Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[37818]

. . . The outfit you cited, World Christian Doctors, seems to be a scam outfit headquartered in S. Korea. For enough money you can get anybody to claim anything.

Its founder Dr. Jaerock Lee in July 1998, when he stated that he was "sinless and exempted from dying" was accussed of heresy over this claim.

[Gary]

The World Christian Doctor Network has an annual conference where doctors present medical evidence of miraculous healing:

some cases:
http://www.wcdn.org/03_conference/co...=CANCER&idx=76 <-- skin cancer
http://www.wcdn.org/03_conference/co...cat=EYE&idx=50 <-- R/O Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease
http://www.wcdn.org/03_conference/co...=CANCER&idx=27 <-- breast cancer
http://www.wcdn.org/03_conference/co...=CANCER&idx=15 <-- Gastric Adenocarcinoma
http://www.wcdn.org/03_conference/co...=CANCER&idx=12 <-- Non-hodgkins lymphoma
http://www.wcdn.org/03_conference/co...=CANCER&idx=28 <-- Uterine Sarcoma

http://www.wcdn.org/03_conference/co...cat=ENT&idx=46 <-- deafness
http://www.wcdn.org/03_conference/co...cat=DER&idx=18 <-- various skin diseases.
http://www.wcdn.org/03_conference/co..._cat=GS&idx=59 <-- 2nd degree burn on face

THAT is dramatic news, folks. Doctors around the world would be stunned.

But, no. No such world wide attention.

Conclusion: Western Medicine knows that prayer is a very effective means of healing, with hundreds of millions of cases reported, but has conspired to reject it out of arrogance and a hate for faith, religion, and God.

or

The claims lack good evidence.

[Gary]

So I have admitted that the case presented by Raphael regarding the woman with "second degree" deafness COULD be a miracle. If her hearing test had been one level for years, and one month after a prayer for healing, her hearing was dramatically improved, that would be hard to explain by natural means. So I admit that a case has been presented to me that COULD be a miracle. And I'm sure there are other miracle claims for which a natural explanation would SEEM to be improbable.

But the "devil" is in the details, folks.

These cases should be presented to an independent panel of experts, thoroughly evaluated, and the results published in a nationally respected medical journal. If "hundreds of millions" of such miracle cures are happening, there should be a couple of them at least that have undergone thorough evaluation by an independent panel of experts and the results published in a reputable medical journal by a reputable medical society, such as the Journal of the American Medical Association, etc..

The question is: Why aren't they???

Any ideas, guys?

[Raphael]

Dr. Irene Jacovou, presenter of the first case on your list of miracles also claims that she herself died for 45 min's and a miracle happened. She came back to life in good health with no brain damage.

And?

Give me a break Raphael! The outfit you cited, World Christian Doctors, seems to be a scam outfit headquartered in S. Korea. For enough money you can get anybody to claim anything.

They are presenting medical evidence (before and after medical reports, before and after photos) of healings they say are miracles. I don't pretend to agree with all their theology, but they are citing cases from around the world (true with a bias to South Korea as that's where it started)
This is the level of proof that Gary and others were asking for. And now the goalposts have shifted again to: "I want a video not medical reports, and I will only accept peer reviewed reports in a medical journal."

[Gary]

And?
They are presenting medical evidence (before and after medical reports, before and after photos) of healings they say are miracles. I don't pretend to agree with all their theology, but they are citing cases from around the world (true with a bias to South Korea as that's where it started)
This is the level of proof that Gary and others were asking for. And now the goalposts have shifted again to: "I want a video not medical reports, and I will only accept peer reviewed reports in a medical journal."

Wrong. No where did I say that I would accept one or two doctor's claims of a miracle as rock-solid proof of a miracle. I only asked to start seeing physicians' statements in Keener's book, which I had not seen up until chapter 11. I now have stated that Keener HAS presented statements by doctors. I have also stated that at least one of your links contains a miracle claim, which if the evidence is true, WOULD make a strong case for a miracle claim.

To assert that I ever claimed that if you guys provided a miracle claim for which one or a few doctors gave statements supporting supernatural causation that I would accept the reality of miracles, is a completely FALSE charge.

Now, Raphael, how about you answer my question: Why has western medicine not confirmed even one faith healing?

[Gary]

I have been posting many of our conversations here on TW on my blog. One of my Christian readers, a conservative Christian pastor, left this comment today about our current discussion here on TW regarding Science, Reason, and Miracle claims. (I respond below.) I thought you guys would find the exchange interesting.

Pastor Baxter:

Gary . . .

You have neither "proved" science, nor "disproven" Christian theology. Your perpetual, ongoing attempt to do so prove you to be anything but a student of reason, and science is merely a tool to get from where we are in knowledge today to where we will be tomorrow.

