Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead - Thread #2 Commentary Thread?

[Fran]

Petey... you are begging the question.  It's that simple.

Fran, can you explain to me how Petey is begging the question? Because I don't see how.

Petey is begging the question because he is assuming as factual, the very thing we are debating.  The debate is whether Jesus was resurrected.  That's the debate.    I have put forth facts and evidences for my case to show that the Resurrection is more reasonable than any natural explanation.   The skeptic must rebut my case and offer a postive case for their contention that the Resurrection hypothesis is less reasonable than any natural explanation.

Essentially what Petey has done is wave his hand around and claim that the Resurrection hypothesis as less reasonable because.... well... because... because... he said so.  He offers no rebuttal of the case being made for the Resurrection... nor has he offered a positive case for his side.  He just ASSERTS that "any natural explanation is more reasonable than miraculous resurrection".. and that's it.  Well... what are debating?  We are debating the Resurrection to begin with!!!!   

He never said anything like: "any natural explanation is more reasonable than miraculous resurrection BECAUSE of....."  He just says it is more reasonable.  That's it.  Nothing else.  He's assuming the very thing we are debating.  He's assuming as factual that the Resurrection is less reasonable than any natural explanation.  That is begging the question.  Because whether the Resurrection is less reasonable or not is the very thing we are debating.  His entire case is his assertion. 

[HAL]

Essentially what Petey has done is wave his hand around and claim that the Resurrection hypothesis as less reasonable because.... well... because... because... he said so.

It's less NOT EVEN A CONSIDERATION because -

THERE IS NO TESTABLE, VERIFIABLE, INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE THAT RESURRECTIONS ARE POSSIBLE AND NO EXPLANATION AVAILABLE AS TO THE MECHANISM INVOLVED!

[Fran]

Petey... you are begging the question.  It's that simple.

Fran, can you explain to me how Petey is begging the question? Because I don't see how.

Since begging the question and circular argments are the same thing, it might help to see it this way.

The question is... "is the Resurrection hypothesis less or more reasonable than any natural hypothesis for the FMF?"

What is Petey's response?  He says the Resurrection hypothesis is less reasonable than any natural explanation. How does he know? Because any natural explanation is more reasonable than the Resurrection hypothesis.  How does he know?  Because anything natural is more reasonable as an explanation than a miraculous explanation.

Can you see the circularity of Petey's argument?  He's assuming the very thing we are debating

[HAL]

What is Petey's response?  He says the Resurrection hypothesis is less reasonable than any natural explanation. How does he know? Because any natural explanation is more reasonable than the Resurrection hypothesis.  How does he know?  Because anything natural is more reasonable as an explanation than a miraculous explanation.

Petey is RIGHT.

Why? Because you can't demonstrate how a resurrection works - it's an unverified hypothesis inside your other hypothesis. You can't use resurrections as a solution until they are proven to be a real thing.

THEY AREN'T!

Can you see the circularity of Petey's argument?  He's assuming the very thing we are debating

No Fran, he isn't. He is being reasonable and prudent. I will continue to call you out on this as long as you enter the commentary thread!

[Operator_A25]

Can you see the circularity of Petey's argument?  He's assuming the very thing we are debating

It is assumed that a natural explanation trumps the supernatural until you show otherwise. The burden of proof is yours. You make a wild claim, you have to back it up. Until then the default position will be that the wild claim is nothing more than fantasy.

[Petey]

Fran, we went over the natural vs. supernatural issue ad nauseum in the original "rise from the dead" thread.  It was clearly established (and has been many, many times in many, many threads) that natural explanations are better than supernatural by default.  Therefore, I didn't feel the need to re-explain something that you apparently didn't read in the first place, didn't understand, or simply forgot.

If you feel that supernatural explanations are equally or more valid in explanatory power, then you've got a lot of work to do.  Why do you accept natural explanations for the hundreds of other resurrection claims throughout history, when supernatural ones better fit the "facts"?

