Belief in the Resurrection is the Best Position to Hold

[POI]

After a recent exchange with a Christian, this Christian claimed a positive belief in the resurrection is the best position to hold after critical thought. Reference post 49 of (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 5#p1130835)

Below are the following positions one could take, baring one has performed their due diligence, regarding full investigation for this very large and "extraordinary" claim:

a) believe it did happen
b) believe it did not happen
c) remain 'agnostic', or not convinced, or undecided, doubtful, unbelieving, other...

***********************

For debate:

It is the Christian's burden to support why a positive belief in a resurrection holds to the best conclusion for this claim after critically thinking. --- option (a).

I guess that means it is also the gnostic atheist's position to support why disbelief in a resurrection holds to the best conclusion for this claim after critically thinking. -- option (b).

Option (c) carries no real burden, as one is merely unresolved or undecided on either (a) or (b).

Thus, 'Christians' and 'hard atheists', let the games begin! What is the best position to hold and why --- after sufficient critical thinking; a, b, or c?

[TRANSPONDER]

1. I don't believe there exists a God who intervenes in the world.(One or more arguments for "God's" existence may be sound, but they only entail a first cause or designer, not an intervener)

If a God exists, and IF up until present He has chosen not to intervene in human affairs (an unproven supposition) it is not necessarily an indication he never will. That is like saying in the 18th century, if space travel has not been invented up to this point in human history, its impossible (or unlikely) that it ever will.




JW

A logical fallacy. In fact the black swan of 'skeptics denied powered flight'. "They did not believe it but it turned out true, and they looked silly. Now, you don't want to look silly do you? So you'd better believe in God even if there is no good evidence for His intervening, because one day, there many be."

The correct logical position is "I'll believe in something when there is convincing evidence for it. Not until them."

cue? various gambits.
Logic is only human opinion
Atheists believe in Abiogenesis, and there is no good evidence for that
Argue that a heap of bad evidence accumulates into good evidence.

[fredonly]

If a God exists, and IF up until present He has chosen not to intervene in human affairs (an unproven supposition) it is not necessarily an indication he never will. That is like saying in the 18th century, if space travel has not been invented up to this point in human history, its impossible (or unlikely) that it ever will.

Without evidence such a god exists, it's just a bare possibility - and a bare possibility does not defeat a well-reasoned belief.

Knowing that birds and bats fly would be strong evidence flight is physically possible.

A logical fallacy. In fact the black swan of 'skeptics denied powered flight'.

Belief that all swans are white was not a logical fallacy, it was a valid inductive inference- but one that is immediately defeated when a black swan is found. Believing there are black swans when none had been seen would have been unjustified.

[JehovahsWitness]

If a God exists, and IF up until present He has chosen not to intervene in human affairs (an unproven supposition) it is not necessarily an indication he never will. That is like saying in the 18th century, if space travel has not been invented up to this point in human history, its impossible (or unlikely) that it ever will.

Without evidence such a god exists, it's just a bare possibility - and a bare possibility does not defeat a well-reasoned belief. ...

The point I made was not about the probability of the existence of God but a logical conclusion drawn from the supposition you yourself presented. You implied that should God exist, He will not intervene because He has not (in your opinion) done so thus far. This is illogical, just because something has not happened (yet) does not mean it cannot happen. Of itself (ie all things being equal) , something not happening yet does not weight for or against the liklihood that it will. There are a myriad of factors that do, but it never having happened before, is one of the least pertinent.

1. I don't believe there exists a God who intervenes in the world.(One or more arguments for "God's" existence may be sound, but they only entail a first cause or designer, not an intervener)

There may or may not be a {quote} "a God who intervenes" but if there is a God [as in Creator] by definition He would , in all probability be one that can.



JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[fredonly]

If a God exists, and IF up until present He has chosen not to intervene in human affairs (an unproven supposition) it is not necessarily an indication he never will. That is like saying in the 18th century, if space travel has not been invented up to this point in human history, its impossible (or unlikely) that it ever will.

Without evidence such a god exists, it's just a bare possibility - and a bare possibility does not defeat a well-reasoned belief. ...{snip: irrelevant - introduction of the reliability of the biblical text }

The point I made was not about the probability of the existence of God but a logical conclusion drawn from the supposition you yourself presented. You implied that should God exist, He will not intervene because He has not (in your opinion) done so thus far.

You're interpreting my comments from the point of view of your conception of God: an anthropomorphic being who simply hasn't yet chosen to intervene.