Of course, I told you all of this two and one-half years ago, when I told you that the Resurrection, et. al., of the Christian Faith is an "Article of Faith." As such, you cannot disprove it, as little as I (or anyone) can prove it.

That you permitted your "guys" to take you from the Faith to a denial of Faith is a matter of your own manner of thinking, the switch not having solved your problem whatsoever. You have denied categorically the Faith, all the while no more able to prove or disprove your theory(s).

It is, to coin a phrase, simply what YOU believe. Every bit a product of faith as is Christianity. Be that as it may, I am sure you will continue to flail away demanding proof until the day you die. So be it. Your choice.

As my is my choice, which you cannot disprove, despite all the tremendous weapons science has accumulated. The simple fact remains that the Resurrection, and Christian theology, cannot be proven nor disproven. The very answer you demand of others is the weak link in your very chain of reasoning.

Several articles for your perusal and consideration, and that of any of your readers.

http://barbwire.com/2016/04/08/new-a...ing-in-denial/

http://www.veritas.org/can-scientist...ee-hypotheses/

Pax - pb


Gary
April 10, 2016 at 3:28 PM

For once, Rev. Baxter, I completely agree with you.

I cannot disprove your FAITH. I cannot disprove the Resurrection. I cannot disprove the supernatural (miracle) claims of the Bible and Christianity. In fact, I cannot disprove the existence of ANY supernatural claim or entity.

Faith and the supernatural cannot be proven or disproven. Both are metaphysical concepts and metaphysical concepts cannot be examined using the standards of evidence used by modern science and the scientific method---the current standard for evaluating reality in our society.

Your FAITH is safe, Rev. B.

However, once proponents of Faith and the Supernatural (miracles, gods, demons, etc.) attempt to claim that they have GOOD EVIDENCE for their supernatural claims, that is when I can confidently step forward and proclaim: You are full of (baloney)!

There is no good evidence for any supernatural claim, especially the Resurrection. The only evidence Christians can claim for this alleged first century event is hearsay and generalizations/assumptions about the beliefs and habits of an ancient people living twenty centuries ago.

Therefore, my REASON is safe.

Very safe.

[JimL]

And?
They are presenting medical evidence (before and after medical reports, before and after photos) of healings they say are miracles. I don't pretend to agree with all their theology, but they are citing cases from around the world (true with a bias to South Korea as that's where it started)
This is the level of proof that Gary and others were asking for. And now the goalposts have shifted again to: "I want a video not medical reports, and I will only accept peer reviewed reports in a medical journal."

There are physically ill patients who for reasons unknown are healed all the time. Claiming that the reason for this in a particular case is because they prayed or went to a faith healer, whether thats what they believe or not, is not really evidence of a miracle. If it were, then you would have to explain what the reason is for the spontaneous healing of those where religious faith was not involved. Charlatans can easily find cases in which people believe that their cures were miraculous events, but like any other belief, belief is not evidence, particulary when such cures are effected whether or not the patient was religious. Also the patient in this case, like in most other cases first had medical treatment, without the which they very well may have succumbed to their malady.

[flowers92]

I think you do get to the point where the most logically explanation is that Jesus resurrected, so I'm with Lee Strobel on this, but without absolute certainty you cannot "prove" it outright but you can't prove any conclusion about his body... its literally the best conclusion

[Gary]

I think you do get to the point where the most logically explanation is that Jesus resurrected, so I'm with Lee Strobel on this, but without absolute certainty you cannot "prove" it outright but you can't prove any conclusion about his body... its literally the best conclusion

The best conclusion??

Wrong. There are many, much more probable explanations for the early Christian Resurrection Belief than a literal, bodily Resurrection. The reason that Christians cannot see this is that they presume the existence of Yahweh, and, they presume the existence of the supernatural (miracles). In logic, this is called the fallacy of Begging the Question.

If you simply look at the evidence, the odds of a Resurrection are much, much, much, less than the odds of many possible natural explanations for early Christians' resurrection belief. And the Christian claim that a literal Resurrection is the only explanation that explains ALL the evidence is also bogus. If each piece of evidence can be explained by individual natural explanations, then all the evidence together can be explained by a natural explanation.

Only if one presumes that generalizations about the beliefs and behavior of first century Jews are inviolable; that there never were any exceptions to these generalizations; can one claim that a never heard of before or since Resurrection is more probable than that one or a few first century Jews broke the norms of behavior.

The belief in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus should be believed by faith, not by silly attempts to provide material evidence for a metaphysical claim.

