Author Topic: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?  (Read 2309 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« on: January 17, 2014, 05:45:45 AM »
Title. I am curious as to the response to this approach. Are the only attempted refutations just the typical ones (swoon theory, imposter theory, hallucination theory, etc.) or are there different arguments that aren't commonly referred to?

Offline Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6418
  • Darwins +456/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2014, 06:25:33 AM »
One argument that is rarely referred to is Jesuis's argument that it is all caused by "frequencies", but you'll have to ask him about that. : )

Do I understand that you are asking if there is any reasonable explanation for the Resurrection other than the one given in three Gospels of the Bible? The only answer that makes any sense, and it is minimalistic, is "It was done by magic." I think that is pretty conclusive.

Your question is like asking for science based answers as to why Harry Potter failed to kill Voledmort -> whatever the answer, it does not advance human knowledge simply because speculating on fiction might be interesting.

The best explanation is that it never happened, hence the lack of references in Mark. The next evidence of it not happening is the conflicting accounts of the resurrection. Allegedly, the greatest event in Christendom and no one can get their story straight.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2014, 06:28:22 AM by Graybeard »
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline Ataraxia

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Darwins +67/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2014, 07:46:14 AM »
How about the refutation that even if it did really happen and Jesus was resurrected, you have no way of showing that an outside agent caused it to happen because you haven given this agent the ability to do anything, and therefore you have no means of establishing what it does and doesn't do?

The resurrection and any other claims of miraculous intervention are all circular if you also believe that the intervener also created the world in which they intervened. Everything, at grassroots level, is caused by the outside agent, so pandering to one specific event as a means to establishing the existence of that outside agent is dishonest. 
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1257
  • Darwins +83/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2014, 08:03:42 AM »
This is what, I believe, Spinner was on about ...

Using the same approach, I can prove there really is a hellmouth underneath Sunnydale, California.
I've written Buffy fanfics. They mention the hellmouth. Joss Whedon also wrote about Buffy and also mentioned the hellmouth. So, our writings minimally agree upon the existance of a hellmouth, therefor, there must be a hellmouth underneath Sunnydale.

Key point being, as long as you can't prove which, if any, parts of the bible are historically true, you can't start building a wall, as Habermas puts it.

And I second Ataraxia's objection ... even IF you were able to show that there was a Jesus and that he did rise from the dead ... how can you be sure his corpse wasn't being animated by Iblis to trick people into believing christianity rather than islam?
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6187
  • Darwins +407/-4
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2014, 08:49:30 AM »
Title. I am curious as to the response to this approach. Are the only attempted refutations just the typical ones (swoon theory, imposter theory, hallucination theory, etc.) or are there different arguments that aren't commonly referred to?

I recall a couple years back I debated Fran, taking the position that "aliens" was a more reasonable answer than "magic" (as Greybeard summarised it).  You'll find it at http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,6776.1711.html - it is a bit disjointed because (if memory serves), in the end about three threads got merged together.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2365
  • Darwins +38/-403
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2014, 01:59:18 AM »
One argument that is rarely referred to is Jesuis's argument that it is all caused by "frequencies", but you'll have to ask him about that. : )

Do I understand that you are asking if there is any reasonable explanation for the Resurrection other than the one given in three Gospels of the Bible? The only answer that makes any sense, and it is minimalistic, is "It was done by magic." I think that is pretty conclusive.

Your question is like asking for science based answers as to why Harry Potter failed to kill Voledmort -> whatever the answer, it does not advance human knowledge simply because speculating on fiction might be interesting.

The best explanation is that it never happened, hence the lack of references in Mark. The next evidence of it not happening is the conflicting accounts of the resurrection. Allegedly, the greatest event in Christendom and no one can get their story straight.

There is more evidence for Jesus Christ's existence than Julius Caesar and Socrates combined.

The only reason to doubt the Gospels is based on a presupposition that God does not exist. Of course if you assume your conclusion from the start, you have no choice but to discount the Gospels. But, this is dishonest.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2365
  • Darwins +38/-403
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2014, 02:00:51 AM »
Title. I am curious as to the response to this approach. Are the only attempted refutations just the typical ones (swoon theory, imposter theory, hallucination theory, etc.) or are there different arguments that aren't commonly referred to?

