Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Apologiaphoenix]

I actually thought of this as more fitting.

Bizarro-animated.jpg

[Gary]

I actually thought of this as more fitting.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]12922[/ATTACH]

Hmm.

Aren't superheroes your department?

[Apologiaphoenix]

http://superman.wikia.com/wiki/Bizarro

[Gary]

http://superman.wikia.com/wiki/Bizarro

Ok, I'll go with it: I am the anti-Nick.

Tell me, SuperNick. What is your "kryptonite"? Let me guess: Exceptions to generalizations! Now, all I need to do is find ONE exception to just ONE of your generalizations, and SuperNick will be neutralized and powerless...forever....AAAAAH HAAAAAAA!

[Gary]

Ok, I'll go with it: I am the anti-Nick.

Tell me, SuperNick. What is your "kryptonite"? Let me guess: Exceptions to generalizations! Now, all I need to do is find ONE exception to just ONE of your generalizations, and SuperNick will be neutralized and powerless...forever....AAAAAH HAAAAAAA!

Most rules (generalizations) have exceptions. This is the fundamental weakness of Nick's argument for the Resurrection of Jesus.

If there are exceptions to Nick's generalizations, then each individual must ask him or herself this question: Which is more probable, 1.) an exception to the rule, or, 2.) a supernatural event (miracle). There is no correct answer to this question. If, like Nick, you believe that miracles are very probable then you might well agree with Nick that the supernatural claim of a bodily resurrection is more probable than a rare exception to a generalization.

However, wouldn't most people agree that it is irrational to assert that a possible exception to a generalization is implausible, as Nick asserts?

If an exception to a generalization is possible, then it is plausible. Nick needs to come clean; be rational; and admit that there are other plausible explanations for every piece of evidence for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection as I have shown above and as other skeptics have demonstrated.

To say that the ONLY plausible explanation for an odd event which happened twenty centuries ago is a supernatural explanation is NOT rational.

[Adrift]

Most rules (generalizations) have exceptions. This is the fundamental weakness of Nick's argument for the Resurrection of Jesus.

If there are exceptions to Nick's generalizations, then each individual must ask him or herself this question: Which is more probable, 1.) an exception to the rule, or, 2.) a supernatural event (miracle). There is no correct answer to this question. If, like Nick, you believe that miracles are very probable then you might well agree with Nick that the supernatural claim of a bodily resurrection is more probable than a rare exception to a generalization.

However, wouldn't most people agree that it is irrational to assert that a possible exception to a generalization is implausible, as Nick asserts?

If an exception to a generalization is possible, then it is plausible. Nick needs to come clean; be rational; and admit that there are other plausible explanations for every piece of evidence for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection as I have shown above and as other skeptics have demonstrated.

To say that the ONLY plausible explanation for an odd event which happened twenty centuries ago is a supernatural explanation is NOT rational.

You replied to yourself.

[Gary]

You replied to yourself.

I apologize. I meant to reply to Nick.

Am I forgiven?

[Adrift]

I apologize. I meant to reply to Nick.

Am I forgiven?

No. Go back to your blog and think about what you did.

[Gary]

No. Go back to your blog and think about what you did.

Yes, Daddy.

[Apologiaphoenix]

No. Go back to your blog and think about what you did.

Like I said, it's like reasoning with a small child....

[Gary]

Like I said, it's like reasoning with a small child....

Talking to yourself again, Nicky?

[Gary]

Like I said, it's like reasoning with a small child....

I can be reasonable, Nick. I am willing to admit that the bodily resurrection is a plausible explanation for the early Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection. I believe it is the least plausible of all possible explanations, but I will admit it is plausible.

Now Nick, prove to everyone that you are not a fundamentalist: Announce once and for all that you admit that there are other plausible explanations for the early Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection other than a miraculous bodily resurrection; admit that alternative, non-miraculous explanations are not just theoretically possible, but plausible: admit that alternative, non-miraculous explanations are capable of interpreting all the evidence for the early Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

[Apologiaphoenix]

As soon as you come up with one that does.

[One Bad Pig]

Like I said, it's like reasoning with a small petulant child....

fify n/c

[Apologiaphoenix]

fify n/c

Oh yes. That's much better. Thank you.