Author Topic: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?  (Read 87568 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1740 on: February 17, 2010, 05:08:52 PM »
Quote
I completely agree.  Although, to be a little bit more precise and careful,  I think the comparison is actually between "extraterrestrial life" and  "God"... specifically the "God of the Bible".

Is this a joke? Talk about missing the fucking point.

Fran, you're not being honest, or you're the greatest troll this forum has ever encountered. 


what are you talking about?  Anfauglir himself gave the solution and framed the debate when he wrote: "So our incredible elements are "extraterrestrial life", and "supernatural".  These are the two elements we must compare to determine the  "most reasonable" solution between the two."

I'm doing what he himself suggested.  To compare these two incredible elements.

So what's the problem?

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5012
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1741 on: February 17, 2010, 05:17:18 PM »
Okay... now let's look at the possibility of God's existence and how this relates to the Resurrection debate.

FOUL!

Why is Fran inserting a post about the existence of God? That's a whole other debate by itself! There is no way he can substantiate that assertion, and we would tear it to shreds if we were allowed to debate it. Talk about starting another 48 page debacle!

FOUL!

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2806
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1742 on: February 17, 2010, 05:35:50 PM »
Quote
I completely agree.  Although, to be a little bit more precise and careful,  I think the comparison is actually between "extraterrestrial life" and  "God"... specifically the "God of the Bible".

Is this a joke? Talk about missing the fucking point.

Fran, you're not being honest, or you're the greatest troll this forum has ever encountered.  


what are you talking about?  Anfauglir himself gave the solution and framed the debate when he wrote: "So our incredible elements are "extraterrestrial life", and "supernatural".  These are the two elements we must compare to determine the  "most reasonable" solution between the two."

I'm doing what he himself suggested.  To compare these two incredible elements.

So what's the problem?
you from the satan, I got your number:

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1743 on: February 17, 2010, 05:38:10 PM »
I call shenanigans on the turn this thread has taken.

Fran, whipping out tired apologia in an attempt to argue for "the God of the Bible" without even attempting to do a direct comparison of the models in question - the 'resurrection hypothesis' and the 'alien intervention hypothesis' - is an utterly disingenuous, evasive and contemptible response to the topic at hand.

Saying that it's an "attempt to substantiate God's existence with pieces of evidences I feel is objectively persuasive" does not help any. You know full well how such arguments are received here. Further, it requires the use a serious degree of doublethink to use the words "I feel" and "objectively persuasive" in the same clause.

Fran, if you don't start honestly dealing with the point raised to you, I will start removing your posts. If that doesn't work, I will shut down this thread on the grounds that you simply can't be trusted to deal in good faith with your objectors. I quit smoking today, and my fuse is - as a result - extremely short.

Clear?
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 05:39:44 PM by Deus ex Machina »
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1744 on: February 17, 2010, 05:40:40 PM »
I have just about had enough of this dren.
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1745 on: February 17, 2010, 05:52:13 PM »
You do what you want Deus.  I'm tired of your personal attacks on me.

I used the words "attempt"... "I feel"... "persuasive", etc because this is what everyone in here does concerning their own theories and hypothesis.  I'm not going to be arrogant and say that I have iron-clad proof that God exists or that Jesus was resurrected.  

this entire thread was about "MOST REASONABLE"... it was never about what we can absolutely prove.  And so my above language is far more consistent with the attempt to find the "most reasoanble" hypothesis.

As for a direct comparison... I was only doing what Anfauglir suggested.  And indeed, his wisdom can be seen by the fact that his hypothesis is DEPENDENT on technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilaztions... just as my hypothesis is DEPENDENT on the existence of God.

In fact, I have said this before that for my hypothesis to work, we need to add one more step... God.  And for Anfauglir's hypothesis to work... he is depending on the existence of this extraterrestrial civilizations.

If the existence of one is more probable and reasonable than the other, then that means the same is true for the hypothesis.  How is that not rational and logical?

Are you saying Anfauglir was wrong in wanting to compare "extraterrestrial life" to God (supernatural)?

BTW... you have the power in here, and so if you want to remove my posts... then I will inform Kcrady that our debate is done with.  

I've done nothing wrong. I have not employed any shenanigans in here.  I applaud your attempt to quit smoking, but I think it might be effecting you adversely in your ability to be reasonable and objective.

