Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
July 5, 2015 at 3:04 pm
(July 5, 2015 at 11:50 am)Randy Carson Wrote: You can always send him your questions directly via his website...
Why would I do that? What hope of a real exchange of ideas do I have when the person I'm potentially asking questions of has resolved ahead of time to never change his mind?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
July 5, 2015 at 4:49 pm
(This post was last modified: July 5, 2015 at 4:49 pm by robvalue.)
I wonder how WLC would handle a presuppositional atheist. One who simply states that God does not exist, and that they know this is true. He can't ask for evidence, now can he?
Will he partake in "Does too", "Does not"...
Posts: 7318
Threads: 75
Joined: April 18, 2015
Reputation:
73
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
July 5, 2015 at 5:58 pm
Well I'm a strong atheist on weekends so like, bring it man
Posts: 35273
Threads: 204
Joined: August 13, 2012
Reputation:
146
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
July 5, 2015 at 6:15 pm
You know the strength of the argument when people start referring to WLC.
Who next, Ken Ham? Ray Comfort? Kent Hovind (with a screaming match because we refuse to refer to him as 'Dr')?
Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:
"You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???"
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
July 5, 2015 at 6:53 pm
(This post was last modified: July 5, 2015 at 6:54 pm by Esquilax.)
(July 5, 2015 at 4:49 pm)robvalue Wrote: I wonder how WLC would handle a presuppositional atheist. One who simply states that God does not exist, and that they know this is true. He can't ask for evidence, now can he?
Will he partake in "Does too", "Does not"...
There's a brilliant bit in the Q&A following the debate between Matt Dillahunty (whom WLC will not debate, incidentally) and Sye Bruggencate, where someone tried that exact schtick on the latter party and Eric Hovind. When someone took their exact same position and changed the topic, those two chucklefucks dismissed it out of hand as ridiculous, asserting sarcastically "if you want to hitch your wagon to that star, be my guest."
Their heads were too far up their asses to see the irony of that, but then, there was a lot of things they failed to spot during that debate.
Edited to add: Incidentally, WLC has also already said how he'd react, and it basically is "does too," "does not," because he asserts that not changing one's mind is the hallmark of a true presupposition.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 2447
Threads: 19
Joined: May 13, 2015
Reputation:
8
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
July 5, 2015 at 9:33 pm
(July 5, 2015 at 2:47 pm)Pizza Wrote: The court of law analogy doesn't really help because someone being guilty or not guilty is not uncommon like a bodily resurrection. If we go with beyond a reasonable doubt bodily resurrection doesn't look so good given that corpses don't normally resurrect after being dead for days, which casts doubt on the conclusion. Claiming there was a bodily resurrection isn't purely a historical claim, it's a claim about biology of corpses. So, biological evidence is needed not pure conjure by armchair historians.
How do you propose that biologists study something that happened 2,000 years ago?
Quote:What counts as sufficient evidence? People just claiming something happened? If someone claimed you were a murderer or a rapist is that enough evidence or would more be needed? How about if you accused of raping and murdering people you never met in another state or country with astral projection powers? Is mere testimony enough?
Detectives would examine all the evidence to determine my whereabouts at the time of the murder.
Regarding the claims of Christianity, what is sufficient is probably subjective; what convinces one person to become a Christian may not convince another. That said, I think there is sufficient evidence for the resurrection of Jesus to conclude that He is God. Unless, of course, your presuppositions prevent this.
Quote:What "scholars?" What expertise make them authoritative on bodily resurrections? How many bodily resurrections have these scholars seen or tested? How do they research bodily resurrections?
So, from this and what you wrote above, it sounds like your real issue is that you do not view the study of history as being terribly rigorous.
Quote:Why prefer hypothesis over another? Why physical resurrection produce by Yahweh over one produced by mindless natural processes? [quote]
Are you suggesting that Jesus was resurrected thought natural processes?
[quote]Why not the swoon theory? People do sometimes survive things that normally kill people, ex. people surviving being shot in the face. Why not other paranormal hypotheses like Jesus was a ghost? Why not a demonic resurrection and Jesus was a false prophets? Why not Jesus was an alien and not a god? Why are we even assuming deities resurrect people from the dead?
