The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

I've been on vacation for the last week and so have missed the last 20 pages of discussion. However, I believe I did predict that this, the die-for-a-lie argument, would be the conclusion of your long-winded and often copied and pasted "proof" of the resurrection of Jesus. I hope it will not surprise you that we've all heard this argument many times before.

Wow. You truly are prescient. Or is it simply that the arguments in favor of Christianity are stock because they have no need of change? Let's go with that.

Needless to say, the arguments against it are just as shop-worn. But you still want to dance? Whatever. You lead.

The Pre-Failure of Your Position
In all areas of life, we operate by a few simple rules. We would not be able to function otherwise.

1. Anyone claiming something exists has the burden of proof. 
2. The more extraordinary the claim, the evidence to prove the claim must be proportionally extraordinary. 

On point #1, the skeptic NEVER has the burden of proof because it is impossible to prove a negative. I do not have to prove to you that 9/11 was NOT an inside job, that the Loch Ness Monster DOESN'T exist or that UFO abduction stories are false. It is up to the people who believe these things to prove their case.

First, it is possible to prove a negative. Show me a four-sided triangle...or prove to me that you can't. You CAN do it...tt's a philosophical proof based on contradiction. Prove that God is a contradiction and you will have proved that God does not exist.

Second, as I have pointed out in this thread or elsewhere, in science and philosophy, the person claiming that X does not exist has the equal burden of proving his claim. Since science has nothing to say about an immaterial God other than, "No, John, I'm not picking anything up on my scanners, either.", we're into philosophy.

BUT - I am reasonable enough to understand the burden of proof as you have described it if I want to claim that God exist. Additionally, this is your forum, and you have home field advantage. One other point, this thread is not about the existence of God but about historical reliability...or was when I started it. And that is something that can be proven. But I accept the burden. Let's move on.

Neither is it the skeptics job to explain the unknown to you. I don't have to explain how it is that some people believed that they were abducted by aliens or the "strange events" that surround someone's belief that they experienced a ghost. If I am unable to fill in the blanks of our knowledge, that does not mean that the believer is entitled to fill them in with their fantasies. This is called "argument from ignorance", or "just because I can't prove something false doesn't mean it's true."

Thanks. Now explain how I have done this specifically. And we can get to your science-of-the-gaps later.

Neither is it valid reasoning to assume that because you can't imagine any other explanation, doesn't mean that it is true. This is the logical fallacy called "argument from incredulity". Just because you can't imagine how the early followers of Jesus would have come to believe something that was not true or die for that belief is not a logically valid reason to assume that it is true. 

On point #2, you, like other Christians may deny it but you operate by this rule as well.

So, what you're saying is: There MUST be an explanation for Christianity apart from the resurrection because miracles don't happen. You just aren't smart enough or clear-minded enough to have imagined what some of those possibilities are, and the fact that you haven't come up with a reasonable (read non-supernatural) explanation does not prove the resurrection occurred.

Gee, presupposition much?

---

Consider the following examples:

• I had lunch with my wife yesterday.
  
• I had lunch with President Obama yesterday.
  
• I had lunch with my dead father yesterday, who's back from the dead and feeling much better now.
  

OK, what standard of evidence would you require to be convinced of the above claims? 

The first claim is mundane. You would probably accept it with my testimony alone.

The second claim is extraordinary. You would probably need news footage from a reputable media source.

The third claim is ridiculous, and on par with the ones you make about Jesus. You would require abundant and verifiable evidence. Four eye-witnesses would not be sufficient. Even presented with news reports from dependable journalistic sources you would still be within the bounds of rational skepticism to suspect the possibility of a hoax. 

---

Are you starting to understand why you "pre-failed"?

Well, I'm starting to understand how your pre-suppositions stack the deck, if that's what you mean. 

How even before I offer any rebuttal, you have failed to meet your burden of proof?

If there is a coherent thought in there, I can't find it. An editing problem, perhaps? Try again.

I'm splitting the response here for a bio break.