(June 20, 2016 at 6:13 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Yes somebody making up the story is a much more plausible explanation than somebody rose from the dead, I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. [1] Why is assigning intention and deceit to "ancient people" unscientific, did they not posses those qualities? [2]
1) I am getting at the fact that |a misinterpretation of a misunderstood experience of normal psychiatric phenomena which follow after the death of a loved one| is more plausible than somebody making up the story. I'm trying to give you a more defensible position with which to deny the claims of the apostles as a demonstration that your criteria for judging plausibility are inadequate/incomplete.
2) Of course they had intentions and were capable of deceit. It IS unscientific, however, to assign to them the intention to deceive/invent based on the events being extraordinary which they record. There are other hypotheses which stand up to more scientific scrutiny than does the invention hypothesis, but which also deny the theological nature of the narrative and letters. Your dichotomy "either its true OR they made it up", is a false one. In other words, is a bunch of ancient illiterate Jews making up a fantastical theological story more plausible than a bunch of ancient illiterate Jews accurately recording true fantastical theological events which they witnessed? Maybe so. BUT THEN there are ALSO more plausible non-Christian/non-theist explanations than "they made it up".
