Belief in Christ is evidence based

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

What about events which are natural but just beyond our science?

Are you suggesting resurrection could be natural?! and you call me irrational. Idiot.

[Andrew66]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Are you suggesting resurrection could be natural?! and you call me irrational. Idiot.

I'm just challenging your way of thinking.

Medical advances are always improving. Is it not conceivable that an advanced alien race perhaps could mend a broken body and bring it back to life under certain circumstances.?

You will say you don't BELIEVE (this is a faith based position) that this is possible, as there is presently,

No evidence of alien life!
No evidence of that any technology no matter how advanced could cause a "resurrection". etc.

But - ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR ABSENCE!

Your assertion therefore remains FAITH based (faith that a resurrection could not in any world under any circumstance occur), not EVIDENCE based. Get it??

Open you mind!

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

Your assertion therefore remains FAITH based (faith that a resurrection could not in any world under any circumstance occur), not EVIDENCE based. Get it??

Wrong again. I would have no problem changing my mind if adequate evidence was presented to support 'resurrection' - Get it?

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

None of your examples have accepted historic evidentiary pieces validated by historic scholarship comparable to the Jesus Resurrection narrative. .

I wonder if the plethora of christianity supporting 'experts' is in any way related to the billions of $$$$$ still to be made out of its gullible faithful followers? If there was cash to be made out of other, older myths, I'll wager their supporting 'experts would soon appear.

[Michael]

Andrew66 wrote

Medical advances are always improving. Is it not conceivable that an advanced alien race perhaps could mend a broken body and bring it back to life under certain circumstances.?

You will say you don't BELIEVE (this is a faith based position) that this is possible, as there is presently,

No evidence of alien life!
No evidence of that any technology no matter how advanced could cause a "resurrection". etc.

It looks like you've conflated Possibility with Probability. This is why possibility is not a good metric to base belief on - and in fact I would put forward that most people in their day-to-day lives would not base something being possible as a high enough standard. There are many things that hypothetically could happen that we would never rely on. It's really only in defence of their "faith" that many suddenly lower their evidence metrics from "probable" to "possible"

For instance, it's possible Bill Gates could randomly choose a phone book (easily possible), randomly flip through it and choose a person (easily possible), and give half of his fortune to whoever that random person he chooses is (definitely possible for him to do). That random person could be you, or it could be me (both possible situations)

So far we're still comfortably in the realm of possible.

But is it probable? Is it likely to happen?

I can tell you for a fact I'm not going out buying a Porsche based on the possibility of it, and I would wager neither are you.

This is why skepticism - real, proper skepticism, not this "open your mind" bullshit - applies further metrics beyond "possible" for evaluating a claim.

There are many things that fall within the realm of possibility, but that are so low on the probability scale as to be irrelevant until further evidence can be presented for them.

[Andrew66]

Michael welcome and thanks for your comments, they are absolutely spot on.

Where the heck did you come from, for once a "smart" and insightful reply to my posts! Again welcome, so refreshing compared to the idiots on here.

To your point I agree 100%.

All I'm doing here, is not so much to argue for the truth of the resurrection (which you have amply described, is only maybe Possible but not, from a rationale point of view Probable) - although the evidence (the 4 resurrection points) does add a little weight to the possibility I dare suggest - which can therefore be utilized by Theists to strengthen their faith.

What I aim to show is the hypocrisy of Atheists, who assert Theists always start with faith and look backwards to build there own evidence accordingly, where in the resurrection narrative the opposite is technically true.

Atheists start with the belief in the impossibility (or extreme improbability) of the resurrection, and then reject the historical evidence. Theists in this case simply believe in the evidence, if though the outcome is admittedly improbable, they accept where the evidence leads.

[Kinich Ahau]

I think we all agreed that there is no historical evidence just a story. You should stop using those words.

[Michael]

Andrew66 wrote

Michael welcome and thanks for your comments, they are absolutely spot on.

Where the heck did you come from, for once a "smart" and insightful reply to my posts! Again welcome, so refreshing compared to the idiots on here.

I've been in and around here for a few years now, though I tend to only post very sporadically these days. I'm generally a bit more even-handed in my responses, but that doesn't mean I won't be an asshole if it's warranted.

To your point I agree 100%.

Great, let's lock it up, I guess we're done here.

All I'm doing here, is not so much to argue for the truth of the resurrection (which you have amply described, is only maybe Possible but not, from a rationale point of view Probable) - although the evidence (the 4 resurrection points) does add a little weight to the possibility I dare suggest - which can therefore be utilized by Theists to strengthen their faith.

You may have mis-typed saying "add a little weight to the possibility" - did you mean probability?
Possibility is binary - it either is or it isn't. Something isn't "more likely" or "less likely" to be possible - that sort of sliding scale is where probability comes in and again this is a trap people fall in to all the time with possibility, believing that something simply being possible lends it any credence.

Typically when dealing with possibility if we don't know whether something is or isn't possible, I tend to aquiesce towards allowing it as possible, because to me possibility is far, far less important than probability - and as I said earlier, something being possible does little to make it relevant. It's possible there's someone following me everywhere I go, somehow concealing themselves through means I'm unaware of and making tiny changes in my environment to screw with me - but I'm not going to treat that idea with any semblence of gravitas unless further evidence can be established for it. Why? Because the probability of it is so low as to not be worth considering based on what I know and absent any evidence to support it.

What I aim to show is the hypocrisy of Atheists, who assert Theists always start with faith and look backwards to build there own evidence accordingly, where in the resurrection narrative the opposite is technically true.

Atheists start with the belief in the impossibility (or extreme improbability) of the resurrection, and then reject the historical evidence. Theists in this case simply believe in the evidence, if though the outcome is admittedly improbable, they accept where the evidence leads.

I'm sure you've heard phrases such as "shifting the burden of proof" in response this claim before and clearly they haven't swayed you from it, so I'm going to steer away from that for now and say this is very reminiscent to me of presuppositionalism - this idea that the only way to find truth is to start with the idea that the bible is devine revelation and to filter the world through that lens. This is putting the cart before the horse, as they say.

[Andrew66]

Michael wrote

You may have mis-typed saying "add a little weight to the possibility" - did you mean probability?

Yes, thank you for correcting me.

Michael wrote

I'm sure you've heard phrases such as "shifting the burden of proof" in response this claim before and clearly they haven't swayed you from it, so I'm going to steer away from that for now and say this is very reminiscent to me of presuppositionalism - this idea that the only way to find truth is to start with the idea that the bible is devine revelation and to filter the world through that lens. This is putting the cart before the horse, as they say.

I think Michael your latter comment is a trifle unfair.

With regards to the 4 historic points which support the Resurrection (which individually are generally accepted by Historic scholarship - including by atheistic and agnostic scholars), there is absolutely no need to declare that scriptures within the Bible are divinely inspired. The scholars can and do look at the scriptures as they would with any ancient historical record.

As I've asserted before, that non theist scholars nevertheless, in spite of the historic evidence, refute the Resurrection, is based on their bias that extra-ordinary, seemingly impossible events (i.e. dead man rising) are very very unlikely to have occurred.

And don't get me wrong, its not their fault.

Since historic scholarship is based on probabilities of things likely to have happened, historic scholarship cannot unfortunately support miraculous events - even if they really did occur.

I agree however that for a rationale human being to actually believe in the truth of the Ressurection, it is very helpful to have a Christian world view - and the truth of the Christianity requires supporting evidence.

The main evidence is the testimony, including from eye witnesses, to the truth of the Resurrection - and that the apostles really seemed to believe this truth by their later actions in forwarding the teachings of the faith at risk to their own lives.

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

I agree however that for a rationale human being to actually believe in the truth of the Ressurection, it is very helpful to have a Christian world view - and the truth of the Christianity requires supporting evidence.

Here, I'll correct you on this one - no charge.

I agree however that for a rationale human being to actually believe in the truth complete bullshit of the Ressurection, it is very helpful necessary to have a deluded Christian world view - and the truth bullshit of the Christianity requires has no supporting evidence.

[Michael]

Andrew66 wrote

With regards to the 4 historic points which support the Resurrection (which individually are generally accepted by Historic scholarship - including by atheistic and agnostic scholars), there is absolutely no need to declare that scriptures within the Bible are divinely inspired. The scholars can and do look at the scriptures as they would with any ancient historical record.

I'm going to stop you there for a second, because there's two things I need to get in to.

Firstly, I don't care about the resurrection, I don't care about arguing about the resurrection. In fact, I don't care about the bible in general, or arguing about the bible (though I am capable of doing so and do on occasions that necessitate it).

Whereas you likely have (you'll have to excuse me, I'm not familiar entirely with your worldview and am making an assumption based on the topic of conversation) what we might call a "top down" approach [God is real > therefore the bible is his inspired word > therefore the bible is reliable > therefore we should view the world through it's teachings].
I take what might be considered more of a "bottom up" approach [is it possible for a divine being to exist > if so, is it likely one exists > if so, is it likely this being is in anyway involved with us > if so, is this being personal > if so, is this being known to us > if so, from which known religion is it > if Christianity, is the bible it's divine word > if so, maybe the resurrection is worth talking about].

So hopefully you can see why I don't care about the resurrection, or arguing about the resurrection. I'm not even convinced at the "is it likely one exists" stage.


Secondly - that's a huge claim saying atheistic and agnostic scholars agree that the resurrection took place, so let me just make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You are arguing that atheistic and agnostic scholars - who don't believe in divine intervention by the virtue of the definition of atheistic and agnostic - believe Jesus rose from the dead through divine intervention?

Or are you arguing that they accept the resurrection as something else? You need to elucidate that point a bit more before we can have any sort of discussion regarding it.

As I've asserted before, that non theist scholars nevertheless, in spite of the historic evidence, refute the Resurrection, is based on their bias that extra-ordinary, seemingly impossible events (i.e. dead man rising) are very very unlikely to have occurred.

This part makes me especially confused, considering just above you made the claim that atheistic and agnostic scholars accept the resurrection - yet a few sentences later criticising those same scholars for refuting it.
I need clarification here before I can make any consideration of your argument.

[Smellyoldgit]

Michael wrote

This part makes me especially confused, considering just above you made the claim that atheistic and agnostic scholars accept the resurrection - yet a few sentences later criticising those same scholars for refuting it.
I need clarification here before I can make any consideration of your argument.

I did have difficulty deciding if this fell under the "Trolling Fuckwit" or the "Full of Shit" phallusy. Prepare for the verbal gymnastics and back pedalling to make things clear.

[Michael]

My body is ready

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

You've just proven my point dick wad.

I'm not saying the resurrection evidence is weak, but even weak evidence is still evidence.

I have strong evidence that you're an idiot. Even still, you have not provided any evidence, weak or not. I know you're stupid, so I'll simplify it for you:

Zero evidence is not weak evidence, it's no evidence.

[Andrew66]

HI Michael

I also use the bottom up approach.

I think the problem is that because you don't care about the Resurrection and bible that much, who haven't made yourself acquainted with what's going on in New Testament scholarship.

If you look at one of my early "tweets" on this thread I show a selected caption on a debate between Atheist New Testament scholar Bart Erhman and Theologian Dr. William Lane Craig.

For your ease of reference what is learned in this debate is.

1) Jesus died on the cross (this is generally accepted by atheistic, agnostic and theistic biased historic scholarship)
2) Jesus was buried in tomb (this is generally accepted by atheistic, agnostic and theistic biased historic scholarship)
3) Jesus's tomb was found empty shortly after (this is generally accepted by atheistic, agnostic and theistic biased historic scholarship)
4) Jesus was seen and interacted with a plurality of people after the tomb was found vacant (this is generally accepted by atheistic, agnostic and theistic biased historic scholarship)

As a side point, those apostle who saw Jesus went on, despite it being very politically incorrect and dangerous to do so, and without any apparent benefit, to preach Christ was risen, and then Christianity.

The above has nothing to do with any belief that God Exists or the Bible is inspired - the above is based on what you might call proper bottom up historic scholarship.

It is only the conclusion to what the four points seem to imply (i.e the truth to a miracle, the Resurrection) where theist vs atheistic scholarship differs. Atheistic scholars view the study of history through an atheistic lens, that the world in the past must act and be limited to what is known to science at present. Dead men don't come to life etc.


History is a study of probabilities, so based on a knowledge based presupposition it is improbable that the Resurrection actually happened, so at least one of points 1 through 4 must be wrong, even though each one individually stands up to impassioned scrutiny.

The Theistic scholars cry fowl, it is unfair to presuppose that a God does not exist, and miraculous events cannot occur. One cannot conclusively therefore dismiss the Resurrection.

So its back to probabilities. But since there is at least a shred of evidence for Christ's Resurrection according to dispassionate historic scholarship, this serves as a basis for faith for the masses.

Do my comments make a little more sense now?