A common atheist one I heard on forums was that the disciples stole Jesus' body. It sounds plausible, until you realize that nobody would give their life for a lie that they knew was a lie.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6187
  • Darwins +407/-4
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2014, 03:00:41 AM »
A common atheist one I heard on forums was that the disciples stole Jesus' body. It sounds plausible, until you realize that nobody would give their life for a lie that they knew was a lie.

Who says they knew it was a lie?  Perhaps they just wanted to take their master's body back to somewhere safe for fear of grave robbers or whatever. 
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Ataraxia

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Darwins +67/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2014, 03:29:54 AM »
Title. I am curious as to the response to this approach. Are the only attempted refutations just the typical ones (swoon theory, imposter theory, hallucination theory, etc.) or are there different arguments that aren't commonly referred to?

A common atheist one I heard on forums was that the disciples stole Jesus' body. It sounds plausible, until you realize that nobody would give their life for a lie that they knew was a lie.

Ok, take that scenario - the disciples stole the body, knew the resurrection was a lie but were still prepared to die for it. Now compare that to the body actually being resurrected by god and tell us how you calculate that the resurrection by god was more probable.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6187
  • Darwins +407/-4
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2014, 03:33:40 AM »
It sounds plausible, until you realize that nobody would give their life for a lie that they knew was a lie.

Hypothetical question for you skeptic. 

I presume that you agree with the tenets of your faith, and believe they are all good things for society?  (That's not the hypothetical, just the preamble).  If you discovered that your religion WAS a lie, would you broadcast that and risk undoing the good your religion does?  Or would you feel that the benefits your religion gives are too important to risk losing by revealing the truth?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Online SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Darwins +91/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2014, 04:33:31 AM »
The only reason to doubt the Gospels is based on a presupposition that God does not exist. Of course if you assume your conclusion from the start, you have no choice but to discount the Gospels. But, this is dishonest.

Really?  I keep seeing this from Christians.  I used to be a Christian and I doubted the Gospels long before I ever doubted the existence of God.

This tactic from Christians seems to be about misdirection.

Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain. Don't think too much about the Gospels, it's a trick, the atheists don't believe and that's why they don't like the Gospels.  Look at the silly atheists, not believing in God for no reason whatsoever.  These aren't the droids your looking for.  Move along.

These Christian apologetic tactics are dishonest.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2014, 04:36:07 AM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline penfold

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Darwins +63/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • ...buzz buzz buzz...
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2014, 05:10:41 AM »
Title. I am curious as to the response to this approach. Are the only attempted refutations just the typical ones (swoon theory, imposter theory, hallucination theory, etc.) or are there different arguments that aren't commonly referred to?

The minimum facts approach relies upon a perfectly solid piece of historical method. Given a set of texts reporting on an historical event, we should prefer the reading which fits best with those texts. So far so uncontroversial.

Therefore, the argument goes, given the set of texts which are near contemporary with Jesus (say within two generations) we should believe the most plausible reading. This reading includes the historical event of Jesus' resurrection. Thus as good historians we should accept that Jesus rose from the dead as a fact.

However there is a magic trick going on here. There is a hidden premise in the argument, that is that the texts in question are the only relevant evidence. In most historical discussions this is true.

For example on the question of whether King Stephen married Matilda we the only relevant evidence is historical text. So we weigh up all the text saying he did against all the text saying he didn't and we decide on the balance of probability.

With Jesus' resurrection though there is one extra piece of evidence which is relevant - that is that all the evidence which tells us that dead men do not rise. This evidence must be weighed along with the text, and what we find is that (to paraphrase Hume) - it is more probable that the texts saying a dead man rose are mistaken than all the evidence that dead men do not rise is mistaken.

The trick is that usually historians don't bother to mention that along with the texts they look to the evidence of the laws of nature, but of course they do. That is why historians of the C16th Europe don't claim witches actually existed - rather they discount this possibility by looking, not at text, but at the evidence against witchcraft in general.

The minimum facts argument works only if we pretend that the evidence for the regularity of the laws of nature (ie dead men not rising) is not relevant to C1st Palestine - a pretty odd claim on the face of it.

Hope that helps  :)

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away." - P.K.D.

Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1478
  • Darwins +97/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2014, 07:40:44 AM »
One argument that is rarely referred to is Jesuis's argument that it is all caused by "frequencies", but you'll have to ask him about that. : )

Do I understand that you are asking if there is any reasonable explanation for the Resurrection other than the one given in three Gospels of the Bible? The only answer that makes any sense, and it is minimalistic, is "It was done by magic." I think that is pretty conclusive.

Your question is like asking for science based answers as to why Harry Potter failed to kill Voledmort -> whatever the answer, it does not advance human knowledge simply because speculating on fiction might be interesting.

The best explanation is that it never happened, hence the lack of references in Mark. The next evidence of it not happening is the conflicting accounts of the resurrection. Allegedly, the greatest event in Christendom and no one can get their story straight.

There is more evidence for Jesus Christ's existence than Julius Caesar and Socrates combined.

The only reason to doubt the Gospels is based on a presupposition that God does not exist. Of course if you assume your conclusion from the start, you have no choice but to discount the Gospels. But, this is dishonest.

I've heard this before and have always been interested in the source of information.  But I haven't found it yet.  Any idea how one concludes there is more evidence for Jesus Christ's existence than Julius Caesar and Socrates combined? 

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 609
  • Darwins +48/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2014, 08:28:57 AM »
There is more evidence for Jesus Christ's existence than Julius Caesar and Socrates combined.

Even if I grant you that the evidence for Socrates is zero(or even -3, for the Trinity-minded), the "evidence" for Jesus is no match for the evidence for Julius Caesar.



http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1382
  • Darwins +48/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2014, 10:12:26 AM »


There is more evidence for Jesus Christ's existence than Julius Caesar and Socrates combined.
Where!
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Online SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Darwins +91/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2014, 10:38:19 AM »
There is more evidence for Jesus Christ's existence than Julius Caesar and Socrates combined.

Even if I grant you that the evidence for Socrates is zero(or even -3, for the Trinity-minded), the "evidence" for Jesus is no match for the evidence for Julius Caesar.



http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html

I found that site also after skeptic made his claim, although I doubt he will accept it.  I wonder if this website is the source that Christians now have to counter argue.

Still, Julius Caesar's existence is independent of Jesus.  The evidence of Julius Ceasar's existence is pretty convincing on its own.  Hundreds of historical records from multiple sources, paintings, statues, and artifacts like coins.  It would be absurd to claim Gaius Julius Ceasor never existed.  Heck, there are even war commentaries written directly by Gaius Julius Caesar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_caesar&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop

http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/caesar.html

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/m/marble_portrait_julius_caesar.aspx

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/articles/j/julius_caesar.aspx

http://www.romanemperors.com/julius-caesar.htm

Of course the claim that there is more evidence of the existence of Jesus than Gaius Julius Caesar is another distraction.  Don't pay any attention to Jesus, look at this historical figure that clearly existed!


I personally don't care either way about Jesus.  There could be all the evidence in the world or no evidence at all that Jesus existed, it wouldn't say anything about the existence of God.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2014, 10:49:46 AM »
Oh dear, Skeptic, is this a serious discussion? Is this Habermas really claiming to the world leader in resurrection research and what does that mean? Well I suppose I had better add something to the discussion.

1. No one ought to take the gospels as, well, er.. , gospel without evidence that they are actually true. To start with, we have just texts which we don not know if we can trust.

2. How many texts do we have? Well, in principle we have four gospels and Paul's letters but let's look harder. Mark is the basis of Matthew and Luke and pretty likely John's account too. They are all written a long time after the event when, in al probability there were no witnesses. Immediately we are down to one source, Mark and Paul. Paul's account seems almost to have Jesus in heaven for most of the action - and Paul doesn't have much action. Paul wasn't a witness either but might have known the OT well enough to come up with the story from OT 'prophecies'. Indeed, the birth and death narratives of all the versions of the story could be constructed from OT passages without the need for any real event.

3. The texts we have have their own problems to do with inconsistency between them. Given the same story and given the Markan text was available to the authors, how come they couldn't come up with the same story with the same details such as who went to the tomb first and so on? We know that eye-witnesses often see things differently but we are not talking about eye-witnesses here but people writing up a set story. After two generations, why would the story be different unless each gospel writer is writing to a different audience and puts the local hero into the story as getting to the tomb first - in which case we are already into story writing and not reporting.

