I Guess Remaining Skeptical to an Extraordinary Claim is Irrational?

[POI]

To protect the innocent, (for now), I will not divulge the author of this recent statement issued in an extremely long and convoluted thread:

"Here's the conclusion. Skeptics really have no rational arguments to counter the evidence in support of the Bible. Rather, they continually make irrelevant accusations, repeated baseless claims, and have a severe lack of valid counterarguments with supporting evidence."

For Debate:

Based upon the given 'evidence' for the claim that a man resurrected from a grave, is it rational to still remain skeptical of this extraordinary claim?

If not, why not?

If so, why so?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #125]

It seems to me you are simply avoiding now.

LOL! Quite the contrary. It looks to be you, who are avoiding.

We have been going back and forth for well over 2 weeks now, and I have attempted to answer all your objections,

Sure, you've provided responses. But not answers....

Now, you are giving me more questions, again some I have answered over, and over, and now you want to put stipulations upon how I answer them.

POI Not really. Many of the questions are repeat questions, revamped for more understanding, since you have merely been providing responses, and not answers.

U did not realize I had to abide by your rules. But I'll tell you what, I will give it one more attempt here.

POI Giving actual answers for my specific questions, as opposed to just responses, is not abiding by my rules. It's just common courtesy, in a debate. Further, I answered your one question. I'm merely regurgitating the ones pressed to you, for which you have not answered. And the ones you actually did answer - I then offer a rebuttal. Which is what a debate usually is....

U have never made such an argument. Your argument was concerning the extraordinary claim, and I am simply pointing out that any explanation of the facts, and evidence would be extraordinary, which means you are simply exchanging one extraordinary claim for another. This is nowhere close to making the argument that if you cannot come up with an alternative explanation this lends credence to the claims.

POI Negative. The only extraordinary answer, is a rotting corpse actually rising. The rest, fail in comparison, and are quite mundane. But again, I'm not going to speculate. I do not need to. We know the fact that rotting corpses don't rise. Viola, this option has been ruled out. So we can speculate, until the cows come home, to the alternative 'facts' of the ordinary.

U I have never inferred the Bible is not trustworthy. I have said, "I wish the Bible had never been composed" but this has nothing to do with my being under the impression it is untrustworthy. I do not attempt to defend the Bible, because I do not have to. As demonstrated in my last post, there are certain things we can know by examining the documents we have, whether they be trustworthy or not. This is all we need, so why would I waste my time attempting to defend the trustworthiness of the Bible? Therefore, when you ask me a question concerning why I am convinced no one is hearing from God today outside the ordained means He has given, it is perfectly legitimate for me to answer this question by referring to the scriptures Christians themselves claim to adhere to.

POI People do not say "I am not attempting to make the argument the documents are trustworthy.", when they believe the Bible is otherwise trustworthy

So again, why use the Bible to reference that God USED to speak to people? FYI, these documents you keep referring to, are in the Bible - like it or not.

U Why in the world would you think I would have an answer to this? I have answered this by pointing out the fact that it is not uncommon at all, and it happens all the time. I have even agreed with you that it could be bias, and or, differing standards, and this is not good enough, and so now you are insisting that I give an answer as to why you and I do not agree? I can only answer in the same way. You and I can look at the same evidence and come to differing conclusions, both using facts, evidence, and reason to come to those conclusions. It could be that one, or even the both of us has a bias. It could be we have differing standards. This is the only way I know how to answer this question, and I have answered it over, and over. What's the deal?

POI Yes, but you chopped the most important part. This part gets back to the crux of the OP:

No doubt, based upon both of our extensive research, if both of our faces are held to the fire, we are both going to claim each other are irrational. So what is it exactly that makes ONE OF US irrational?

Before you answer, allow me to reiterate. We completely diverge. I can tell you why I think this is. You have provided for yourself a special circumstance, where the laws are bent this one time? And yet, you admit that this law cannot be broken. So why suspend your reasoning, for this one special case? I see this as special pleading, and nothing more. And I have to ask why?