Take Care.
Fran

« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 05:54:04 PM by Fran »

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1746 on: February 17, 2010, 06:35:02 PM »
this entire thread was about "MOST REASONABLE"... it was never about what we can absolutely prove.  And so my above language is far more consistent with the attempt to find the "most reasoanble" hypothesis.

Every single argument for the existence of God that you presented has been trampled to death myriad times on these boards. I have no interest in seeing this thread become a novel-sized summary of every single argument that is going on, or has gone on, elsewhere on the forum. That is not the purpose of this section of the forum or of this thread. However, that is precisely where it is heading if your opponents are allowed to rebut your assertions, particularly in your second post.

Also, your second post is lifted directly from WLC. You may have paraphrased it, but pasting the paragraph under heading 1 into Google returns several results that are, unsurprisingly, from Craig's debates. This forum does not exist to pander to plagiarised regurgitations of others' arguments. I must remind you that plagiarism is against the Forum Rules - paraphrased or not. Unless, of course, you happen to be WLC.

Nor, for that matter, am I going to allow this thread to continue ad nauseam simply so you can pile on more and more apologia and claim victory at the end by listing all the things people never got around to addressing. That's WLC's style, isn't it? As disingenuous and fundamentally dishonest as that is.

Quote
As for a direct comparison... I was only doing what Anfauglir suggested.  And indeed, his wisdom can be seen by the fact that his hypothesis is DEPENDENT on technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilaztions... just as my hypothesis is DEPENDENT on the existence of God.

Well, I must allow Anfauglir to defend your comments on the likelihood of extraterrestrial civilizations.

Quote
In fact, I have said this before that for my hypothesis to work, we need to add one more step... God.  And for Anfauglir's hypothesis to work... he is depending on the existence of this extraterrestrial civilizations.

If the existence of one is more probable and reasonable than the other, then that means the same is true for the hypothesis.  How is that not rational and logical?

You challenged others to come up with a naturalistic explanation of the facts that was more reasonable than the 'resurrection hypothesis'. By apparently decreeing 'aliens' to be implausible (or at least, not adequately showing your working if you're inferring it, given that you give no sources for your declarations of - for instance - the proportion of stars that have at least one planet), and by pulling this "stock-arguments-by-apologists-for-God" rabbit (that has been blown to bits a thousand times, poor thing) out of the hat, it seems clear that you've been stringing people along all along.

What this constitutes is an attempt to bury people in multiple arguments to the point where they'll collapse of exhaustion. And plagiarising others' work, which is a no-no. This:

75. PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM ORIGINALITY
(1) I have written the following to demonstrate the existence of God.
(2) [insert entire text of a William Lane Craig article]
(3) Therefore, God exists.

is not considered a useful contribution to any discussion.

As I said, I will not allow this thread to continue to spiral out of control. Either focus it, using your own arguments (if you have any), or it ends.

Quote
I've done nothing wrong. I have not employed any shenanigans in here.  I applaud your attempt to quit smoking, but I think it might be effecting you adversely in your ability to be reasonable and objective.

Reason and objectivity would demand that I put this thread out of its misery. It is only emotional considerations that require that I keep it open (namely: some people would be upset if I closed it).
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 06:57:53 PM by Deus ex Machina »
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5012
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1747 on: February 17, 2010, 06:45:43 PM »
Fran,

Is this debate about the existence of god?

No!

It's about something you call the four minimal facts and something you keep asking for, which we don't have to provide but some us are doing anyway (we could just say "I don't know"), that something you keep asking for are "natural" explanations to explain your "facts".

Anfauglir's explanation contains all natural parameters, that's what you should concentrate on - whether it's a reasonable set of parameters to explain your "facts". Going off and trying to establish a god exists in a part 2 is not in the scope of the debate - just look at the size of this forum now. You can't cram a debate about god into that little debate. It will never end!

Good Grief!

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12239
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1748 on: February 17, 2010, 06:49:48 PM »
Intentional troll is intentional.

The fact that Fran regularly makes ~8-page responses rather than concise ones, making progress nigh-impossible, indicates, to me, that he values the existence of the debate more than a resolution to the debate.  Keeping the debate going without conclusion is his ultimate goal.  It is an exercise in trolling.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5012
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1749 on: February 17, 2010, 07:58:00 PM »
The scientific evidence from astrophysics within the past 35 years makes it seem increasingly improbable that ilfe exists anywhere else in the cosmos.

