The resurrection, for Jason.

[AtheistArchon]

- Okay Jason, here's a good place to present your case for the resurrection.

- Jason only, please! At least until after Jason is done. Thanks!

[Faramir]

AA:

If you want to keep this between you and Jason, may I suggest you move this tread to the Tennis Courts here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=54) which are set up for one on one discusions such as this. This is a fairly new area, so I thought I would bring it to your attention.

If you like, I will move this thread there.

[AtheistArchon]

- Thanks Faramir!

- But no, I don't mind if others jump in here and there as they like. I just want Jason to be able to make the first argument, that's all. I'm sure the other posters will allow this. :smile:

[jason]

I will have to be brief but I think it will suffice.

2000 years ago something happened in palestine. What is the question.

Have a look at TWELVE WIDELY-ACKNOWLEDGED HISTORICAL FACTS (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t008.html).

I would contend that the only explanation that satisfies all 12 is an actual resurrection. Nothing else works that isn't badly contrived. In my experience.

Also there is the problem detailed in The Impossible Faith (http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html) which details exactly what sort of obstacles christians would face propogating there belief system in the pagan world.

What could they possibly have know that convinced many many people to convert ?

I asked you to provide and defend an alternative because I am convinced one simply does not exist. I've been looking for a while but that all seem to fall short.

I can give a brief overview of some alternative explanations if that I have encountered and what exactly is wrong with them, if you like.

Hopefully you wont stump for any really silly ideas like, "Jesus and Myth", and that he never really existed.

Jason

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 09:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
jason:
What could they possibly have know that convinced many many people to convert ?


As I understand it, Islam grew much faster than Christianity. So is Islam more true than Christianity? After all, what could those early Muslims have known that caused so many people to convert?

Why do thousands of people in some European counties flock to see images in the grain of a fencepost that are supposed to resemble Christ (or some other equally improbable nonsense)? Not because it's necessarily true, but because they are desperate for a miracle.

Rather like the Jews were when Jesus came along. Hope and expectation can cause people to make rash decisions.

That is why, for me, this argument holds no water. And some of those 'widely acknowledged facts' are a bit dubious, too. To put it mildly.

Paul

[AtheistArchon]

2000 years ago something happened in palestine. What is the question.

- I have no reason to believe that this is true. Can you show me why we must begin with this premise?


Have a look at TWELVE WIDELY-ACKNOWLEDGED HISTORICAL FACTS.

I would contend that the only explanation that satisfies all 12 is an actual resurrection. Nothing else works that isn't badly contrived. In my experience.

- Speaking for myself, I do not adhere to any of the 12 listed "facts".


Also there is the problem detailed in The Impossible Faith which details exactly what sort of obstacles christians would face propogating there belief system in the pagan world.

- Immaterial, I think. Once a group of people believe something strongly enough, they will act in this manner. Heck, they even do these days. And this is not a trait which is unique amongst Christian believers, either.


I asked you to provide and defend an alternative because I am convinced one simply does not exist. I've been looking for a while but that all seem to fall short.

- There are actually limitless alternatives, none of which are falsifiable of course (which is why I rest upon a default position of skepticism). I view the resurrection as a fable included in the bible (from which much of the "history" behind the event was gleaned) because it's a viable alternative; we see fables represented in other religions that have equal amounts of historical documentation, if perhaps not an equal amount of current believers.


Hopefully you wont stump for any really silly ideas like, "Jesus and Myth", and that he never really existed.

- It's possible that he existed. I won't deny that much. It's also possible that he was a mere prophet, one of many at the time, whose message (or legend) caught on after he was killed, and was thereafter embellished. Such things have been known to happen.

- Then again, it's possible that he never did exist, and is a copycat of other, previous god-man legends which predate Christianity (and no, I'm not a fan of Acharya S).

[johnransom]

Today @ 03:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
lordsnooty:

As I understand it, Islam grew much faster than Christianity. So is Islam more true than Christianity? After all, what could those early Muslims have known that caused so many people to convert?
May I suggest - that the blade of a scimitar has nasty sharp edges? The comparison is apples and oranges.


