 cor 15 is mixed. Paul and James were not supporters of Jesus during his ministry. How many BF/UFO cases do we find that the eyewitnesses were skeptical of the very existence of such entities? The few I have read about, there was an a priori acceptance, even eagerness. Thus the alleged 'sighting' did not revolutionize their world-view, as the supposed encounters with Jesus did.

Again,

[Justin108]

First, we have no reason to believe that these people were lying. They probably believed they had seen BF or a UFO.

I didn't just mention UFO's, I specified alien abduction which is a far more intense experience than seeing something in the distance.

What might lead to this interpretation. An inexplicable and brief light in the sky? Someone wearing a gorilla suit 300 yards away in a dense forest? A moose seen from a distorting angle?

At this point, you would normally ask us to ascribe to a specific theory and then give detailed explanations for why that one theory is true. So, specifically, what is the true explanation for alien abductions and Big Foot sightings? What you are doing is exactly what you complain about atheists doing. We come up with several alternate explanations for what happened with the resurrection and you take issue, yet here you are doing the exact same thing.

First, the reports on the so called 'sightings' are described as sightings for a reason: they are frustratingly brief.

The sightings, maybe, but not the abductions.

This does not appear to be the case with the gospel narratives; nor is it required by Paul's account in 1 Cor. 15.

Who said anything about "required"? It's a possibility, and that possibility is enough.

No doubt a hyperskeptic will find it quite easy to accept that 500 people pointed off to a figure ducking behind a rock 300 yards away and on this fugitive experience concluded that Jesus had risen from the dead.

"A hyper skeptic will find it quite easy to accept that thousands of people pointed off to a figure in the distance and concluded it was Big Foot". See how far your loaded language gets you?

There have been numerous reported sightings of both Hitler and Elvis after their deaths. Is your "hyper skepticism" going to dismiss these sightings as well?

But I do not take hyperskepticism very seriously.

A great way to dismiss any opposition: simply label your opponent a hyper skeptic, then automatically dismiss everything they say. So far, you've demonstrated several traits of hyper skepticism so calling anyone a hyper skeptic at this point would be quite hypocritical.

We doubt the testimony of eyewitnesses who supposedly saw a risen Jesus and we are labeled as hyper skeptic.

You doubt the testimony of eyewitnesses who supposedly saw UFO's, Big Foot, Elvis, Hitler... and you are a perfectly rational individual.

How do you account for this double standard?

The explanation with the most power and scope is that these people experienced something which they interpreted as 'interacting with Jesus': conversations.

1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

No mention of any interactions or conversations.

Paul and James were not supporters of Jesus during his ministry. How many BF/UFO cases do we find that the eyewitnesses were skeptical of the very existence of such entities?

We're not talking about Paul and James, we're talking about the 500. And the notion that Paul and James become converts is not at all a radical notion. People convert to Christianity, to Islam, to Atheism... conversion is not a radical notion.

"But why did Paul convert?" you may ask. Why did any given Muslim convert convert to Islam? You may scorn the idea that a mass hallucination occurred where 500 people hallucinated seeing Jesus, but the idea that Paul hallucinated his road to Damascus experience in a desert environment, possibly dehydrated, is not a radical notion. This experience may have resulted in Paul's sincere conversion.

The few I have read about, there was an a priori acceptance, even eagerness.

And this doesn't describe you at all? You didn't have a priori acceptance? An eagerness to believe? Did the 500 witnesses not have an eagerness to believe?

Alien abduction accounts are normally horrifying experience. Why would anyone eagerly want to believe that they have been violated by an alien race who could come back at any time?

Thus the alleged 'sighting' did not revolutionize their world-view, as the supposed encounters with Jesus did.

Again, we are talking about the 500. Not Paul.

1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

Judging by Paul calling them "brothers and sisters", it seems they were already followers at this point. They would be just as eager if not more so to believe in Jesus' return compared to people who think Big Foot's existence would be kind of cool. They are far more motivated to believe in Jesus' return than in those who believe in Big Foot.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 2 by liamconnor]

Are you going to abandon this thread as well?

[marco]

First, we have no reason to believe that these people were lying. They probably believed they had seen BF or a UFO. .....

The same question should be asked of the resurrection case: what caused these people to believe they had encountered the risen Jesus?

This is rather amusing. You disbelieve the first group and supply possible explanations for their mistake.
You then BELIEVE the second group and supply reasons why we should overrule common sense and take them at their word.

Should we believe the words of holy writers who say: " and tombs opened. The bodies of many godly men and women who had died were raised from the dead." This is rubbish as is the literal resurrection. The planet Venus or a moose may explain the errors of the first group; wishful thinking or plain lying will suffice for the second.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 5 by Justin108]

liamconnor wrote:

First, we have no reason to believe that these people were lying. They probably believed they had seen BF or a UFO.

I didn't just mention UFO's, I specified alien abduction which is a far more intense experience than seeing something in the distance.