Where are you getting this junk? That's a ridiculous statement! Where did that come from? There is no citation, so I'll assume you "learned" it from a Christian apologetics site or book.

Just the opposite is true! Of course we don't know yet but your assertion that -

"The scientific evidence from astrophysics within the past 35 years makes it seem increasingly improbable that ilfe exists anywhere else in the cosmos"

just isn't true. The evidence points to it being more probable - not less.

"Two researchers from Australia believe that life in the Universe may be more common than previously thought. Since life only took half a billion years to gain a foothold on our planet, they theorize, the odds of it happening on any Earth-like world must be good. With only one planet to sample, though, the Earth, there still isn't any way to judge whether our planet is an anomaly or well within the norm. NASA's upcoming Terrestrial Planet Finder due for launch in a decade will help scan for Earth-like planets in the future."

http://www.universetoday.com/2002/05/15/could-1-in-3-earth-like-worlds-have-life/

"The chemistry that underlies life on Earth is abundant throughout the universe -- in comets, in the interstellar medium, in the atmospheres of planets, in the outer solar system bodies and in living organisms, an astrophysicist told United Press International.

"If these are made everywhere, perhaps life is everywhere," said Emma Bakes, a principal investigator with NASA's Ames Research Center in California and with the SETI Institute. SETI stands for the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence."


http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zw.html

You present your Biblical experts opinions, and when we say they might be wrong you about have a friggin cow, yet you ignore OUR experts? Bah! What a joke! Talk about a double standard!

Anfauglir - I hope you have fun!
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 08:32:05 PM by HAL »

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1750 on: February 17, 2010, 09:59:58 PM »
Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."  This is from Wikipedia.

I never said that what I wrote... or even have written in the past in this forum, concerning the FMF case, was my own original work.  NEVER.   I even stated much earlier in this thread that I DON'T HAVE ANY ORIGINAL WORK to offer anyone when it comes to this debate.  All the work has already been done.  I don't have the mental capacity to come up with original stuff about this topic of Jesus' Resurrection or about God's existence.  I'm not that bright. 

Like I said before, if I was going to be debating the topic of Einstein's theories, I would have to use ALL of his work because there is no way I can think more orginaly than him regarding his theories.  The same is true in regard to WLC... and I've already said I was using all of his stuff.  Not my stuff.  But his stuff.  He's the one who did the work.  I can't.  I'm not that smart.

I have said this before and I have listed many of the people I would be using throughout our discussion about Jesus' Resurrection... PARTICULARLY WLC and Habermas.  I've been very up front about all of this.

So you're charge of plagiarism is patently false and completely unwarranted.

Take Care
Fran

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12239
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1751 on: February 17, 2010, 10:08:53 PM »
Student copies material directly from a source.
Student provides no citation indicating having done so.
Student gets caught on this, and accused of plagiarism.
Student rails at the professor in his defence, saying that he never explicitly claimed that the material was his!
Student is expelled.

^^ Do you see anything wrong with that, Fran?  Thing is, someone's words are automatically assumed to be his or her own unless otherwise specified.  That's just how dialogue works.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1276
  • Darwins +388/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1752 on: February 17, 2010, 11:18:23 PM »
Hmm, I don't agree with the way this is going.  We've all been asking Fran to make the case that the supernatural/God is a better explanation than advanced aliens for the resurrection of Christ (granting for the sake of argument that it happened more or less as described, as Anfauglir has).  People have been carping at him to provide a response for some time now.  I don't think it's legitimate for a moderator to come in and basically decree it to be against the rules for him to do so now that he's finally responded, and start threatening to delete his posts. 

WRT the "plagiarism" issue, Fran has repeatedly stated that he's citing WLC and Habermas as the source of the argumentation he's using, and never claimed to be the inventor of the 4MF argument, or the Kalam Cosmological Argument (which he's using now).  Please, let's not go for the "Argument From Moderator Powers" ("I can delete your posts and ban you, therefore, you lose").

Fran has to use apologetic arguments here.  That's what he's been asked to do--demonstrate why "God" is a more reasonable explanation than "aliens" for the resurrection of Jesus.  To do that, he has to try to establish that "God" is or could be a reasonable explanation for anything.  I don't see how he could do this without presenting arguments for God's existence.  Do the arguments fail?  Sure. But they're all he, or any theist, has got.