U I quoted others in order to demonstrate, whether the Bible is trustworthy or not, there are certain things we can know by examining the material which cannot be denied. These folks I have cited, along with hundreds, and hundreds of others have dedicated their whole life to the study of such things, spending day, after day, studying, and examining the facts, and evidence concerning what we are discussing. Moreover, they have published book volume, after book volume, explaining to us what they have discovered, and for one to come along and insist, just give me your favorite facts, speaks volumes. Coming to a conclusion one way or the other, is not in any way simple, although there certainly seems to be those who are under the impression there are indeed simple answers. This is the best I can do in answering this question. As I have said when answering this in the past, it is not like after years of study I stumbled across some fact which hit me between the eyes which convinced me. Rather, it was the study of the facts, and evidence over time.

POI None of this should concern you. You understand the fact that rotting corpses don't rise. Like it or not, we have many arguing for a young earth, flat earth, etc.... Appealing to the masses, means little. If rotting corpses don't rise, then why create a special pleading case for this ONE claim?

U I am not the one who is making the claim "the Bible is not very reliable". Next, I have not said a thing about anything being verified. My argument has been, and it was the topic of the OP, is that one can use facts, evidence, reason, and logic to arrive to either conclusion. Therefore, I am not the one who is insisting, but it certainly seems as if this is where you are heading.

POI The Bible is where the resurrection claim is made. THE BIBLE is not trustworthy. Why not just reject the claim?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #128]

The fact of the matter is rotting bodies do not rise.

Correct! And I do not think the apostles were attempting to convince folks that it is possible. Rather, it seems pretty clear, they were proclaiming the impossible has occurred. I mean, do you really think these folks were under the impression that what they were proclaiming would be easy to believe? Which brings up the question, why in the world would they come up with such an unbelievable tale? Do you really believe they thought this plan through and thought this may be an easy way to make a living? CMON MAN! Yeah! So, what would cause them to come up with such an outrageous story? And let's keep in mind these folks would all have to be able to keep the story straight, hoping against hope no one recanted, and told the real tale. No matter how you slice it, it is incredible.

So just because we have a book of claims, from a bunch of superstitious ancients

My friend, Jesus was crucified, dead, and placed in a tomb, and these guys were proclaiming for all of Jerusalem to hear, that Jesus rose from the dead. So, it is not like this had anything at all to do with superstition. These guys were pointing to facts, and evidence, and used words such as testimony, witness, eyewitness, evidence, defense, which are words one would hear in a court of law. In fact, here is what one of the authors had to say to his audience at the time,

For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Do you see that? This author is acknowledging the myths, legends, fables, and superstitions, and assures his audience, that this is not what they are proclaiming is based upon. Rather, according to this author, it is based upon eyewitness testimony. Now, before you go off on a tangent here complaining the author may be lying, I understand this, and I am simply pointing out this author understands these sorts of things and is making sure his audience understands this is not what they are doing.

for which we cannot divulge what REALLY happened, does NOT lend any more credence to the claim that a rotting body rose from its grave.

This is what is called a "strawman" because I have never made such an argument. You have continued to make the argument the claim is extraordinary, and I am simply saying that you are exchanging one extraordinary tale for another, which is nowhere close to suggesting that since you cannot come up with what actually happened then this lends credence to the claim they were making. This does not follow.

Most likely, part of the story is of legend and lore

Oh really? What sort of facts and evidence do we have for such an idea? There is so much to think about here, I do not have the time to cover it all, but let's look at some things we can know. We can know that very early on, these guys were making the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. We can know that they continued to proclaim this well into their life. We can know that some of these guys, if not all, had disciples of their own, and we have writings from folks who actually knew the apostles. So then, your idea is not stacking up against the facts we have.

has been written to convince others

Exactly who were they attempting to convince in these writings? The overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT can be demonstrated to be letters addressed to particular audiences at the time, who were already believers, with the authors having no idea, nor any concerned that anyone else would read these letters other than the intended audience, and they certainly could not have known about any sort of Bible. Again, your argument is not holding up.

some may be downright lies, some may be downright embellished, other.

