From atheism to Christianity? How so?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

And You just linked me a William Lane Craig book. That guy is a dumbass, he's a creationist. He has no respect for evidence or the scientific method.

I don't think William Lane Craig is a creationist. Are you unwilling to consider evidence for the resurrection from any source other than one that doesn't believe it happened?

You did not reply to a lot of my previous post. I'm going to take it that you've conceded the points?

Anyway, WLC, ok I looked it (I'm sorry, they blend into each other, these apologists) and he is an ID proponent. Well same shit, isn't it?

As to why I won't take his word for it, which I should think is quite obvious, let me put it this way, would you trust an engineer to perform surgery? Then why should I take the word of someone who has no education or experience in history or archaeology and is the very definition of a biased on Jesus's resurrection? He doesn't have the intellectual honesty to recluse himself from biological "debates", he basically spends his entire career lying. His doctorate isn't from an accredited college, which means he's not a real doctor but as you're a fan, you should know he insists on being called one. This guy has 0 integrity and 0 respect for evidence, as I have said before.

Pick a historian or an archaeologist that isn't an apologist by profession. Shouldn't be too hard if it's such an established "fact", should it?

GIVE ME the evidence from other sources regarding the resurrection. It's quite simple, I've already explained why you cannot use the same thing as claim and evidence. It does discredit the idea a lot. Do you not understand the concept of legends? If you look at history, every prominent ruler has a mystical story tied to them, usually a prophetic dream or a miraculous occurrence at birth. Am I to believe all of that just because someone had the audacity to come up with it? Actually history is constantly being verified by looking at multiple sources and archaeological findings, both of which you have admitted the resurrection does not have.

Multiple attestation increases our confidence in a source, but only having one source is not a reason to discredit it.

No but you definitely cannot claim that it happened. The source has to be discredited based on its own properties, not its claims. If it is a legit source, its claims still has to be supported by other sources.

The Old Testament, for example, was the only source for the existence of the Hittite civilization until archaeology confirmed it more recently. If archaeology had never confirmed it, would you be justified in saying the Hittites didn't exist?

Without archaeology you wouldn't be justified in saying that it does. Do you understand now, how this thing works? Just because I claim a I have a car doesn't prove I have a car but it doesn't prove I don't have one either. But without seeing an actual car it would be dishonest of you to tell someone else you know for sure I have a car. Well dishonest or gullible.

That is what your theory that the bible cannot be the only source for a historical event seems to be saying.

Well I just explained this. Hopefully this time you get it. My claim of having a car is not proof of having a car. That's what I'm saying.

Before you get mixed up, just because one part of the bible has some basis doesn't mean the entire thing is real. I want to point out once again that even though you found a Hittite civilization, it is not proof that what happened to the hittites in the bible happened in real life. Do you understand the level of evidence I require now?

Why does this rule apply only to the bible and not other historical documents?

It applies to all.

I'm not sure how you thik archaeology would confirm the resurrection in the first place. If they found the empty tomb, for instance, how would you prove it was empty when Jesus rose from the dead?

I think having someone resurrected you would get at least a lot of different sources describing the same thing happening. (The bible is one source, which has been heavily altered to suit political purposes since it was first compiled, another reason why it should be discredited as a source altogether). By the way, isn't it dishonest to claim that something happen and then when asked to prove it, say, well it's the nature of this event to not leave proofs behind. Then how can you claim it happened in the first place?!

In summary, you only have the bible for resurrection. Yet this qualifies as historical while the Qur'an which states Jesus is not god doesn't qualify as a historical and factual document.

The reason you're not winning this argument is because you're defending something that cannot be defended, no amount of twisting will change reality.