In order to dispense with Fran's apologetics without wandering off into off-topic discussions (e.g. refutations of the KCA), all Anfauglir has to do is point out that the majority of philosophers and cosmologists are not convinced as to the validity of Fran's arguments for the existence of God.  The consensus among cosmologists for a naturalistic origin of the Cosmos is at least as overwhelming if not more so than the consensus among New Testament scholars as to the historical validity of the 4MF. 

Fran has been using the "Consensus of scholars!  Consensus of scholars!" argument so frequently in this thread that he's in no position to reject it now when applied against his arguments for God.  Especially since the cosmologists can show their work with maths and observations of Universe (e.g. cosmic background radiation).

I'll leave it to Anfauglir to respond to Fran's arguments about the Fermi Paradox and the claim that UFO's violate the generalized operating principles of physics and would therefore be more plausibly considered "supernatural" if they exist as described in witness accounts, since this is his debate.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1753 on: February 18, 2010, 03:27:34 AM »
Hmm, I don't agree with the way this is going.

You and me both. This is supposed to be the 'formal debates' section. This thread was dumped in here by an admin, and against my better judgement; and the section has been turned into the Fran Show (including, but not limited to, this forty-nine-page train-wreck), despite that there's next to nothing in the way of formal debate going on in any of the threads in question.

Frankly, I'd rather the entire lot was dumped back in GRD where it belongs, and then it and Fran would be out of my hair.

Quote
We've all been asking Fran to make the case that the supernatural/God is a better explanation than advanced aliens for the resurrection of Christ (granting for the sake of argument that it happened more or less as described, as Anfauglir has).  People have been carping at him to provide a response for some time now.  I don't think it's legitimate for a moderator to come in and basically decree it to be against the rules for him to do so now that he's finally responded, and start threatening to delete his posts.

Getting into the realms of the KCA is going far adrift from the claims made in the thread, which centred on the 4MF. I can see where this could end up going. There'll be arguments about the KCA and other apologia, followed by accusations of bias levelled at anyone who declares them "less reasonable" than aliens. It is an utterly fruitless exercise.

Quote
WRT the "plagiarism" issue, Fran has repeatedly stated that he's citing WLC and Habermas as the source of the argumentation he's using, and never claimed to be the inventor of the 4MF argument, or the Kalam Cosmological Argument (which he's using now).  Please, let's not go for the "Argument From Moderator Powers" ("I can delete your posts and ban you, therefore, you lose").

It's not about winning and losing. It's about the purpose of this section. I do reserve the right to kill off argumentum ad nauseam if it turns out that one's argument essentially consists of every single apologetic argument there is. Sorry, but this thread is not a substitute for entire forum sections. I'm not inclined to see this thread become a hundred-and-forty-nine-page train-wreck.

And frankly, if Fran was going to pull out the KCA and other stock arguments, he's an old enough hand on this board, and knows the Rules well enough and knows well enough that we've seen them all before that he could have simply linked to the damned things. The Forum Rules are clear on this. Failing a link, he could simply have listed them: he could simply have said "Kalam Cosmological argument; teleological argument; moral argument; argument from abstract concepts" and saved everyone a TL;DR.

The further problem with such copy-pasta is that it leads to its own inconsistencies. One cannot give Fran a bye on point #4 of his list ("God provides the best explanation for the historical facts concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus"), given that this is the very point under discussion on this thread! His response, therefore, relies at least partially on circular reasoning, unless that was simply lazy editorialization on his part. That sort of thing suggests that he's not even trying.

And finally, it is doing an injustice to one's fellow forum participants if one is putting none of one's own effort. Simply regurgitating, by pasting and paraphrasing, other people's apologia is not what this forum section is for.

Quote
Fran has to use apologetic arguments here.  That's what he's been asked to do--demonstrate why "God" is a more reasonable explanation than "aliens" for the resurrection of Jesus.  To do that, he has to try to establish that "God" is or could be a reasonable explanation for anything.  I don't see how he could do this without presenting arguments for God's existence.  Do the arguments fail?  Sure. But they're all he, or any theist, has got.

