MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Minimalist]

That's a badge of honor.

A previlege we mods do not have. Oh the onslaught of bullshit raining every day.

[Mudhammam]

How the hell are you gonna make a case for the Resurrection without first establishing whether or not Jesus existed in the first place??

Indeed.

Be sure to let us know when you come up with a compelling argument.

You mean to say that the argumentum ad populum isn't compelling? Good Lord!

[pocaracas]

HM, get on with it!

[Angrboda]

Name ten.

Name five.

Sod it - name one.

I know it is a sad fact lol. I know

1. John Dominic Crossan
2. Bart Ehrman
3. Gerd Ludeman
4. James Tabor
5. E.P Sanders

That is at least five. So you asked for a minimum of one, and maximum of ten...well, I split it right down the middle...with five.

Oddly enough, not a single one of these men has a degree in history.

[robvalue]

This is like trying to play chess with someone who refuses to learn the rules.

[Esquilax]

This is like trying to play chess with someone who refuses to learn the rules.

I believe the "creationists and pigeons" meme has been deployed against H_M numerous times, to much the same effect.

[Jenny A]

I know it is a sad fact lol. I know

1. John Dominic Crossan
2. Bart Ehrman
3. Gerd Ludeman
4. James Tabor
5. E.P Sanders

That is at least five. So you asked for a minimum of one, and maximum of ten...well, I split it right down the middle...with five.

Oddly enough, not a single one of these men has a degree in history.

The real oddity is the difficulty in finding a biblical historian with a degree in history at all.

[Angrboda]

No. You've asserted that you can demonstrate the historicity of Jesus. In pursuing that intent, you've asserted that the "vast majority" of historians regard his existence as historical. I have asked you for supporting data.

Again, I never said I have stats...I am going by what those that are in the field are saying. Again, this is not saying that just because the majority believes it, it is true...this is saying that the majority of those in the field are persuaded by the sources that I provided...since you guys were attacking the sources.

(emphasis added)

It's possible there is large scale agreement on the historicity of Jesus the man, but I doubt you know that this consensus is based on the sources you provided.

[Minimalist]

Oddly enough, not a single one of these men has a degree in history.

The real oddity is the difficulty in finding a biblical historian with a degree in history at all.

I'm sure someone has one from Liberty Univ...which means shit...or General Mills Univ. which would be only a slight improvement.

[His_Majesty]

No, let's not pretend it at all. Because we were talking about the resurrection of Jesus, and then when you couldn't answer my very simple statement, you started deflecting by talking about abiogenesis. It's entirely irrelevant to what we were talking about before, and you are not going to get away with your blatant unwillingness to actually engage with your own conversation except on terms where you think you'll win.

Man I forgot how we even got into this whole abiogenesis thing.

I don't think you actually understand how evidence works in a scientific field. The evidence for abiogenesis, as I've said before, are the numerous probabilistic indicators that lead a reasonable person to consider the proposition, in addition to the lab experiments that demonstrate that the basis of the concept can occur naturally.

Probabilistic indicators? Like what? Based on all of the arguments for the existence of God that is convincing to ME, I have probabilistic indicators that God exists and he has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. So how does your indicators have any more virtue than mines?

If you're looking for the kind of simplistic ideal of certainty that theism baselessly asserts, then we don't have that yet, but it's also not required. Science is probabilistic, and the probability trends away from intelligent designers and toward natural causes.

That is your opinion. I think the probability trends away from naturalism.The God hypothesis best explains the origin of life, consciousness, species, and the universe....that is my opinion. Those are four different/independent problems for the naturalist, and so far science is silent on all four of those problems...and since science can't demonstrate either one, you have no reasons to believe that any of that stuff occurred, so you simple pout and/or frown...and accept by faith that it occurred.

You can continue to ignore the way science works in order to demand scientific evidence, but you'll be dishonest if you do.

Science hasn't demonstrated what it needs to demonstrate to convince me that those things could happen without intelligent design..to hell with "the way science works"...however it is working, it hasn't answered my questions.

Not that that's ever stopped you before.

You can't stop the unstoppable...top the untoppable....pop the unpoppable..

You can't take the untakeable...break the unbreakable...shake the unshakeable...