Okay? So, what sort of facts, and evidence do we have which would suggest this to be the case? You are simply throwing out possibilities with no facts, and evidence in support.

But again, since rotting bodies do not rise, just because we cannot answer, with a completely founded alternative response, does not lend any more weight to the claim of the extraordinary (i.e.) a resurrection.

This has been answered above, along with other places. I am not making that argument.

2) It's quite convenient that God/Jesus spoke to people 2K+ years ago, but no longer. And we know this because this is what the untrustworthy book tells us? Please!

If you will go back and read more carefully, you will see that we are not talking about God speaking randomly to many different folks, as if everyone had a direct line to God. Rather, it clearly said, God spoke through the prophets. Okay, so according to what we have written, Jesus was the last prophet, and there is no more. God has spoken. Your complaint about the Bible being untrustworthy has nothing at all to do with it. The point is, if there are Christians today who are claiming God is communicating with them today, outside the ordained means, then they are going against the very scripture they claim to adhere to. On the one hand you are arguing that Christianity must, and has to be false, while on the other you seem to be arguing that I am in error claiming God no longer communicates to folks. If Christianity is false, then the God described by the authors does not exist, and he does not, and never has communicated with anyone. If Christianity is true, then it clearly teaches God does not communicate in such a way.

Both you and I have studied the same claims. Why do you think you and I do not share the same conclusion?

GOOD GRIEF! I really do not know what else to say. So then, are you telling me that it is impossible for folks to look at the same exact facts, and evidence, both using reason and logic and come to differing conclusions? It happens all the time.

Which one of us is on the irrational path?

One or the both of us could be on that path, but I am saying this is not necessarily the case.

It has to be one of us? Is it me or you?

I'm afraid not. It certainly could be, but it is not in any way a given.

No doubt, based upon both of our extensive research, if both of our faces are held to the fire, we are both going to claim each other are irrational.

You can speak for yourself. If my "face was held to the fire" I could still proclaim that it is possible for folks to come to different conclusions examining the same facts, and evidence, while using reason and logic.

So what is it exactly that makes ONE OF US irrational?

When one of us attempts to make the argument you are attempting to make here.

Specifically what kinds of evidence is GOOD evidence for a resurrection claim? Seeing it yourself, numerous deposed eyewitness accounts, other?

The same kind of evidence it takes for any other claim. The fact that there are hundreds, and hundreds of folks who have dedicated their lives to the study of these facts, and evidence demonstrates there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims. If there were no facts, evidence, and reasons, there would be nothing for these folks to examine.

In the past, you asked me to state a fact for discussion. So I did. Rotting corpses do not rise. You agreed. What is the problem here?

Right! So, I think we have determined your favorite fact. It is all so simple, right? It was simple when one was a Christian, and it is simple now. It is what I call, "easy in, easy out". Didn't take a whole lot of thinking to convince one to be a Christian, and it don't take a whole lot of thinking to talk them out. The problem is, you are having to ignore a whole lot of other facts, and evidence in order to hold on to this favorite fact. But hey! If you are good with it, then it is fine by me. I am certainly not going to insist someone think past their favorite fact.

This untrustworthy collection of books is the only source we have for the claim of a rotting corpse rising from the grave.

Again, the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT can be demonstrated to be letters addressed to particular audiences a the time, who would have already been believers, with the author having no idea, nor any concern as to whether what they were writing would be read by anyone else besides the audience they were addressing. Moreover, as we have already established, the scholars have demonstrated there is a lot we can know from reading this material whether they be trustworthy or not. You can ignore all of this if you like, but it does not change the fact.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #128]

The fact of the matter is rotting bodies do not rise.

