Atheism is unreasonable

[Mister Agenda]

Do you know for sure that Julius Caesar existed? Or are you committing the taxi cab fallacy?

No, but the confidence level is much higher, especially regarding his thoughts given his own accounts of his military campaigns. Are you going to trot out your taxi cab every time I make a reasonable point?

So what? King Tut's reign wasn't well-documented, when he spent 8 years on the throne...the same length of time as the President of the U.S, and the President's adventures are well-documented...so why not a king?

So we shouldn't be too confident of King Tut's adventures given the lack of detail.

If they actually died as martyrs, then it proves everything.

Does that reasoning apply to martyrs of other religions as well, or is it special for Jesus? If they actually died as martyrs, it proves they died for what they believed. It doesn't tell us what they believed, and it doesn't make what they believed true, any more than Heaven's Gate cultists dying for what they believed means there really was a mother ship coming for their souls.

It was a physical resurrection.

That's the most popular version among Christians of today, yes.

An omniscient being would know about the changes, right?

If the omniscient being knows about them, they are what it foresaw, and wouldn't BE changes. 'I see in the future that the future will be changed thusly' isn't very coherent.

Good question

If you think about it, God doesn't have to have all of the powers attributed to their fullest possible extent in order to do everything he is supposed to have done. In fact, the stories make more sense if he has some limits. For instance, God frequently is depicted as having emotional reactions to events, which seems odd if he's seen them coming for millions of years. If his omniscience is limited to what it's logically possible for him to know, and free will makes people's actions somewhat impossible to predict, it might not be logically possible to know every detail of the future, though he could still know each event as it unfolds and predict everything that is predictable. Just a thought.

Well, I mean not even God can do what is logically impossible, like squared circles and one-sided sticks./quote]

You might be surprised at how many Christians would assert God can perform paradoxical things with justifications like 'he is the author of logic so he isn't bound by logic'. Don't sell yourself short on having a more reasonable perspective.

[quote='His_Majesty' pid='796060' dateline='1415921093']
Then accept a debate regarding the Historicity of the Resurrection, or are you all talk?

Um, a debate would be more talking, so that's one of the stupidest challenges I've ever been offered. There's no record of the events of the resurrection outside of the Gospels written at least decades later. Logically, the Romans would have noticed this bit from the crucifixion, in fact it is so likely they would have noticed it that an explanation is required for why they neglected to record it:

Matt 27:50-54 “Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.”

The dead were walking the streets of Jerusalem...and no one thought to write it down until at least 40 years later? Now THAT stretches belief. And if the crucifixion is fanciful, still more the resurrection, with each Gospel having a different version and a claim for 500 witnesses without naming any and none of them writing it down as far as we know.

Jesus may have been historical, but his supposed miracles don't rise above the level of legend.

---

You posited the theory to work for both interpretations...the finite interpretation, and the eternal interpretation.

So A is A and A is B at the same time.

That a theory isn't changed in either case doesn't mean both are the case. It just means the theory doesn't establish which one is the case. No contradiction of identiy involved.