In order to dispense with Fran's apologetics without wandering off into off-topic discussions (e.g. refutations of the KCA), all Anfauglir has to do is point out that the majority of philosophers and cosmologists are not convinced as to the validity of Fran's arguments for the existence of God.  The consensus among cosmologists for a naturalistic origin of the Cosmos is at least as overwhelming if not more so than the consensus among New Testament scholars as to the historical validity of the 4MF.  

Fran has been using the "Consensus of scholars!  Consensus of scholars!" argument so frequently in this thread that he's in no position to reject it now when applied against his arguments for God.  Especially since the cosmologists can show their work with maths and observations of Universe (e.g. cosmic background radiation).

I think you fail to understand what Fran is up to here. That does no harm to Fran's argument. His argument isn't that his apologia are true. It doesn't even matter if they are not all that reasonable. All that matters is whether they are more reasonable than the existence of aliens. Which he will happily run into another several pages, no doubt by way of accusations of bias each time the reasonableness of the stock-arguments is seriously challenged. As I have said before, the terms of the argument are deliberately framed in such a way such that the proponent will wear away at every single point made by the sceptic on the matter of what constitutes a "better explanation", and shapeshift their arguments accordingly; they are set up for sceptics to lose by default through exhaustion, at which point the proponent of the argument can triumphantly list all the points that weren't adequately covered or addressed.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 03:33:24 AM by Deus ex Machina »
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1754 on: February 18, 2010, 04:57:21 AM »
Boy.....you snooze, you lose!  Less than 24 hours since I last logged in and I've not only had a reply from Fran (for which many thanks), but a big old hoo-ha has kicked off!

Frankly, I'm with kcrady for the most part - namely, that aplogetics have to be considered (although I grant that that could end up doubing this thread's size), but I agree with what Fran says in his second post that this needs to be a "whistle-stop" summation.

I also don't care about the issue of plagiarism, insofar as this thread goes.  I'd prefer Fran re-wrote everything in his own words, but I do not accept there is any duplicitous intent with anything he posted yesterday - which is, to me, the most important aspect of plagiarism.

Assuming this thread is staying here, my debate with Fran will continue, and I will post a response asap.  Won't necessarily be today, but it will be soon, I promise.

However......I would like to ask Fran to respond to my answers to his questions in the other debate thread in this room, that relate to what is considered "normal", and the definition of "most reasonable".  I'll post here as soon as I've constructed my response, regardless, but that other thread IS relevant, and I need to know what Fran thinks of my responses there.

Cheers all!

Anf
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 Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1755 on: February 18, 2010, 05:11:37 AM »
Anfauglir - I hope you have fun!

I'm sure I will - thanks for those two sources, by the way!
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 HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5012
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1756 on: February 18, 2010, 09:14:40 AM »
Fran's fallacies

These are some of the logical fallacies he recently accused people of -

Argument To The Future Fallacy
Persuasive Definition Fallacy
Definist Fallacy
bias fallacy
lack of imagination fallacy
beard fallacy


I've never even heard anyone accused of these in two years of debating on this forum! Fran, if you don't stop pulling this bullshit I'm going to go back through all your posts and post a link to every one where you are Begging the Question, and there's a lot of them.

So knock it off and try to carry on a concise debate without imagining a fallacy in every line of your opponents posts. It only reflects back on you, the fact that you have NO EVIDENCE at all for your side of the debate.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 10:05:07 AM by HAL »

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1757 on: February 18, 2010, 09:54:18 AM »
Fran:
Quote
If the existence of one is more probable and reasonable than the other, then that means the same is true for the hypothesis.  How is that not rational and logical?

Yes, that statement does sound logical. And that is what the debate is about. What is a more reasonable explanation for the resurrection story, aliens or the supernatural?

You are being logical, but not reasonable. There is no reason to believe in a supernatural explanation for Jesus or anything else that may have happened (if he actually did exist). There is reason to believe in the possibility of the existence of aliens. Appeal to reason.

Given enough time odds are probably meaningless. What are the odds of intelligent life in the universe? 1/1.  We do know that there is intelligent life in the universe. We are it. Therefore intelligent life could exist elsewhere. Appeal to reason.

We do have space craft and technology that (if they also existed at the time) could appear as magic or supernatural to ancient goat herders.  Appeal to reason.

On the other hand, has anyone risen from the grave before or after Jesus supposedly did? Do donkeys talk? Does the sun stop and reverse its direction? Are there demons and angels and cockatrice and unicorns? No, and there is little evidence to support anything else supernatural mentioned in the bible.
No evidence for anything supernatural elsewhere either. Appeal to reason.