Correct! And I do not think the apostles were attempting to convince folks that it is possible. Rather, it seems pretty clear, they were proclaiming the impossible has occurred. I mean, do you really think these folks were under the impression that what they were proclaiming would be easy to believe? Which brings up the question, why in the world would they come up with such an unbelievable tale? Do you really believe they thought this plan through and thought this may be an easy way to make a living? CMON MAN! Yeah! So, what would cause them to come up with such an outrageous story? And let's keep in mind these folks would all have to be able to keep the story straight, hoping against hope no one recanted, and told the real tale. No matter how you slice it, it is incredible.

Again, we can speculate until the cows come home. If rotting bodies DON'T rise, then your guess is as good as mine; provided you do not opt for special pleading and make yourself then become irrational.

My friend, Jesus was crucified, dead, and placed in a tomb, and these guys were proclaiming for all of Jerusalem to hear, that Jesus rose from the dead. So, it is not like this had anything at all to do with superstition. These guys were pointing to facts, and evidence, and used words such as testimony, witness, eyewitness, evidence, defense, which are words one would hear in a court of law. In fact, here is what one of the authors had to say to his audience at the time,

Again - again, we can speculate until the cows come home. But, if we know rotting bodies do not rise, then we can effectively rule this option out of the equation. But it is a fact that many ancient people were very superstitious. And it is also a fact that the Bible is not very trustworthy. The list of facts goes on....

Do you see that? This author is acknowledging the myths, legends, fables, and superstitions, and assures his audience, that this is not what they are proclaiming is based upon. Rather, according to this author, it is based upon eyewitness testimony. Now, before you go off on a tangent here complaining the author may be lying, I understand this, and I am simply pointing out this author understands these sorts of things and is making sure his audience understands this is not what they are doing.

Yes, I see it. It's another quote from the book in which has been deemed untrustworthy.

This is what is called a "strawman" because I have never made such an argument. You have continued to make the argument the claim is extraordinary, and I am simply saying that you are exchanging one extraordinary tale for another, which is nowhere close to suggesting that since you cannot come up with what actually happened then this lends credence to the claim they were making. This does not follow.

Again-again-again, we can speculate until the cows come home. If rotting bodies DON'T rise, then your guess is as good as mine; provided you do not opt for special pleading and make yourself then become irrational.

** Please note I omitted some of your responses, due to redundancy. **

U If you will go back and read more carefully, you will see that we are not talking about God speaking randomly to many different folks, as if everyone had a direct line to God. Rather, it clearly said, God spoke through the prophets. Okay, so according to what we have written, Jesus was the last prophet, and there is no more. God has spoken. Your complaint about the Bible being untrustworthy has nothing at all to do with it. The point is, if there are Christians today who are claiming God is communicating with them today, outside the ordained means, then they are going against the very scripture they claim to adhere to. On the one hand you are arguing that Christianity must, and has to be false, while on the other you seem to be arguing that I am in error claiming God no longer communicates to folks. If Christianity is false, then the God described by the authors does not exist, and he does not, and never has communicated with anyone. If Christianity is true, then it clearly teaches God does not communicate in such a way.

POI Sure, self-proclaimed or human-proclaimed prophets. No different than what we have now But it's quite convenient it stopped SO long ago.

Note the part in red. Then read what I wrote directly above. If we have 'prophets' always, and these 'prophets' proclaim what God says, HOW in the heck do we know which ones to trust, and which ones are in self-deception? It's okay, you do not have to answer. It's likely they are all in self-deception.

U GOOD GRIEF! I really do not know what else to say. So then, are you telling me that it is impossible for folks to look at the same exact facts, and evidence, both using reason and logic and come to differing conclusions? It happens all the time.

POI Answered in a later reply... But here is the answer, in a nutshell.... You are applying special pleading, which makes you irrational. We all do it, from time to time. It's okay. But you need to own it here.

U The same kind of evidence it takes for any other claim. The fact that there are hundreds, and hundreds of folks who have dedicated their lives to the study of these facts, and evidence demonstrates there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims. If there were no facts, evidence, and reasons, there would be nothing for these folks to examine.

