[Replying to post 72 by The Tanager
Oh, I see what you mean now. That was unclear wording on my part. I mean that we need to look at the historical sources and see what evidences we can glean from it, rather than taking an all-or-nothing approach to the texts. When we do, I think we end up needing to explain at least (1) the discovery of Jesus' empty tomb, (2) Jesus' port-mortem appearances, and (3) the origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection.
I've possibly missed other steps in this summary. I ask that others suggest adding steps, if I've missed any, or say what steps they stop on, and why they stop there (if they think I haven't addressed their reasoning there).
You haven't given me the evidences. I'm pretty sure you can't even mention (1) the discovery of Jesus's empty tomb (2) Jesus's post-mortem appearances, and (3) the origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection because those would be from the stories.
Unless these evidences that you have yet to show me do in fact mention them?
Whether God exists or not, miracles would be rare. That rarity says nothing against the credibility of miracles. I think we are agreed there.
Are you saying that miracles can happen in a God-free world, that a God-less world could still have miracles, albeit rarely, the number is not zero?
If God does not exist, then the probability would be low (if not zero).
If God exists, then the probability [of Jesus's resurrection] would be low, but not necessarily zero...?
So you're positing that there could still be a resurrection, but it doesn't necessarily HAVE to be God who is responsible for it? Hmm...are you sure you want to go down that route? Seems to me you'd be shooting yourself in the foot.
If God exists, then the probability is not low at all. So, to rationally maintain this claim, one would need to prove God does not exist.
These two sentences don't make sense together. Did you mean to say one would need to prove God does not
exist, is that "not" a mistake? Unless I'm misreading, and the "maintain this claim" refers to claiming God does not exist?
I don't think anyone has tried this here.
If you mean the specific God entity as posited by Christianity and its Bible, then that has been done, successfully in my opinion (albeit maybe not on this thread? I'm not rereading all the posts). That creature has contradictory qualities - powerful enough to speak universes into existence, but not able to defeat tribes with iron chariots, for example.
The Christian must bear the burden of proving Jesus' resurrection plausible.
Which would mean you would need to prove the God agent exists, correct? Although you seem to be taking a different approach in this latest reply, and implying that a resurrection of Jesus does not need to have been caused by a God, it could have some other cause behind it.
As such, the atheist needs to support it for the critique to rationally go through.
Wouldn't pointing to all the graveyards and tombs throughout history, with a grand total of zero rising bodies satisfy this?
Once a person dies, that's it. Their body ceases to move. I've seen a dead body. My grandmother died nearly twenty years ago, and I saw her body in the funeral home. It didn't do anything. It was inanimate.
All the Christian would need to do is show that God's existence is possible because, if it is, then we cannot know that the probability of a miracle is so low to stop us from warranting consideration.
possible, you don't need to show an actual
God? Methinks you've made quite a mistake here.
the burden for the positive case for Jesus' resurrection is back on the Christian's shoulders.
Yes it is.
Jagella has also claimed that known fakes give us reason to discount any miracle claim as genuine. I've stated how that is clearly flawed. Every claim must be taken on its own merit.
If ten salesmen ring your doorbell in a row, only you find out each and every one of them are scams, can you be blamed for not giving time to look at the eleventh, who may or may not be a scam?