MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Cyberman]

He's still bitching about the running of the forum even after I called him on it...

Unbelievable.

Place your bets now, ladies and gentlemen.

[The Valkyrie]

[His_Majesty]

That's your opinion.

And your opinion is contrary, right?

Appeal to popularity, and there are 5+ billion who are not, so you can't even claim any kind of a majority. I'm talking about the people who are convinced in THIS thread, by YOUR argument. Stop moving the goalposts.

No matter how many people are unconvinced by my arguments, my argument could still be true...so it isn't a matter of how many I convince...just like it isn't a matter of how many people in this world are Christians.

Beats the hell out of me. But what I note, is that without exception, not a single one of them showed their work either - and so that claim is not taken seriously.

Not taken seriously by who? You?

If you can *prove* that the majority of historians accept the claim, it just might be taken as more than certain people's opinion. You claimed you could. You failed.

Yeah, I failed...I only had quotes and videos from men that have dedicated most of their lives to this kind of work, and would know what the general consensus is on this subject...yeah, epic failure on my part.

So? I acknowledge that *a* man may have existed that the myths are based upon. So what?

What do you mean "So what?"...that is what the entire first part was about.

You claimed you could make a case for demonstrating it's truth. A historical Jesus is plausible, but not proven

It is proven to the vast majority of historians...it isn't proven to some ignorant secular folks in a atheist forum who don't have a clue on the consensus or the historical method.

, and it's wholly irrelevant, because you aren't arguing towards the historical Jesus, you're arguing for a *divine* Jesus

And that is precisely why you people won't readily accept the evidence for the existence of Jesus, because you know that it will eventually lead to the path of a divine Jesus. If the same evidence was presented for any other person in history, there wouldn't be this cold hard denial of the fact.

I'm pretty sure that a given person is an authority on what would be required to prove a particular claim to them.

You are absolutely right.

"pimp"? Did you just call me pimp? LOL

Yeah, and I didn't mean literally either.

Than stop claiming you proved what is merely your opinion, as you did in the OP of Part 2 before we merged it. It's intellectually dishonest, but we've come to expect that - as is refusing to consider material that is presented to them, as you did in this thread not long ago.

You say I didn't, I say I did.

To be perfectly clear, I couldn't give a flying fuck whether a person existed who's life the gospels is based on (the so-called "historical Jesus").

No doubt...everyone won't be saved, obviously.

I do care about honest epistemology and intellectual integrity. All I've seen from you is opinion, assertion, and the same old tired inconclusive bullshit that hasn't changed a whit in the nearly thirty years I've been doing this (obviously, not here).

Kinda remind me of a little segment I watched on pancreatic cancer, and the oncologist said something like (paraphrasing) "there hasn't been any progress on pancreatic cancer for the past 30 years".

That may be true, but the disease isn't any less deadly now, is it?

Compare that to what you said, and....you will get my point

---

And H_M: if you have a problem with the operational staff and the way we run this forum, please come right out and detail your concerns so they can be addressed. If you continue to post snide comments in the way you have been doing, it might be construed as flaming and/or similarly obstructive behaviour and dealt with accordingly.

To use one of your favourite arguments, the vast majority of the member base is perfectly happy with Staff decision making.

I aint trippin.

[Cato]

"...merge shit."

94 pages and you finally say something demonstrable.

"Only now, at the end, do you understand" - Emperor Palpatine

[Jackalope]

HM, I'm just going to let that post of yours stand for the audience in it's fallacy-laden glory.

Toodles!

[His_Majesty]

Sorry, "A" not proven is not equivalent to "A" disproved. Not proven is not a claim of knowledge.

Straw man.

Not in and of itself no. But coupled with reasons for why such evidence would exist were the thing so, it can be evidence of absence. For example, absence of a birth certificate for John Doe in the county records of State X is evidence that John Doe was not born there. And it makes it very likely he was not. But it can never be absolute proof he was not born there because it is not possible to prove a negative.

Then the lack of a birth certificate alone does not prove that John Doe was born there.

To prove a negative in this context is not as you seem to think, to prove something without evidence. To prove a negative is to prove that something does not exist. It is not possible to prove that something does not exist.

We can bypass the philosophical babble and just say that I find that there are good reasons to believe in Christian theism....you people say otherwise.

It doesn't get any more simple than that.

You just gave a practical example of why a negative cannot be proven.
You can't prove there aren't invisible purple nothings on the other side of the sun.

"Nothing" cannot be an entity. So what you've just said is nonsense.

But that doesn't mean they do exist. Your god is an invisible purple nothing.

"Nothing" does not have a color. So what you've just said is nonsense.