POI WHAT 'EVIDENCE'? We already agree rotting corpses do not rise. Many study many religious claims. So?

U Again, the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT can be demonstrated to be letters addressed to particular audiences a the time, who would have already been believers, with the author having no idea, nor any concern as to whether what they were writing would be read by anyone else besides the audience they were addressing. Moreover, as we have already established, the scholars have demonstrated there is a lot we can know from reading this material whether they be trustworthy or not. You can ignore all of this if you like, but it does not change the fact.
[/quote]

POI All this stuff is IN the Bible. And the Bibe is untrustworthy. So why not just dismiss the claim(s)?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to POI in post #125]

It seems to me you are simply avoiding now.

Hey y'all, they're having a pot and kettle sale at debatingchristianity.com

Had to put that in there for the SEO bots.

[brunumb]

My friend, Jesus was crucified, dead, and placed in a tomb, and these guys were proclaiming for all of Jerusalem to hear, that Jesus rose from the dead.

Or so the story goes.

[Tcg]

My friend, Jesus was crucified, dead, and placed in a tomb, and these guys were proclaiming for all of Jerusalem to hear, that Jesus rose from the dead.

Or so the story goes.

A story written by, well, we don't know. And what's this, "these guys were proclaiming for all of Jerusalem to hear?" We have no idea who may have heard these mythological claims. We do know that it was the Romans not the Jews who spread the religion that resulted.


Tcg

[POI]

My friend, Jesus was crucified, dead, and placed in a tomb, and these guys were proclaiming for all of Jerusalem to hear, that Jesus rose from the dead.

Or so the story goes.

A story written by, well, we don't know. And what's this, "these guys were proclaiming for all of Jerusalem to hear?" We have no idea who may have heard these mythological claims. We do know that it was the Romans not the Jews who spread the religion that resulted.


Tcg

Yes. We have so many (facts and evidence)

[JoeyKnothead]

My friend, Jesus was crucified, dead, and placed in a tomb, and these guys were proclaiming for all of Jerusalem to hear, that Jesus rose from the dead.

Or so the story goes.

A story written by, well, we don't know. And what's this, "these guys were proclaiming for all of Jerusalem to hear?" We have no idea who may have heard these mythological claims. We do know that it was the Romans not the Jews who spread the religion that resulted.


Tcg

Yes. We have so many (facts and evidence)

Much facts, many evidence

[Clownboat]

That apparently sailed clean over your head. I was talking about historians that would have lived during the era that Jesus would have been alive or at least sometime around that. i.e. Josephus

Here is one that could have, but didn't. Telling as to what he is thought to have said though:
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4 BC – AD 65

[Clownboat]

[Replying to POI in post #117]

I am not sure what you want me to do according to your last post. Therefore, I am going to continue to answer these questions one at a time.

3. If both you and I have studied the same material, why do we diverge so greatly? Is it bias? Is it differing standards for evidence? Is it other?

I have answered this over, and over. It is not uncommon at all for folks to examine the same exact facts, and evidence and come to completely different conclusions. Folks sit on the same jury and hear the same evidence and are convinced differently. Of course, there are those on both sides of the equation as far as Christianity is concerned who are persuaded by bias. There are also those on both sides who are easily convinced. In fact, many of those opposed here on this site who were once convinced Christianity was true admit they were easily convinced. I also agree there may be other reasons for the disagreement. I will also go on to point out, there are very intelligent folks on both sides of the equation. As I have said, I have answered this several times, and I do not see the big deal.

The way you use 'facts and evidence', I hope you are never selected for jury duty.
How confusing would it be to listen to the 'facts' told by the prosecutor and then the 'facts' by the defendant? The facts would not add up!

What is happening in the court room and what you quote from the Bible are actually claims, not facts. You just don't seem to know or understand the difference.

That seems to be the difference between POI and yourself for coming to different conclusions about the resurrection. POI is examining claims made in a book and you think you are reading facts. This I submit accounts for the great diverge.