Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Wasn't wanting to waste my time but I'll say it again.

Read Keener.

Until then, I see no reason to waste time with someone who claims he wants evidence and refuses to read evidence.

[Gary]

Wasn't wanting to waste my time but I'll say it again.

Read Keener.

Until then, I see no reason to waste time with someone who claims he wants evidence and refuses to read evidence.

Come on, Nick. Be reasonable. Instead of asking me to read two thick volumes containing thousands of anecdotal claims of miracles, all over the world, you could make this much simpler by providing just ONE confirmed miracle, investigated and validated by independent scientists and medical experts and published in a respected scientific or medical journal.

Just one, Nick. It will take you only a matter of minutes....if any such case exists.

And I'll make you this deal: If you provide one miracle, that has been confirmed by independent scientists/medical experts and the results published in any respected science or medical journal, I WILL read Keener's two volume work. I promise.

Now, I am bending over backwards to be reasonable, Nick. How about you do the same?

[Apologiaphoenix]

No, because I did the work of reading Keener just like I did the work of reading others who disagree with me. I'm writing a review of Ehrman's latest right now.

If you're a man of evidence, you'll be willing to do the work. The time you've spent on here you could have already read the books.

You're unwilling because you're not a man of evidence.

No bother to me. Your refusal to interact with contrary opinions and reject Christ won't keep me up at night.

[psstein]

Why use the actual sources when I can find something on the internet that I like to hear?

Reading is tough. I'd rather remain ignorant.

[Gary]

You are both being unreasonable. If there are miracles that have been confirmed by independent scientists and/or medical experts and published in respected scientific or medical journals you should present them. The fact that you are unwilling (or unable??) to do so is very telling.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Derp.

Reading stuff that disagrees and isn't found on the internet is hard.

[Bisto]

Way too much info in one comment for me to digest, my friend.

Bottom line: We have a lot of evidence that demonstrates that "miracle healings" can be faked. Therefore, the onus is on you to demonstrate that your miracle is not a fake. Please provide ONE miracle which independent scientists and medical experts have studied, confirmed, and have published their findings in a reputable scientific or medical journal, stating that the cause of the cure was due to a supernatural or divine cause and that no natural explanation exists that could explain the cure.

Here is a shortened version of an article that I think succinctly identifies the problem with Christians using alleged modern miracles to support the probability of the Resurrection of Jesus:

Theist (T): My belief in God is not based on blind faith. It is based on evidence. How can you deny the countless reports of miracles going back thousands of years?
Atheist (A): They are all anecdotes. Anecdotal evidence alone is never sufficient. It must be supported by controlled experiments and observations.

T: But how can you explain all those reports?
A: Without details on the observations, I can only offer possible explanations.
T: OK, what are those?
A: Delusions, hallucinations, even outright lying and fraud.

Continued here: Source: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/how.html

Oh come on friend. I read the full link you posted by the Phisicist/Philosopher man with the Theist/Anti-theist dialogue when you first posted it, and two of its sources, and watched your videos; all of these public documents meant for everyone. Some of them were about things I'm not very familiar with like biology. And you won't read my handful of short paragraphs, all addressed to you, and about things you should understand as a former Christian? (Not to mention the books quoted by everyone else here. How do you KNOW those "Miracles" volumes won't have just the kind of evidence you claim to need, if not by assumption?)


I would like to add how probability is used in hypothesis testing, something you should know about if your argument is based on it. I speak here from what I learned in Statistical Inference and Information Analysis Tools classes, and I assume you'll know better than me on this topic (having finished your own studies). To my understanding, a 100% certainty is NEVER requested to confirm an hypothesis has predictive power, but there is always an acceptable margin of error termed "alpha". As your link mentioned, this value of statistical significance varies between fields, so that some physics-oriented papers need to be confirmed with greater significance (e.g. alpha=0.01%) than some anthropology ones (alpha=5%).

So, if we are to be consistent with this method as far as theory testing is concerned, it's unreasonable to demand a theory confirmation that simply CAN'T be explained AT ALL by the "null" alternative theory, but instead, it only needs to have enough confirmation to make a "coincidence" (i.e. what the null hypothesis states) seem very unlikely -- in other words, whether the P-value is lesser than the chosen "alpha" value. This is simply accepting our limited knowledge as human beings. A theory is not deemed proven because it got 100% confirmation, but rather because it got significant enough confirmation (95%, 99.99%, whatever).

Now, we can't apply this numerically to a miracle theory, or God-providence theory, or Resurrection theory. But the spirit of the method remains: HOW UNLIKELY does the best alternative theory ("null hypothesis") have to go, HOW LOW its probability as more data is considered, for one to reject said alternative here? We can't say zero for sure, that would be unscientific.

As far as the Resurrection is concerned, as we consider more and more contextual data to base our evaluation of it, just how much confirmation on the UNLIKELIHOOD of conspiracy theories is needed? How much confirmation that the different alternative theories don't really explain all the data? How much confirmation on the conditional probability of the Resurrection in its historical and later narrative context? How much confirmation of the consistency of the Resurrection theory with the rest of the historical data? You can ask for a big modern confirmation miracle or something of that sort, for sure, but isn't that more like having a personal alpha=0% for this particular theory?

