Why favor natural explanations over supernatural ones for the resurrection?

[AgnosticBoy]

I often hear skeptics of the resurrection assert that any natural explanation is more probable than a supernatural explanation. Some even go as far as coming up with theories or details that are not even mentioned in the story, like Jesus's body being stolen or that Jesus had a look alike. Perhaps the disciples also assisted in stealing the body. I question this standard or assertion.

What is the justification for favoring the natural explanations? Is it simply that scientists have only accounted for natural or physical phenomenon? In my view, evidence is evidence. If evidence points to a supernatural explanation, one that simply posits a violation of the laws of nature, then that should be the more probable explanation. It doesn't matter if that evidence goes against pre-existing knowledge.

[Difflugia]

In my view, evidence is evidence. If evidence points to a supernatural explanation, one that simply posits a violation of the laws of nature, then that should be the more probable explanation. It doesn't matter if that evidence goes against pre-existing knowledge.

You are absolutely right.

Unfortunately for Christian apologists, the only evidence we have in favor of a supernatural resurrection is a story about a supernatural resurrection. There's lots of evidence against resurrections (either natural or supernatural), like the overwhelming evidence that dead people stay dead. Since the overall explanation must be consistent with as much of the evidence as possible, we have to find one that explains both "existence of a story about a resurrection" and "no dead person has ever been verified to become alive again." Two explanations that fit that criterion rise to the top of our list. Together, they completely outweigh and overshadow whatever distant contender may lie in third place.

• Parts of the story are historical, but the part about the resurrection is made up.
• The story is completely made up.

Nobody has to show any favoritism to natural occurrences over supernatural ones. Based on the evidence we have, those are still the two most likely explanations even if we start with the premise that gods are real.

[Paul of Tarsus]

I often hear skeptics of the resurrection assert that any natural explanation is more probable than a supernatural explanation. Some even go as far as coming up with theories or details that are not even mentioned in the story, like Jesus's body being stolen or that Jesus had a look alike. Perhaps the disciples also assisted in stealing the body. I question this standard or assertion.

We know people rob graves and have lookalikes. There's no question about it.

What is the justification for favoring the natural explanations? Is it simply that scientists have only accounted for natural or physical phenomenon?

Generally, naturalistic explanations of a story are more likely correct than explanations involving magic because we have much better evidence for natural phenomena. We make fewer assumptions by opting for naturalistic explanations, and the fewer assumptions we make, the fewer are the possibilities that we are wrong.

In my view, evidence is evidence. If evidence points to a supernatural explanation, one that simply posits a violation of the laws of nature, then that should be the more probable explanation. It doesn't matter if that evidence goes against pre-existing knowledge.

Absolutely! Now let's see the evidence for miracles.

[Miles]

What is the justification for favoring the natural explanations?

Because the supernatural has never been shown to exist; there's no reason to consider it. And keep in mind that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” (Carl Sagan).

Is it simply that scientists have only accounted for natural or physical phenomenon?[/b] In my view, evidence is evidence. If evidence points to a supernatural explanation, one that simply posits a violation of the laws of nature, then that should be the more probable explanation. It doesn't matter if that evidence goes against pre-existing knowledge.

If you honestly feel the supernatural is a viable explanation, then please present your extraordinary evidence. Failing that, the story of the resurrection is just that, a story.



.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #1]

What is the justification for favoring the natural explanations? Is it simply that scientists have only accounted for natural or physical phenomenon?

Probably because, to many, 'natural' makes more sense than 'super natural'.
You mention 'ghosts' to many, they don't believe it because, in part, it goes against the 'nature' they 'know' now. But many change their tune when they experience what their brain says is a 'ghost'.
I think this whole 'god thing' is very similar - identical almost.

[AgnosticBoy]

Unfortunately for Christian apologists, the only evidence we have in favor of a supernatural resurrection is a story about a supernatural resurrection. There's lots of evidence against resurrections (either natural or supernatural), like the overwhelming evidence that dead people stay dead. Since the overall explanation must be consistent with as much of the evidence as possible, we have to find one that explains both "existence of a story about a resurrection" and "no dead person has ever been verified to become alive again."

Absolutely! Now let's see the evidence for miracles.

Ladies & Gents, there IS evidence. I thought we would've at least all agreed here and just stick to debating which explanation is more probable and why. The evidence may be debatable but some exists nonetheless. The evidence is in the form of written documentation and witness accounts - a man that was dead is back from the grave, walking and talking. Furthermore, we know that this wasn't simply "myth" because the resurrection was taken seriously by the disciples and other witnesses. They risked spreading Christianity in a hostile environment and many paid with their life. One apostle requested to be crucified upside down. People would not do this for a hoax.

If you honestly feel the supernatural is a viable explanation, then please present your extraordinary evidence. Failing that, the story of the resurrection is just that, a story.

As I mentioned before, there is evidence. It is historical in nature. All historical evidence involves written accounts or stories.

[Miles]

If you honestly feel the supernatural is a viable explanation, then please present your extraordinary evidence. Failing that, the story of the resurrection is just that, a story.

As I mentioned before, there is evidence. It is historical in nature. All historical evidence involves written accounts or stories.

Simply asserting the kind of evidence is not presenting the evidence itself. So as I asked before, please present your extraordinary evidence.


.

[Difflugia]

Ladies & Gents, there IS evidence. I thought we would've at least all agreed here and just stick to debating which explanation is more probable and why. The evidence may be debatable but some exists nonetheless. The evidence is in the form of written documentation and witness accounts - a man that was dead is back from the grave, walking and talking.

That's exactly what I said; we have a story of a supernatural resurrection. I didn't deny that it's evidence, but it's too little to overcome the much, much greater body of evidence that dead people don't become alive again.

Furthermore, we know that this wasn't simply "myth" because the resurrection was taken seriously by the disciples and other witnesses. They risked spreading Christianity in a hostile environment and many paid with their life. One apostle requested to be crucified upside down. People would not do this for a hoax.

We have stories to this effect. Even if those stories are absolutely true, people believing that a resurrection happened doesn't overcome the otherwise massive evidence against anyone ever having been resurrected, let alone one specific person. Moreover, that's a false dichotomy. You don't just get to assume that the stories are true. Those stories being completely invented still doesn't overcome the evidence that people don't start living again after they're dead.

As I mentioned before, there is evidence. It is historical in nature. All historical evidence involves written accounts or stories.

Yes. And if we lacked evidence that dead people stay dead, we might presume that it's trustworthy.

As I mentioned in another thread, the CDC estimates that more than 700,000 people die every year in hospitals under medical supervision in the United States. None of these people have become alive again. On the other hand, I have shelves of books containing stories, some made up, some not. If I pick up a book at random and its central event is something that has never been observed to happen despite tens of millions of scientifically controlled opportunities, I'm most safe in assuming that the book is fictional, at least in that specific detail.

While you're trying to frame the problem as a biased preference for the natural, the true problem is your desire to treat an old story and people's reaction to it as being more reliable than modern scientific data.

[Diagoras]

In my view, evidence is evidence. If evidence points to a supernatural explanation, one that simply posits a violation of the laws of nature, then that should be the more probable explanation. It doesn't matter if that evidence goes against pre-existing knowledge.

<bolding mine>

So some evidence is ‘better’ than others, surely? Seeking the best evidence is going to provide the most probable explanation to anything we are investigating.

What kind of questions should we ask about any event or phenomenon that initially appears fantastical or outside our normal experience? And how will we be best satisfied that the answers we receive are correct?

[Diagoras]

Furthermore, we know that this wasn't simply "myth" because the resurrection was taken seriously by the disciples and other witnesses. They risked spreading Christianity in a hostile environment and many paid with their life. One apostle requested to be crucified upside down. People would not do this for a hoax.

If someone is taken in by a convincing hoax, they typically ‘take it seriously’ and act as if it is true. There are many examples of people believing they have found love on the internet and subsequently send money to a fraudster, but struggle to accept that they have been fooled.

How would a story be reported differently in the case of people believing in a ‘resurrection hoax’?