It is more reasonable to think that aliens could have pulled off the 'resurrection', than to believe that there were supernatural resurrection forces at work. Because we do not observe (supernatural occurrences of any kind) and certainly not resurrections. We do realize that there does exist technologies that could make resurrections appear to happen. Therefore it is possible that alien technology could be an explanation for the resurrection and the other things surrounding the event. However, it does not appear to be possible for resurrections to actually occur. So the alien explanation is more reasonable than a supernatural explanation. Appeal to reason.

« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 10:31:01 AM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5012
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1758 on: February 18, 2010, 10:50:40 AM »

Eyewitness testimony of alien activity is often questionable on its own grounds.  Plausible opposing theories abound to account for the  phenomena (e.g, weather balloons, military aircraft, hallucinations, and poor reporting techniques).   Indeed, the fact that these same UFO  testimonies frequently attest that these phenomena regularly break the laws of nature requires a rejection of material entities, as concluded by  scientists who have researched this phenomenon.   This observation fits better with a hypothesis that considers God in its equation, rather than  a hypothesis that is considering techonologically advanced extraterresterial civilizations.

Oh my! Where do I start?

Quote
Indeed, the fact that these same UFO  testimonies frequently attest that these phenomena regularly break the laws of nature requires a rejection of material entities, as concluded by  scientists who have researched this phenomenon

As if the lay persons that witnesses UFO phenomena from possible civilizations millions of years advanced from us can distinguish what an advanced civilization can or can't do from their normal world of technology, and then reject it for non-materialistic solutions!

As if only expert physics PhD's witness UFO accounts!

As if we know for a fact we have all the laws of physics wrapped up into a nice little theory of everything now (newsflash Fran - we don't) and now we absolutly know what UFOs from advanced civilizations can and can't do!

LOL! OH MY GOODNESS!

Not to mention that if what they were seeing IS a result of supernatural forces manipulating the natural, and someone SEES it or video tapes it (you know, with those neat little NATURAL photons of light), that means supernatural effects and forces can be MEASURED, QUANTIFIED, and TESTED by virtue of the effects they can produce in the natural environment - something YOU Fran, said can't be done - here it is -

Quote
All that science can do is try and understand and observe and describe and measure the NATURAL world and the forces that operate NATURALLY in our world, and in some cases manipulate them.

In other words, if the supernatural exists and effects the natural, we CAN do more than just understand the natural, by virtue of the effects the supernatural can produce. We could understand the supernatural. So your quotation above

Quote
All that science can do is try and understand and observe and describe and measure the NATURAL world

Is not even consistent with your own claims.

Finally -

Quote
This observation fits better with a hypothesis that considers God in its equation, rather than a hypothesis that is considering techonologically advanced extraterresterial civilizations

Yea, well good for you, but fortunately it's not everybody's opinion eh Fran? It definitely ain't MY opinion (shocker!)

Bwahahahahahaha! What a mess you've made for yourself. No matter which way you slice it, you've sunk your own ship, and this is only a small part of your post!

I'll stop there. Anfauglir - if you need any assistance in the background demolishing this poorly thought out response of Fran's, I'm your man!

Oh, I know you don't, but it's really amazing the girations Fran goes to to re-inforce his delusions! Have fun!
« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 01:20:36 PM by HAL »

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1759 on: February 18, 2010, 02:38:06 PM »
Quote
Indeed, the fact that these same UFO  testimonies frequently attest that these phenomena regularly break the laws of nature requires a rejection of material entities, as concluded by  scientists who have researched this phenomenon

oh my, I think I may burst from laughing.  oh my ;D
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Agamemnon

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4940
  • Darwins +15/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1760 on: February 18, 2010, 02:42:51 PM »
oh my, I think I may burst from laughing.  oh my ;D

What's so funny about that? Isn't God allowed to break the laws of nature?
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.  --Bertrand Russell

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5012
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1761 on: February 18, 2010, 04:25:34 PM »
Hey wait a minute! What if Jesus is flying the UFOs though. That would pretty much ruin Anfauglir's theory wouldn't it?


Offline jazzman

  • www.jazz24.org
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 797
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't get no respect
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1762 on: February 18, 2010, 06:47:05 PM »
I have said this before and I have listed many of the people I would be using throughout our discussion about Jesus' Resurrection... PARTICULARLY WLC and Habermas.  I've been very up front about all of this.
Indeed, you have.  But that's not enough to avoid the plagiarism charge.

