The seeming impossibility of a successful argument for Christianity

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

This relates and expands upon some points I've made in some recent posts. I when I think about, I really can't think of any possible way somebody could rationally convince me of Christianity. I'm not talking about theism or deism in general, but specifically Christianity. The only way I can think that somebody might convince me of Christianity if that somebody was the Christian God himself directly showing himself to me. Even that might be difficult because I might be having an illusion but God being God he should know of a way to subside my doubts.

The core argument put forth for Christianity is the resurrection. Supposedly, if the resurrection is proven, then Christianity is proven. This is a non-sequitur. If the resurrection happened (or appeared to have happened), here are some possible alternatives for how it happened that I pulled out of my ass:

1. Aliens doing sociological experiments or just pranking us.
2. Human time travelers from the future doing sociological experiments or pranks.
3. Jesus was a rogue member of the Q-continuum
4. Jesus didn't really die.
5. Jesus was set up by the Roman government as a God for whatever reason and they faked his death tricking millions. I call this the Jesus moon landing hoax.
6. The apostles were playing "Weekend at Bernies'" with his body.

I think the above are all much more likely explanations than saying "God did it." With the universe as massive as it is, there's seems to be a good chance based on the best theories of abiogensis and evolution that intelligent life might live elsewhere. Time travel could also be a real possibility. The Q-continuum, well they could just be highly evolved beings. People have been reported dead numerous times who turned out only to be unconscious (remember when coffins had bells?). Roman government conspiracy theory...well men in power have tricked the public (I mean it's not inconceivable). Nothing new. Ok, number 6 was a joke, but it's still not completely impossible.

All of the above examples are of course silly but they have an advantage that the Christian hypothesis doesn't: they're based more or less on what we know about the world. They are based on things that we've known happened before in other circumstances (appearance of death etc) or we can reasonably say are possibilities given what we know about the universe (time travel, aliens etc). The Christian argument posits the existence of the Christian God which is something we don't know exists at all.

Even if we assume there is a God (not any particular God), this does not make the Christian hypothesis more probable than most any other explanation you can make up. Assuming a God exists (again not specifically the Christian God) we've never seen him today interfere with the world. We don't have any hard verifiable scientific data of God interfering in the world in order to know if raising somebody from the dead in ancient Palestine is the sort of thing God would do.

Assuming that the resurrection did occur, the most probable explanation to me seems to be only that which is based on what we know can happen. You can complain all you want about how unlikely the "Weekend at Bernies" explanation is but in comparison to saying "God did it" it is far more likely.

Aside from the resurrection, the only evidence for Christianity is basically more of the same: something odd happened, therefore God did it. "How did Moses part the red sea"? "How did so and so predict the future"? etc. I mean, based on the advances of textual criticism other historical studies, you can explain all those things as mere myths, but even assuming those things did in fact happened, the naturalistic explanation is always better in every case.

Christianity it seems really has nothing to support itself. And I can't see how it could every truly prove itself to us moderns until God throws us into the lake of fire himself.

[Undeceived]

Basically what you're describing is "there's always a way out" of any particular argument. As long as there can be one non-supernatural explanation, or one non-God explanation or one non-Christian-God explanation, Christianity is unproven. I ask you: by those narrow standards, how do we know anything?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Basically what you're describing is "there's always a way out" of any particular argument. As long as there can be one non-supernatural explanation, or one non-God explanation or one non-Christian-God explanation, Christianity is unproven. I ask you: by those narrow standards, how do we know anything?

Connect "always a way out" with the conclusion that we can't know anything. I'm not following.

[John V]

@ OP:
Your argument boils down to:
1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
2. The ordinary is more probable than the extraordinary
3. Therefore the extraordinary doesn't occur
4. Therefore extraordinary claims can never be proven

However, 3 is fallacious.

[pocaracas]

@ OP:
Your argument boils down to:
1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
2. The ordinary is more probable than the extraordinary
3. Therefore the extraordinary doesn't occur
4. Therefore extraordinary claims can never be proven

However, 3 is fallacious.

I'd restate 3) as: Current claims of observations of extraordinary events are not conclusive, as they can be explained by ordinary events. Hence, no extraordinary events are recorded in a sufficiently unbiased fashion to prove that they occur.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

@ OP:
Your argument boils down to:
1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
2. The ordinary is more probable than the extraordinary
3. Therefore the extraordinary doesn't occur
4. Therefore extraordinary claims can never be proven

However, 3 is fallacious.

I never said supernatural events don't occur. I just have no reason to believe that they can and do occur.

When an ancient account describes a forest fire, I won't have a hard time believing that happened. Why? Because it said it did? No. Because I know from experience that wild fires happen all the time today. There are million of pictures of wild fires. There are videos of wild fires. I can drive a little ways and see the devestation of a few. The evidence that wild fires can and do occur is over whelming.

But when an ancient source describes something miraculous I can dismiss it. There's no hard evidence today that such things occur. There's no images. There's no videos. I can't even go somewhere to see the things left behind from a modern day supernatural event.

Sure, today there are claims of the supernatural but they have no evidence and in the end are revealed as hoaxes or just natural phenomena confused for the supernatural.

[Minimalist]

There is no evidence of supernatural events or the supernatural itself.

Xtians always want to start their argument by saying "god did x" but that is step 2. Step one would be to demonstrate that their god exists and they avoid that one like the plague.

[John V]

But when an ancient source describes something miraculous I can dismiss it. There's no hard evidence today that such things occur. There's no images. There's no videos. I can't even go somewhere to see the things left behind from a modern day supernatural event.

How do you define supernatural? Specifically, if a phenomena is regularly observed but not understood, is it natural or supernatural?

---

I never said supernatural events don't occur.

Not in so many words, but you back-doored your way there with talk of probabilities.

[Undeceived]

There's no hard evidence today that such things occur. There's no images. There's no videos.

So evidence to you is visible evidence? What about magicians? What about exorcists? Unexplained medical phenomena like instant cancer cures? These aren't "no" evidence. They are evidence you claim to be misrepresented. You make this claim based on your theory that the supernatural doesn't exist, which comes from... I don't know, your indifference to these examples? Clarify if you will, but it seems to me you are begging the question.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

But when an ancient source describes something miraculous I can dismiss it. There's no hard evidence today that such things occur. There's no images. There's no videos. I can't even go somewhere to see the things left behind from a modern day supernatural event.

How do you define supernatural? Specifically, if a phenomena is regularly observed but not understood, is it natural or supernatural?

---

I never said supernatural events don't occur.

Not in so many words, but you back-doored your way there with talk of probabilities.

For purposes of discussion, let's say the supernatural is anything that involves God, angels, demons, spirits etc.

If a phenomena is observed but not understood, the best explanation for it is based on that which we know can occur. It should be the least ad hoc explanation.

And I'm still open to the possibility of the supernatural. It just doesn't look like a possibility.

---

There's no hard evidence today that such things occur. There's no images. There's no videos.

So evidence to you is visible evidence? What about magicians? What about exorcists? Unexplained medical phenomena like instant cancer cures? These aren't "no" evidence. They are evidence you claim to be misrepresented. You make this claim based on your theory that the supernatural doesn't exist, which comes from... I don't know, your indifference to these examples? Clarify if you will, but it seems to me you are begging the question.

Just watch some James Randi. Magicians? Yeesh.