[Gary]

Oh come on friend. I read the full link you posted by the Phisicist/Philosopher man with the Theist/Anti-theist dialogue when you first posted it, and two of its sources, and watched your videos; all of these public documents meant for everyone. Some of them were about things I'm not very familiar with like biology. And you won't read my handful of short paragraphs, all addressed to you, and about things you should understand as a former Christian? (Not to mention the books quoted by everyone else here. How do you KNOW those "Miracles" volumes won't have just the kind of evidence you claim to need, if not by assumption?)


I would like to add how probability is used in hypothesis testing, something you should know about if your argument is based on it. I speak here from what I learned in Statistical Inference and Information Analysis Tools classes, and I assume you'll know better than me on this topic (having finished your own studies). To my understanding, a 100% certainty is NEVER requested to confirm an hypothesis has predictive power, but there is always an acceptable margin of error termed "alpha". As your link mentioned, this value of statistical significance varies between fields, so that some physics-oriented papers need to be confirmed with greater significance (e.g. alpha=0.01%) than some anthropology ones (alpha=5%).

So, if we are to be consistent with this method as far as theory testing is concerned, it's unreasonable to demand a theory confirmation that simply CAN'T be explained AT ALL by the "null" alternative theory, but instead, it only needs to have enough confirmation to make a "coincidence" (i.e. what the null hypothesis states) seem very unlikely -- in other words, whether the P-value is lesser than the chosen "alpha" value. This is simply accepting our limited knowledge as human beings. A theory is not deemed proven because it got 100% confirmation, but rather because it got significant enough confirmation (95%, 99.99%, whatever).

Now, we can't apply this numerically to a miracle theory, or God-providence theory, or Resurrection theory. But the spirit of the method remains: HOW UNLIKELY does the best alternative theory ("null hypothesis") have to go, HOW LOW its probability as more data is considered, for one to reject said alternative here? We can't say zero for sure, that would be unscientific.

As far as the Resurrection is concerned, as we consider more and more contextual data to base our evaluation of it, just how much confirmation on the UNLIKELIHOOD of conspiracy theories is needed? How much confirmation that the different alternative theories don't really explain all the data? How much confirmation on the conditional probability of the Resurrection in its historical and later narrative context? How much confirmation of the consistency of the Resurrection theory with the rest of the historical data? You can ask for a big modern confirmation miracle or something of that sort, for sure, but isn't that more like having a personal alpha=0% for this particular theory?

To most non-Christians, the probability of any natural explanation for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection is MUCH higher than the probability that a dead body walked out of its sealed tomb two thousand years ago, ate a broiled fish sandwich with his former fishing buddies, and then flew off into outer space.

It is only someone who desperately wants to believe this supernatural tale who insists that the possible natural explanations are improbable.

[Gary]

Derp.

Reading stuff that disagrees and isn't found on the internet is hard.

They are all anecdotal cases, Nick. Can you promise me that Keener presents cases that have been published in peer-reviewed science and/or medical journals in which independent investigators have confirmed that a divine being performed a non-natural act??

That is how science and medicine work, Nick. We don't accept anecdotal cases as evidence to prove the veracity of a new medical treatment or a new scientific theory. You insist that skeptics accept the standards of scholarship for examining early Christian beliefs and practices so you should be consistent and accept the standards of establishing facts as postulated by scientists and medical professionals related to their areas of expertise.

So does Keener have peer-reviewed studies in his book or is it simply a collection of hundreds if not thousands of anecdotal claims?

I would not ask you to read a book regarding first century Christian beliefs and practices written by a college graduate with a BS in computer science, so don't ask me to read something that is not written by a scientist or medical expert with expertise in the field discussed.

[Gary]

Below is a link to a review of Keener's "Miracles" that is very detailed and extremely interesting. It is written by someone you have previously debated, Nick.

https://adversusapologetica.wordpres...ical-scholars/

In this review, the author points out that the institution for which Keener works has a statement of faith (which they surely insisted that all employees, including Keener, sign) which states that the miracle claims in the Bible are inerrant truth. How can you possibly consider Keener's work to be unbiased and honest if he is working under this blatant bias in favor of miracles? How many skeptics work at institutions where they are required to sign a statement of belief which states that miracles are impossible?

Answer: None.

Your source is hopelessly biased, Nick.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Oh wow. My source is biased.

You know, like everyone else on the planet.....

By the way, you say the accounts are all anecdotal. How do you know when you haven't read it?

Keep insulating yourself.

[Gary]

[Apologiaphoenix]

I don't because I haven't seen such an explanation and the resurrection hypothesis meets the best criteria.

[Gary]

I don't because I haven't seen such an explanation and the resurrection hypothesis meets the best criteria.

Wait a minute! In the past you have stated that it is possible that a natural explanation exists to explain all the data but that you have yet to see such a plausible natural explanation. Are you now saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for any natural explanation to exist?

Again, I am not asking you if you think a natural explanation is probable, only if it is possible.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Okay. I misread. Sure. It's possible. We just need to have one presented. We don't want to go by faith after all.