Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Littlejoe

Direct copy and past of material in this quantity with no comment is not allowed. You should only quote small portions to support your own points. Please do not do this again

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[One Bad Pig]

We're getting way beyond the topic of the thread, but some readings of Genesis 1 see God ordering pre-existing material rather than simply creating ex nihilo.

I think the Hebrew is equally compatible with either reading.

We're not discussing what YOU think, but differences between various Christian thinkers and Aristotle. I'm fairly certain that the Christians you referenced believed in creation ex nihilo.

[One Bad Pig]

but with all seriousness, this is pretty cynical. Most pharmaceutical companies invest large sums of money and research into trials and research. Pushing the wrong medication to market could lead to significant settlements and costs, not to mention the harm to others.

Doctors evaluate the pharmaceutical product information and can get the research documents to further sell them on it. Medicine is a business. People dont get well an/or die, they also risk malpractice suit, financial ruin, plus having to deal with harming those they meant to help.

Look, I'm a paralegal by profession, and I've worked extensively on pharmaceutical cases. There is a reason for my cynicism. Doctors evaluate the pharmaceutical product information as best they can, but they're also generally busy doing other things like seeing patients, and pharmaceutical companies and their sales reps are good at presenting their data to put their products in the most positive light.

[Adrift]

Gary, you might want to familiarize yourself with TWeb's rules on spamming/flooding and plagiarism/copyright.

[psstein]

We're not discussing what YOU think, but differences between various Christian thinkers and Aristotle. I'm fairly certain that the Christians you referenced believed in creation ex nihilo.

Yes, fine. I was merely stating the opinion of some scholars.

Aquinas believed in creation ex nihilo but believed it couldn't be proven except through revelation. He rejects the Kalam Cosmological Argument on these grounds. If I'm not mistaken, Maimonides followed the same line of reasoning as Aquinas.

[tabibito]

and which is from gullibility?

It's not that I refuse to believe certain things, it's that I recognize certain things are much more plausible and likely than others. So when something happens, i more readily assume it's one of the more likely causes than I do one of the extremely rare or impossible causes, until shown indisputable evidence otherwise.

the Tasmanian tiger is extinct. It could be possible that maybe a few are still alive, but have evaded researchers and Australians for decades. someone can claim all they like that they've seen one. a busload of people can claim that they've seen one, so no one is going to believe them without at least a clear photograph.

But all those witnesses couldnt have been lying. and all those witnesses couldnt have hallucinated the same thing at the same time. But they could have all seen a dog or some other animal that they all mistook for a Tasmanian tiger. One could have even exclaimed, "OMG! A Tasmanian Tiger" influencing the other's perception. They saw the same animal, so it must have been the extinct Tasmanian Tiger.

I am not saying, "never, no way," I am saying, "it's counter what we know and all other research, and that a more likely scenario is one of mistaken identity."

that's what I am saying about miracles - except that I have doubts that miracles ever existed.

Saa - in a group situation, the power of suggestion can be kind of powerful.

There is only one way that a person can be certain beyond all doubt that a miracle has occurred - and that won't happen unless the possibility of miracles is taken seriously. At least to the point of acknowledging that the hypothetical, "If the Christian God exists, then under the right circumstances, miracles are inevitable." is valid.

[William]

Look, I'm a paralegal by profession, and I've worked extensively on pharmaceutical cases. There is a reason for my cynicism. Doctors evaluate the pharmaceutical product information as best they can, but they're also generally busy doing other things like seeing patients, and pharmaceutical companies and their sales reps are good at presenting their data to put their products in the most positive light.

well sure. it's a business, so they want to sell their product, but this doesn't mean that they make habits out of rushing bad products to market, as in time that would do the opposite of boosting profits. Some of these drugs do a lot of good, and I believe that most doctors want to help their patience more than they want free dinners from pharmaceutical reps.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Sure, but it would be good to point to a greater resource every now and then.

There is ample reason to be skeptical of supernatural events from lack of every seeing any, to examples of faked ones, to there being no proof of any and documented cases where eyewitnesses were completely wrong and at times in masses.

There is ample reason to not be skeptical of all miracle claims from the numerous testimonies of miraculous events, to the strong evidence for real ones, to the evidence that there is a deity who can act, and to the times where eyewitnesses have been right and been right in masses.

You can be skeptical all day long, but that's not an argument.



It's up to you to show that your skepticism is valid. I have simply pointed to the evidence of a deity with the ways of Aquinas, the case of one such miracle with the resurrection, and that there are numerous miracle testimonies with Keener and my skepticism that all of those are by people who are lying or deluded. I have also pointed to Earman's argument that Hume's argument is an abject failure.

I have no doubt that ancient people knew that dead people died, but ancient people already had other stories of dead people coming back to life, and in a time when the population was more given to superstition than they are today.

The Greeks scoffed at the idea of resurrection and resurrection would be seen as a bad thing anyway. It would be returning to the prison of the body. Also, since they knew dead people stay dead, it has zip to do with scientific advancement.

Before you go off on what someone says, you should see if they really said it. Note I said your version of Natural Law. I'm not convinced in the reality in fact, which won't change science a bit. I hold more to essences. Why does a rock shatter a glass window when thrown through? It's not because they're obeying laws of nature, but because of what the rock is and what the window is. Hume said you can drop a stone 1,000 times and have it fall. That will not prove it will fall the 1,001st time. I say it's absolute nonsense to think it won't fall. Strange that Hume could say that meaning it's possible the stone could float, but then said natural law would not be violated for a miracle claim.

And if he's defending that claim, is he going to go with something that anyone can know is a lie, especially with a creedal statement? Paul even says most of the people are still alive though some have fallen asleep. The witnesses were there to be questioned.

and then if the 500 was mere hearsay, then it's inadmissible in a court of law, and for good reason - there's nothing to back it at this point beyond paul's word, which has been called into questions by some of his peers.

No. That's not why Hearsay is inadmissible in a court of law. Hearsay is inadmissible because you are allowed the right to face your accuser. You cannot do that in a case of hearsay. Much of our ancient history would really rely on hearsay and this has not been shown to fit that category. Remember, scholars in the field consider this kind of information golden.


I have had Muslims tell me of prayers they gave where they have been healed. I have had no reason to doubt these claims. As for other religions, one big difference is no other religion depends on miracles. Islam makes it clear. Muhammad did no miracles save giving the Koran. In Buddhism, you seek to disattach yourself from the world. Miracles would not help. Hinduism says it's an illusion. Miracles would not help.

IF they saw it. what i am saying is that this testimony that contains contradictory details, written decades after the event, creates questions. These people may not have even been witnesses, but had only heard the accounts of others in general and decided to write down the events, taking poetic license. And because memories are not static is exactly why eyewitness testimony is no longer counted as very reliable - someone's best efforts to be truthful can still result in error.

You see, if the texts had been completely in agreement, we would be told it was collusion. Any good judge would say that. If there was only one account, we would be told that's not enough. Now we have multiple accounts and different details and it's still not good. In fact, I think this leads to authenticity. The early church was not trying to change the texts to eliminate differences in this case. They chose four Gospels that were different. As for decades later, if that's your standard, congratulations on throwing out most all of ancient history. Do you really want to throw it all out just to avoid the resurrection?



I did not argue that they believed Jesus rose. I argued that they believed Jesus appeared. So now the question has to be what best explain the data?

Some may not have had anything to gain from the lie while others may have. James may have. Paul even could have. People lie. People are mistaken. People are wrong all the time without realizing it.

Okay. What could James and Paul have gained?



Let me say it again.

AN

EMPTY

TOMB

ALONE

DOES

NOT

PROVE

RESURRECTION.

No one has said that. It's an important part, but it is not the sole part of the case. Also, would it be embarrassing for men to clean the dead body? No. Not at all. People regularly had to do that kind of thing.

I never said anyone said the empty tomb alone proves anything. But the response to each point, taken together becomes much more powerful in refuting the entire thing.

Then why is it whenever the empty tomb is brought up you say that does not prove resurrection? No one is saying that it does.



