Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Adrift]

Are you brain dead??



The order of logic goes something like this:

1.) there are convincing arguments for the existence of the divine or the spiritual apart from divine revelation (see natural theology 101) Gary: Possibly true.

You doubt that there exists actual arguments that have convinced individuals of the existence of the spiritual apart from divine revelation? See, this is exactly why no one takes super-skeptics like yourself seriously. I could literally grab a book off of my shelf that contains such arguments, put that book in your hand, and you would still deny that such arguments actually exist.

Gary: What about "possibly true" do you not understand??? How can "possibly true" in any way be construed to infer that I doubt the existence of arguments for the existence for the spiritual apart from divine revelation???

Are you pranking me or something? Is this point where Allen Funt or Ashton Kutcher steps out from behind my monitor? Do you seriously not see how the phrase "possibly true" also implies "possibly untrue", or that it (at the very least) leaves room for doubt? Is English your native language? Maybe the issue we've been having with you all along is that you don't know what the word "possibly" means.

I accept that the existence of natural laws are plausible evidence for a spiritual dimension.

I have no idea what this sentence means, or where it's coming from. No one has stated that the existence of natural laws are (offer?) plausible evidence for a spiritual dimension. No one asked you about that either. It's my belief that you do not, and will not accept any evidence, plausible or otherwise, for a spiritual dimension. That I state that there exists people who find that "there are convincing arguments for the existence of the divine or the spiritual apart from divine revelation (see natural theology 101)", does not mean (or imply) that I think you find those arguments convincing.

What I want is for you to prove that the possible Designer is a crucified first century Jew!

That's not at all the topic of this thread, nor what has been "debated" (I use that word loosely since it's really just been you shouting from your soapbox) over the course of 159 pages. If you're really interested in the nature of Christ (hint, you're not), then that's an entirely separate topic worthy of its own thread.

Adrift:

2.) Arguments for the divine tend towards a personal creator. Gary: Unprovable speculation.

It's not unproven speculation. I literally have books in my library that contain arguments based on subjects like ontology, design, morality, cosmology, beauty and the like that do, in fact, tend towards a personal creator. Nowhere have I stated that everyone agrees with those arguments, only that such arguments exist, and that some people have found them convincing.

Gary: Please give a list of NT scholars and scientists who subscribe to this hypothesis. The opinions of theologians is not relevant.

What in the world does that have to do with anything? What are you even talking about? Why wouldn't the opinions of theologians be relevant to theological matters? I'm finding it really hard to believe that you are a certified physician. How could anyone get through that much schooling and show so little signs of a formal education?


Um, okay, NT scholars who would "subscribe to this hypothesis" that there exist arguments based on subjects like ontology, design, morality, cosmology, beauty and the like that tend towards a personal creator. Hmm. I don't know...any NT scholar that ever picked up a book on Natural Theology?

I haven't personally asked them, but probably Craig Evans? Ben Witherington III? Michael Wilkins? Craig Keener? Craig Blomberg? Darrell Bock? Scot McKnight? Dan Wallace? Edwin Yamauchi? I don't know, this is just off the top of my head. I don't think anyone has ever done a survey, or know why one would ever need to be done. It's such an oddball request. Are you taking your own meds again?

[Gary]

Are you pranking me or something? Is this point where Allen Funt or Ashton Kutcher steps out from behind my monitor? Do you seriously not see how the phrase "possibly true" also implies "possibly untrue", or that it (at the very least) leaves room for doubt? Is English your native language? Maybe the issue we've been having with you all along is that you don't know what the word "possibly" means.



I have no idea what this sentence means, or where it's coming from. No one has stated that the existence of natural laws are (offer?) plausible evidence for a spiritual dimension. No one asked you about that either. It's my belief that you do not, and will not accept any evidence, plausible or otherwise, for a spiritual dimension. That I state that there exists people who find that "there are convincing arguments for the existence of the divine or the spiritual apart from divine revelation (see natural theology 101)", does not mean (or imply) that I think you find those arguments convincing.



