Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Randy Carson]

Actually, you do. You need to have an explanation that is better than the resurrection; otherwise, the resurrection IS the best explanation of the facts, and knowing this will haunt you because you do not want it to be true.

So, got something?

No, I actually don't.

I don't need a theory for the origins of the universe better than 'magic pink unicorn created it' to reject that theory as implausible.

Lol. As you almost found out, there are many things that haunt me, Randy, but resurrection is not one of them.

I don't know, Randy. I'm not even convinced Jesus existed and died, because I don't have enough information to make a judgement.

But what I do know is that there hasn't been one documented case of a human being coming back to life after being dead for three days.

And based on that information and the unconvincing nature of your evidence, I reject your theory of resurrection.

A ridiculous violation of basic laws of biology is not the best explanation. Ever heard of Occam's razor?

This is just another of your beloved god of the gaps argument. [emphasis added] 'You don't have an explanation, therefore he must have risen from the dead'. Nope. Does not work that way.

SECOND REPLY (ON A DIFFERENT POINT)

First, the existence of “God of the gaps” explanations in the past no more undermines current arguments for God than discarded scientific theories and medical beliefs of the past undermine today’s science and medicine. The mistakes in each should only drive us to more careful theorizing in the future.

Second, the criticism that god is simply a way to explain unknown phenomenon commits the informal logical error known as the genetic fallacy which occurs when it is assumed that discovering how a belief originated is sufficient to explain the belief. However, it is a fallacy because it attacks the origin of a view instead of the view itself—a view which may be correct. For example, that some ancient Romans may have thought that Jupiter was responsible for their victory over the Gauls does not nullify the historical factuality of the battle or Rome’s great victory.

Third, what we already know from respected disciplines like medical science, history and psychology is precisely what renders the conclusion of Jesus’ resurrection so compelling. Conversely, these same disciplines disprove natural explanations of this event. Interestingly enough, without a workable opposing theory, the skeptic must be careful not to substitute a “naturalism of the gaps” view. This occurs when critics have little ground on which to oppose the resurrection, yet they conclude that it could not have happened (which is mere denial). Or they simply refuse to believe in spite of not having a viable counter response. We must not suspend judgment when adequate evidence is available upon which to make a decision. The resurrection challenges nature’s laws, and there does not seem to be a way to incorporate it with nature.

Fourth, it is an unjustifiable leap to proclaim that at some future point in time we will find a scientific answer for the resurrection of Jesus. If the resurrection is questioned again at some future date, Christians will research and respond. In the meantime, we should not rule out the possibility of the resurrection without a viable reason.