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

[DeistPaladin]

So you can't conclusively say "there is no 6'7 guy in China named "Fei Long".

Mundane claims require only testimony. Even out of the ordinary claims like the existence of an honest Chicago politician deserve exploration with skeptical reservation.

Extraordinary claims made with no evidence to back them up can be rejected without evidence to back up the rejection. This is because our demand for evidence scales with the nature of the claim.

The problem is you would have to use science to explain shit like life from nonlife, and consciousness from matter...and I don't think your or anyone else can do that.

Ouch, two logical fallacies in one run-on sentence. How efficient.

1. The skeptic is not under obligation to know everything. Claiming you can fill in with GodDidIt is a classic God of the Gaps style Argument from Ignorance.
2. Your statement implies the false dilemma of "either Jesus did it or abiogenesis." How about Allah? How about the Jewish Yahweh? How about Nature's God seeded life and it evolved from there?

You can't even prove that life can come from nonlife naturally...prove that first and then worry about the supernatural...don't take a course in calculus before you've taken algebra.

Non Sequitur fallacy.

First, maybe God has properties and limitations that make It knowable and therefore natural. Second, just because there might have been a supernatural First Cause doesn't mean we don't live in a natural universe now.

Subjective. I think supernatural claims meet their burden of proof...to me, but heyyy..I aint mad at cha'.

You can think that. You're just wrong. Claiming yet undiscovered supernatural entities places the burden on you. My rejecting such unsupported claims places no such burden on me. That's how logic works.