Why do thousands of people in some European counties flock to see images in the grain of a fencepost that are supposed to resemble Christ (or some other equally improbable nonsense)? Not because it's necessarily true, but because they are desperate for a miracle.
More likely that they have a misplaced need for something tangible to worship. And this is hardly unique to Europe and to desperate people, so your point is off base.


Rather like the Jews were when Jesus came along. Hope and expectation can cause people to make rash decisions.
Except that Jesus was not what the Jews were hoping for. He was precisely the opposite in many ways, which is part of the "impossibility" of the Christian faith.

[jason]

- I have no reason to believe that this is true. Can you show me why we must begin with this premise?
Do you deny that the christian church exists and that it got off the ground 2000 years ago centred in palestine ? If you don't agree with that statement then I don't think we can go any further as you simply deny what is simple historical fact.

I didn't say what it was, whether it was supernatural or not etc, just that something happened.


- Speaking for myself, I do not adhere to any of the 12 listed "facts".
Why not ?


- Immaterial, I think
Well so much for considering the idea. Actually it is essentail. IF somebody started to promulgate a belief in this society that was absolutely anathema to what society holds as correct and right, do you really think it would get off the ground ?


There are actually limitless alternatives, none of which are falsifiable of course
You still don't get the difference do you. :argh:


It's possible that he existed. I won't deny that much. It's also possible that he was a mere prophet, one of many at the time, whose message (or legend) caught on after he was killed, and was thereafter embellished. Such things have been known to happen
Of course you can explain why that would be the case, why such "myths" accreted around Christ so quickly and so on right.


Then again, it's possible that he never did exist, and is a copycat of other, previous god-man legends which predate Christianity
Yep that makes sense :argh:

Jason

[jason]

As I understand it, Islam grew much faster than Christianity. So is Islam more true than Christianity? After all, what could those early Muslims have known that caused so many people to convert?
Actually Islam grew at the point of a sword. Once Mohammed had control of medina (which took about 10 years from memory) islam really took off, principally by conquest and forced conversion ("Turn or Burn at its finest").


Why do thousands of people in some European counties flock to see images in the grain of a fencepost that are supposed to resemble Christ (or some other equally improbable nonsense)? Not because it's necessarily true, but because they are desperate for a miracle.
Perhaps but what does that prove ?


Rather like the Jews were when Jesus came along. Hope and expectation can cause people to make rash decisions.
Rash decisions that they persist in for 20+ years and get executed for refusing to recant. Some rash decision.


That is why, for me, this argument holds no water. And some of those 'widely acknowledged facts' are a bit dubious, too. To put it mildly.
Specifically. You and AA are long on generalisations and very short of specifics.

Which is unsurprising but a little disappointing.

Jason

[AtheistArchon]

Do you deny that the christian church exists and that it got off the ground 2000 years ago centred in palestine ? If you don't agree with that statement then I don't think we can go any further as you simply deny what is simple historical fact.

I didn't say what it was, whether it was supernatural or not etc, just that something happened.

- Oh okay, I'll agree that Christianity became a religion about 2000 years ago in that area.


Why not ?

- Because they are unsupported by objective and impartial sources.


Well so much for considering the idea. Actually it is essentail. IF somebody started to promulgate a belief in this society that was absolutely anathema to what society holds as correct and right, do you really think it would get off the ground ?

- Societal change happens this way quite often, I think.


You still don't get the difference do you.

- Apparently not. I'm just telling you there that MY OWN alternatives would be nonfalsifiable.


Of course you can explain why that would be the case,

- I don't have to. It's a reasonable possibility; it's happened before. It will probably happen again.


Yep that makes sense

- Religions evolve. Doctrines change. Not too long ago, it was the mainstream belief amongst Christians that the Earth was the center of the universe... but no longer. I think it's pretty well documented that ancient myths brought to new cultures were changed, improved upon to fit the culture, and adopted as a "new" belief.

[jason]

- Oh okay, I'll agree that Christianity became a religion about 2000 years ago in that area.
But do you agree that they are not comparable and do not make comparable claims to historicity.


- Because they are unsupported by objective and impartial sources.
These things simply do not exist anyway. There is no such thing as an "impartial source". Besides what would count as an "objective source".

