Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Gary]

This is effectively your position. As we've said ad nauseaum, there is merely a difference in semantics between this and what you've said. You're not fooling anyone who's read a few pages of your posts here with your protests otherwise.

I highly doubt that leprechauns and fairies exist, but I can't prove they don't. And the same with the Resurrection.

Now, will you admit that even though you highly doubt it, it is possible that someone moved the body of Jesus prior to Sunday morning, and, even though you highly doubt it, it is also possible that Jesus was not buried in a tomb, but in an unmarked grave, and, that even though you highly doubt it, it is possible that the alleged appearances of Jesus were due to visions, dreams, hallucinations, false perceptions, or even lies.

[One Bad Pig]

I highly doubt that leprechauns and fairies exist, but I can't prove they don't. And the same with the Resurrection.

Thank you for proving my point. Again.

[Gary]

The behaviors present in the incidents cease afterwards. The individuals grow spiritually, as persons, and as Christians. You could theoretically say that they all faked it, willingly or not (cognitive dissonance? :) but the fact that it has happened to newcomers who knew nothing of the topic kind of rules out whatever preconditioning those theses might need. You can say we just happened to run into people who experienced one-off epilepsy attacks or something of the sort, who continue to be normal people (nay, better people) afterwards. Sure, it's possible. But there ARE statistical limits for such hypotheses, and my Alpha-value for this stuff is not 0, if you know what I mean.

Maybe you ran into someone who was gullible, emotionally unstable, mentally ill, or someone who just wanted a little attention.

My father was a Baptist minister. One day when I was in the church sanctuary, I heard a loud, deep, male voice coming from my father's office which said something to the effect: "We do not want to leave her body! We are many! Leave us alone!" Shortly thereafter a woman walked out of my father's office who I recognized. She was an unemployed single mother who was well known for her emotional outbursts and frequent need of pastoral attention.

My father told me that he had cast out demons from her and that she was now healed!

However, over the next few months, she had numerous "crises" that involved the pastor, deacons, and eventually the whole church until she finally wore out her welcome, no longer got the attention she wanted, so finally left the church.

So what about that deep "male voice" I heard? Answer: Just an hysterical, manipulative, heavy-set woman manipulating her voice to get attention.

[Gary]

I have admitted that the bodily resurrection is possible. We can end this discussion if Christians will admit the following is possible:

Will each of you Christians admit that even though you highly doubt it, it is possible that someone moved the body of Jesus prior to Sunday morning, and, even though you highly doubt it, it is also possible that Jesus was not buried in a tomb, but in an unmarked grave, and, that even though you highly doubt it, it is possible that the alleged appearances of Jesus were due to visions, dreams, hallucinations, false perceptions, or even lies.

[Bisto]

Maybe you ran into someone who was gullible, emotionally unstable, mentally ill, or someone who just wanted a little attention.

My father was a Baptist minister. One day when I was in the church sanctuary, I heard a loud, deep, male voice coming from my father's office which said something to the effect: "We do not want to leave her body! We are many! Leave us alone!" Shortly thereafter a woman walked out of my father's office who I recognized. She was an unemployed single mother who was well known for her emotional outbursts and frequent need of pastoral attention.

My father told me that he had cast out demons from her and that she was now healed!

However, over the next few months, she had numerous "crises" that involved the pastor, deacons, and eventually the whole church until she finally wore out her welcome, no longer got the attention she wanted, so finally left the church.

So what about that deep "male voice" I heard? Answer: Just an hysterical, manipulative, heavy-set woman manipulating her voice to get attention.

I love you man.

What if I say No, that's not the case with the people of whom I speak? I continue to see their growth. I admire them. And as I said, statistically speaking, you need an Alpha-value -- that is, a point at which you go "Okay, that's enough, this is not a coincidence". I'm just saying I deem it irresponsible from my part to believe all those people are the way you describe them, when what I know about them as persons testifies the opposite.

As in other matters (e.g. Raphael's story about his sister, some of Mr. Keener's stories, etc.), I think it's okay for you to have impressions based on what you have known; but you know that is not necessarily what I (or in those cases, they) am talking about. You are free to assume your experiences and mine are the same kind, but don't proselytize about it. You have no basis for that outside your own assumptions, harmonizations and adaptations.

