Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

Dionysus: no - though twice born. The mother was killed, and the baby rescued from the womb, and placed within Zeus' thigh until the proper time of birth.

Attis - Three different accounts. Two have him dead, the third has him transmogrified into a fir tree.

It doesn't matter.

The bodily resurrection of a ghost-impregnated-virgin-born first century man/god is the least plausible explanation for the evidence. We don't need to compare the Christian claim to pagan claims because they are ALL implausible...by the wildest stretch of the rational imagination.

[William]

It doesn't matter.

The bodily resurrection of a ghost-impregnated-virgin-born first century man/god is the least plausible explanation for the evidence. We don't need to compare the Christian claim to pagan claims because they are ALL implausible...by the wildest stretch of the rational imagination.

this correct.

and I only offered those two examples when Nick said that Greeks dint believe in Resurrection. Not all greeks shared in the same philosophy and many were quite religious, and other religions and tales had people coming back to life.

I dont believe those stories either, nor do those here at theologyweb.

Resurrection wasnt completely new with christ, was my only point.

they are all implausible and silly. the miraculous belief is not the best explanation of the what we have

[psstein]

So, we have previously agreed that there are plausible, alternative explanations for the early Christian belief in a resurrection other than a literal, bodily resurrection. In addition, I posted an article yesterday by a PhD philosophy professor that supports and even strengthens Hume's statement on the implausibility of miracles. He has turned the proverbial table on theists who always demand of skeptics: "Prove to us that a miracle did NOT happen" with "Theists: Prove to us skeptics that a miracle DID happen."

It is brilliant.

---For every claim that Jesus healed you of your lung cancer, our reply is: Prove to us that your lung cancer was not healed by a natural phenomenon.
---For every claim that Jesus healed your broken bone, our reply is: Prove to us that it was really broken to begin with. That the doctor reading the Xray didn't initially make a mistake.
---For every claim that Jesus saved you from dying in a car accident, our reply is: Prove to use that you weren't saved because of your seat belt, or by the sturdy design of the car.
---For every claim that a first century Jewish prophet was reanimated from the dead, our reply is: Prove to us that his body was not moved or stolen; that the story is not an embellishment, there was no tomb;
---For every claim that someone saw a walking/talking reanimated dead Jesus two thousand years ago, our reply is: Prove to us that his followers did not have false sightings, visions, and mass delusions.

We cannot prove that your miracles did not happen, but we can demonstrate to any reasonable, rational person that your miracle claims are the LEAST probable of all explanations. Your explanation for the evidence fails inductive reasoning using abduction, the best tool available yet to mankind to determine truth, the basis of our modern, industrialized society. To tell us that your supernatural explanation is the BEST of all plausible explanations defies reason. Your supernatural belief system is only true, to you, because you want so desperately for it to be true.

It cannot be proven true by any standard measure of fact.

The belief in the resurrection of a first century dead man can only be believed by faith. The sooner conservative Christians accept that fact, the better off the world will be.

That article has so many issues it's tough to know where to start. The last section, in particular, is a disaster.

Nothing can be "proven true." Proof is for mathematics. Everything else is inference to the best explanation, unless you have a metaphysical system with inescapable conclusions (i.e. Aristotelianism).

And by the way, don't you dare try to present yourself as "rational and reasonable" and everyone else as delusional. I've dealt with the New Atheism's nonsense enough to know you're projecting if you're going down that road.

[Gary]

this correct.

and I only offered those two examples when Nick said that Greeks dint believe in Resurrection. Not all greeks shared in the same philosophy and many were quite religious, and other religions and tales had people coming back to life.

I dont believe those stories either, nor do those here at theologyweb.

Resurrection wasnt completely new with christ, was my only point.

they are all implausible and silly. the miraculous belief is not the best explanation of the what we have

[psstein]

I can give you a list of thousands of anecdotal testimonies of people who claim that this or that "snake oil" cured them of cancer. Having a long list of testimonials proves ZIP. If Nick and Stein want us to believe these claims they need to do the leg work to authenticate the evidence in each and every claim. In our society the onus proving an extraordinary claim's veracity or falseness is NOT on the skeptics but upon the person making the (wild) claim. We skeptics do not need to read Keneer's book to know he's full of BS. All we have to know is that he NEVER authenticated any of the evidence to not believe his claim that miracles are facts.

Christians and skeptics can argue for the next century if early Christians copied pagan stories for their holy book, if pagan cultures had virgins giving birth to man/gods, or the probabilities of first century uneducated peasants believing a shameful belief in an Honor-Shame society. None of it matters. What matters is that the miracle claims of Christianity, as well as the miracle claims of every other superstition-based belief system on the planet fails to must the test of abduction:

The pagan parallels come from later sources. See J.Z. Smith's work on dying and rising gods in particular. Outside of mythicists, nobody believes the pagan parallels.

As for your statement about "authenticate the evidence in each and every claim," you've just committed the same error Hume does. You can't reasonably know anything about history or science if you're going to use that kind of epistemological nonsense. You're being a presuppositionalist in saying "I don't need to read Keener; I know he's wrong already," in the same way I could be a presuppositionalist in saying "I don't need to consider any evidence for evolution; I know it's false already."