You will argue that any source that says the resurrection happened is a hopelessly tainted source because it reports miracles. But this is nothing more than your own subjective and biased opinion.


Societal change happens this way quite often, I think.
Feel free to list these other instances you think exist.


- Apparently not. I'm just telling you there that MY OWN alternatives would be nonfalsifiable.
No you really don't. History deals in reasonable doubt. Any other standard is a category error. How many times do I need to say this ?


- I don't have to. It's a reasonable possibility; it's happened before. It will probably happen again.
Please comparable examples with comparable time lines. Your just tossing confetti into the air with this argument. Why are you afraid to deal in specifics ?


- Religions evolve. Doctrines change. Not too long ago, it was the mainstream belief amongst Christians that the Earth was the center of the universe... but no longer.
Actually that was ptolemeic greek philosophy not christian doctrine.


I think it's pretty well documented that ancient myths brought to new cultures were changed, improved upon to fit the culture, and adopted as a "new" belief.
So what ? That proves nothing. Beliefs that are adopted centuries down the track and changed are not relevant to the discussion because they are not comparable to the case at hand.

Jason

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 05:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
jason:
islam really took off, principally by conquest and forced conversion ("Turn or Burn at its finest").

Did they learn that from the Christians, or was it the other way around?


Rash decisions that they persist in for 20+ years and get executed for refusing to recant. Some rash decision.

What about cult members who kill themselves in the name of their religion? Are their religions true, as well? They must be, they were willing to die for them!

The nature of religious belief is that people will often die for it, however mistaken it may be.


Specifically. You and AA are long on generalisations and very short of specifics.

Well, there's little that one can say to rebutt your claims because they are so ludicrously simplistic.

What your argument amounts to is essentially 'The bible is true because people believed it'. No allowance is made for human fallibility, gullibility, lies or trickery.

Paul

[Blake Reas]

Archon,
There are a few points I would like to make in this debate over the resurrection since I think it is rather irrational to argue over it.
1) You will never accept it. Since you do not believe in the Supernatural Jesus could hit you up side the head with a club and you would find some way to deny it was him. You would either say it had something to do with you brain Chemistry etc. The evidence for anything in history will only take you as far as you presuppositions will allow for you that is not very far at all.
2) The Tactic commonly used in this debate
Joe Theist tells James Atheist that he can prove the Resurrection in the course of the debate the Theist lays out evidence that the Atheist says "It doesn't have to be that way!" Over and over again ad naseum. When the debate is over and the Theist has demonstrated that the tomb was in fact empty as most scholars would admit the Atheist will say since you are relying on the Supernatural for an explanation you need incredible evidence. The Theist will reply I have provided it, the atheist will shoot back that he does not accept the existence of God nor the Supernatural therefore there must be a "better" explanation. And the debate is a waste of breath for both sides.

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[AtheistArchon]

1) You will never accept it. Since you do not believe in the Supernatural Jesus could hit you up side the head with a club and you would find some way to deny it was him. You would either say it had something to do with you brain Chemistry etc. The evidence for anything in history will only take you as far as you presuppositions will allow for you that is not very far at all.

- Well, you're right and you're wrong. I will never accept it given the current arguments, no. Neither do any Christians accept any other religions on such a basis. However, I'm not as picky as to blame being hit on the head by Jesus on brain chemistry or a bad taco I ate. :brow: I've always said, if god wants to talk to me, he probably knows my telephone number.


2) The Tactic commonly used in this debate
Joe Theist tells James Atheist that he can prove the Resurrection in the course of the debate the Theist lays out evidence that the Atheist says "It doesn't have to be that way!" Over and over again ad naseum.

- Mmmm, not exactly. It's true that there are simpler, naturalistic explanations for the story of the resurrection, but then again it's not my position to have to prove anything in this thread.


When the debate is over and the Theist has demonstrated that the tomb was in fact empty as most scholars would admit the Atheist will say since you are relying on the Supernatural for an explanation you need incredible evidence.

- Demonstrate? Perhaps "conclude via his sources", and it is the sources I have a problem with. But yes, invoking the supernatural has it's own problems associated with it. *I* certainly couldn't get away with it.