This doesn't follow at all. It's merely a bullying tactic, substituting scoffing mockery for an actual point; so what if I can't prove every claim ever?

Bullying? What are you, in the 5th grade? How the hell is it bullying...it is a fact. You can't provide evidence for what you believe to be NATURAL occurrences...but you have nerve to claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences"?

Like I said, this is an old played out line by atheists and it is time someone called you guys out on this...and I am just the guy to do it.

How does that even connect with the above? It's a total non-sequitur, and also a complete strawman to begin with. You keep foisting abiogenesis on me, but I don't accept that.

As mentioned previously, I don't recall how abiogenesis crept in to the conversation, but if I brought it up, it was because of something someone else said.

My position is that we don't know how life began on earth, with the further corollary that natural means are more probable given what we know now than supernatural ones, and that abiogenesis is the best supported current theory.

Look, all of that "I don't know" shit is misleading...sure, you don't know...but it is clear that you BELIEVE that it happened even if you don't know HOW it happened. If you conclusively rule out intelligent design...if your stance is "God didn't do it"...then the default position is nature did it.

Either life formed naturally, or supernaturally. Point blank, period. You sit there and argue against intelligent design, all the while acting as an apologists for naturalism...but then sit there and say "I don't know"...yeah you don't know, but you BELIEVE that nature did it, and the fact of the matter is that science cannot validate that hypothesis as of yet, so you simply accept by faith just like any religious folk does.

I'm not required to defend something I don't accept as true, and I've told you my position on this in the past, which I think makes it clear that what you're saying here is yet more dishonest deflection, rather than an actual rebuttal.

Dude, even if I am attacking the concept of abiogensis with someone else, you make your way into the conversation and begin defending against those attacks, as if you are an apologist for the position...yet you claim you dont know, and you claim that you don't accept it, but your actions prove otherwise. It is clear as day.

No, they didn't, and I pointed out numerous times that they didn't. What they did do was provide a means by which the building blocks of life form naturally, a demonstration of possibility that is an indicator toward abiogenesis.

First off, they were still longggg ways from life...second, they would still have to find out how to get consciousness in there...third, even the little bit that they did do, guess what, intelligence was required, right?

My entire point being that even this preliminary step is covered by natural means, but not by intelligent design. We may not have a complete picture of abiogenesis yet, but at least we've got some of the pieces; intelligent design hasn't even provided a single shred of evidence.

Im not even sure you would call it a piece...it may be one piece, OF a piece...not even a full piece. It has been over 60 years since the Miller experiment, and we really havent made any advancements since then...we have a long way to go...and we wont even mention consciousness, like how are you going to get consciousness squirting in there amiss of all of that molecular junk? It aint happening.

No, actually the compounds in question formed completely without direction from outside sources, using variables that are entirely common within nature. Stuff was evaporated and some electricity was present, but both of those things are naturally occurring. Given that the experimental environment was sealed, you couldn't claim intelligent design even played a role here unless you hadn't bothered to even look up the experiment in question.

Wait a minute, so two scientists conducted an experiment, but no intelligence was needed??? dude, you are a mess.

My point was, INTELLIGENT DESIGN WAS NEEDED TO PRODUCE THE DESIRED EFFECT.

Not only that, but environmental conditions of the early earth 3 billion years ago did NOT reflect what Miller & nem THOUGHT the early earth was...so after it was all said and done they only were able to produce two amino acids...2 out of the minimum 200 that is needed for a protein molecule...and even if they managed (which they didn't/can't) to get the minimum needed, they would still have had to get the correct sided amino acids..as amino acids come right-handed and left handed...and only the left-sided is needed...then you would have to get all of the left side-sided amino acids in sequence order, otherwise the protein molecule can't be formed.

So it is highly improbable for even ONE protein molecule to be formed without intelligence, let alone 200.

Now this is a well known problem with abiogenesis...and no amount of bio babble will be able to save this nonsensical notion that life can come from non living material.

Yes, but bringing it up as an argument against abiogenesis would be an irrelevant deflection. So... shocker.

