We can be certain of NO resurrection - A Response

[Esquilax]

Esq-

This is fair. We will ultimately have to decide what to do with the accounts of magic.

Consequently, I think it is reasonable to establish several other things first:

1. Jesus existed.

I'm a bit shaky on this one, but willing to grant it for the sake of argument. I think the lack of contemporary references to Jesus is strange, given his supposed importance at the time, but it also doesn't matter to me, because the existence of a guy and the accuracy of the claims made about him are different questions.

2. The gospels were written early enough to have been authored by eyewitnesses.

I guess, though we do need to keep in mind the time difference between the purported events and the time they were written about too.

3. The gospels WERE written by eyewitnesses or people who had access to them.

And now you've lost me, because the gospels are anonymous.

4. The gospels are reliable in the minor details that can be verified through internal evidence, external corroboration, archaeological support, etc.

This is an irrelevant point, because a book can make ten true mundane claims and then make an eleventh false extraordinary one. Prior true claims do not make additional claims within the same reference true, and each claim needs to be examined on its own merits. Reliability does not equal infallibility.

IOW, at some point, one's opinion of the gospels crosses over from incredible to credible. Once you can honestly say, "You know, I think these guys may have been telling the truth", then faith is not far away.

Except that there's still a big difference in how one should approach mundane claims versus extraordinary ones, and that influences how one interacts with the bible. Mundane claims can be supported by textual accounts, so for basic archaeological or historical claims I'm willing to run alongside that train for a bit without issue. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no amount of textual reference can cover for that, mainly for the reason that, if I were to lower my standards of evidence for supernatural claims to "it was written about in an otherwise reliable book," then I'd be forced to also accept numerous other claims that aren't sufficiently supported. Hell, I could easily write a book that's ninety nine percent accurate account, and one percent completely fabricated supernatural account, and under your standards, where mundane reliability is sufficient to establish supernatural events, that book would be entirely believable.

When someone can knowingly write a false story and still trip your conditions for a true account, there's something wrong with your standards.

But I don't actually believe there is an absence of evidence. I simply state that for YOUR benefit since YOU believe there is no evidence.

Sure, that's fine. But the "absence of evidence..." deal is still flawed for the reasons I explained, meaning that if you're saying it for my benefit, it doesn't really benefit anyone.

Oh, there IS evidence, alright...lots of it. But not coercive evidence that FORCES you to believe.

Coercive evidence is not a thing; you're failing to take into account human stubbornness. There is no amount of evidence that could "force" anyone to believe anything, because human beings are remarkably creative when it comes to finding ad hoc workarounds for their untrue beliefs. We can literally go into space and see that the Earth is round, but we still have the flat earth society. We've been to the moon, but there are still folks who seriously think that it's a demonic hologram and not in the sky at all. Airports definitely exist, yet I can show you youtube videos of guys insistent that all aircraft are actually demons in disguise and carry no passengers.

Evidence does not force belief. No matter how strong what you present is, you'll always find people willing to re-route to retain what they already believe. All evidence can do is induce rational people to change position based on their pre-existing belief that it is best to rationally consider evidence and the variables surrounding it and alter their beliefs accordingly. This idea that a certain amount of evidence- that I would simply call "sufficient evidence"- would somehow make it impossible to disbelieve is simply wrong, and it's weird to see so many christians saying otherwise when you can find an equal number of christians asserting that if the bible says that 2+2 equalled five, they would believe that over the blindingly obvious evidence that it is otherwise.