The Theist will reply I have provided it, the atheist will shoot back that he does not accept the existence of God nor the Supernatural therefore there must be a "better" explanation. And the debate is a waste of breath for both sides.

- I think youre right... which is one reason why I originally started with the debate over whether supernatural answers are worth anything. :smile: But that discussion has moved (temporarily, at least) into a debate about the resurrection itself, which of course will go nowhere.


But do you agree that they are not comparable and do not make comparable claims to historicity.

- "They" what? Christianity and...?


These things simply do not exist anyway. There is no such thing as an "impartial source". Besides what would count as an "objective source".

- A source that was not directly influenced by Christian beliefs... that would work for starters.


You will argue that any source that says the resurrection happened is a hopelessly tainted source because it reports miracles. But this is nothing more than your own subjective and biased opinion.

- Well Jason, we haven't yet shown that miracles are possible. :smile: And while it's my opinion that they are not possible, my opinion is logically justified.


Feel free to list these other instances you think exist.

- Do you really want to get into examples of this? If I give you a list of rapid societal changes, will we get bogged down about their authenticity, validity and such, and get hopelessly off the topic again?


No you really don't. History deals in reasonable doubt. Any other standard is a category error. How many times do I need to say this ?

- Ummm, what does this have to do with me admitting my own alternatives would be nonfalsifiable? And why does reasonable doubt make the resurrection likely? And why can we NOT use empirical evidence in history, like I've asked for?


Please comparable examples with comparable time lines. Your just tossing confetti into the air with this argument. Why are you afraid to deal in specifics ?

- Well I didn't think I'd have to back this up, but okay. Do you want cults, ancient myths, or mainstream religions that you don't recognize? Narrow it down to one of those, and I'll give you a list. (With dates and place in real time! Since you seem to think that some don't exist in real time.)


Actually that was ptolemeic greek philosophy not christian doctrine.

- Absolutely is was Christian doctrine:

"Ptolemy's geocentric system, representing the best science of the day, was incorporated into Christian theology by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th Century along with pretty much all the rest of current science. Unfortunately, St. Thomas did such a wonderful job that less imaginative members of the Church hierarchy came to think that Christian doctrine depended on science staying the way it was." http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/science3.html

- There is tons of scripture that supports a geocentric universe: http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml



So what ? That proves nothing.

- Except that you remarked sarcastically that it doesn't make sense. So now do you agree that it does?


Beliefs that are adopted centuries down the track and changed are not relevant to the discussion because they are not comparable to the case at hand.

- Why not? You don't think this could have happened with Christianity, obviously. Why not?

[Blake Reas]

- Well, you're right and you're wrong. I will never accept it given the current arguments, no. Neither do any Christians accept any other religions on such a basis. However, I'm not as picky as to blame being hit on the head by Jesus on brain chemistry or a bad taco I ate. I've always said, if god wants to talk to me, he probably knows my telephone number.

I think that the Resurrection argument is strong. For instance I do not think the Hallucination hypothesis holds water at all. But then again you would because the Supernatural Cannot happen. I do not think that if some one knew something was blatantly false that they would go to their deaths for it either, no matter how deluded they are.
But this is why I hold to Presuppositional Apologetics. I recognize that the Atheistic side if I play on their ground has good arguments. I only recognize the traiditional arguments for God, the Resurrection, etc are only supporting arguments.

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[AtheistArchon]

I think that the Resurrection argument is strong. For instance I do not think the Hallucination hypothesis holds water at all. But then again you would because the Supernatural Cannot happen. I do not think that if some one knew something was blatantly false that they would go to their deaths for it either, no matter how deluded they are.

- Well, I do not discount all of these arguments simply because I am a naturalist and leave no room for the possibility. It does, however, make me skeptical. :smile: I happen to agree that the hallucination hypothesis is a little threadbare. However, the "martyr" argument also appears thin, because I can demonstrate martyrs for gods and causes that neither of us believe in.


But this is why I hold to Presuppositional Apologetics. I recognize that the Atheistic side if I play on their ground has good arguments. I only recognize the traiditional arguments for God, the Resurrection, etc are only supporting arguments.

- Granted. Not an unwise position, I believe. Just don't add too many presuppositions. :wink:

[jason]

What about cult members who kill themselves in the name of their religion? Are their religions true, as well? They must be, they were willing to die for them!
Actually you misunderstand the significance of it.

We are not talking about any old belief and we are not talking about any random believer.

We are talking about the disciples. They witnessed something,and later those that witnessed it died for that belief.

Pointing to random religious believers not privy to the orignal revelation in question and there zeal is no good as it is not comparable.
Well, there's little that one can say to rebutt your claims because they are so ludicrously simplistic.


What your argument amounts to is essentially 'The bible is true because people believed it'.
No it doesn't. That simply indicates you don't understand the argument. The argument is, "Something happened 2000 years ago of great significance", a resurrection fits the bill perfectly, what else would that you would insert in its place. So far you just blow the challenge off.


No allowance is made for human fallibility, gullibility, lies or trickery.
Actually that is exactly what I am asking you to demonstrate or even provde some evidence of, heck I would settle for a convincing (how ever slight) alternative account we could look at. So far the silence is defeaning.

Jason

[jason]

However, the "martyr" argument also appears thin, because I can demonstrate martyrs for gods and causes that neither of us believe in.
Would you care to cite specifcs ? Are the martyrs in question in a position to know for certian that the events are true or false ?

that is the challenge with such a comaprison.

Jason

[WinAce]

Evidence for *any* eyewitness to Christianity's claims dying for them, please. Primary sources such as the gospels are preferable but not necessary.

What's that? You have only contradictory church traditions written 300 years after the fact that give different methods and places of execution for the apostles? And the first record of an eyewitness martyrdom is that of Peter dying for Gnosticism in the Gnostic Acts of Peter written around 150 AD?

OK then, I'm glad we agree the "martyr" argument should wisely be shelved.

[AtheistArchon]

- I'll echo Winace's comments. In addition,


Actually you misunderstand the significance of it.

We are not talking about any old belief and we are not talking about any random believer.

We are talking about the disciples. They witnessed something,and later those that witnessed it died for that belief.

- From a point of argument, it must be assumed to be "any old belief". If we're going to debate it, we can't simply assume a-priori that it's true, ir that it has more value or intrinsic truth than any other religion.

- The disciples of your religion are just like the disciples of any other.


Pointing to random religious believers not privy to the orignal revelation in question

- Not privy? How can they be members of their own religion if they're not privy to the specifics behind it? I don't argue that other religious martyrs sacrifice themselves for your beliefs. I argue that they martyr themselves for their own, in which case they're certainly privy to the specifics.


Well, there's little that one can say to rebutt your claims because they are so ludicrously simplistic.

- If you're trying to copy me on that statement, it wasn't me who told you that. :smile:


No it doesn't. That simply indicates you don't understand the argument. The argument is, "Something happened 2000 years ago of great significance", a resurrection fits the bill perfectly, what else would that you would insert in its place. So far you just blow the challenge off.

- But you've yet to show that anything of signifigance happened at all. You have biblical references of course, but those can't be used, because they're tremendously biased.

- Neutral sources... that would be a key piece of historical evidence.


Actually that is exactly what I am asking you to demonstrate or even provde some evidence of, heck I would settle for a convincing (how ever slight) alternative account we could look at. So far the silence is defeaning.

- *ahem* It is a religious myth, just like any other. Is this impossible?


Would you care to cite specifcs ? Are the martyrs in question in a position to know for certian that the events are true or false ?

- Waco, Texas. That might come close. Jim Jones. That might be another one. Those people believed they had direct experiences which confirmed their religion, and they did sacrifice themselves for it.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Perhaps my friend Jason has been contributing here at tweb without me welcoming him. Regardless, welcome Jason!

ATHEISTARCHON, I have been trying to persuade others with only modest success that both the original proponent and the critic have some burden of proof in discussions like this. This burden is not generally shared equally. It depends on how likely the proposition is to be accepted by the expected audience. If the assertion is likely to be rejected then the proponent has the lion share of the burden to support it, but if it is likely to be well received then the critic must take most of the burden.

For example, the hard to believe claim "I have an invisible, fire breathing dragon in my garage" would place over 90% of the burden of proof upon the claimant.

