(July 5, 2015 at 2:47 pm)Pizza Wrote: The court of law analogy doesn't really help because someone being guilty or not guilty is not uncommon like a bodily resurrection. If we go with beyond a reasonable doubt bodily resurrection doesn't look so good given that corpses don't normally resurrect after being dead for days, which casts doubt on the conclusion. Claiming there was a bodily resurrection isn't purely a historical claim, it's a claim about biology of corpses. So, biological evidence is needed not pure conjure by armchair historians.

---

What counts as sufficient evidence? People just claiming something happened?  If someone claimed you were a murderer or a rapist is that enough evidence or would more be needed?  How about if you accused of raping and murdering people you never met in another state or country with astral projection powers? Is mere testimony enough?

---

What "scholars?" What expertise make them authoritative on bodily resurrections?  How many  bodily resurrections have these scholars seen or tested? How do they research bodily resurrections?
Why prefer hypothesis over another? Why physical resurrection produce by Yahweh over one produced by mindless natural processes? Why not the swoon theory? People do sometimes survive things that normally kill people, ex. people surviving being shot in the face. Why not other paranormal hypotheses like Jesus was a ghost? Why not a demonic resurrection and Jesus was a false prophets? Why not Jesus was an alien and not a god? Why are we even assuming deities resurrect people from the dead?

(July 6, 2015 at 7:03 pm)Pizza Wrote: The point at issue is the whether there was a resurrection of the dead body of Jesus. This is a claim about biology. Dead bodies don't normally resurrect. Something as unlikely to me as ghosts existing and the apostles seeing a ghost, not a resurrected body, would be more likely than a body resurrecting. People report ghost sightings more than bodily resurrections, this is all common sense.
Give me evidence like biologists resurrecting dead people after days of being dead, and I'd likely change my mind or at the very least be more sympathetic to Christianity. It doesn't matter how reliable the gospels are. They are not enough. Claiming a dead man walks again is a claim about biology of the human body. You can't ignore biology and the evidence on this. Assuming theism is not enough, because again the question at issue would be whether god causes dead men to walk. According to the common sense evidence, dead bodies don't get up after days, so god likely doesn't resurrect the dead. That's a natural theology argument against the resurrection of Jesus for you. Resurrections aren't a dime-a-dozen and if they are that would undermine the theological importance of Jesus's resurrection.
You can't just assume god did in fact resurrect Jesus, because that assumes Christian views of god are true which begs the question because the goal for the arguing for the resurrection is to argue for the truth of the Christian view of god.
Please stop dancing around these problems.

(July 7, 2015 at 1:17 pm)Pizza Wrote:

(July 7, 2015 at 9:33 am)Randy Carson Wrote: You're right. They don't NORMALLY resurrect. Here's what we know:

Jesus died by crucifixion.
The women who went to the tomb found it empty.
The disciples believed that they saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion and were willing to suffer rather than recant.
Paul, an sworn enemy of the Church, was suddenly converted.
James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly converted.

What theory do you have that account for these facts BETTER than the resurrection of Jesus?

I get the feeling you're not listening to me and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Why are we to hold the explanation that there was a bodily resurrection more likely than other explanations of the gospel writings? The simplest, and most consistent with the facts about dead bodies is that the resurrection narrative is (1) disciples lied and died for it because recanting wasn't a live option for them (ex. the Romans didn't care and would kill them regardless of recanting, and it would be better to die a heroic martyr than as a lying con-man), (2) outright folklore like urban legends we have today which given that historians don't know who actually wrote the gospel accounts this is very likely. There, I named two explanations that have the explanatory virtues of simplicity, not ad hoc and consistent with and supported by biology and commonsense folk psychology. My explanations are even consistent with a god existing and natural theology. What do you actually have? If you assume Christian views on god and metaphysics you beg the question against me. So, if you want to get me to Christianity you need to back up and defend those claims. We need common ground here and I'm just not seeing it. If it's okay to argue in a circle in the bigger web of arguments then I see no reason why rivals to Christianity like other religions, irreligious theism, and strong atheism can't argue the same way.
As for supernaturalist explanations, "Jesus was a ghost and not a resurrected body" is more likely than bodily resurrection since people report seeing ghosts all the time.

If we are going to allow for events that conflict with regularities like dead bodies not normally resurrecting after days, then why not allow for other such irregularities like people willing to dying for a lie, naturalistic resurrection, swoon theory, ghost-Jesus, Alien-Jesus, false prophet-Jesus? Humans reason using regularities and generalizations there is no way around this. If I throw them out I'm going to have no way to decide which irregularity to choose.

Note, you can't just use gospel writings as evidence of the likelihood of the your explanation when they are what you're aiming to explain. That's would be viciously circular reasoning.

(July 7, 2015 at 8:56 pm)Pizza Wrote: "I agree that under normal circumstances, dead bodies don't resurrect. Okay, so what? All that biology can tell us is that a person is not going to rise from the dead by natural causes. But this does not apply to Jesus’ resurrection, since we are not claiming that Jesus came back to life naturally."

Just slap the supernatural label to it and no evidence outside of biased anecdotes is needed. I see clearly now. I better convert to Christianity because that line of reasoning couldn't be applied by anyone to defend absurd claims like a wizard stealing penises supernaturally. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9701/18/briefs/...penis.html
My pet cat wrote this post supernaturally, science can't refute that. Don't ask how. It just happened.
"The writers of the New Testament asserted that it was God who raised Jesus from the dead. Science must be mute on this point."

Because ancient people know better than modern biologists. I agree science must be mute and historians can talk all they want. No limits for them because.....magic. Historians use magic all the time as explanations. Historians never appeal to science.

"Additionally, the resurrection is not an isolated event; it occurred in the religious context that gives it meaning. This context includes such facts as Jesus’ personal claims to divinity, his deeds that appeared miraculous in nature, and possibly even his predictions concerning his resurrection. Within this context, Jesus’ resurrection is right at home."

We know Jesus performed miracles because ancient sources say so, fuck science, fuck common sense. Also fuck inductive reasoning and the principle of analogy. We needs them? I love Jesus.
"On the other hand, if miracles are possible and if a God does exist, then the resurrection is far more plausible; in fact, in light of the testimony of the gospels, it is probable."
Because god is resurrecting people like all time. Just the other day I walked down the street and tripped over a resurrected person. It's a well known fact of biology these happen. Last Tuesday god turn me into a newt....I got better.

God is powerful but fine tuning the universe so that con men should die for a lie is out of the question.  Swoon theory? God can't do that. Spiritual resurrection? You must be an stupid sinner.