[Fran]

Fran, we went over the natural vs. supernatural issue ad nauseum in the original "rise from the dead" thread.  It was clearly established (and has been many, many times in many, many threads) that natural explanations are better than supernatural by default.  Therefore, I didn't feel the need to re-explain something that you apparently didn't read in the first place, didn't understand, or simply forgot.

If you feel that supernatural explanations are equally or more valid in explanatory power, then you've got a lot of work to do.  Why do you accept natural explanations for the hundreds of other resurrection claims throughout history, when supernatural ones better fit the "facts"?

Petey... it was never clearly established that natural explanations are better than supernatural by default.  Using your logic, then NO ONE can ever debate whether the supernatural can happen anywhere becaue you would have arbitarily defined the terms in the debate in such a manner that that no debate can exist.

To me, it seems you are guilty of the Persuasive Definition Fallacy or the Definist Fallacy.   It appears that you are trying to win the argument by getting me to accept your faulty definition of terms like supernatural and natural.  The fact is that the terms are never defined scientifically or in the dictionary as being  mutually exclusive.  No where in logic or science or philosophy or in the dictionary are the terms defined in such a way that states that both can't co-exist in our world.

A skeptic's opinion that the supernatural does not exist is just that, an opinion... a philosophical opinion.  It's not a scientific principle or a scientific law.  

Instead, what I have consistently maintained in this forum is that in the abscence of any persuasive evidence for a natural explanation... which is more reasonable than the evidence for the supernatural explanation...  then the supernatural must be seriously considered.  That is... if you are open-minded and objective...  not closed minded and prejudiced against facts and evidence.

Like Flew... we must be brave enough to let the evidence lead us to where it will... not the other way around... which is what you are trying to do by arguing in circles/begging the question.

Why do I accept natural explanations for the hundreds of other resurrection claims throughout history, when supernatural ones better fit the facts?   Well first off, I think you are vastly overstating the figure.   There might be 100's of claims of people coming back from the dead throughout the history... but not so with Resurrection claims.

Secondly... i don't think in such cases, the supernatural claims fit the facts better.  

And thirdly... I think the case for the Resurrection hypothesis for Jesus is far more persuasive in terms of facts and evidences than any other claim that deals with a person rising from the dead.   That is why I accept natural explanations for the hundreds of raising from the dead claims throughout history.  

Take care...
Fran

[Fran]

Can you see the circularity of Petey's argument?  He's assuming the very thing we are debating

It is assumed that a natural explanation trumps the supernatural until you show otherwise. The burden of proof is yours. You make a wild claim, you have to back it up. Until then the default position will be that the wild claim is nothing more than fantasy.

No... you're mistaken.  I've already went over this with Kcrady early on in the other thread.  We are debating a question, not a proposition.  And as such, we both have a burden to present positive facts and evidences for our respective cases... and to rebut the other side's case and facts.

And in fact... I have presented a positive case for my side... and Kcrady earlier had tried to present a natural explanation for his side and rebut my evidences.   Since then, he has withdrawn the particular rebuttal and line of reasoning he was first employing (if i understand his statement: "When I wrote those earlier scenarios--which I've publicly withdrawn at least three times now")

Take Care
Fran

[HAL]

Using your logic, then NO ONE can ever debate whether the supernatural can happen anywhere becaue you would have arbitarily defined the terms in the debate in such a manner that that no debate can exist.

Don't let Fran run over you Petey.

Fran, the supernatural is not a proven thing. It isn't. No. It surely is not. It's never been established as existing -NEVER.

Therefore YOU CANNOT EVEN USE IT AS A SOLUTION

BECAUSE - LISTEN CAREFULLY FRAN - IT HAS NO BASIS IN PROVEN ESTABLISHED REALITY.

A skeptic's opinion that the supernatural does not exist is just that, an opinion... a philosophical opinion.  It's not a scientific principle or a scientific law.  

My opinion is it doesn't exist because it has no basis in verifiable provable reality. Guess what  Fran - that's a rational position. Yours isn't because you HAVE NO PROOF OF THE SUPERNATURAL.

Care to challenge me on that? I dare you.

I double dare you.

I triple dare you.

[Anfauglir]

... we must be brave enough to let the evidence lead us to where it will... not the other way around...

Aliens.  You Know It Makes Sense!   

[HAL]

This minimal facts approach considers only those data for  the premises that are so strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather  skeptical ones.  

And that is what is important... trying to find those facts agreed upon by both skeptics and non-skeptics.  A common ground if  you will.   Each FMF in the Resurrection hypothesis meets two criteria:
  
They are well evidenced and nearly every scholar accepts them.  

I repeat - how are you able to make these assertions! You keep saying stuff like this as if we have to accept it out of your mouth! As if we can't challenge it!

[Petey]

No worries about getting run over, HAL.  My only concern (albeit slight) is getting talked over, while he completely misses the point.  See above posts for some examples.

Petey... it was never clearly established that natural explanations are better than supernatural by default.

Oh really?  Show me one peer reviewed paper published in a scientific journal that proposes a supernatural explanation to anything.  I can list dozens of examples of formerly accepted supernatural explanations that have since been trumped by natural ones.  Until you can demonstrate the explanatory power of the supernatural, the natural is indeed better by default.

Using your logic, then NO ONE can ever debate whether the supernatural can happen anywhere becaue you would have arbitarily defined the terms in the debate in such a manner that that no debate can exist.

There is nothing arbitrary about it (see above), and a debate can indeed take place.  You seem to be under the impression that in order to have a debate, both sides need to bear equal burden of proof.  This is simply not the case.  The track record of natural explanations is pretty impeccable.  If you want to debate in support of a supernatural explanation of anything, the onus is on you to show not only that your explanation better fits the "facts", but that no natural explanation is even plausible.

You can throw around semantics about "debating a question" until you're blue in the face, but nobody is buying into it.  It's not our fault that you chose to represent a defendant with an extensive prior record, fingerprints on the murder weapon, DNA in and around the victim, multiple eyewitnesses, and no alibi.  Given this analogy, it should surprise no one that your arguments sound very similar to those coming from an extremely "slippery" defense attorney.

To me, it seems you are guilty of the Persuasive Definition Fallacy or the Definist Fallacy.   It appears that you are trying to win the argument by getting me to accept your faulty definition of terms like supernatural and natural.  The fact is that the terms are never defined scientifically or in the dictionary as being  mutually exclusive.  No where in logic or science or philosophy or in the dictionary are the terms defined in such a way that states that both can't co-exist in our world.

More semantics, this time with definitions.  Nobody ever said that they are mutually exclusive or could not co-exist.  I think the whole point all along (that HAL has been trying to hammer through your cranium for months) is that until you (or anyone) can actually demonstrate that the supernatural exists, it can effectively be dismissed as nonexistent.  See my first paragraph in this post.

Also, people would have a lot more respect for you here if you simply addressed their points, rather than trying trying to shoehorn them into some type of logical fallacy.  Any argument can be dodged by logical fallacies, if you are inclined to go that route.  However, this does absolutely nothing to move the debate forward.  Your constant appeals to authority have been pointed out multiple times by multiple people, but has it changed your stance or tactics?  Not one iota.

A skeptic's opinion that the supernatural does not exist is just that, an opinion... a philosophical opinion.  It's not a scientific principle or a scientific law. 

Again, see paragraph 1.  It may not be a scientific law, but it is based on scientific track records of natural vs. supernatural.

Instead, what I have consistently maintained in this forum is that in the abscence of any persuasive evidence for a natural explanation... which is more reasonable than the evidence for the supernatural explanation...  then the supernatural must be seriously considered.  That is... if you are open-minded and objective...  not closed minded and prejudiced against facts and evidence.

