Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[IanHulett]

You're twisting my words. Asking if whether or not you're willing to change your mind based on evidence is not the same as making a claim about something. It's criticizing the way a lot of religious people are close minded, that being that they would never ever change their mind no matter what argument/evidence is presented even if they lived to be 1,000,000.

Wouldn't that depend upon the evidence itself? Some is stronger and more compelling than other.

Do you have any evidence that God does not exist that I should consider?

So, I don't need to provide evidence that god doesn't exist. I don't claim to know that God doesn't exist, I simply am not convinced he does, believe it or not, there is a difference. Since I'm not trying to prove anything, it's not my job to prove anything.

When you make the positive assertion that "God does not exist" then the burden of proof is on you to provide some support for the claim.

If you have not made that claim, then you're off the hook.  

The name of this thread is "Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach" So, if I'm not mistaken, you're the one trying to prove something... The Resurrection. I'm still waiting for that proof.

Think of each of these five facts - accepted AS FACTS (not opinions) by professional NT scholars of all faith positions (believers and non-believers alike) - as signposts pointing toward a destination - namely, that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.

They do not PROVE that Jesus rose from the dead in the sense that we can prove that water freezes at 32 degrees or boils at 212 degrees. However, the resurrection does appear to be the most probable explanation for the events they describe.

Is there a reason you're ignoring EVERYTHING I'M SAYING? I'M NOT SAYING GOD DOESN'T EXIST. Stop twisting my words, and stop shifting the burden of proof. You're making the assertion that god exists, and so it's YOU'RE JOB TO PROVE IT.

According to the majority of religious people, no matter what evidence you provide for them, they will never change their mind, so no it doesn't depend on the evidence. They explicitly say that.

Gee. Thanks for taking me off the hook when I was never on the hook to begin with. I was never making a positive assertion. You're just presenting a straw man, accusing me of saying something I never said in order to escape the burden of proof you placed on yourself.

And I did take into consideration your five "facts," just as any skeptic would, but they didn't add up. Sorry.
---
---
Remember when I said you were being intellectually dishonest? Well, you just proved my point.