Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Longhorn]

You know what the problem with your arguments is, Randy? They didn't convince you. You did not come to believe a purportedly magical Jew came back from the dead by the minimal facts approach. You were taught to believe that, so you do. All this *dramatic hand gesture* is just an excuse you make before rational people for believing what you believe, but it doesn't hold water. To find it valid, you need to already believe it to be true. It's making your way back from the conclusion, a big fat presupposition you can't erase, and without it your argument falls to pieces.

The question is....How do you expect your reasoning to convince us, if it didn't even convince YOU?

It is true that I did not find MY way to God by means of these arguments. My faith journey has been very different.

That does not mean, however, that no one comes to God by them.

I could give examples that I have seen in real life, or you could read the stories of Jews, agnostics and atheists who came to believe that Jesus is God by means of considering presentations like the one I have made in this thread.

Not everyone will. Maybe no one here will.

But apologetics - the why of our faith - is just as important as evangelism - the what of our faith, and I am confident that if you decide to objectively examine the evidence, you can come to a faith position.

Alternatively, you can continue as you are. Inertia is a powerful force.

It doesn't matter even if some are convinced, though I doubt there are many.

What I'm pointing out is not that your arguments are not convincing, but that they have a fundamental flaw: they were all formed with the presupposition that god exists and that the conclusion they reach is true. They are made through working your way back from the conclusion, which was never reached by critical thinking. To the contrary, if critical thinking is applied the conclusion cannot be reached.

These arguments were all invented much, much after faith came to exist. They are not the main reason people believe. They're the excuse made for believing. The presupposition they were formed with makes them invalid.