Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Pizza]

Just let it die.

[Randy Carson]

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

Your right, what you've presented isn't overwhelming.  You have a real talent for understatement, you know.

That is the biggest cop-out there ever was. 

God maintains a delicate balance between keeping His existence sufficiently evident so people will know he's there and yet hiding his presence enough so that people who want to choose to ignore Him can do so. This way, their choice of destiny is really free.

[Randy Carson]

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.

#2 is not a thinly veiled declaration of anything. It is a shout from the rooftops.

The disciples BELIEVED that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them.

Whether he did not not is still up for discussion, but there is no doubt about the fact that they believed that they saw him alive.

Do you have any theories that explain this?

[Randy Carson]

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?

Is this the view of professional scholars who have spent their lives studying this material? The atheists and skeptics, I mean. What is their view?

[Randy Carson]

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.

You see my posts. They're pretty much in your face.

Refute them or get lost.

[abaris]

The disciples BELIEVED that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them.

Please, provide any credible evidence of the disciples even existing before we take this any further. Someone claimed the above. There's no evidence for the above. Do you really not get that?

[Randy Carson]

Yep he did.

So much for the minimal facts.

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

I have presented evidence for all five facts. Have you provided historical evidence to refute even one of them?

[Randy Carson]

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?

I don't really care where you start...it only matters where you finish.

If you have any historical evidence that would refute any of my five facts and that has been overlooked by the thousands of professional NT scholars teaching at major universities throughout the Western world who accept them, would you mind sharing it with us?

[Randy Carson]

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

And you'll find my brief, but unassailable response here.

[Cato]

Do you have any theories that explain this?

Lot's of people believed they saw Elvis after he died too.