Hey, I understand that you are uncomfortable talking about the limitations of science..but science will also have to explain the origin of consciousness as well. You got life, but how do you get life to think and become aware..but lets just sweep that shit under the rug, huh?

Certainty is a dishonest misunderstanding of both the methodology of science and reality itself. Besides, my point, which you seem to have missed again, is that the evidence for abiogenesis is "some," and the evidence for intelligent design is "none."

"Some" is not good enough...Carmello Anthony played in "some" playoff games and even won a few playoff series, but he never actually won a championship, which is the ultimate goal. Second, again, you still have the consciousness problem, infinity problem, and species problem...you are not even half way done on naturalism

But god's life didn't come from life, making it impossible according to your own argument.

Since my argument is based on life that began, then that light bulb that apparently went off in your head to make you think you had such an awesome response becomes....meaningless.

My belief is that neither of us know how life began. So, I guess you're strawmanning again.

I appeal to what I think is the best explanation.

So what? I already took you to task for this argument from personal incredulity before.

And I took you to task by explaining to you the fact that NOT being able to conceive of something only ratifies its impossibility.

Do you not know what the word "necessary" means?

Of course I do, but you said it wasn't "necessary", so you are making it seem as if it COULD something other that what it is..and my question is, based on what?

You link the two together because you're dishonest; neither are actually linked, they don't rely on one another. You conflate the two so that when somebody gives an answer to one you can go "aha! But what about the other! Since you didn't answer that, the answer you did give is untrue!" and switch when required. You're asking for a single unified answer that covers two completely unrelated topics.

I know, you are basically saying "If I had such a hard time dealing with the abiogenesis problem, why would you throw the origin of consciousness in there to make the problem twice as difficult."

No one said the job was going to be easy, Esquil

Yeah, pretty much exactly like this. You asked me about consciousness, and then when I gave you an answer about consciousness you immediately switched to abiogenesis as though you were always talking about that.

You sound like a damn fool. If I am asking you to explain the origin of consciousness, why the hell would you start by saying it evolved?? But its evolution could only occur after it originated, which still has yet to be explained, but that was the question in the first place!!!

Second, you are WRONG anyway, because I didn't switch to abiogenesis, my point was if abiogenesis PROVED to be true, hypothetically speaking, then where did consciousness come from?? That was the freakin' point...it had nothing to do with abiogenesis as I assumed (briefly) that abiogenesis was true.

Your reading comprehension skills are piss poor, bro.

When intelligent design can't produce any ingredients at all, and their idea of how to make a pizza is just "god makes it," then it's still a far better answer than your own.

And naturalists position is that "nature makes it". And if that isn't your position, then stop defending it.

It's also a strawman. The position is "physical matter exists, physical matter is all that's required for any potential naturalistic origin of life.

So get all of the inanimate physical matter in the world, and see if any of the matter will come to life.

Non sequitur.

Intelligent design requires supernatural additions, which aren't demonstrable as existing.

Life from nonlife hasnt been demonstrated as a natural occurrence either.

Therefore, since the former has all the ingredients readily available, and the latter does not, the probability of the former being true is higher than the latter, until evidence of the latter's missing ingredient and method comes to light."

Again, if just having all the right ingredients was all that is needed, why aren't you able to demonstrate life from nonlife??

You asked for a probabilistic model, but now you apparently don't know what probability is either?

I like the ID model better.

Yeah, see how easy it is to make something look silly when you drastically oversimplify it and put it in a format that's devoid of information?

I am just taking out the bio-babble and calling it what it actually is..."In the beginning, nature..."

Yes, I do: Miller-Urey and John Oros. Ignoring them won't make them go away. Also, as I've been saying all along, at least we know natural things are possible. We have no such indications for supernatural things.

Everyone knows that the Miller experiments didn't come close to creating life...you are the only one even still appealing to that experiment...it is a dead issue...they went in the lab to create life from nonlife, and failed. Point blank, period.

The Miller-Urey experiment exceeded expectations, producing more compounds, upon further inspection, than was even mentioned in the initial report. It was in no way a failed experiment, baseless assertions from people who know nothing about it notwithstanding.

Dude, the goal was for them to create life from nonlife, and they didn't...so how is that exceeding expectations?