4.  There is no corroboration of the stories due to the lack of any other record by any impartial author who witnesses the action. This is a problem for us with this story compared with stories about Socrates as the latter had not claim to fame apart from the writings he left us. We don't have to believe in Socrates to use his philosophical methods whereas Jesus can't save people who don't believe in him. Moreover, the gospels claim supernatural events took place and it seem incredible that with people rising from the dead. climbing out of their tombs or even children slaughtered in Bethlehem that no one would ever write anything down about it all. This lack does make the texts look a bit dubious.

5. So far as the resurrection is concerned, there are other explanations not considered. That Jesus came back to life is one explanation (though lack of other witnesses is remarkable) but another is familiar to bereavement counsellors - the bereaved quite commonly see the dead relative, maybe sat in their favourite chair on in a favourite place. perhaps just a couple of the disciples actually saw Jesus like. The story would spread like wildfire and over tow generation one can imagine the results - 500 saw Jesus at one time! The stories would proliferate but they would be  a bit different in each chain of people telling the stories with details unsure and perhaps made up in the telling. This explanation would deal with the facts we know, the lack of impartial witnesses and the variation in the stories. This is more plausible, because it uses facts we are familiar with, than that a dead man actually came back to life because we know this never happens. 

So, is that a reasonable argument against the 'Minimum Facts Argument?'
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #17 on: January 18, 2014, 10:51:36 AM »
A final thought on myths running through population. I keep seeing the idea, posted by theists, that there is more evidence for the resurrection than for Julius Caesar. The post above shows this is not true yet it keeps being posted.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2365
  • Darwins +38/-403
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #18 on: January 18, 2014, 12:13:38 PM »
I can't believe what I'm hearing!

Is the "dead men don't rise" excuse really cropping up again?!?!?

Are you forgetting that God, being all-powerful, would have NO PROBLEM raising someone form the dead?!?!?

You guys act like God doesn't exist and dead men can't rise. But, if God exists, there is no problem. We Christians all along have said Jesus was raised by the power of God, not by the power of nothing.

The "dead men don't rise" excuse is based on a presupposition that God does not exist/God isn't powerful enough to raise someone.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #19 on: January 18, 2014, 12:37:08 PM »
No, Skeptic, no! I am examining the evidence that is left behind. I am not examining theology. Of course, a supreme being could easily raise anyone from the dead, though I rather thought Jesus as supposed to be god so couldn't have been that dead and brought himself back. Anyway, you introduced the minimum facts argument and I have presented an alternative view of what might have happened. You have got to remember

1. A real resurrection of a dead person would have everyone and his slave scribbling it all down. It's never happened prior to Jesus - ever. Why didn't the Romans put pen to paper? Why didn't the Jews have anything to so - after all, a demonstration of a god's power to raise from the dead would have changed the minds of everyone in Jerusalem.

2. My alternative explanation uses all the facts and explains them all - from the beliefs that filtered down the the wide variety of descriptions in the various biblical books. The there really was a resurrection fails to account for the silence of the non-Christian world to the most amazing thing ever to happen in the world to the fact that the gospel writer can't agree on anything much in the way of facts.


Show us why my explanation is wrong but use evidence not belief - after all to be persuaded that Jesus is alive now, one must have realised the overwhelming nature of the evidence.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2365
  • Darwins +38/-403
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2014, 12:42:04 PM »
No, Skeptic, no! I am examining the evidence that is left behind. I am not examining theology. Of course, a supreme being could easily raise anyone from the dead, though I rather thought Jesus as supposed to be god so couldn't have been that dead and brought himself back. Anyway, you introduced the minimum facts argument and I have presented an alternative view of what might have happened. You have got to remember

1. A real resurrection of a dead person would have everyone and his slave scribbling it all down. It's never happened prior to Jesus - ever. Why didn't the Romans put pen to paper? Why didn't the Jews have anything to so - after all, a demonstration of a god's power to raise from the dead would have changed the minds of everyone in Jerusalem.

The Romans despised Christianity so they would want it to to die out. They probably said things like, "Make sure nobody writes down anything about the resurrection."

The Jews rejected their own Messiah that was sent to save them, so why would they care if Jesus rose? They rejected him anyway.