That's not at all the topic of this thread, nor what has been "debated" (I use that word loosely since it's really just been you shouting from your soapbox) over the course of 159 pages. If you're really interested in the nature of Christ (hint, you're not), then that's an entirely separate topic worthy of its own thread.



What in the world does that have to do with anything? What are you even talking about? Why wouldn't the opinions of theologians be relevant to theological matters? I'm finding it really hard to believe that you are a certified physician. How could anyone get through that much schooling and show so little signs of a formal education?


Um, okay, NT scholars who would "subscribe to this hypothesis" that there exist arguments based on subjects like ontology, design, morality, cosmology, beauty and the like that tend towards a personal creator. Hmm. I don't know...any NT scholar that ever picked up a book on Natural Theology?

I haven't personally asked them, but probably Craig Evans? Ben Witherington III? Michael Wilkins? Craig Keener? Craig Blomberg? Darrell Bock? Scot McKnight? Dan Wallace? Edwin Yamauchi? I don't know, this is just off the top of my head. I don't think anyone has ever done a survey, or know why one would ever need to be done. It's such an oddball request. Are you taking your own meds again?

OMG.

You: "there are convincing arguments for the existence of the divine or the spiritual apart from divine revelation (see natural theology 101)"

Me: "possibly true"

ie, "It is possibly true that there are convincing arguments for the existence of the divine..."

I am making the point that it is possibly true that convincing arguments exist. I was not contesting that such arguments exist.

And to the rest of your comment: this entire discussion has been about whether or not Christians can "prove" the resurrection. That IS the title of the thread. My contention is that Christians cannot prove the Resurrection without a circular argument: The Resurrection is true because our God is true and our God is true because the Resurrection is true.

You then tried to counter that criticism by saying that history, prophecy, and personal experience support the Christian claim that Jesus is God and therefore if he is God he was fully capable of raising himself from the dead. I pointed out that:

1. The historical reliability of the OT is pathetic.
2. Not one of the alleged prophecies in the OT has any significant evidence to support the contention that a fulfillment of prophecy occurred.
3. Your warm and fuzzy feelings prove nothing.

So we are back to you proving that a first century Jewish peasant is the Creator of the Universe and being unable to do so without invoking a circular argument.

And speaking of education, what is the highest level of education that you have? Did you graduate from a university (not a Bible college or trade school)? What was your degree?

[Adrift]

OMG.

You: "there are convincing arguments for the existence of the divine or the spiritual apart from divine revelation (see natural theology 101)"

Me: "possibly true"

ie, "It is possibly true that there are convincing arguments for the existence of the divine..."

It is possibly true that convincing arguments exist, not that arguments for the existence of the divine exist.

It's not possibly true, it's evidentially true. I can literally show you books where these arguments exist, and I can show you people who have been convinced by them. There are, in fact, convincing arguments, arguments that have, and continue to convince. Not possibly so, but actually so.

Whether YOU, personally, find those arguments actually convincing, possibly convincing, or not convincing, is completely irrelevant.

My word, how is this so difficult for you?

[Gary]

It's not possibly true, it's evidentially true. I can literally show you books where these arguments exist, and I can show you people who have been convinced by them. There are, in fact, convincing arguments, arguments that have, and continue to convince. Not possibly so, but actually so.

Whether YOU, personally, find those arguments actually convincing, possibly convincing, or not convincing, is completely irrelevant.

My word, how is this so difficult for you?

"Convincing" is a matter of opinion, you dim wit.

Um, okay, NT scholars who would "subscribe to this hypothesis" that there exist arguments based on subjects like ontology, design, morality, cosmology, beauty and the like that tend towards a personal creator. Hmm. I don't know...any NT scholar that ever picked up a book on Natural Theology?

I haven't personally asked them, but probably Craig Evans? Ben Witherington III? Michael Wilkins? Craig Keener? Craig Blomberg? Darrell Bock? Scot McKnight? Dan Wallace? Edwin Yamauchi? I don't know, this is just off the top of my head. I don't think anyone has ever done a survey, or know why one would ever need to be done. It's such an oddball request. Are you taking your own meds again?