Like Flew... we must be brave enough to let the evidence lead us to where it will... not the other way around... which is what you are trying to do by arguing in circles/begging the question.

Yes Fran, skeptics are certainly in the habit of being prejudiced against facts and evidence.   

It just so happens that the evidence leads us to a realization that your "facts" are not facts at all.  It's that simple.

Why do I accept natural explanations for the hundreds of other resurrection claims throughout history, when supernatural ones better fit the facts?   Well first off, I think you are vastly overstating the figure.   There might be 100's of claims of people coming back from the dead throughout the history... but not so with Resurrection claims.

Secondly... i don't think in such cases, the supernatural claims fit the facts better. 

Pure BS.  You haven't reviewed a single other resurrection claim to even 1/10th the detail that you have with your pet case, and we both know it.  You simply dismiss them out of hand as being myth, without looking at the actual "facts" of each case.

And thirdly... I think the case for the Resurrection hypothesis for Jesus is far more persuasive in terms of facts and evidences than any other claim that deals with a person rising from the dead.   That is why I accept natural explanations for the hundreds of raising from the dead claims throughout history.

The Jesus story has nothing to do with other resurrection claims.

[Grimm]

Fran -

The problem you have is that there /are/ natural explanations for events.  They're not kind to your faith, true, but they're not gainsaid by the evidence at hand, and no contrary evidence exists to counter their far simpler premises.

Granting, for the sake of argument, that Jesus existed - here's one possible path:

- Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic teacher who had a small following at the time.  Where he was born is largely immaterial, and the place and time of his birth was assigned mythologically at a later date.
- He was killed by the Romans as a subversive element.  The Romans were a pretty brutal people, and they didn't handle dissident, itinerant Zionists well, that's certain.
- Stories were passed around about his life that grew with each telling.  Mark was written down about thirty years later, including many of the exaggerations that had come into common belief at the time.  The original version didn't include a ressurection.
- As the stories grew, other versions of the prophet's life were written.  These grew steadily more fantastic, incorporating prayer promises and the ressurection, which was now canon, written down a full two generations after the prophet had passed on. 
- Paul converts the apocalyptic cult into something with a more coherent leadership.  He establishes the early dogma of the faith.

Jesus died.  His teachings were changed by those that followed him, and the stories that were written down were exaggerations at best.. but were supported by millenial fanatacism and what we would now  politely call ignorance.

This requires no conspiracy.  It mirrors the growth of the Cargo Cults, which are fairly well-documented (at least historically) and took place over roughly the same time period in a preliterate, unscientific culture.  Where the Cargo Cults dogma has run into modern society, it fails, as we understand that airplanes are scientific; we're innoculated against that kind of thinking.  Imagine how far the Cargo Cults could have gone in ancient Judea.

This is what you're failing to address; your very sources are suspect.  Your 'Historical Facts' are not facts at all, and the ressurection doesn't fit events that transpired unless you make the very difficult assumption that the Biblical evidence is, somehow, literal - that those books are, say, eyewitness events.

Which they're just not.  Not even the least informed scholar makes that assumption these days.

If you start with 'the bible is right', then, sure, the Ressurection makes sense.  However, if I start with 'Dianetics is Right' then L. Ron makes sense.  The source material is in question, Fran - these 'facts' presume that it is not.  I don't believe Jesus withered a fig tree.  I see only stories that Jesus rose from the dead.

Let's use another analogy:

It is not difficult to assume that a steel pin driver named John Henry probably lived and worked on the railroad lines in the middle nineteenth century.  I have no problem picturing a big, burly fellow (white or black - I doubt chinese, with that name, though that's a possibility) singing as he used a sledgehammer to drive steel.  It is not outside the realm of possibility that he did, in fact, exist.