However, if the generally believed claim "Japan still exists" was denied, then the critic should take over 90% of the burden of proof to support their denial.

Perhaps this could be called the "Shared burden of proof maxim":

Both the original proponent and her critic share the burden of proof to support their side. More burden of proof is upon that side which is less likely to be accepted by the expected audience. --- John Powell, April 8, 2003.

For these reasons, I DO NOT agree that you would be justified in merely denying Jason's arguments and expecting him to take the full burden of proof. If you desire to persuade him to believe as you do then you are obligated, in my opinion, to support your denials more than you seem to think. If you have absolutely no desire to persuade Jason or anyone else who might be reading to think like you do on this issue then why do you even declare your denial?

To be specific, I believe you should go through every one of those 12 items Jason linked to and justify your denial rather than acceptance that they are historical facts. If you don't do this then I will, to the extent I think justified. I haven't read them yet.

In my opinion, every time you reject an important claim by Jason, AtheistArchon, you should give some support for your position besides the mere denial itself. You may not need to support your denial as strongly as you would if you were the original proponent, but I think you should support it a lot more than those who argue that "the proponent has 100% of the burden of proof, the critic has none."

Don't reject burden of proof on important religious questions like those we discuss here, but take enough of it! This advice is for me too.

I suggest that if you were to imagine that your denial was actually an original proposal and take what you would have previously thought was the appropriate burden of proof, that you would be operating closer to what is appropriate here at tweb, in my opinion.

Perhaps this could be called the "Taking the burden of proof maxim":

When trying to persuade the audience in a debate, seek to take upon yourself the amount of burden of proof to support your proposal or denial of your opponent's proposal as the audience would think appropriate if you were the original proponent --- John Powell, April 8, 2003.

This second maxim seems to be more problematic than the earlier one, but I'm not sure yet how to resolve my reservations about it. It's sort of like recommending that partners give more than what they think is their fair share and their lives will probably be happier.

I think Joseph Smith is another good example (added to the already mentioned David Koresh) of someone preferring to die for, rather than deny, something that he should have known was false, if it was false. This, despite the fact that he discharged a weapon against his assassins. His brother, Hyrum Smith, would be another good example.

John Powell

[AtheistArchon]

- Actually, you have a very good point JP (er... Mr. Powell that is, not Mr. Holding).

- I made the mistake of leaving most of my own claims behind in the other thread where Jason and I were corresponding. However, my prime claim (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) came under attack via the resurrection, and so here we are. :smile:

- I admit that the resurrection, even as described literally in the bible, is possible. I do not discount it simply because I'm a naturalist and an atheist. I discount it because the claim "Jesus turned water into wine" is easily as extraordinary as a request to be shown empirical evidence of the event. Cries of "but that's not fair!" ignore the implausibility of the original claim. But this is another thread, of course.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
To AtheistArchon.


AtheistArchon:
- Actually, you have a very good point JP (er... Mr. Powell that is, not Mr. Holding).


POWELL:
Thanks. To avoid confusion, perhaps you should refer to me as Powell or Mr. Powell or John.


ATHEISTARCHON:
- I made the mistake of leaving most of my own claims behind in the other thread where Jason and I were corresponding. However, my prime claim (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) came under attack via the resurrection, and so here we are. :smile:


POWELL:
Perhaps I should respond there.

Who decides if a claim is extraordinary, AtheistArchon, and who decides how extraordinary the evidence needs to be? Evidently, the resurrection claim is not as extraordinary to Christians as it is to people like you and me and the evidence which exists sufficiently supports the claim, in their opinion. The "extraordinary" criterion, therefore, is subjectively satisfied for them. In fact, they might think it would be extraordinarily odd if miracles like that did not happen since a miracle-doing God, they think, exists.

When you say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," AtheistArchon, you seem to be merely saying something subjective like "claims which I think are extraordinary require lots of evidence to persuade me to believe them," but at the same time you seem to be improperly making it look like your opponent necessarily should hold to the same standard as you. It *IS* an objective criterion as stated, but whether a person considers a specific claim and associated evidence to be extraordinary or not is subjective.