I was not aware we had hundreds of people claiming to be on the same alien ship and returning to us with congruent testimony.

liamconnor wrote:

What might lead to this interpretation. An inexplicable and brief light in the sky? Someone wearing a gorilla suit 300 yards away in a dense forest? A moose seen from a distorting angle?

At this point, you would normally ask us to ascribe to a specific theory and then give detailed explanations for why that one theory is true. So, specifically, what is the true explanation for alien abductions and Big Foot sightings? What you are doing is exactly what you complain about atheists doing. We come up with several alternate explanations for what happened with the resurrection and you take issue, yet here you are doing the exact same thing.

What I have done is pointed out that the parallels you have selected are not the same. You have reduced all parallels to a common denominator: I, Justin, don't believe them.

You also put yourself in a potentially awkward situation with your examples--for I have no a priori repugnance towards aliens, hostile or otherwise, nor towards large furry bi-peds hitherto unknown. If both gained enough support, I simply have to conclude that 'we are not alone' and that scientists have discovered a new species, and (God forbid) the zoo a new member.

liamconnor wrote:

First, the reports on the so called 'sightings' are described as sightings for a reason: they are frustratingly brief.

The sightings, maybe, but not the abductions.

I have looked for testimonies similar to the testimony of 1 Cor. 15. I have found none, but I did not look very hard.

liamconnor wrote:

This does not appear to be the case with the gospel narratives; nor is it required by Paul's account in 1 Cor. 15.

Who said anything about "required"? It's a possibility, and that possibility is enough.

Historians regard 'possibility' as the lowest criterion to be met: it furnishes the potential to move forward, not to stop satisfied. Your logic would support the following: It is a possibility that any given dog may have eaten any boy's homework--since it is possible, no teacher can scold a boy for forgetting his homework. Indeed, your logic, if applied indiscriminately, would mean that any historical theory which was possible was to be accepted on those grounds--i.e., a theory that Caesar was not assassinated is just as good as one in which he was, because both are 'possible'.

Of course, you probably are not applying this historical principle indiscriminately: you probably agree that mere 'possibility' is very weak....until it is posed against the supernatural. Then, mere 'possibility' reigns supreme. I do not regard this as a responsible, let alone reasonable, criterion--it is a ploy, a device calculated to dismiss the supernatural. And it is very clever. History is full of possibilities: innumerable excuses may come to the boy who forgot his homework. And as supernatural claims belong to the realm of history, there will always be a possible natural explanation (whether it meets the more astringent historical criteria is another question).

liamconnor wrote:

No doubt a hyperskeptic will find it quite easy to accept that 500 people pointed off to a figure ducking behind a rock 300 yards away and on this fugitive experience concluded that Jesus had risen from the dead.

"A hyper skeptic will find it quite easy to accept that thousands of people pointed off to a figure in the distance and concluded it was Big Foot". See how far your loaded language gets you?

Again, your parallels! We are really comparing 500 people who came to believe a man they had followed: they heard speak, they ate with, they admired--was bodily raised from death, and people thinking they saw for a brief instance a large unidentified biped?

What would it take for you to believe in Big Foot? Now apply that same degree of antecedent skepticism to the followers of Jesus, and I think you will have a better situation.

liamconnor wrote:

But I do not take hyperskepticism very seriously.

A great way to dismiss any opposition: simply label your opponent a hyper skeptic, then automatically dismiss everything they say. So far, you've demonstrated several traits of hyper skepticism so calling anyone a hyper skeptic at this point would be quite hypocritical.


How do you account for this double standard?

How do you account for the fact that I do not label E.P. Sanders, who is a naturalist, as a hyperskeptic? Clearly in my mind their lies a criteria for hyperskepticism which he does not meet, and most members here do.

We doubt the testimony of eyewitnesses who supposedly saw a risen Jesus and we are labeled as hyper skeptic.

You doubt the testimony of eyewitnesses who supposedly saw UFO's, Big Foot, Elvis, Hitler... and you are a perfectly rational individual.

What do you mean by "we doubt the testimony...."? Do you mean Peter, James, John + some five hundred more all were lying? They consciously knew Jesus was cold in his grave (or ripped apart by feral dogs)?

Or do you not have a concrete natural explanation, you just kind of 'doubt the whole thing' without defining what 'the whole thing is''?

That would be the attitude of a hyperskeptic. Hyperskeptics begin with their disbelief in the resurrection; they then move backward disbelieving in anything that might support it. They do not feel as if they need provide any positive explanation (Jesus survived the crucifixion; wrong tomb) for the end conclusion was held from the very beginning.

A skeptic starts with the data and moves forward. You will notice, when posed with the possibilities of Big Foot or UFO/abductions, I didn't start with how ridiculous all these things were. I began by asking for specific testimonies: that is, for the data.

liamconnor wrote:

The explanation with the most power and scope is that these people experienced something which they interpreted as 'interacting with Jesus': conversations.

1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

No mention of any interactions or conversations.

This is correct. The operative verb here is the passive of 'see' (Greek). Since Paul wished to keep Jesus as the subject, Jesus is thus seen by Peter, then the twelve, then others. It is a legitimate question to ask of the nature of these encounters; but not in isolation of the result: their belief that he was bodily raised. I thus require a plausible explanation for this new belief of theirs.