Did he race a machine?  Maybe.  Truth be told, that kind of spectacle was common at the dawn of the industrial revolution.  Did he die beating the machine?  ... maybe, but the possibility is slimmer.  That sort of thing would probably have been independantly reported.  It's not an impossibility - especially if John Henry were of african descent - that it would have been missed or ignored, but the Ballad of John Henry's basis in truth probably doesn't extend that far. 

Now, if they went on to say that John Henry was raised from the dead by a passing preacher - like Lazarus - we've now gone over into skepticville.   Imagine that's in the song - why would it be nowhere else?  Why did the newspapers at the time not report it?  If he had turned up with this fantastic story, would he have been believed?  Before you say no - remember, people believed Joseph Smith could read golden plates he didn't have by sticking his head in his hat during the same time period...

Your 'facts' rely on 'evidence' that is in question.  How do you salvage your evidence? Thus will you win the debate.

[Anfauglir]

Petey... it was never clearly established that natural explanations are better than supernatural by default.  Using your logic, then NO ONE can ever debate whether the supernatural can happen anywhere becaue you would have arbitarily defined the terms in the debate in such a manner that that no debate can exist.

To me, it seems you are guilty of the Persuasive Definition Fallacy or the Definist Fallacy.   It appears that you are trying to win the argument by getting me to accept your faulty definition of terms like supernatural and natural.  The fact is that the terms are never defined scientifically or in the dictionary as being  mutually exclusive.  No where in logic or science or philosophy or in the dictionary are the terms defined in such a way that states that both can't co-exist in our world.

Gosh...if ONLY there was a debate thread that was started specifically to look at what could be considered "natural" or not.....and if there were, if only the person who posed the original questions could be persuaded to post in it.....

Fran, your posts above confuse me.  You have said on many occasions that because no natural explanation DOES work, we must accept the supernatural - the resurrection.  Therefore it is YOU YOURSELF who is posing the resurrection as a supernatural event, one that goes against all known physical laws and precedent, and requires the intervention of fantastic powers that literally re-write the fabric of the universe.

That's a hell of a big leap to take - especially when you have been able to provide no evidence that such a thing took place (or no evidence greater than eye-witness accounts - and NOBODY who has looked seriously into that field will automatically assume eye-witness accounts are invariably reliable or correct).

Your solution requires a scrapping of damn near all our knowledge of how the world works.  Not just little bits, mark you, but huge great swathes.  Biology, chemistry, physics....all would need to be tossed aside and re-written to say.....what?  That everything is mutable?  That there is a directed force that can, at will, overrule every law of the universe?  That can change things and leave no subsidiary evidence?  What a horrendous world to live in.  You chuckled at whether I considered "aliens" as normal (I don't).....but consider what YOUR alternative means.

It means that we can no longer be sure of ANYTHING.  Ever.  Anything we thought was, now may not have been.  All that text above?  Did I really type it?  I can no longer tell, because the Great Power might have done it instead....and I would have NO WAY of telling.  Put that way, postulating "aliens" no longer seems so ridiculous.

But I digress: Fran, please explain how you can say "when normal explanations fail, we must accept the supernatural" .....and yet simultaneously claim that the terms are not defined.

[Anfauglir]

Just read Fran's latest response to Kcrady, which seems to say that there is general acceptance that the disciples believed they saw something, but no consensus on the validity of any of the reported experiences.  That it is therefore up to the observer to explain them.

Sorry, but I don't get it.

If I said "I believe I saw Bigfoot", how can that be challenged?  Unless I provide the CONTEXT for my alleged experience, there is no way it can be legitimately discussed.  The skeptic could, for example, suggest that conditions were too dark - "ah, but it was broad daylight!" I say.  So the skeptic suggests that it was actually a monkey that I saw - "ah, but I am a professor of monkeys and I KNOW it was not a monkey".....and so on.

I believe that - in this debate - it is encumbent on Fran to either state from the outset which of the Gospel descriptions he believes are valid and must be explained, or to agree that none of them can later be called in by him as rebuttal to a particular scenario.