The Christian could reply to your "extraordinary" charge with "what is sometimes extraordinary to you could be the expected behavior of the God who exists" or "the evidence is sufficiently extraordinary to persuade me."

The overuse of the "extraordinary" criterion by skeptics against miracle-believers seems too often to me to be an effort to bypass what really should be shown, that by accepting miracles in the Bible or in their own life, but not miracles in other religious books or the lives of others not of their religious sect, the Christian is suffering the fallacy of special pleading.


ATHEISTARCHON:
- I admit that the resurrection, even as described literally in the bible, is possible. I do not discount it simply because I'm a naturalist and an atheist. I discount it because the claim "Jesus turned water into wine" is easily as extraordinary as a request to be shown empirical evidence of the event. Cries of "but that's not fair!" ignore the implausibility of the original claim. But this is another thread, of course.


POWELL:
I'm empathetic to your position, AtheistArchon, and have much to agree with.

In my current opinion, the "extraordinary claims" accusation against miracle-believers is largely impotent since what is "extraordinary" is subjective, unless the accusation is coupled with justified charges of special pleading.

John Powell

[Jason Gastrich]

Hi everybody,

How are things?

Hi Jason. Nice name. Let's hope nobody gets confused! I just saw this thread and thought I had missed the boat. I'm glad it was your boat and you entered it before it took off.

My 2 cents: Nobody would WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY die for a lie. Sure, people die for lies all the time. However, these people DON'T REALIZE they are dying for lies.

More specifically, Christ's apostles died HORRIBLE deaths for their faith. Some were even crucified.

These apostles SURELY would have known that the resurrection was a lie - if it was a lie. And they would have died TERRIBLE deaths for something they knew was a lie. And nobody does something so stupid.

And if I have one more cent . . . I'd say that the apostles would have went FAR from Jerusalem to preach about the resurrection, but they didn't. Read Acts. They stuck around and preached to the people saying, "You knew what happened . . . it happened right here . . ."

God bless!
Jason G

[Joseph Alward]

JASON GASTRICH
Nobody would WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY die for a lie

JOE ALWARD
Do you have any biblical or extrabiblical evidence--any evidence at all--that any of the executed apostles would have been spared if they had renounced their belief in Jesus? If not, then why do you say that they "willingly" died for what they believed?

[garthoverman]

04-04-2003 @ 04:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=53378#post53378)
Blake Reas:

Archon,
There are a few points I would like to make in this debate over the resurrection since I think it is rather irrational to argue over it.
1) You will never accept it. Since you do not believe in the Supernatural, Jesus could hit you up side the head with a club and you would find some way to deny it was him. You would either say it had something to do with you brain Chemistry etc. The evidence for anything in history will only take you as far as you presuppositions will allow for you that is not very far at all.

Blake,

The problem you encounter here is that once the "supernatural" is invoked the gloves are off, and an infinite number of unfalsifiable yet equally plausible explanations are then possible, and we've no means of differentiating them from one another since they ALL can account for ANY evidence presented. Your "explanation" that God raised Jesus from the dead is just as plausible as my explanation that the universe was created last Thursday by my cat. In fact, I can physically detect my cat which is more than may be said of your God.

Yours,
Garth

[garthoverman]

[i]In my current opinion, the "extraordinary claims" accusation against miracle-believers is largely impotent since what is "extraordinary" is subjective, unless the accusation is coupled with justified charges of special pleading./i]

Tell you what, John. Let's plot all human deaths in history as data points on a line. That gives us in excess of 1 billion dead bodies that've stayed dead and therefore fall right on our line. Your resurrection is the ONLY point that does not fall on that line, so if you wish to account for it with something else than a measurement error (which, given the 10^9 to 1 ratio, is the actual explanation >99.9% of the time), a significant amount of objective evidence better accompany said explanation.

Yours,
Garth

[Joseph Alward]

JASON GASTRICH
More specifically, Christ's apostles died HORRIBLE deaths for their faith. Some were even crucified.

JOE ALWARD

Can you support this claim, Jason? Which of the apostles died "horrible deaths," and what is the evidence of this?

[WinAce]

Jesus' apostles died horrible deaths for the faiths? Gee whiz, it's unsupported assertion time!