2. My alternative explanation uses all the facts and explains them all - from the beliefs that filtered down the the wide variety of descriptions in the various biblical books. The there really was a resurrection fails to account for the silence of the non-Christian world to the most amazing thing ever to happen in the world to the fact that the gospel writer can't agree on anything much in the way of facts.

It makes sense if all the writings about Jesus were burned by the Romans, who despised Christianity. Why would they want the true religion to reign over theirs? Lots of people can't handle evidence contrary to what they already believe. It's difficult for people to go outside the scope of their own beliefs. The Romans were no different. The best way to squash the religion would be to threaten anyone who writes about it.

You are being too naive and assuming that people will see something with their own eyes and be automatically changed. The world doesn't work this way.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline penfold

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Darwins +63/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • ...buzz buzz buzz...
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2014, 12:44:44 PM »
I can't believe what I'm hearing!

Is the "dead men don't rise" excuse really cropping up again?!?!?

Are you forgetting that God, being all-powerful, would have NO PROBLEM raising someone form the dead?!?!?


Sorry skeptic I think you've misunderstood.

There is no assertion that dead men do not rise; the only assertion made is that we have lots of evidence to back up the claim that dead men do not rise. We cannot, of course, assert this to be absolutely true, but we have very strong empirical reason to believe it. Just as I have strong reason to believe that lead will not remain suspended in the air or that fire consumes wood. Of course it is possible that lead can remain suspended in the air, or that there exists a wood which cannot be burnt; but I have little to no evidence for it!

Hume rightly says: a wise man apportions his belief to the evidence. The claim here is that a man rose from the dead - in favour we have some texts recording the event - against we have the otherwise universal observation of the finality of death. Thus, being reasonable folk, we should assign our belief on the weight of the evidence. It is more probable that a handful texts are false or mistaken than our observation of the regular feature of nature that dead men do not rise is mistaken. Unless you are living in a parallel universe where texts are almost never wrong and dead men frequently rise you cannot deny this simple piece of evidential calculus!

At no point is the possibility of resurrection denied. Merely the claim that it is reasonable to believe it has.

peace
« Last Edit: January 18, 2014, 12:49:05 PM by penfold »
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away." - P.K.D.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #22 on: January 18, 2014, 12:57:56 PM »
Skeptic,

the Romans and the Jews might have been against Christianity - though at the time of the supposed resurrection Christianity didn't exist so neither could have been against it at that stage. However, Jesus resurrection was not the first to be claimed - Lazarus for example was supposedly raised by Jesus. There's another one too but I can't think of it right now.

So, there are two raisings from the dead in Jesus' lifetime and then a claimed resurrection of Jesus as well. You are telling us that the Romans and their historians as well as the Jews just brushed aside the most remarkable events that had happened since humans evolved and didn't write about it because of their dislike for a religion that didn't, at that time exist?

Please Skeptic, start to sound like you have thought about this!
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2014, 01:40:36 PM »
Skeptic,

the Romans and the Jews might have been against Christianity - though at the time of the supposed resurrection Christianity didn't exist so neither could have been against it at that stage. However, Jesus resurrection was not the first to be claimed - Lazarus for example was supposedly raised by Jesus. There's another one too but I can't think of it right now.

So, there are two raisings from the dead in Jesus' lifetime and then a claimed resurrection of Jesus as well. You are telling us that the Romans and their historians as well as the Jews just brushed aside the most remarkable events that had happened since humans evolved and didn't write about it because of their dislike for a religion that didn't, at that time exist?

Please Skeptic, start to sound like you have thought about this!

A little girl that Jesus said, "Is only sleeping."

You would think that people would be asking them what it was like, and even if they themselves were illiterate, there should have been at least one person in all of Judea that knew how to use a pen, and therefore capable of writing it down.

The Julius Cesear claim is fictious. Have you ever seen the Showtime version of Rome? In the 'Making of... (commentary)' they were explaining where the two main characters got thier names from. They are the only named centurion and common soldier by Cesear himself in his journals.

-----------------------

Wouldn't die for a lie?

David Koresh, Jim Jones, Heavens Gate, etc.


Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2014, 02:36:50 PM »

You guys act like God doesn't exist and dead men can't rise.

Well, given that most of us here are atheists, and thus, do not believe in the existence of god... of course we act as though god doesn't exist.



Quote
But, if God exists, there is no problem. We Christians all along have said Jesus was raised by the power of God, not by the power of nothing.