[jedweber]

Fran:

I have repeatedly stated that the 40 days thing was a description/testimony of the appearances which is part of the NT documents.   That much is a fact.  It is a fact that what they witnessed was testified to and written in Acts and Gospels.  It's there in black and white for  everyone to read.  Even Anfauglir was able to read it and confirm that the description was written in the NT documents because he tells us  about it.

I have to quibble here. It is a fact that witness testimony appears in the New Testament, that is true. But it's NOT a fact that the underlying witness experiences ever actually took place as described. Fran seems to be conflating the events themselves with the later descriptions of these events, and passing them off as 'facts' which much be explained.

For example, it's a fact that the gospels tell us that the risen Jesus appeared on the Road to Emmaus. For Fran, it then follows that this is an event which much be explained, whether we attribute it to a vision, a hoax, a hallucination or physical resurrection. But the only real "fact" here is that a gospel written decades later contains this story.  There could be some actual event behind it, but I don't see how Fran has begun to establish that. In other words, we can't assume it's a "fact" that anything ever happened to anybody on the road to Emmaus (or any other road) - it could simply be a legend or invention that arose later.

Even by arguing for a natural explanation, we've already made a huge concession that an actual experience took place at all. I don't think Fran's earned that concession.

[Inactive_1]

Temporary lock until I get my post up in the commentary thread. I want this other issue resolved.

This will be unlocked shortly.

Thanks.

[HAL]

You've hit it on the nail and proves that I don't have any original things that come from my head concerning this material.  I don't have the brain power to respond originally.  So it's not a "for all we know" case... but it's a CERTAINITY that I NEED to scour WLC's and Habermas' stuff to respond to debate points in here.

Fran,

Based upon what you said above, I don't understand how you can operate in the real world when presented with new situations and ideas you've never heard of. What if you were debating kcrady in person with no way to look in a book or on the internet? Are you telling us you would have nothing to say when presented with an idea you've never heard of? You would just stare back when presented with ideas you've never heard of, like a deer in the headlights? You would be so afraid to say what --> you<-- think that you would just not say anything? You would have no personal opinions on anything new that you've never heard of before? You wouldn't be able to use the knowledge of this subject you do have to entertain and express an opinion on new ideas?

I don't have the brain power to respond originally

If that's not true, then what in the world do you mean by that ^^^?

Please explain this to us?

[Deus ex Machina]

Can someone explain what's going on here?

I was notified that kcrady wishes to work this thread for a while longer. I will take the responsibility to moderate it until we reach a termination. However, per my notice in the main debate, which has now been shipped back to the GRD, we need to hear your own ideas and your own concerns and your own responses for the most part, supported by occasional citetions when needed.

Thanks kcrady.

AFAICT there's still some confusion about what the terms of debate are. So is this an actual debate or is it still a discussion about what the parameters of the debate ought to be?

If it's the former, then what are the terms of debate?

If it's the latter, then shouldn't these comments be elsewhere until the terms are agreed (perhaps as described here?) - and can the moderator restrain the antagonists from debate on substantive points before the debate actually starts?

[kcrady]

I'm still trying to narrow Fran down on specifically what a naturalistic explanation is supposed to be explaining.  He's added a fifth "Minimal Fact" now, which doesn't help matters, especially since said "fact" involves mind-reading people who've been dead for 2,000 years ("Why did Paul and James convert?").  Since nailing Fran down on exactly what resurrection accounts his historians accept as the components of "Fact" #3 is proving to be all but impossible, I'm thinking I should just go ahead and post a proposed debate format for Fran's approval and get underway.  Once Fran whips out some Gospel detail in rebuttal ("But Thomas stuck his finger in Jesus' side!  That refutes your explanation!"), then I'll challenge him to cite evidence that said Gospel detail is part of the historians' consensus.