As readers of this debate, we don't know when you're using your own interpretation of available information, or when you're quoting material from one of your sources, whether directly or paraphrased, or even when you're using information you researched yourself by perusing historical documents or similar material.  With few exceptions, everything you've presented in this debate seems to be your thinking, your research, your conclusions, your debate tactics.  

If a new forum member popped in to read this debate but hasn't seen this debate from it's inception those many months ago, that reader could be justified in thinking that Fran guy sure has come up with a really good argument, and he's been holding off those pesky atheists for a long time.  That new reader could have that impression because you haven't cited your sources often enough to separate your thinking and research from the thinking and research of WLC, Habermas, and any other person whose work you've relied on for your argument.

For all we know, your extended absences from this debate are your research periods where you scour your sources to see how they might respond to debate points raised here, after which you return here with comments from those sources.  After all, you've told us you aren't smart enough to have invented this argument yourself.  The trouble is, Fran, you don't tell us when you're using someone else's material.  You leave it to us to wonder if what you say here comes from your brain or from WLC's brain.  That doesn't help your credibility.

Fran, take my advice ... please: If you want to use specific material from any of your sources, cite those sources at the time you use their material.  That's the ONLY way you can avoid the plagiarism accusation.  Don't rely on a statement you made months ago to legitimize the way in which you use other people's work today.  

It's a simple-enough thing to do.  Preface your quoted material with "According to ...", cite the source, and present the information.  Do this for direct quotes and paraphrased material -- any time the information you provide exists because some other person researched it, compiled it, and published it.  It's a long-established and universally accepted method of presenting someone else's opinion, facts, information or whatever without risking plagiarism.  

I don't think anyone here would fault you for quoting your sources whenever you lift material from them to present here.  It really is the best way to use those sources so as to avoid the perception that you're trying to pass off someone else's work as your work.  

Jazzman

Edit: Corrected a spelling error.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2010, 12:01:05 AM by jazzman »
"Things you don't see: An old man having a Twix." -- Karl Pilkington

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3561
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1763 on: February 18, 2010, 10:00:12 PM »
Fran:
Quote
If the existence of one is more probable and reasonable than the other, then that means the same is true for the hypothesis.  How is that not rational and logical?

Yes, that statement does sound logical. And that is what the debate is about. What is a more reasonable explanation for the resurrection story, aliens or the supernatural?

Well, neither explanation actually is reasonable at all.
Has this debate truly devolved to the point where people are deciding which of the invented explanations is the 'least' unreasonable?

That's like looking at this carving done in ancient Rome and deciding that because it looks like a laptop that's what it must have been.


Then...
Rather than trying to figure out what it might actually have been, to surmise that time traveling scientists went back to study the culture and left one there by accident.  [1]


**edit: Added url to image.
 1. Damm you Michael Crichton!
« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 10:02:03 PM by MadBunny »
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1764 on: February 19, 2010, 01:56:29 AM »
Fran, I am confused by one part of your argument - perhaps you can clarify?  You begin by saying:

Well, the plain unvarnished fact is this: there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial lifeforms.....You have done nothing to substantiate with any kind of evidence that aliens even exist in the first place.  

...but you then go on to say...

We observe that the life of Jesus differs substantially from typical alien accounts.  For example, the usual report of an encounter with aliens   describes them as abusive and inspiring fear, but the Jesus in the Resurrection story was loving and compassionate.  

The typical observations made by UFO eyewitnesses in which UFO's are described as regularly breaking the laws of nature argues against the  material nature of UFO's and purely natural explanations (of which you are trying to postulate).

Your alien hypothesis requires a certain type of an alien encounter which differs substantially from typical reports of alien accounts (abuse and  fear rather than love and compassion).  

Hence my confusion - you seem to be saying something along the lines of:

"Aliens don't exist!  There's no evidence at all!  And in any case, every time aliens appear they are mean and nasty!"

I can't tell whether you are granting the existence of aliens or not...which makes it rather difficult to argue with you!  Can you clarify, please, whether your argument is:

(a) Aliens do NOT exist, there is no evidence for them.
(b) Aliens DO exist, the evidence proves them to be mean and nasty and fear-causing.