Oh sure, if an omnimax being exists, then yes; it could do anything, including raising the dead.  But that's a pretty big "IF" you have going on there.  That "IF" needs to be backed with evidence to establish its existence.  None of which has been provided as of yet.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6418
  • Darwins +456/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2014, 07:00:50 PM »
There is more evidence for Jesus Christ's existence than Julius Caesar and Socrates combined.

This is another “lie for Jesus.” trotted out by those who have never bothered to study or read the works of Julius Caesar and his times but have taken the word of some ignorant "Bible Scholar" suffering from over-enthusiasm.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html You can start with this one: images of the man.
Then you can move on to a professor’s history: http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/caesar.html

The you can check out the professor:
http://www2.cnr.edu/home/bmcmanus/

Of all the things that Julius Caesar did, we know that all these things were done. The records of his victories are recorded by both those he defeated and those who repelled him. Evidence exists to link these reports through time to the present day. Here are Julius Caesar’s books of the Gallic Wars http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.html

And here is a longer list: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/jcsr/

So never, ever use that ridiculous line again.

Thank you.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2014, 07:02:51 PM by Graybeard »
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2927
  • Darwins +235/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #26 on: January 19, 2014, 02:39:26 AM »
The Romans despised Christianity so they would want it to to die out. They probably said things like, "Make sure nobody writes down anything about the resurrection."

An order like that would itself be worthy of a place in history, as in Chinese Legalism, when many books were burned and history records the burning of books by the authorities.

The Romans would also have had to search every house in the Palestine area looking for writings.  I don't know how fluent the average Roman soldier was in written Aramaic and Hebrew, so they would probably have to confiscate every piece of writing they found.  This would have caused people to hide books more carefully as the word got out -- Or simply leave the area and carry the information in their heads, writing it down as soon as they had reached a safe territory and making sure that everyone knew.

Quote
The Jews rejected their own Messiah that was sent to save them, so why would they care if Jesus rose? They rejected him anyway.

That's because Jesus failed in the task expected of a messiah, which was to liberate the people from mortal oppressors and rule over Israel as a king.  You can't substitute a hypothetical heavenly kingdom after the fact, because that isn't something that Israel was looking for.

Of course, a supreme being could easily raise anyone from the dead, though I rather thought Jesus as supposed to be god so couldn't have been that dead and brought himself back.

That's what I keep on telling people:  Either Jesus died and was not a god, and a god resurrected him; or he was a god but there were other gods with the power to bring him back to life; or there was no actual sacrifice as he didn't die completely in all three of his personas.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6187
  • Darwins +407/-4
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #27 on: January 19, 2014, 03:26:33 AM »
Are you forgetting that God, being all-powerful, would have NO PROBLEM raising someone form the dead?!?!?

You guys act like God doesn't exist and dead men can't rise. But, if God exists, there is no problem. We Christians all along have said Jesus was raised by the power of God, not by the power of nothing.

The "dead men don't rise" excuse is based on a presupposition that God does not exist/God isn't powerful enough to raise someone.

Yeah, come on guys - see it from Skep's point of view.

How do we know there is a god?  FROM THE RESURRECTION, STUPID!

But how do we know there was a resurrection? GOD DID IT, STUPID!

All makes perfect sense.  To him, I'm sure.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Ataraxia

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Darwins +67/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Minimum facts approach to the resurrection? A secular response?
« Reply #28 on: January 19, 2014, 05:37:34 AM »
I can't believe what I'm hearing!

Is the "dead men don't rise" excuse really cropping up again?!?!?

Are you forgetting that God, being all-powerful, would have NO PROBLEM raising someone form the dead?!?!?

You guys act like God doesn't exist and dead men can't rise. But, if God exists, there is no problem. We Christians all along have said Jesus was raised by the power of God, not by the power of nothing.

The "dead men don't rise" excuse is based on a presupposition that God does not exist/God isn't powerful enough to raise someone.

Yeah, when you have an all powerful being who can do anything, then he can raise someone from the dead. Perhaps I died last night in my sleep and god revived me. Even better, perhaps we all die when we fall asleep but god comes along and brings us back to life. Or perhaps god created the universe 5 minutes ago and planted us all with memories of an older one.
This is what happens when something can do anything.... you can never tell when it's actually done anything.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire