Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
|
Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
|
 (July 19, 2015 at 8:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote:(July 19, 2015 at 2:56 pm)IATIA Wrote: Out of 5-7 million. My source is archeological records and yours is the bible? Even so ... You're a lapsed Catholic who needs to go to confession. 
So if this "God" offers no evidence even at least comparable to a murder conviction, why should we even suspect that there is a god there at all?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
July 19, 2015 at 8:36 pm
(This post was last modified: July 19, 2015 at 8:36 pm by Cyberman.)
(July 19, 2015 at 8:32 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:(July 19, 2015 at 7:03 pm)Stimbo Wrote: None of that was in your five minimal 'facts', so I see no need to include it in mine. And my point 2 says that "Kenobi's apprentice and former master saw he had risen and appeared to them." Saw, not believed. Either they saw him or they didn't. If they did, then they knew that he was risen and they never wavered in that conviction. George Lucas isn't even part of the equation.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
July 19, 2015 at 8:36 pm
(This post was last modified: July 19, 2015 at 8:38 pm by Randy Carson.)
(July 19, 2015 at 8:34 pm)Stimbo Wrote: So if this "God" offers no evidence even at least comparable to a murder conviction, why should we even suspect that there is a god there at all? Because I have shown you the evidence for God's existence that does exist. It is compelling, but it is not so overwhelming that you have no choice but to accept it...if that were the case, you would resent God for being too overbearing. If you choose to follow the clues that He has left, you will find Him. The choice is yours.
Didn't you just get done saying there is no evidence?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
July 19, 2015 at 8:39 pm
(This post was last modified: July 19, 2015 at 8:39 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Your right, what you've presented isn't overwhelming. You have a real talent for understatement, you know.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
 (July 19, 2015 at 8:36 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:(July 19, 2015 at 8:34 pm)Stimbo Wrote: So if this "God" offers no evidence even at least comparable to a murder conviction, why should we even suspect that there is a god there at all? Poor Randy..... ![[Image: dog-chases-tail-o.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=stream1.gifsoup.com%2Fview%2F834879%2Fdog-chases-tail-o.gif) Even this dog knows to stop chasing his tail eventually.  (July 19, 2015 at 8:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Fair enough. I would too, if the evidence was strong enough. That is the biggest cop-out there ever was. Evidence is not coercive of choice, it's just information with which to choose. In your trial hypothetical most people would choose to convict or not based on the evidence, but we could do otherwise. People vote against their conscience and/or take bribes. Doing the honest or right thing with the evidence at hand is a choice. Given evidence of god, one could choose whether to worship him or not. That is a choice, though given the threat of hellfire not much of one. Without evidence, there's really nothing to choose. Believe in me without evidence is the snake rattle of a charlatan. That all religions appear to need it, tells me something rather basic about religion and it isn't complementary.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
(July 19, 2015 at 8:39 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Didn't you just get done saying there is no evidence? Yep he did. So much for the minimal facts.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Fact number 2 is a thinly veiled declaration that the resurrection actually happened. All the other 'facts' are red herrings to distract from the questions which surround fact #2. Supposedly, the disciples were martyred still clinging to their story of a physical resurrection. Supposedly, the only reason they would have done so is if they truly believed. Supposedly, they would only have truly believed if they had witnessed it. And supposedly, they would only have witnessed it if it actually happened. However, the belief part is a side effect of the resurrection story. It wouldn't have made sense to tell a tale of resurrection without witnesses to vouch for the story. The existence of witnesses is demanded by the consistency of the story. So the two together form a single piece of embellishment. So #2 is just a stalking horse for these other claims. It's little more than claiming that the miracle of the resurrection is a historical fact. But miracles are supposed to be excluded from historical reconstruction. "Fact #2" is little more than an illicit attempt to sneak a miracle in the back door.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg) |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