[modbreak]
Repaired quote block
[/modbreak]
« Last Edit: February 19, 2010, 09:20:08 AM by Moderator_A25 »
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 monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1765 on: February 19, 2010, 08:45:41 AM »
Well, neither explanation actually is reasonable at all.
Has this debate truly devolved to the point where people are deciding which of the invented explanations is the 'least' unreasonable?

Yes, but what did you expect when it started off with the 4 minimal facts which end up not being facts and not being just four?

ADDED: Anyways, Fran may see that the UFO explanation is unreasonable and then realize it is the same for his position.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2010, 08:48:15 AM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1766 on: February 19, 2010, 09:30:02 AM »
Quote
Jazzman
For all we know, your extended absences from this debate are your research periods where you scour your sources to see how they might respond to debate points raised here, after which you return here with comments from those sources.  After all, you've told us you aren't smart enough to have invented this argument yourself.  The trouble is, Fran, you don't tell us when you're using someone else's material.  You leave it to us to wonder if what you say here comes from your brain or from WLC's brain.

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.

If i say anything smart... it's not from me... it's from WLC and Habermas, etc.  If I am able to respond at all... it's not because I'm smart or even know how to... but it's because I scour their stuff to get the answers.

I wish I could talk with them everyday so that I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE SO MUCH TIME SCOURING their stuff... but as I said before... i'm not smart.

That's the way it is.  If you want... I can put a disclaimer at the bottom of each of my posts for newcomers saying in effect that anything in my posts which sounds intelligent, came from WLC and Habermas... and not from me.

This way you don't have to wonder if anything intelligent I said came from my brain or from WLC's brain.  He's got the brain, not me.

Take Care
Fran

« Last Edit: February 19, 2010, 09:32:51 AM by Fran »

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5012
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1767 on: February 19, 2010, 09:33:26 AM »
If i say anything smart... it's not from me... it's from WLC and Habermas, etc.  If I am able to respond at all... it's not because I'm smart or even know how to... but it's because I scour their stuff to get the answers.

Then why aren't you citing the reference source so we can see the context from where this stuff is pulled!

That's the whole point of citing sources when you don't use your own material!

If you have no original thoughts then there's no point in debating YOU - just post a link to WLC and Habermas sites!

Mods? Please tell me why we are debating someone who has, by their own admission - no original thoughts?

Good Grief!
« Last Edit: February 19, 2010, 09:44:24 AM by HAL »

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1768 on: February 19, 2010, 09:44:07 AM »
Fran, I am confused by one part of your argument - perhaps you can clarify?  You begin by saying:

Well, the plain unvarnished fact is this: there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial lifeforms.....You have done nothing to substantiate with any kind of evidence that aliens even exist in the first place.  

...but you then go on to say...

We observe that the life of Jesus differs substantially from typical alien accounts.  For example, the usual report of an encounter with aliens   describes them as abusive and inspiring fear, but the Jesus in the Resurrection story was loving and compassionate.  

The typical observations made by UFO eyewitnesses in which UFO's are described as regularly breaking the laws of nature argues against the  material nature of UFO's and purely natural explanations (of which you are trying to postulate).

Your alien hypothesis requires a certain type of an alien encounter which differs substantially from typical reports of alien accounts (abuse and  fear rather than love and compassion).  

Hence my confusion - you seem to be saying something along the lines of:

"Aliens don't exist!  There's no evidence at all!  And in any case, every time aliens appear they are mean and nasty!"

I can't tell whether you are granting the existence of aliens or not...which makes it rather difficult to argue with you!  Can you clarify, please, whether your argument is:

(a) Aliens do NOT exist, there is no evidence for them.
(b) Aliens DO exist, the evidence proves them to be mean and nasty and fear-causing.

[modbreak]
Repaired quote block
[/modbreak]


Hello Anfauglir...

Glad to try and clarify.   I have no idea how you would respond... so in trying to anticipate how you would respond... I wanted you to consider some things if you did try and substantiate that aliens existed. 

So essentially... I was saying that there is no evidence for the kinds of aliens you need for your hypothesis to work.... BUT, if you were to respond that you do have evidence that they exist, then I wanted you to consider some other things in your response.

I see this kind of reasoning and consideration all the time... especially when I read Habermas and WLC. (this line is for Jazzman's benefit).

Take care
Fran