Oh, so god isn't ACTUALLY eternal, then? He's only IMAGINARILY eternal? Makes much more sense.

Completely ignored the distinguishing point I was making between eternity and infinity. Each term has at least two definitions for it and it isn't until you put each one in its proper perspective that you won't end up looking like a dumbass.

So then you believe that it is possible for life to exist without an additional life to bring it into being.

Um, I believe in God, duh.

You just believe that god is the only life that exists within that category. I understand that, but you have no reason to believe that category doesn't contain more life forms than god.

Yes I do...and for you to sit there and say that is very dishonest, but when you are intellectually losing, I guess dishonesty is the last resort.

You've undermined your own premises here. You say that life can only come from life, but that god is in a special category where he doesn't have to.

I've also stated why that to be the case...but lets conveniently leave that part out and continue with this meaningless rhetorical tirade, shall we?

You believe it's possible for life to exist without life. Simply braying "but god is special!" doesn't suddenly make that not the case.

It does make it the case if I have reasons to believe it to be the case.

How do you know that I'd be intellectually dishonest? How have you demonstrated that life cannot be eternal?

Because life through infinite duration is impossible.

And if you haven't done that, isn't your accusation here just an unjustified presupposition you've made, because it's convenient for your argument?

I repeat: Because life through infinite duration is impossible. You see how I am giving a reason for the shit? Instead of just saying it because it is "convenient", I am actually giving a reason for the shit, ain't I?

"Here's a rule I've made up. Here's a problem with that rule. So here's a thing which breaks the rule, in order to resolve the problem I made up, with the rule I made up." [/quote}

It is more like "There are only two possibilities, one doesn't violate logic and reasoning, and the other one does violate logic and reasoning, so I think the best bet is to go with the one that DOESN'T violate logic and reasoning".

Don't blame me because my explanation is within logic and reasoning, and your isn't.

[quote='Esquilax' pid='806300' dateline='1417285893']
"Life only comes from life. Therefore, life on earth is a problem. So there must be a life that didn't come from life that created all the life, because as I said, life only comes from life."

*Life that began, that is.

You just said here that eternity is impossible. But you said earlier that god is eternal. Hence, it is a semantic trick; why are eternities impossible when natural causes are being discussed, but conveniently possible when it comes to your god?

No, I said actual infinities are impossible...Now yeah, when dealing with actual time, infinite time and eternity mean the same thing...but eternity can also mean "without time" or "timelessness" or "atemporal" <----these are all synonymous with each other and also with "Eternity"...and this is the eternity I am talking about when I said "God is eternal", meaning that he wasn't living through infinite duration of time...he transcended time altogether...he was above and beyond time.

False dichotomy. There could be three options, like, say, that life arose gradually from a series of chemical reactions. You dismiss that one out of hand, but you have no reason for doing so. Same with my cyclical universe model from the other thread; you never even addressed that one, you just ignored it and pretended I hadn't said anything.

Um, life originating from chemical reactions would be a natural phenomena, right? And I could of swore that was one of the options...but hey, it isnt the first time my point was misrepresented, so what the hell.

But you've never seen a life that didn't begin to exist! Therefore, according to your own argument, it's impossible!

But I recognize that there couldn't be an infinite chain of "life producing life" going all the way back to eternity past, which is a view that is quite consistent with me arguing against infinity on the other thread.

Dude, there are no "gotcha" moments with me on this subject. None.

But that's an argument from ignorance, not evidence for a life form that didn't begin to exist. At best, what you get out of that is "life can't be eternal," but that's not what you're trying to prove.

*Life that began.

It is ok, the more you keep attacking straw man, I will be there to put you right back on path, you know, the path of my actual position.

If infinity is absurd then god cannot be eternal, and therefore you're wrong.

God is not eternal in the sense of infinite duration in time, no.

Bullying? Passive aggressive? Not I. I just kick the actual factuals.

Which is exactly what a self-aggrandizing bully would say.

Interesting that you say you're not being a bully, but your description of what you're trying to do to me is a comparison with a violent assault.

You are right, I am an intellectual bully...so after school...me...you....playground.....and I will intellectually beat the crap out of you regarding any subject that we've been discussing.