Exactly, but if you say "Well the data seems to point there" it can just be replied with "People use data to justify all kinds of nonsense."

Your claim is a discussion stopper.

so you agree it's a bad one?

I believe it was Adrift who said people do not die for what they know to be a lie. I agree with that part.

saying that there other accounts of miracles shows this is not as unique as some would like it to be, as well as provide a solid example of people, even in groups, believing in nonsense.

This assumes the miracle claim is nonsense. Further, Jesus's resurrection is unique because it was the only one of its kind.

saying that there are documented cases of mistaken identities does show a feasible explanation as to how someone may have believed to jesus after his death. It happens.

Now what needs to be shown is that its probable in light of everything else.

so taking these documented cases does present a feasible and natural explanation to the sightings.

Can you show that this is what happened? Note that in the ancient world, if you saw someone like that, you would either be certain they were dead or that it was their angel.

I have given several other possible explanations, and has Gary, and then I have provided links to studies and cases of mistaken identities and mass witnessed miracles to illustrate that they are not only possible, but that they do in fact happen.

I really dont understand how you really think that it's much more plausible and likely for a man to come back to life and fly away than these other natural explanations, that have been shown to actually happen.

Because it's a cumulative case again and these are events taking place in a modern world and not an ancient society where memories were in fact much better and death was seen on a day to day basis.

[William]

Sure, but it would be good to point to a greater resource every now and then.

greater than the bible, in a bible discussion?

[One Bad Pig]

well sure. it's a business, so they want to sell their product, but this doesn't mean that they make habits out of rushing bad products to market, as in time that would do the opposite of boosting profits.

Of course not. It's extremely expensive to take a pharmaceutical from initial development to FDA approval, however, so anything that gets past the FDA is going to be marketed aggressively.

Some of these drugs do a lot of good, and I believe that most doctors want to help their patience more than they want free dinners from pharmaceutical reps.

Of course doctors want to help their patients more than they want "free dinners" from pharmaceutical reps (not sure where you get that from).

[William]

Let me say it again.

AN

EMPTY

TOMB

ALONE

DOES

NOT

PROVE

RESURRECTION.

No one has said that. It's an important part, but it is not the sole part of the case. Also, would it be embarrassing for men to clean the dead body? No. Not at all. People regularly had to do that kind of thing.





Then why is it whenever the empty tomb is brought up you say that does not prove resurrection? No one is saying that it does.

.

But you're saying it's part of proving the case? I've never said that anyone thinks it's the only evidence, but even here in your response you it's an important part - but only if we knew which tomb was actually Jesus' tomb. we dont.

maybe they would have known back then, but it's an argument that says, "look, there it isnt" and I just dont see that as an important part of anything, other than there being an empty tomb.

whether it was embarrassing for anyone to have seen or to have done anything with respect to cleaning a body or to being a witness doesn't matter I think. because if you want to say that it was embarrassing for a woman to be a witness, then I could see that if they were the only witness - but they weren't. Men went and witnessed the same, so we have men's witness - which isn't embarrassing.

But if it were still so embarrassing for women to be mentioned at all back then, or for them to have seen something before a man saw it, I am not disputing that women may have come upon an empty tomb or reported what they thought might have been the man Jesus to other men.

Maybe it's quite a spectacular piece of evidence. maybe if I had been a 1st century Jew or studied to be an early middle eastern scholar that I would see it differently, but I just dont. I dont see this as a big deal and even if it were, it still doesn't seem to validate an actual Resurrection to me.

I do not think that Jesus, his apostles or the Mary's were fictitious. I am just saying that i dont see how embarrassing when you also have make witnesses - but even so, I dont doubt the Women actually saw or thought they saw or told people stuff. This tid bit may lend some credibility to the overall story, but I do not think it lends credibility to the incredible parts of the story.

Jesus was buried or thought to have been buried seems very reasonable. The part I find hard to swallow is that part where he comes back to life, chills with his entourage one last month before flying away... I cant help but think that this part of the story is an embellishment, at the very least.

[William]

Of course not. It's extremely expensive to take a pharmaceutical from initial development to FDA approval, however, so anything that gets past the FDA is going to be marketed aggressively.

