(June 21, 2016 at 6:51 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:(June 21, 2016 at 5:51 am)Ignorant Wrote: 1) I am getting at the fact that |a misinterpretation of a misunderstood experience of normal psychiatric phenomena which follow after the death of a loved one| is more plausible than somebody making up the story. I'm trying to give you a more defensible position with which to deny the claims of the apostles as a demonstration that your criteria for judging plausibility are inadequate/incomplete.
2) Of course they had intentions and were capable of deceit. It IS unscientific, however, to assign to them the intention to deceive/invent based on the events being extraordinary which they record. There are other hypotheses which stand up to more scientific scrutiny than does the invention hypothesis, but which also deny the theological nature of the narrative and letters. Your dichotomy "either its true OR they made it up", is a false one. In other words, is a bunch of ancient illiterate Jews making up a fantastical theological story more plausible than a bunch of ancient illiterate Jews accurately recording true fantastical theological events which they witnessed? Maybe so. BUT THEN there are ALSO more plausible non-Christian/non-theist explanations than "they made it up".
All I said was someone making up a resurrection story is more plausible than someone actually rising from the dead. Im not sure that someone hallucinating a resurrection would be more plausible than someone making up a resurrection, it would depend on the circumstances. A hallucination would however be more plausible than an actual resurrection, since hallucinations, just like lies, are known to also occur.
Did you know, that if one of your loved ones dies, and within 6 months, you have a "vision" of them and interact with that vision, that is not considered pathological? Instead, it is considered a normal human response? There is no treatment or medication recommended in that situation.