[Bisto]

I have admitted that the bodily resurrection is possible. We can end this discussion if Christians will admit the following is possible:

Will each of you Christians admit that even though you highly doubt it, it is possible that someone moved the body of Jesus prior to Sunday morning, and, even though you highly doubt it, it is also possible that Jesus was not buried in a tomb, but in an unmarked grave, and, that even though you highly doubt it, it is possible that the alleged appearances of Jesus were due to visions, dreams, hallucinations, false perceptions, or even lies.

All this means is that you have a handful of naturalistic explanations which are all "possible" but extremely contrived. They require Jesus' disciples, opponents, and other parties involved to have behaved in socio-culturally odd ways, in this particular case, at the right time and place, AT THE SAME TIME AS other parties ALSO behaved in odd ways, for it all to fit (for example, to explain the Empty Tomb and sightings of Jesus together). On the surface this might not sound very unlikely in itself, but the implausibility of each piece, and moreso for the needed set of combined events, can be easily seen when one asks further questions on the mechanics of the events. We have done this throughout this thread and we could go on if you pushed hard enough for any one theory. Still, these things are possible, no one's saying the opposite. If you presuppose there is no God, etc., then you'll have to choose one of these.

However, if you REMOVE the naturalistic restriction, then there are more possibilities. If there is a God, He may have been behind this. So what is the evidence we have for that? Pretty much all of it is explained hand-in-glove; and the more you study the subject, the more you'll realize how thorough was the early Disciples' and Apostles' conviction of what happened, how quick was the theological development that stemmed from the Resurrection event (e.g. near immediate worship of Jesus) (ruling out any stages of "legend"-making in-between, BTW), how transformed their lives were (even unto martyrdom and death), etc. There are several little factors that add to the depth of this thesis the more you consider it, both in 1st Century Judaism and early Christianity. And each alternative theory has issues explaining some or all of these bits as well.

So, WITH the naturalistic assumption, you have to choose one of those "weird", fatefully coincidental theses, since that fits the data best among your self-limited options. WITHOUT it, however, you have to compare those hypotheses with the early Church's proclamation of what they (claimed to have) lived, and see what option explains the data best in this bigger set of alternatives. You have quoted a PDF by some atheist people who claimed that even assuming YHWH's existence and power, the Resurrection thesis is very improbable, on the basis of being a one-of-a-kind event in all of known history, an argument which you have insistently repeated; however, it has been shown that their argumentation freely uses the naturalistic assumptions (e.g. God can't intervene within the world, nor undo biological processes of death, etc.), and left no ground for a God to do anything unprecedented within visible reality, so they kind of argued in a circle.


In summary: I'd say if you're open to the possibility of God, then assess the Christian thesis on its own goodness-of-fit as compared to that of other theses. If you won't believe in the possiblity of God and his power, then leave the Christian case alone and stick to your assumptions, since you aren't evaluating the theory's strengths on its own terms anyway.

[Gary]

I love you man.

What if I say No, that's not the case with the people of whom I speak? I continue to see their growth. I admire them. And as I said, statistically speaking, you need an Alpha-value -- that is, a point at which you go "Okay, that's enough, this is not a coincidence". I'm just saying I deem it irresponsible from my part to believe all those people are the way you describe them, when what I know about them as persons testifies the opposite.

As in other matters (e.g. Raphael's story about his sister, some of Mr. Keener's stories, etc.), I think it's okay for you to have impressions based on what you have known; but you know that is not necessarily what I (or in those cases, they) am talking about. You are free to assume your experiences and mine are the same kind, but don't proselytize about it. You have no basis for that outside your own assumptions, harmonizations and adaptations.

And my suggestion for you is that you cease from peddling mathematical formulas to support your metaphysical theories.

It's silly.

[Gary]

All this means is that you have a handful of naturalistic explanations which are all "possible" but extremely contrived. They require Jesus' disciples, opponents, and other parties involved to have behaved in socio-culturally odd ways, in this particular case, at the right time and place, AT THE SAME TIME AS other parties ALSO behaved in odd ways, for it all to fit (for example, to explain the Empty Tomb and sightings of Jesus together). On the surface this might not sound very unlikely in itself, but the implausibility of each piece, and moreso for the needed set of combined events, can be easily seen when one asks further questions on the mechanics of the events. We have done this throughout this thread and we could go on if you pushed hard enough for any one theory. Still, these things are possible, no one's saying the opposite. If you presuppose there is no God, etc., then you'll have to choose one of these.

However, if you REMOVE the naturalistic restriction, then there are more possibilities. If there is a God, He may have been behind this. So what is the evidence we have for that? Pretty much all of it is explained hand-in-glove; and the more you study the subject, the more you'll realize how thorough was the early Disciples' and Apostles' conviction of what happened, how quick was the theological development that stemmed from the Resurrection event (e.g. near immediate worship of Jesus) (ruling out any stages of "legend"-making in-between, BTW), how transformed their lives were (even unto martyrdom and death), etc. There are several little factors that add to the depth of this thesis the more you consider it, both in 1st Century Judaism and early Christianity. And each alternative theory has issues explaining some or all of these bits as well.

So, WITH the naturalistic assumption, you have to choose one of those "weird", fatefully coincidental theses, since that fits the data best among your self-limited options. WITHOUT it, however, you have to compare those hypotheses with the early Church's proclamation of what they (claimed to have) lived, and see what option explains the data best in this bigger set of alternatives. You have quoted a PDF by some atheist people who claimed that even assuming YHWH's existence and power, the Resurrection thesis is very improbable, on the basis of being a one-of-a-kind event in all of known history, an argument which you have insistently repeated; however, it has been shown that their argumentation freely uses the naturalistic assumptions (e.g. God can't intervene within the world, nor undo biological processes of death, etc.), and left no ground for a God to do anything unprecedented within visible reality, so they kind of argued in a circle.


In summary: I'd say if you're open to the possibility of God, then assess the Christian thesis on its own goodness-of-fit as compared to that of other theses. If you won't believe in the possiblity of God and his power, then leave the Christian case alone and stick to your assumptions, since you aren't evaluating the theory's strengths on its own terms anyway.

I never asked you to admit that a natural explanation is more probable than the Christian supernatural explanation. I simply asked you to respond with a simple yes or no to this question:

Will each of you Christians admit that even though you highly doubt it, it is possible that someone moved the body of Jesus prior to Sunday morning, and, even though you highly doubt it, it is also possible that Jesus was not buried in a tomb, but in an unmarked grave, and, that even though you highly doubt it, it is possible that the alleged appearances of Jesus were due to visions, dreams, hallucinations, false perceptions, or even lies.

If you say, "no", they are not possible, please explain how you can know this. If you say, yes, then you are conceding that there are plausible natural explanations for the early Christian resurrection belief. Probability is a matter of personal opinion, and, yes, one's world view very much plays a role in a person's perception of probability. But I am not asking about probability, I am asking about plausibility (is it possible that something is true).

[Bisto]

And my suggestion for you is that you cease from peddling mathematical formulas to support your metaphysical theories.

It's silly.

Indeed it is. Then stop with the probabilities talk to support your metaphysical assumptions ;). It's contextually unnecessary, it serves the same purpose as talking about evidence assessment the way everyone but me does here consistently. The only reason I've done it thus far is, as I've said before, for your sake .

I never asked you to admit that a natural explanation is more probable than the Christian supernatural explanation. I simply asked you to respond with a simple yes or no to this question:

Will each of you Christians admit that even though you highly doubt it, it is possible that someone moved the body of Jesus prior to Sunday morning, and, even though you highly doubt it, it is also possible that Jesus was not buried in a tomb, but in an unmarked grave, and, that even though you highly doubt it, it is possible that the alleged appearances of Jesus were due to visions, dreams, hallucinations, false perceptions, or even lies.

If you say, "no", they are not possible, please explain how you can know this. If you say, yes, then you are conceding that there are plausible natural explanations for the early Christian resurrection belief. Probability is a matter of personal opinion, and, yes, one's world view very much plays a role in a person's perception of probability. But I am not asking about probability, I am asking about plausibility (is it possible that something is true).

I know you didn't ask for it. I just did it in case you keep inviting your readers to this thread ;-)

I do think a chain of highly unlikely events mashed together could explain the events you have attempted to explain (not all things you just mentioned, but a selected bunch), though I honestly don't think that covers everything that needs to be explained (still, let me suppose you can freely postulate a chain of further coincidences, unexplained factors and whatnot throughout Christian and world history as "possible"). I just do it in the same way I think it is possible one of your kids wrote your last post (though I highly doubt it), or that you're actually a bot programmed by one of my more tech-savvy classmates (though I highly doubt it) or that Mr. Nick here is an undercover atheist trolling us all (though I highly doubt it) . As far as I've seen, I think they are reasonable to dismiss.