Of course doctors want to help their patients more than they want "free dinners" from pharmaceutical reps (not sure where you get that from).

hey, if we agree, then just bask in it.

[William]

There is ample reason to not be skeptical of all miracle claims from the numerous testimonies of miraculous events, to the strong evidence for real ones, to the evidence that there is a deity who can act, and to the times where eyewitnesses have been right and been right in masses.

I am not aware of this ample reason you speak of.

You can be skeptical all day long, but that's not an argument.

It's up to you to show that your skepticism is valid. I have simply pointed to the evidence of a deity with the ways of Aquinas, the case of one such miracle with the resurrection, and that there are numerous miracle testimonies with Keener and my skepticism that all of those are by people who are lying or deluded. I have also pointed to Earman's argument that Hume's argument is an abject failure.

The Greeks scoffed at the idea of resurrection and resurrection would be seen as a bad thing anyway. It would be returning to the prison of the body. Also, since they knew dead people stay dead, it has zip to do with scientific advancement.

Before you go off on what someone says, you should see if they really said it. Note I said your version of Natural Law. I'm not convinced in the reality in fact, which won't change science a bit. I hold more to essences. Why does a rock shatter a glass window when thrown through? It's not because they're obeying laws of nature, but because of what the rock is and what the window is. Hume said you can drop a stone 1,000 times and have it fall. That will not prove it will fall the 1,001st time. I say it's absolute nonsense to think it won't fall. Strange that Hume could say that meaning it's possible the stone could float, but then said natural law would not be violated for a miracle claim.

And if he's defending that claim, is he going to go with something that anyone can know is a lie, especially with a creedal statement? Paul even says most of the people are still alive though some have fallen asleep. The witnesses were there to be questioned.

No. That's not why Hearsay is inadmissible in a court of law. Hearsay is inadmissible because you are allowed the right to face your accuser. You cannot do that in a case of hearsay. Much of our ancient history would really rely on hearsay and this has not been shown to fit that category. Remember, scholars in the field consider this kind of information golden.

I have had Muslims tell me of prayers they gave where they have been healed. I have had no reason to doubt these claims. As for other religions, one big difference is no other religion depends on miracles. Islam makes it clear. Muhammad did no miracles save giving the Koran. In Buddhism, you seek to disattach yourself from the world. Miracles would not help. Hinduism says it's an illusion. Miracles would not help.

You see, if the texts had been completely in agreement, we would be told it was collusion. Any good judge would say that. If there was only one account, we would be told that's not enough. Now we have multiple accounts and different details and it's still not good. In fact, I think this leads to authenticity. The early church was not trying to change the texts to eliminate differences in this case. They chose four Gospels that were different. As for decades later, if that's your standard, congratulations on throwing out most all of ancient history. Do you really want to throw it all out just to avoid the resurrection?

I did not argue that they believed Jesus rose. I argued that they believed Jesus appeared. So now the question has to be what best explain the data?

Okay. What could James and Paul have gained?

Exactly, but if you say "Well the data seems to point there" it can just be replied with "People use data to justify all kinds of nonsense."
Your claim is a discussion stopper.

I believe it was Adrift who said people do not die for what they know to be a lie. I agree with that part.

I do too.

This assumes the miracle claim is nonsense. Further, Jesus's resurrection is unique because it was the only one of its kind.

Now what needs to be shown is that its probable in light of everything else.

Well, there are more documented cases of mistaken identities than there are of resurrections, so it seems more plausible already.

Can you show that this is what happened? Note that in the ancient world, if you saw someone like that, you would either be certain they were dead or that it was their angel.

Huh? So any ghost story in the ancient world can be trusted as being real because we can know that they were certain? Are you just making stuff up when you think it helps your argument?

Can I show that a plausible natural explanation actually happened better than you can show that a supernatural explanation happened? Am I not understanding you correctly?

Because it's a cumulative case again and these are events taking place in a modern world and not an ancient society where memories were in fact much better and death was seen on a day to day basis.

[Gary]

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.

[tabibito]

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.