Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[robvalue]

Here's a question I never get an answer to:

Why does God send all these theists here to try and convince us, knowing they are all going to fail to make any impression on us?

Why would he do that? Or does he not know they will fail? Why doesn't he give them some new evidence so they at least have a fighting chance?

[Minimalist]

Why would he do that?

So that they aren't wasting his time with their stupid, fucking, prayers?

[Pizza]

Compression of this thread:
"The resurrection narrative is very plausible because Christian god exists. Other views are more implausible than resurrection."

"Resurrection narrative has lower plausibility than rival views because of facts about human biology and psychology. Rival views like resurrection is a myth theory (Jesus existed but the resurrection is a myth) and swoon theory are more likely."

  

[robvalue]

Here's something to consider:

Books are not simply either 100% true or 100% false.

Even if 99% of a book is true, that in no way implies the other 1% is true.

That should be pretty easy to understand, since this remaining 1% in the book could be replaced with anything at all. That would mean anything is true, and so everything is true.

[Randy Carson]

This has been explained MULTIPLE times.

<once more with feeling>

God is not struggling to reveal himself to you nor am I struggling to show you what evidence we do have. You're struggling to accept it. That's all.

If God were to make a more overt gesture of His existence, He would interfere with our free will.

It's just that simple.

Uh huh.

Like he had no problem doing before the invention of cameras. Straight up smiting people, too.

Just another weak excuse. The fact that you need to make it makes your god even less plausible.

This has been explained MULTIPLE times.

<once more with feeling>

God is not struggling to reveal himself to you nor am I struggling to show you what evidence we do have. You're struggling to accept it. That's all.

If God were to make a more overt gesture of His existence, He would interfere with our free will.

It's just that simple.

Sorry, but that's the snake rattle of the charlatan.  It's the fall back to most unprovable supernatural phenomenon--if you don't want it or won't accept it, it won't appear for you.  Every medium who claims to speak to the dead, or read your mind does it.  Skeptic and camera shy claims, are nothing more than hot air.

Before you get hot under the collar, I'm not suggesting you are lying about your beliefs, only that the excuse you offer is used by people who do, because it's the excuse of very last resort when trying to prove the unprovable.

Guys, while many less attentive (or more hostile) members of the forum simplistically dismiss me because they claim I'm only here to preach my own gospel. However, I'm actually more interested in finding and presenting good answers to your questions.

Now, you will both want to respond to my question below, but you seem to be raising the same objection. I'm happy to attempt an answer but I want to be sure that I understand exactly what the objection is.

Are you asking: Why doesn't God reveal himself dramatically today like he did in the Old Testament?

If not, please express the issue in your own words.

This is NOT my answer, but if Abraham, Moses, the prophets and others had a personal encounter with God that managed to get written up in the various books which we know collectively as the Bible, why do you count those as somehow "legitimate" whereas the Near Death Experiences or other supernatural occurences in the lives of modern believers are discounted?

What's the difference?

[IATIA]

We do not "count them as legitimate".

[Jenny A]

Uh huh.

Like he had no problem doing before the invention of cameras. Straight up smiting people, too.

Just another weak excuse. The fact that you need to make it makes your god even less plausible.

Sorry, but that's the snake rattle of the charlatan.  It's the fall back to most unprovable supernatural phenomenon--if you don't want it or won't accept it, it won't appear for you.  Every medium who claims to speak to the dead, or read your mind does it.  Skeptic and camera shy claims, are nothing more than hot air.

Before you get hot under the collar, I'm not suggesting you are lying about your beliefs, only that the excuse you offer is used by people who do, because it's the excuse of very last resort when trying to prove the unprovable.

You will both want to respond but you seem to be raising the same objection. I'm happy to attempt an answer but I want to be sure that I understand exactly what the objection is.

Are you asking: Why doesn't God reveal himself dramatically today like he did in the Old Testament?

I'm not begging god to show himself just noting that the more science are recording equipment we have the less he does, which suggests he is the product of primitive understanding.

This is NOT my answer, but if Abraham, Moses, the prophets and others had a personal encounter with God that managed to get written up in the various books which we know collectively as the Bible, why do you count those as somehow "legitimate" whereas the Near Death Experiences or other supernatural occurences in the lives of modern believers are discounted?

What's the difference?

There is no difference in the claims.  Neither is remotely likely to have experienced the supernatural.  The only difference is that in the case of modern NDEs we can study what is going on neurologically, and in the case of Moses we can't.  You may view them differently, I don't. Do you view Mohammad or Joseph Smith's claims differently than NDE's or Moses' burning bush? Why?

[Randy Carson]

You will both want to respond but you seem to be raising the same objection. I'm happy to attempt an answer but I want to be sure that I understand exactly what the objection is.

Are you asking: Why doesn't God reveal himself dramatically today like he did in the Old Testament?

I'm not begging god to show himself just noting that the more science are recording equipment we have the less he does, which suggests he is the product of primitive understanding.

This is NOT my answer, but if Abraham, Moses, the prophets and others had a personal encounter with God that managed to get written up in the various books which we know collectively as the Bible, why do you count those as somehow "legitimate" whereas the Near Death Experiences or other supernatural occurences in the lives of modern believers are discounted?

What's the difference?

There is no difference in the claims.  Neither is remotely likely to have experienced the supernatural.  The only difference is that in the case of modern NDEs we can study what is going on neurologically, and in the case of Moses we can't.  You may view them differently, I don't.  Do you view Mohammad or Joseph Smith's claims differently than NDE's or Moses' burning bush?  Why?

Thank you, but I thought you were asking a question about God's lack of appearances that I'm supposed to answer.

[Jenny A]

Thank you, but I thought you were asking a question about God's lack of appearances that I'm supposed to answer.

Simply noting that lack of appearance tends to suggest lack of existence.  It doesn't prove it, but it strongly suggests it.

[Jenny A]

Randy,

Do you view Mohammad or Joseph Smith's claims differently than NDE's or Moses' burning bush? Why?