[Gary]

Indeed it is. Then stop with the probabilities talk to support your metaphysical assumptions ;). It's contextually unnecessary, it serves the same purpose as talking about evidence assessment the way everyone but me does here consistently. The only reason I've done it thus far is, as I've said before, for your sake .



I know you didn't ask for it. I just did it in case you keep inviting your readers to this thread ;-)

I do think a chain of highly unlikely events mashed together could explain the events you have attempted to explain (not all things you just mentioned, but a selected bunch), though I honestly don't think that covers everything that needs to be explained (still, let me suppose you can freely postulate a chain of further coincidences, unexplained factors and whatnot throughout Christian and world history as "possible"). I just do it in the same way I think it is possible one of your kids wrote your last post (though I highly doubt it), or that you're actually a bot programmed by one of my more tech-savvy classmates (though I highly doubt it) or that Mr. Nick here is an undercover atheist trolling us all (though I highly doubt it) . As far as I've seen, I think they are reasonable to dismiss.

Thank you for stating that it is possible that someone moved Jesus' body prior to Sunday morning; that it is possible that the body was never buried in a rock tomb but in an unmarked hole in the ground; that it is possible that the alleged appearances of the once dead but alive again Jesus were visions, dreams, hallucinations, or lies, and, that it is possible that all these possible explanations can be put together to give a completely natural explanation for the Early Christian Resurrection Belief.

Thank you for not claiming that a natural explanation for the Resurrection Belief is implausible.

That is all I asked for. I don't expect you to believe that this collection of naturalistic explanations for the Resurrection Belief is more probable than your supernatural belief. But I am very happy that we can agree that there is at least one possible, natural explanation to explain the little evidence that we do have. If every other Christian on this thread can say the same that you just have, we can end this discussion.

Admitting plausibility is what matters. Probability is a matter of opinion based on one's world view.

For instance, I personally would believe that it is more probable that Nick is an atheist troll than that a first century dead man walked out of his sealed mausoleum, ate fish with former buddies, and then levitated into outer space to never be seen again.

[Bisto]

Thank you for stating that it is possible that someone moved Jesus' body prior to Sunday morning; that it is possible that the body was never buried in a rock tomb but in an unmarked hole in the ground; that it is possible that the alleged appearances of the once dead but alive again Jesus were visions, dreams, hallucinations, or lies, and, that it is possible that all these possible explanations can be put together to give a completely natural explanation for the Early Christian Resurrection Belief.

Thank you for not claiming that a natural explanation for the Resurrection Belief is implausible.

That is all I asked for. I don't expect you to believe that this collection of naturalistic explanations for the Resurrection Belief is more probable than your supernatural belief. But I am very happy that we can agree that there is at least one possible, natural explanation to explain the little evidence that we do have. If every other Christian on this thread can say the same that you just have, we can end this discussion.

Admitting plausibility is what matters. Probability is a matter of opinion based on one's world view.

For instance, I personally would believe that it is more probable that Nick is an atheist troll than that a first century dead man walked out of his sealed mausoleum, ate fish with former buddies, and then levitated into outer space to never be seen again.

I thought I had said it before already. Haven't they at some point or another? I think you're making a storm out of a teacup, as if this was some sort of victory o_O.

Nonetheless, it would be nice to see some hint that you honestly consider the plausibility of God, the Resurrection argument, etc. Like Adrift et al have said, so far you sound like you're confessing "openness" only to not sound close-minded or something (though you often otherwise do). As I said before, the very concept of "ANYTHING, no matter HOW unlikely, is more probable than a miracle" is quite arbitrary if you're truly open to the theistic worldview, and as has been said, it's "pulpit pounding". I would expect it from Mr. Secular Liberation, since he seems to be openly naturalistic in his approach, but from you it's just imposing an unwarranted restriction in your search for answers.