[psstein]

The bodily resurrection of a ghost-impregnated-virgin-born first century man/god is the least plausible explanation for the evidence.

Again, you're invoking Hume without knowing the issues Hume has.

[Gary]

The pagan parallels come from later sources. See J.Z. Smith's work on dying and rising gods in particular. Outside of mythicists, nobody believes the pagan parallels.

As for your statement about "authenticate the evidence in each and every claim," you've just committed the same error Hume does. You can't reasonably know anything about history or science if you're going to use that kind of epistemological nonsense. You're being a presuppositionalist in saying "I don't need to read Keener; I know he's wrong already," in the same way I could be a presuppositionalist in saying "I don't need to consider any evidence for evolution; I know it's false already."

You would not need to read any books for the evidence for evolution if the proponents of evolution based their belief regarding the mechanism of evolution on a silly superstition that has no evidence to support it.

Just as I do not need to read a two volume work that explains why oxygenated castor oil or some other snake oil cures cancer, when it provides no scientific studies to support it, only anecdotal testimonies, I do not need to read Keneer's book if he did not independently verify the claims. I am not going to spend the money and massive effort to verify the extraordinary claims of Keneer just because Keneer was too lazy and too sloppy to do it himself.

[Adrift]

The pagan parallels come from later sources. See J.Z. Smith's work on dying and rising gods in particular. Outside of mythicists, nobody believes the pagan parallels.

As for your statement about "authenticate the evidence in each and every claim," you've just committed the same error Hume does. You can't reasonably know anything about history or science if you're going to use that kind of epistemological nonsense. You're being a presuppositionalist in saying "I don't need to read Keener; I know he's wrong already," in the same way I could be a presuppositionalist in saying "I don't need to consider any evidence for evolution; I know it's false already."

Not to mention that Keener does authenticate the claims. Some of his footnotes are longer than the main text. He personally communicated with as many of the sources and other witnesses as possible, and documents medical records, newspapers, and other secular sources.

[Gary]

Not to mention that Keener does authenticate the claims. Some of his footnotes are longer than the main text. He personally communicated with as many of the sources and other witnesses as possible, and documents medical records, newspapers, and other secular sources.

Please provide us with one such case for us to review.

[William]

The pagan parallels come from later sources. See J.Z. Smith's work on dying and rising gods in particular. Outside of mythicists, nobody believes the pagan parallels.

As for your statement about "authenticate the evidence in each and every claim," you've just committed the same error Hume does. You can't reasonably know anything about history or science if you're going to use that kind of epistemological nonsense. You're being a presuppositionalist in saying "I don't need to read Keener; I know he's wrong already," in the same way I could be a presuppositionalist in saying "I don't need to consider any evidence for evolution; I know it's false already."

I think the difference is that Keener is providing testimonies, claims, of miracles, but has not offered any independent authentication.

so if someone told you that there was this thing called evolution, and after listening to that claim, you decided it wasnt valid. And instead of that person offering you evidence to support that claim, they just offered other claims, you'd be justified in rejecting it too. But if they said, "here's actual evidence that backs up these claims," then that's something else, isn't it?

I dont think you read gary's posts thoroughly if you're saying, "You can't reasonably know anything about history or science if you're going to use that kind of epistemological nonsense." I dont think this makes sense in light of Gary's posts.

[William]

Not to mention that Keener does authenticate the claims. Some of his footnotes are longer than the main text. He personally communicated with as many of the sources and other witnesses as possible, and documents medical records, newspapers, and other secular sources.

it's on my list of books to read.

[William]

Again, you're invoking Hume without knowing the issues Hume has.

or it's just an obvious position to hold.

[Gary]

Again, you're invoking Hume without knowing the issues Hume has.

I am invoking Dr. Johnson who thoroughly refutes your position, I am indifferent to the original position of Hume. From Johnson's statement, Hume's position was not strong enough on the implausibility of miracles. Please tell me which part of Dr. Johnson's article you find unsubstantiated.

[psstein]

I think the difference is that Keener is providing testimonies, claims, of miracles, but has not offered any independent authentication.

I dont think you read gary's posts thoroughly if you're saying, "You can't reasonably know anything about history or science if you're going to use that kind of epistemological nonsense." I dont think this makes sense in light of Gary's posts.

What do you mean by independent authentication?

And I'm making perfect sense of Gary's claim. If you claim you have to verify the evidence in each and every claim, you're saying you need direct experience, because eyewitnesses won't cut it. Problem is, if you follow such a claim to its logical conclusion, you know nothing about science or history. You simply can't verify evidence in every single claim.

[psstein]

I am invoking Dr. Johnson who thoroughly refutes your position, I am indifferent to the original position of Hume. From Johnson's statement, Hume's position was not strong enough on the implausibility of miracles. Please tell me which part of Dr. Johnson's article you find unsubstantiated.

His entire section four. His argument is question begging.