Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Don't forget using smilies.

[psstein]

Are you serious, Stein?? Come on. Get real.

I have never said that I can prove that there were exceptions to your generalizations about first century beliefs and practices. I have only said that the probability of an exception to a generalization is greater than a miracle/supernatural cause for the overwhelming majority of life events.

If I used the same argument for miracles (which you'd claim as violations as laws of nature), you'd be rightfully outraged.

I'm not even arguing for the empty tomb at this point. I'm arguing that the body wasn't moved. You have this inability to interpret literal meaning.

[Adrift]

Nowadays I just see Gary's post and I just see "Wall of text" and I just wait to see what others say that might indicate something actually worth responding to.

I do the same, and have been for awhile. It's the same material recycled over and over again, and his position always boils down to arguments from incredulity.

[Gary]

If I used the same argument for miracles (which you'd claim as violations as laws of nature), you'd be rightfully outraged.

I'm not even arguing for the empty tomb at this point. I'm arguing that the body wasn't moved. You have this inability to interpret literal meaning.

Stein: How can you be 100% certain that the body wasn't moved? That is the issue.

I can understand if you state that you believe that a supernatural act is the MOST plausible explanation for the empty tomb. But to say that there are no other plausible explanations for an empty tomb is just not rational. I don't understand why you can't see that.

[Gary]

I do the same, and have been for awhile. It's the same material recycled over and over again, and his position always boils down to arguments from incredulity.

An argument from incredulity states that a proposition cannot be true because I find it not credible. I have never said that.

[psstein]

Stein: How can you be 100% certain that the body wasn't moved? That is the issue.

I can understand if you state that you believe that a supernatural act is the MOST plausible explanation for the empty tomb. But to say that there are no other plausible explanations for an empty tomb is just not rational. I don't understand why you can't see that.

The other explanations for an empty tomb require additional actors and motives for which we have absolutely no evidence at all.

[Gary]

The other explanations for an empty tomb require additional actors and motives for which we have absolutely no evidence at all.

I have never said that there is evidence that someone moved the body. But just because there is no evidence of the perpetrator in a murder case does that mean that the body in question, with a stab wound to the back, could not have not been killed by someone?? Jesus' body was gone, the question is: what is the most probable explanation for the absence of a body from its tomb.

There is only one (unknown) explanation for the early Christian belief in a bodily Resurrection. Neither you nor I can prove with 100% certainty how this belief came about. I realize that you believe that the Resurrection is the most plausible of all explanations. But just because there is no (known) evidence that someone moved the body is not proof that no one did.

[Gary]

I (and I believe most educated people in western society, including most Christians) follow a logical, rational process to find the explanation for any odd event in his or her life.

For instance: I wake up tomorrow and my keys are missing.

Is my first assumption going to be that a demon stole my keys (a supernatural explanation)? No. My first assumption is that I misplaced my keys. Once I have ruled that out, my next assumption is that someone (human) moved my keys. Only after I have ruled out all natural, non-miracle explanations for my missing keys would I consider that a demon or angel or other supernatural being had moved my keys.

So, see. I am not ruling out the supernatural. I am just not considering the supernatural as the cause until I have ruled out more probable explanations. And as hard as Nick and Stein try, and no matter how many NT scholars they quote, they cannot rule out the possibility and plausibility that a naturalistic, non-miracle explanation is the source of the empty tomb and the alleged post-death appearances. I am not trying to prove any specific naturalistic scenario. I am only trying to get you guys to see that naturalistic, non-miracle explanations are plausible, EVEN IF, there is no evidence to PROVE that they are the true explanation.

[psstein]

You're right, we can't rule it out. It just doesn't take stock of the available evidence. This is inference to the best explanation, not inference to what we want to be true.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Stein. Don't you get it? We have to posit entities we have no evidence for and events we have no evidence for in order to avoid conclusions we do have evidence for.

[Gary]

You're right, we can't rule it out. It just doesn't take stock of the available evidence. This is inference to the best explanation, not inference to what we want to be true.

You just don't get it.

If we both came upon a dead human body with a puncture wound in the back, I would assume, without any evidence, that a human being had stabbed the victim. You, on the other hand, would complain that since I have no evidence, I should not make that assumption...I should believe your claim that the wound was caused by a supernatural being, simply because a group of people from a new religious sect swear on a stack of holy books that they saw a supernatural being stab the victim.

That is just not rational!

I am not claiming to know why the tomb was empty. I am simply stating that since we do not know the answer, we should consider the most probable explanations first, and not jump to the least probable explanation simply because a small group of uneducated peasants swear that they saw a walking/talking/broiled-fish-eating dead body.

[psstein]

Stein. Don't you get it? We have to posit entities we have no evidence for and events we have no evidence for in order to avoid conclusions we do have evidence for.

So which one of McCullough's criteria does the alternative "body moved" hypothesis actually satisfy?

Also, Nick, mandatory "you're brainwashed" wasn't included.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Let's see. How many scholars actually hold to the "body moved" explanation?

[Gary]

Let's see. How many scholars actually hold to the "body moved" explanation?

How many "scholars" know what happened to Jimmy Hoffa's body?

There are plenty of rumors and assumptions but no one (who is talking) knows where the body is. Now, what if a group of religious extremists makes the claim that Jimmy Hoffa was their Messiah and that he ascended into the clouds in front of twenty of them, and those twenty people are willing to sign affidavits swearing they are telling the truth. There are no other leads. No other evidence. Only this supernatural claim. Should we believe this claim simply because it is the only "evidence" that exists???

No!

Just because there is no evidence that the Mafia, or the Teamsters, or an ex-wife/ex-girlfriend knocked him off and dumped the body in Lake Michigan is NOT reason to jump to a supernatural explanation for the missing body of Jimmy Hoffa because a group of zealots is making a supernatural claim about him! ! And the same is true for the missing body of Jesus. NO ONE claims to have seen the body leave the tomb. All we have is an empty tomb and a small group of superstitious, grieving relatives and friends (and one Pharisee who only saw a bright light) claiming to see dead people.

There are multiple possible, much more plausible, natural, non-supernatural, explanations for the missing bodies of Jimmy Hoffa AND Jesus of Nazareth! A lack of evidence for those possible explanations does NOT rule them out!

I do not understand why that is so hard for you guys to comprehend.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Because if we comprehended, we would readily just agree with everything.

You ever heard of these things called "books"?