I don't believe a God (as depicted in religions) exists at all. I merely acknowledge that there could be a first cause and/or metaphysical ground and/or a source of contingency and/or a ground of consciousness (i.e. the narrow conclusions of various deistic arguments). None of these arguments constitute evidence for anything more. It's merely a logical possibility.

It's logically possible we'll discover a particle that travels faster than the speed of light, but there's no basis today for believing this is a physical possibility - it's contrary to a well-established law of physics. Likewise, there's no basis to believe the true laws of nature are contingent laws.

[JehovahsWitness]

If a God exists, and IF up until present He has chosen not to intervene in human affairs (an unproven supposition) it is not necessarily an indication he never will. That is like saying in the 18th century, if space travel has not been invented up to this point in human history, its impossible (or unlikely) that it ever will.

Without evidence such a god exists, it's just a bare possibility - and a bare possibility does not defeat a well-reasoned belief. ...{snip: irrelevant - introduction of the reliability of the biblical text }

The point I made was not about the probability of the existence of God but a logical conclusion drawn from the supposition you yourself presented. You implied that should God exist, He will not intervene because He has not (in your opinion) done so thus far.

You're interpreting my comments from the point of view of your conception of God...

No I am merely analysing point #1 of what you wrote. You presented no supporting evidence for your conclusion that that should a god exist he will not intervene, save for the fact that, he has not (in your opinion) intervened thus far. That which has not happened cannot happen, is nonsense.

As I explained earlier ..

The point I made was not about the probability of the existence of God but a logical conclusion drawn from the supposition you yourself presented. You implied that should God exist, He will not intervene because He has not (in your opinion) done so thus far. This is illogical, just because something has not happened (yet) does not mean it cannot happen. Of itself (ie all things being equal) , something not happening yet does not weight for or against the liklihood that it will. There are a myriad of factors that do, but it never having happened before, is one of the least pertinent.

JW

[fredonly]

No I am merely analysing point #1 of what you wrote. You presented no supporting evidence for your conclusion that that should a god exist he will not intervene, save for the fact that, he has not (in your opinion) intervened thus far.

My conclusion is derived abductively: the best explanation for the evidence. There's no evidence of miraculous intervention, and therefore no basis for postulating an intervener.
Worldly tragedies occur frequently, and these are best explained by nature taking its course. Postulating an intervener that has never intervened is ad hoc.

An abductive conclusion is falsifiable, but unless and until it is falsified, it is rational to maintain belief in it.

"That which has not happened cannot happen, is nonsense"

Your statement does not accurately reflect what I said. I've been discussing what I justifiably believe, not making assertions of what is logically possible.

The point I made was not about the probability of the existence of God but a logical conclusion drawn from the supposition you yourself presented. You implied that should God exist, He will not intervene because He has not (in your opinion) done so thus far.

That is not my reasoning. My reasoning is as follows:

For all X (hypothetical objects that may or may not exist)

If there is no evidence for the existence of X
AND
the existence of X is not entailed by other facts

THEN it's irrational to believe X exists.

This doesn't mean X is logically impossible. Further, the belief in ~X is falsifiable, by encountering evidence for X, or facts+reasoning that entail X.

Possibility alone is insufficient grounds to believe X exists. As I said, there's no evidence of an intervener, it's existence isn't entailed by other facts, therefore it's irrational to believe an intervener exists.

This is illogical, just because something has not happened (yet) does not mean it cannot happen.

"Cannot"=logically impossible, and I never made that claim. I rationally justified my belief; the mere possibility I'm wrong does not undercut my belief. The same is true for the vast majority of everyone's beliefs: they can't be shown to be necessarily true; it's nearly always the case that there is a logical possibility it's false.

Consider: It's rational for you to believe there are no pink elephants in your bedroom, even though it is logically possible for one to be there. You can't prove it: it's possible a pink elephant exists, even though you never heard of one. If it exists, it's possible it crashed through walls, or fell from a helicopter, and entered your room. But these bare possibilities do not undercut your rational belief that no pink elephants are in your room.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to fredonly in post #26]

Stick to it. It's an education to see your opponent trying to strawman your argument (that what does not [apparently] happen is logically best assumed to not be until there is good evidence that it does, has or will, happen) into an untenable claim that it cannot happen. It's just the old theist trick of not believing in a god - claim is strawmanned into a positive knowledge claim that a god is known not to exist.

[JehovahsWitness]

"That which has not happened cannot happen, is nonsense"

Your statement does not accurately reflect what I said.