You may scorn the idea that a mass hallucination occurred where 500 people hallucinated seeing Jesus, but the idea that Paul hallucinated his road to Damascus experience in a desert environment, possibly dehydrated, is not a radical notion. This experience may have resulted in Paul's sincere conversion.

For now I am going to scorn the ad hoc assumptions that are blatant here, and the ones that are latent. The notion that Paul left for a prepared trip to Damascus, a journey which just happens to look like the Sahara desert, without food and water, is ridiculous. That is a blatant ad hoc. The latent ad hoc which I detect is the discriminatory treatment you are about to apply to Acts: sure, Paul saw a light, I'll grant that! But are you going to grant the other parts? Did Ananias receive a vision from Jesus telling him to go to the exact location of Paul? Did Paul receive back his sight at that moment? Were the travelers of Paul privy to certain aspects of his hallucination, but not others? Which parts are you going to accept and which not?

liamconnor wrote:

The few I have read about, there was an a priori acceptance, even eagerness.

And this doesn't describe you at all? You didn't have a priori acceptance? An eagerness to believe? Did the 500 witnesses not have an eagerness to believe?

Given what I know about 1st c. Judaism, the 500 did not have an a priori hope that Jesus was going to be raised from the dead any time before the general resurrection. Such a notion would have been alien to them. All the literature confirms that this was a surprise.

Alien abduction accounts are normally horrifying experience. Why would anyone eagerly want to believe that they have been violated by an alien race who could come back at any time?

You will note that I judged the specific context of the 500: they were 1st c. Jews. In order to judge these abductees, I would need to know a little more about them.

Judging by Paul calling them "brothers and sisters", it seems they were already followers at this point. They would be just as eager if not more so to believe in Jesus' return compared to people who think Big Foot's existence would be kind of cool.

I am confused. Are you saying that everyone who has lost a beloved one is more than not likely to believe that that loved one has been raised from the grave? Obviously not. Consider all the Christians today who believe miracles are possible: they should all be announcing that their beloved deceased dug themselves out of their graves, met with them and their families, and then ascended into heaven.

But they don't. Why don't they?

Perhaps because they have no empirical evidence to suggest this has happened?

Again, the parallels you have chosen are striking.


(apologies for getting back to this so late; this is a past-time for me, recently overshadowed by a new novel).

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 7 by marco]

liamconnor wrote:

First, we have no reason to believe that these people were lying. They probably believed they had seen BF or a UFO. .....

The same question should be asked of the resurrection case: what caused these people to believe they had encountered the risen Jesus?

This is rather amusing. You disbelieve the first group and supply possible explanations for their mistake.
You then BELIEVE the second group and supply reasons why we should overrule common sense and take them at their word.

If you read carefully, I don't disbelieve the first group. I believe they believed it happened. Based on the very scant information provided, I supplied explanations. I then asked for more details: a person reporting to have seen a large hairy biped for a brief moment from four hundred yards away is going to attract less attention from me than a report from 500 people, previously skeptical of Big Foot, who report, nonetheless, that that they spent a day in close proximity of a beast matching the legendary descriptions.

The latter is a better parallel.

The planet Venus or a moose may explain the errors of the first group; wishful thinking or plain lying will suffice for the second.

It is a common historical blunder here to operate on the plane of 'possibilities' and vague explanations. I note your chosen words: the judicious 'may explain' of Venus and moose''; But the glib dismissal with 'it will suffice'! If you are content with glib and vague dismissals, then sit content. But please don't pretend as if you have 'explained' anything satisfactorily. A conspired story to foment a power-struggle can account for how Caesar falling and breaking his neck turned into a tale of his assassination. I am content with that. It is not selfcontradictory. Indeed, as history is written by the victors, it cannot be disproved. Of course, my stance against the traditional testimony would force me into hyperskeptical defense....

If you want a real naturalistic attempt, I suggest you talk to Alexx. His was horribly implausible by naturalistic standards, but still, it showed courage and, above all, detail.

[marco]

I then asked for more details: a person reporting to have seen a large hairy biped for a brief moment from four hundred yards away is going to attract less attention from me than a report from 500 people, previously skeptical of Big Foot, who report, nonetheless, that that they spent a day in close proximity of a beast matching the legendary descriptions.

Well we don't have 500 reporters. We have one person reporting 500 reporters. There's a difference.

It is a common historical blunder here to operate on the plane of 'possibilities' and vague explanations.

Well thankfully Marco has avoided falling into that "common historical blunder." I don't need to explain resurrections, nor would I need to explain somebody's report of a werewolf. The onus is always on the reporter to give an account that is convincing. I do not for a second believe that 2 millennia ago a man was raised to life, having been a stinking corpse; nor do I believe a crucified man died and came back to life a few days later. There will be explanations for these tales - I need not supply them and so I avoid falling into your "common historical blunder."

You believe not through reason but choice. I choose not to.