Because after considering ALL of these theories and determining whether they have problems that prevent them from being likely, it can be determined that the supernatural resurrection of Jesus is the most probable (I did not say certain!) explanation of ALL the facts.
Posts: 2447
Threads: 19
Joined: May 13, 2015
Reputation:
8
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
July 5, 2015 at 9:35 pm
(July 5, 2015 at 3:04 pm)Esquilax Wrote: (July 5, 2015 at 11:50 am)Randy Carson Wrote: You can always send him your questions directly via his website...
Why would I do that? What hope of a real exchange of ideas do I have when the person I'm potentially asking questions of has resolved ahead of time to never change his mind?
And yet, you continue to argue with me...
Posts: 2447
Threads: 19
Joined: May 13, 2015
Reputation:
8
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
July 5, 2015 at 9:38 pm
(July 5, 2015 at 6:15 pm)Beccs Wrote: You know the strength of the argument when people start referring to WLC.
Who next, Ken Ham? Ray Comfort? Kent Hovind (with a screaming match because we refuse to refer to him as 'Dr')?
Ironically, I know the weakness of YOUR argument (and that of Esquilax) when you engage in ad hominem arguments against WLC rather than deal with his ideas instead.
Posts: 1114
Threads: 28
Joined: June 13, 2011
Reputation:
18
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
July 6, 2015 at 12:34 am
(This post was last modified: July 6, 2015 at 12:36 am by Pizza.)
"How do you propose that biologists study something that happened 2,000 years ago?"
Evidence of analogous cases of corpses resurrecting in the modern day.
"Detectives would examine all the evidence to determine my whereabouts at the time of the murder.
Regarding the claims of Christianity, what is sufficient is probably subjective; what convinces one person to become a Christian may not convince another. That said, I think there is sufficient evidence for the resurrection of Jesus to conclude that He is God. Unless, of course, your presuppositions prevent this."
If your going with a subjectivist view of evidence and probability it really doesn't help since we are not starting with the same premises here obviously. Arguments are useless if the people you're talking too don't believe the premises are true.
I don't think god is a well-defined idea, I believe the first cause of the universe isn't a human or even human-like in any meaningful way because of the arguments in Hume's Dialogues, and I don't think dead people resurrect given what we know about dead bodies.
Again I ask: How about if you accused of raping and murdering people you never met in another state or country with astral projection powers? Is mere testimony enough? I'm not joking.
"So, from this and what you wrote above, it sounds like your real issue is that you do not view the study of history as being terribly rigorous."
Not really. I just know it has limitations like all areas of study. Because like I said this isn't a mere historical claim, it's a claim about the biology of a dead bodies.
"Because after considering ALL of these theories and determining whether they have problems that prevent them from being likely, it can be determined that the supernatural resurrection of Jesus is the most probable (I did not say certain!) explanation of ALL the facts."
That's the claim I'm asking you to defend: These other explanations (naturalistic resurrection, aliens, ghost Jesus, demonic resurrection, resurrection by other gods, or there was no resurrection-, swoon theory, etc) as more improbable than, "Yahweh cause Jesus to resurrect." That's what I'm asking you to defend.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Posts: 6990
Threads: 89
Joined: January 6, 2012
Reputation:
104
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
July 6, 2015 at 2:48 am
(This post was last modified: July 6, 2015 at 2:48 am by Fidel_Castronaut.)
(July 5, 2015 at 9:38 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: (July 5, 2015 at 6:15 pm)Beccs Wrote: You know the strength of the argument when people start referring to WLC.
Who next, Ken Ham? Ray Comfort? Kent Hovind (with a screaming match because we refuse to refer to him as 'Dr')?
Ironically, I know the weakness of YOUR argument (and that of Esquilax) when you engage in ad hominem arguments against WLC rather than deal with his ideas instead.
You mean those arguments that have been proven and demonstrated time after time to fall under their own illogical premises? Those arguments?
*sigh*
|
![[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i629.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu13%2FRXM843%2F146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif)