Are these NT scholars willing to make this claim based on scholarly research or simply based on their faith in Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior?

[Adrift]

"Convincing" is a matter of opinion, you dim wit.

Wow! You think?

[One Bad Pig]

It's not possibly true, it's evidentially true. I can literally show you books where these arguments exist, and I can show you people who have been convinced by them. There are, in fact, convincing arguments, arguments that have, and continue to convince. Not possibly so, but actually so.

Whether YOU, personally, find those arguments actually convincing, possibly convincing, or not convincing, is completely irrelevant.

My word, how is this so difficult for you?

His presuppositions keep getting in the way.

[Adrift]

His presuppositions keep getting in the way.

Yeah, I'm finding them quite impenetrable. What a waste of time.

[Adrift]

You then tried to counter that criticism by saying that history, prophecy, and personal experience support the Christian claim that Jesus is God and therefore if he is God he was fully capable of raising himself from the dead.

Uh, no. That wasn't my counter. Brush up on your English comprehension.

[Gary]

His presuppositions keep getting in the way.

My argument is not circular, yours is.

If I said that supernatural resurrections are impossible because resurrections are supernatural that would be a circular argument. But that isn't the case. My argument is that a supernatural resurrection is highly improbable based on cumulative human history, and it is much less probable than several possible natural explanations for this belief, so therefore I do not believe it.

It is you Christians who posted the question: "Can Christians prove the Resurrection" and it is the "proving" that I am challenging. The bottom line is that you cannot prove this event happened without presuming the divinity of Jesus, which can only be proven by a resurrection, which based on cumulative human history is highly, highly improbable. The possible existence of a Creator is not evidence for Jesus' divinity. The reliability of the Hebrew Bible regarding ancient history and ancient fortune telling is abysmal.

Like the apostle Paul said, to paraphrase: "It's all about the Resurrection, folks. If it didn't happen, we are toast."

[Gary]

Tell us what trade school you graduated from, Adrift. I dare you!

[Adrift]

Tell us what trade school you graduated from, Adrift. I dare you!

:Oh no!! What if he double-dog dares me?:

[Gary]

:Oh no!! What if he double-dog dares me?:

Pathetic.

Dear Readers: Don't let their smoke and mirrors (spin) fool you. You can't prove the Resurrection without assuming the divinity of Jesus and you can't prove the divinity of Jesus without assuming the Resurrection. It is a circular argument.

Abandon this ancient superstition, and come to the Light. The real light. The light of reason and science.

These people are so angry because the internet is shining the Light of reason and science into the dark crevices of their superstitious world. It is very frightening for them. That is why some of them lash out so viciously. They are sitting in the darkness, desperately holding onto an imaginary security blanket, closing their eyes and plugging their ears to our pleas of reason and rationality.

We must help them let go. We must help them come to the Light.

We must never give up hope for their deliverance from the Darkness.

[One Bad Pig]

Pathetic.

Dear Readers: Don't let their smoke and mirrors (spin) fool you. You can't prove the Resurrection without assuming the divinity of Jesus and you can't prove the divinity of Jesus without assuming the Resurrection. It is a circular argument.

Abandon this ancient superstition, and come to the Light. The real light. The light of reason and science.

These people are so angry because the internet is shining the Light of reason and science into the dark crevices of their superstitious world. It is very frightening for them. That is why some of them lash out so viciously. They are sitting in the darkness, desperately holding onto an imaginary security blanket, closing their eyes and plugging their ears to our pleas of reason and rationality.

We must help them let go. We must help them come to the Light.

We must never give up hope for their deliverance from the Darkness.

Project much?

[Gary]

Project much?

I am reasoning for you, brother!

[alaskazimm]

:Oh no!! What if he double-dog dares me?:

Just don't put your tongue on a frozen flag pole!