It's lack of existence can't be proven because it is not possible to prove a negative.

I believe there are good reasons to believe in God.

But you can't prove god's existence (and neither can much, much, much, brighter men then you).

Based on the evidence that has been presented, I draw the conclusion that the existence of God is more plausible than not.

Therefore until evidence to the contrary is produced, I will not believe in the existence of god or invisible purple nothings.

Again..."nothing" doesn't have a color...so what you've just said is nonsense.

Yes, we can only evaluate what we can read. But we don't give it all the same value. We pay attention to the likelihood of the source's veracity, which is something you obviously do not do.

What makes you say that?

You just finished arguing that because five people lived to more than average age, that the writers of the gospels must also have lived to more than average age.

Not at all..you were making it seem as if just because the average person didn't live past X amount of years, that it was unlikely that the writers of the Gospels did...and my point was it was not impossible for the writers of the Gospels to live past the average life span, considering we know many people during that time that did.

You argued further that they just happened to wait until the extreme old age to write down what must have been the most important events of their times.

For at least the sixth time...you are emphasizing on writing as if that was the only way the story could spread...they told their stories VERBALLY first, as that was an oral society...and eventually their stories were written down.

When something important or exciting happen in your life, do you write it down first, or do you verbally tell someone first? You probably verbally tell someone. So what the hell is the difference between what you would do and what they did? Nothing.

There is no evidence of that and it is an extreme unlikelihood. And the authors themselves make no such claims. That is absurd.

No evidence of what, Jenny?

[Minimalist]

He's still bitching about the running of the forum even after I called him on it...

Unbelievable.

Place your bets now, ladies and gentlemen.

[Jenny A]

Sorry, "A" not proven is not equivalent to "A" disproved. Not proven is not a claim of knowledge.

Straw man.

Not in and of itself no. But coupled with reasons for why such evidence would exist were the thing so, it can be evidence of absence. For example, absence of a birth certificate for John Doe in the county records of State X is evidence that John Doe was not born there. And it makes it very likely he was not. But it can never be absolute proof he was not born there because it is not possible to prove a negative.

Then the lack of a birth certificate alone does not prove that John Doe was born there.

To prove a negative in this context is not as you seem to think, to prove something without evidence. To prove a negative is to prove that something does not exist. It is not possible to prove that something does not exist.

We can bypass the philosophical babble and just say that I find that there are good reasons to believe in Christian theism....you people say otherwise.

It doesn't get any more simple than that.

You just gave a practical example of why a negative cannot be proven.
You can't prove there aren't invisible purple nothings on the other side of the sun.

"Nothing" cannot be an entity. So what you've just said is nonsense.

But that doesn't mean they do exist. Your god is an invisible purple nothing.

"Nothing" does not have a color. So what you've just said is nonsense.

It's lack of existence can't be proven because it is not possible to prove a negative.

I believe there are good reasons to believe in God.

But you can't prove god's existence (and neither can much, much, much, brighter men then you).

Based on the evidence that has been presented, I draw the conclusion that the existence of God is more plausible than not.

Therefore until evidence to the contrary is produced, I will not believe in the existence of god or invisible purple nothings.

Again..."nothing" doesn't have a color...so what you've just said is nonsense.

^This response speaks for itself^

What it demonstrates is that you either can't or won't think. There's no point in further discussion. It's not so much that I disagree with you. It's rather that your lack of ability to reason makes discussion with you about as enlightening as a game of chess with a toddler who wants to play horsey with the knights --or more exactly to roll around giggling on the board.

[DeistPaladin]

You just gave a practical example of why a negative cannot be proven.
You can't prove there aren't invisible purple nothings on the other side of the sun.

"Nothing" cannot be an entity. So what you've just said is nonsense.

But that doesn't mean they do exist. Your god is an invisible purple nothing.

"Nothing" does not have a color. So what you've just said is nonsense.

Ah, but you just don't understand. The invisible purple nothings are so powerful, they can be invisible and purple at the same time and they can be something and nothing at the same time. Isn't that amazing? And the proof that they exist lies in how absurd it is, because no one would make up anything so absurd!

If that sounds ridiculous to you, you now understand how "The Trinity" sounds to us. Jesus is fully human and fully divine, one with his father as part of the same god and yet they are separate persons at the same time, same god being in three separate persons.

[robvalue]

I realized apologists have been looking at this all wrong.

They are worshipping "something". What they are trying to convince us of is that the thing they are worshipping is the most vile and reprehensible character you could imagine, as documented by a book. Why do they want to do that? If I believed in a God, I'd be doing everything I could to convince myself and others than he is anything other than as described.