[Tassman]

I think you do get to the point where the most logically explanation is that Jesus resurrected, so I'm with Lee Strobel on this, but without absolute certainty you cannot "prove" it outright but you can't prove any conclusion about his body... its literally the best conclusion

A "miracle" is never a logical exclamation of any occurrence. A miracle is by definition an extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all possible natural explanations. However, any natural explanation, no matter how unlikely, is more probable than ascribing it to a miracle.

[Bisto]

The best conclusion??

Wrong. There are many, much more probable explanations for the early Christian Resurrection Belief than a literal, bodily Resurrection. The reason that Christians cannot see this is that they presume the existence of Yahweh, and, they presume the existence of the supernatural (miracles). In logic, this is called the fallacy of Begging the Question.

If you simply look at the evidence, the odds of a Resurrection are much, much, much, less than the odds of many possible natural explanations for early Christians' resurrection belief. And the Christian claim that a literal Resurrection is the only explanation that explains ALL the evidence is also bogus. If each piece of evidence can be explained by individual natural explanations, then all the evidence together can be explained by a natural explanation.

Only if one presumes that generalizations about the beliefs and behavior of first century Jews are inviolable; that there never were any exceptions to these generalizations; can one claim that a never heard of before or since Resurrection is more probable than that one or a few first century Jews broke the norms of behavior.

The belief in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus should be believed by faith, not by silly attempts to provide material evidence for a metaphysical claim.

Come on friend, stop repeating that. Nobody's buying it anymore. You know all your "much more probable" theories rely on incredibly implausible networks of coincidences, each improbable on its own, the whole geometrically much more improbable. If you look at the details, you sound little better than a conspiracy theorist, it's just that your conspirator is chance. The only reason you think the Resurrection itself is as implausible as you make it sound, and those hypotheses themselves look so good to you is, as you say, your own presuppositions. Do we really need to look at your "many, much more probable explanations" again?

[Bisto]

A "miracle" is never a logical exclamation of any occurrence. A miracle is by definition an extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all possible natural explanations. However, any natural explanation, no matter how unlikely, is more probable than ascribing it to a miracle.

I think this speaks for itself

[Apologiaphoenix]

Also the part about us presuming YHWH.

Some of us have actually made theistic arguments.

How many arguments have been made that there is no theistic being that can interact with the world?

*crickets*

[One Bad Pig]

Where are the videos, Pigster???

I don't feel like playing your silly game, Gary. Quit shifting the goalposts in a transparent attempt to avoid evidence already given.

[flowers92]

The best conclusion??

Wrong. There are many, much more probable explanations for the early Christian Resurrection Belief than a literal, bodily Resurrection. The reason that Christians cannot see this is that they presume the existence of Yahweh, and, they presume the existence of the supernatural (miracles). In logic, this is called the fallacy of Begging the Question.

If you simply look at the evidence, the odds of a Resurrection are much, much, much, less than the odds of many possible natural explanations for early Christians' resurrection belief. And the Christian claim that a literal Resurrection is the only explanation that explains ALL the evidence is also bogus. If each piece of evidence can be explained by individual natural explanations, then all the evidence together can be explained by a natural explanation.

Only if one presumes that generalizations about the beliefs and behavior of first century Jews are inviolable; that there never were any exceptions to these generalizations; can one claim that a never heard of before or since Resurrection is more probable than that one or a few first century Jews broke the norms of behavior.

The belief in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus should be believed by faith, not by silly attempts to provide material evidence for a metaphysical claim.

Lol the amount of errors in this comment is ridiculous.... anywho Ill let another Atheist (former) present the case http://www.leestrobel.com/ look around

But to actually address what you said:
"There are many, much more probable explanations for the early Christian Resurrection Belief"
No its not, are you going to share any?

"The reason that Christians cannot see this is that they presume the existence of Yahweh"
You presume the non-existence of Yahweh, you're guilty of the same thing, do you tell yourself this?

"presume the existence of the supernatural (miracles)"
Miracles are validated by proof not presumed. The begging of the Universe is miraculous itself..... something greater than nature had to cause the existence of nature before it existed

To deny miracles is to deny reality

"look at the evidence, the odds of a Resurrection are much"
I notice you never brought up any evidence. Do you honestly know the evidence?
The mentioning of "Odds" or probability contradicts your first idea claiming "more probable explanations for the early Christian Resurrection"
chance is irrelevant in light of proof

"If each piece of evidence can be explained by individual natural explanations, then..."
And they can NOT to begin with

"the bodily Resurrection of Jesus should be believed by faith,"
A reasonable faith, yes I agree if you mean reasonable

"not by silly attempts to provide material evidence"
so now there are only "attempts to provide evidence"... but you just said "If each piece of evidence can be explained by individual natural explanations, then..."

Which one is it? Do we have evidence or just attempted to claim evidence?.... its obvious you really don't know the case for the Resurrection. I redirect you to the investigation of Lee Strobel