Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[IATIA]

Because I have shown you the evidence for God's existence that does exist.

Ancient books on mythology do not prove the existence of a god nor do books addressing the ancient books on mythology. What else you got?

[Longhorn]

There is nothing in fucking Acts that is worth the paper it is printed on.  Pure propaganda.  Worthy of Goebbels.

You're a lapsed Catholic who needs to go to confession.

And you're a lapsed Protestant who makes Luther cry c:

[Cato]

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.

And now we have it, finally; the "I have no evidence for god" cop-out.

The rationalizations Randy mistakenly calls evidence are only compelling to someone that has already uncritically accepted the claim, but still clings to a desire to have the belief legitimized. He is right in one respect, the choice is mine. I choose not to believe in unsubstantiated bullshit.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Didn't you just get done saying there is no evidence?

Yep he did.

So much for the minimal facts.

103 pages to realise what everyone else was saying on page 1.

[robvalue]

Well, I admit that is a very minimal amount of facts. Good job

This here's the problem. You already have your conclusion and you must make whatever you can find fit it. We don't.

[RobbyPants]

Very Doubtful      Quite Doubtful      Somewhat Doubtful    Uncertain     Somewhat Certain    Quite Certain     Very Certain
______|____________|________________|____________|_____________|______________|___________|____


We will be seeking to determine whether the evidence for the resurrection moves us to the right or left of the mid-point (uncertain) of this range of opinions.

Why should we start at "uncertain"? If someone opens up by trying to prove that something magical happened, why shouldn't I default to "very doubtful"?

If I made any of the three following claims

• I drove my car to work today.
  
• I flew my helicopter to work today.
  
• I flew my Pegasus to work today.
  

, would you think it's reasonable to start at "uncertain" for all three of them?

[Jenny A]

In U.S. courts and other courts from the British tradition,  the jury really has two options and they aren't guilty and not guilty.  They are guilty and not proven.  Legally, juries don't find people innocent, at best they find that the government has failed to prove them guilty.

On the strength of eyewitness testimony alone, with no corroborating physical evidence, I'd find "not proven."  Your knowledge of your wife and the fact that the prosecution hadn't been able to find any physical evidence would add to my comfort in that verdict.   But, add the physical evidence I listed, and it's guilty, guilty, guilty no matter what you think you know about your wife.

So, based upon all the evidence that Stimbo listed, you would have no choice but to convict my wife of the 13 murders.

Fair enough.  I would too, if the evidence was strong enough.

But that's just it, Jenny, God is not in the business of FORCING anyone to make a decision based on evidence. That would be coercive.

He provides just enough clues for each soul to find and follow IF you are so inclined, but He does not force Himself upon you.

You'll find my somewhat lengthy answer here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34856.html

[Spooky]

Because I have shown you the evidence for God's existence that does exist.

Ancient books on mythology do not prove the existence of a god nor do books addressing the ancient books on mythology.  What else you got?

Repeat this exchange for 100+ pages and you have this thread.

Randy, why do you pretend to want a debate or exchange, but act like this?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yX_1gJ_51M

[AtheistAspie]

"Minimal facts" ... how perfectly appropriate.

It doesn't help your point that each of those five statements are articles of faith.  Considering that you've already written off the New Testament as useful evidence, I'm thinking this thread will have some entertainment value, but little substance.

You beat me to the punch!  Most of these "we can prove X about religious history" explanations usually require as few facts as possible in order to work.

[Easy Guns]

Just stopped by to laugh that this horse shit is still going on.