So, we're back to worldviews like some dozens pages ago... and your dismissal of miracle and related claims, some much more weird than others, as a network of coincidences of all kinds just for the sake of preserving your naturalistic-in-all-but-the-name worldview. How long will this go? Maybe you won't find a video of a reattached limb that you deem credible (God knows, perhaps you will), but how much does a list of such claims have to go on before you say "Okay, that's too much, there's something at work here"? Not God's action by necessity, but claims that seem to be related in nature and definitively have "something odd" about them (aliens conspiring to make miracles seem true? ).

[Gary]

I thought I had said it before already. Haven't they at some point or another? I think you're making a storm out of a teacup, as if this was some sort of victory o_O.

Nonetheless, it would be nice to see some hint that you honestly consider the plausibility of God, the Resurrection argument, etc. Like Adrift et al have said, so far you sound like you're confessing "openness" only to not sound close-minded or something (though you often otherwise do). As I said before, the very concept of "ANYTHING, no matter HOW unlikely, is more probable than a miracle" is quite arbitrary if you're truly open to the theistic worldview, and as has been said, it's "pulpit pounding". I would expect it from Mr. Secular Liberation, since he seems to be openly naturalistic in his approach, but from you it's just imposing an unwarranted restriction in your search for answers.

So, we're back to worldviews like some dozens pages ago... and your dismissal of miracle and related claims, some much more weird than others, as a network of coincidences of all kinds just for the sake of preserving your naturalistic-in-all-but-the-name worldview. How long will this go? Maybe you won't find a video of a reattached limb that you deem credible (God knows, perhaps you will), but how much does a list of such claims have to go on before you say "Okay, that's too much, there's something at work here"? Not God's action by necessity, but claims that seem to be related in nature and definitively have "something odd" about them (aliens conspiring to make miracles seem true? ).

I will bet that I am more open to your world view, friend, than you are to mine. But that is just my opinion.

Here is the thing you have to ask yourself: If the probability of the Resurrection is so heavily based on the reality of current miracles, as Nick suggests, doesn't the fact that modern science and medicine have not validated even one miracle bother you? Either science and medicine are involved in a conspiracy against religion, or, the evidence for miracles is poor.

It's conspiracy theory vs. weak/absent evidence. Which is it?

[One Bad Pig]

I have admitted that the bodily resurrection is possible.

You have also stated that a naturalistic explanation is always more probable, and argue from probability. Your "admission" isn't worth the electrons wasted to send it into the ether. Keep pretending you've managed to convince someone otherwise, since it makes you feel better.

[One Bad Pig]

I will bet that I am more open to your world view, friend, than you are to mine. But that is just my opinion.

You could not possibly be any less open to theism. You've invested way too much energy into attempting to debunk it, and your pride will almost certainly prevent you from going back to it.

Here is the thing you have to ask yourself: If the probability of the Resurrection is so heavily based on the reality of current miracles, as Nick suggests,

It's not. You're the only one here hung up on the probability angle. I don't trust you, based on prior interactions with you, to accurately represent what Nick suggests.

doesn't the fact that modern science and medicine have not validated even one miracle bother you?

Given your definitions of "fact" and "validated", no.

Either science and medicine are involved in a conspiracy against religion, or, the evidence for miracles is poor.

It's conspiracy theory vs. weak/absent evidence. Which is it?

False dichotomy (times two!) for the win.

[Gary]

You have also stated that a naturalistic explanation is always more probable, and argue from probability. Your "admission" isn't worth the electrons wasted to send it into the ether. Keep pretending you've managed to convince someone otherwise, since it makes you feel better.

I have never argued that Christians must accept my view of probability.

Nick has stated that a natural explanation for the Resurrection is possible, however, he denies that he has ever seen a plausible natural explanation. He says this even though I and others have given him several plausible natural explanations, such as: that grave robbers stole the body; that family members moved the body; that Romans moved the body; that Joseph of Arimathea moved the body; that there was no tomb; that the body was tossed into an unmarked grave; that the alleged post death appearances were dreams, visions, or hallucinations. Yet the only evidence Nick gives for how all of these explanations are implausible are broad generalizations and assumptions about a people living two thousand years ago, and, disallowing any exceptions to his generalizations and assumptions.

Why doesn't Nick admit that all these natural explanations are plausible and therefore there are several, plausible, natural explanations for the early resurrection belief?

If conservative Christians would simply admit this, there would be no further need to debate. As stated previously, probability is a matter of opinion, based on one's world view. One's view of probability cannot be proven false.