The above was not a direct quote but an analysis (and an accurate one) of the basis for your beliefs. Your point one was, of course a supposition "If God exists ..." but the premise was clear "Since God (if he exists) has not intervened ; I believe he will not do so" So the basis for your belief clearly boils down to the logical fallacy which can accurately be summed as..." That which has not happened , cannot happen"

. I've been discussing what I justifiably believe, not making assertions of what is logically possible.

Very wise. So your belief that ... "if there is a God he will not intervene" is based on what? Clearly it cannot be based on the liklihood of Gods existence (since that would contradict the premise of your supposition "If there is a God..."). And surely it cannot be because he has not thus far, since that is of course as you say, is a logical possibility, the probability of which cannot rest solely on any perceived inaction thus far .

Your "pink elephant" contribution was amusing but ultimately less logical than your first attempt because'it boils down to I believe that ... "That which has not happened cannot happen because it has not happened to ME!" Which would of course rule out earthquakes, cancer and Elvis Presley concerts. If you would like to retract that particular Pink distraction in favor of "... nobody has seen one" you will find yourself right back with the original " that which has not happened cannot happen" .

So we are left with you saying " If there is a God he will not intervene because ....[HERE is where you fail to provide any valid basis* for your belief.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your beliefs (I know people are hypersentitive when it comes to their belief systems) and no offense is intended, you can believe as you choose no matter how illogical or baseless ...but if you would like to clarify, feel free.

" If there is a God he will not intervene because ....[fill in the BLANK]

[TRANSPONDER]

A rule I rather use is to allow a person to reframe, clarify and even amend their posts if they seem to be misunderstood, need logical tweaking or even a rethink. I do not hold a poster to what they posted and tell them what they meant and they cannot amend an untenable position.

That is what you seem to be doing here. If our pal Fred had made the untenable claim that, If there was a god he must intervene and as there is not persuasive evidence of intervention, there cannot be a god (Which I doubt he did), he is not (I suggest in the interests of honestly as well as workable debate) to be prohibited to amend that to 'Suppose there was an intervening god, the that intervention should be demonstrable. Since it has really not been demonstrated, the go - to hypothesis is that there is no intervening god, and excuses as to why he could intervene and can't are -excuses'. That I think is what the argument was and - as I said - you are trying to strawmann it to make it a claim of non - existence, rather than a logically valid preferred hypothesis and default position.

As to a non - intervening god, nobody cares.

[fredonly]

"That which has not happened cannot happen, is nonsense"

Your statement does not accurately reflect what I said.

The above was not a direct quote but an analysis (and an accurate one) of the basis for your beliefs. Your point one was, of course a supposition "If God exists ..." but the premise was clear "Since God (if he exists) has not intervened ; I believe he will not do so"
So the basis for your belief clearly boils down to the logical fallacy which can accurately be summed as..." That which has not happened , cannot happen"

That is not at all accurate, and I already pointed this out:

"Cannot"=logically impossible, and I never made that claim.

Please try and pay closer attention to what I actually say.

. I've been discussing what I justifiably believe, not making assertions of what is logically possible.

Very wise. So your belief that ... "if there is a God he will not intervene" is based on what?

Again: pay attention. What I said is that there is no evidence of an intervener, and therefore no rational basis to believe an intervener exists.

I previously inferred that you were applying your conception of "God" inappropriately, which you denied, and yet you still seem to be doing so. To avoid this, please stick with my term: "intervener". It should make your mischaracterization clearer:

"if there is an intervener, he will not intervene" is based on what?

Do you see the problem with your question now? I justifiably believe no intervener exists. And obviously, if there is no intervener, no interventions are even logically possible. So your question implies a contradiction I never made. If there actually existed an intervener, of course it would follow that interventions would occur. But this hypothetical counterfactual ("if there is an intervener...") is irrelevant, because it has zero bearing on anything I believe.

Your "pink elephant" contribution was amusing but ultimately less logical...

Since you failed to grasp the analogy I was making, let's stick to the general reasoning I described:

For all X (hypothetical objects that may or may not exist)

If there is no evidence for the existence of X
AND
the existence of X is not entailed by other facts

THEN it's irrational to believe X exists
Do you agree with it? If not, then please identify the problem.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your beliefs

Yes, you did, but apology accepted. I hope the clarifications I made in this post will help you understand. The belief you are challenging pertains to the existence of an intervener, and the logic I provided applies. Please respond to my logic, using my terminology.

A background error I think you're making: you overlook that the order of one's inferences matter when one is reasoning abductively. You need to examine my logic in the order I state it. Start with the general reasoning I outlined above, in bold. If you can't do that, it will become clear that you aren't interested in an honest engagement.