Ask a Traditional Catholic

[The Valkyrie]

Very clever, Jenny. But I am becoming wise to the way the word games are played in this forum. In post 295, Nope said there is no God. That is a positive claim. But you know she never claimed to be able to prove it, so you asked the question in such a way as to make it look like no evidence is required. Very, very clever.
 

No, not particularly clever.  Very ordinary in fact.  That's the way all positive claims are dealt with, unicorns included.  If you say there are no unicorns, it's highly unlikely anyone will say prove it because that's not the way the burden of proof works. What we expect is for unicorn believers to prove unicorns.  It's only when we reach god that you want to turn the rules of burden of proof on their head.

As you also know, there IS evidence for the resurrection which would support Jesus' claims of divinity.

So, it's not that there is NO evidence...just none that you are willing to accept for reasons known only to yourself.

I'll be happy to tell you why.  The evidence for unicorns consists of descriptions of them in bestiaries, a few classical references, tapestries, and the missidentification of the the narwhal horn.   It's far from sufficient.  The evidence for the resurrection consists of three anonymous accounts (one of which has only an angle saying see empty tomb) written at least three decades after the event and obviously not  by eye witness, a faked shroud, and a vision by Paul.  Looks about even evidence to me with unicorns being the more likely of the two as a horned horse or deer isn't really all that unlikely though one that heals people with it's horn and only appears to virgins approaches the unlikelihood of the resurrection.  Joseph Smith's golden tablets are more likely as at least we have some actual eyewitness testimony.  Though given the claim, that's far from sufficient for the tablets either.

And, don't forget, unicorns are mentioned in the bible so they must be real.