Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Pizza]

Give an argument that there is in fact a god that does " suspend laws." You can't just assume Christianity is true.

I'm not going to repeat myself anymore.

Have you stopped to consider that the resurrection of Jesus IS evidence that there is a God? Or that coming to the conclusion that the resurrection makes sense is a step toward faith in God?

Because that assumes the very thing you where to set out to support, "there was a bodily resurrection of Jesus." Your premises assume Christian theism to support Christian theism. I don't understand what you don't understand about that. You can't even engage in basic reasoning about explanations without begging the question. I want good reasons to believe your explanation of the "five facts" is likely true, meaning it doesn't circularly appeal to the facts it's trying to explain as evidence for itself and as evidence of the "five facts." EX of question begging:
There was likely an empty tomb because Jesus resurrected, and Jesus likely resurrected because there was an empty tomb.

As I and others have repeated other simpler explanations are, no matter how unlikely, still more likely than resurrection given the facts about biology. The strength of your case is too capricious to be taken seriously.
Is there anything left say when you ignore science and think history can strongly support claims that go against hard sciences.

[Minimalist]

Since the asswipe is ignoring me one of you guys can pick this up and shove up his stupid ass without him knowing.

https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.co...pologetic/



Fuck him over good, boys.

It's probably not best practice for someone to quote your post who cannot be ignored, so I at least won't be doing that. Sorry.

Oh...you mean....um, right!

[Jenny A]

Have you stopped to consider that the resurrection of Jesus IS evidence that there is a God? Or that coming to the conclusion that the resurrection makes sense is a step toward faith in God?

Until the resurrection of Jesus is proven, it is evidence of nothing.  I have no idea what you mean by the resurrection "making sense."  But coming to baseless conclusions, does seem to be the hallmark of faith in god.

[robvalue]

Memo totally nailed it, I was going to write the same thing myself but found he'd already done it

I doubt any Christian believes in Christianity because of rationalisations like these. They are attempts to make an irrational belief look rational with pseudo-logic and pseudo-science. And because they don't believe them for these reasons, it makes no difference how many times we rip them to shreds.

I came with a way of paraphrasing all this: they are strawmanning themselves. They are putting forward the position that these arguments are sufficient to base belief on, knowing that it isn't true. Then when they get torn down, the real reasons stay nice and intact because they haven't been put on display.

You're also dead right Nemo, this "technique" just assumes the conclusion must be true, and that there must be a way of logically drawing a line between it and reality. So any argument that does so must be valid. That is the essence of the problem.

I don't say so to boast, but to prove a point: I was totally unindoctrainated as a child. Not raised "atheist", just not any beliefs forced on me at all. I was 5 years old when I was first presented with people trying to convince me of this crap. My critical thinking was developed enough even then to understand this is nonsense. Randy couldn't have convinced me even then. He would have been faced with a child asking him why an adult believes in fairy stories.

If I'd have been indoctrinated, I probably would have believed all these stories. At least until I got older. I hope I would still have found my way out.

[Minimalist]

Here is another well-reasoned rebuttal to Randy's bullshit.  For anyone who wants to use it.  

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...ch-of.html

Habermas and Licona ignore the fact that a miraculous resurrection is always going to be more improbable than any improbable speculation about what may have happened instead. Improbable things happen all the time. People get struck by lightning. People win contests against overwhelming odds. So non-miraculous explanations of the resurrection might all be improbable, and yet better explain the evidence, since a miracle can still be far less likely to be true than those other improbable explanations. Unless they can show that our “improbable” explanations are more improbable than a miracle (and they never do), their argument can’t even get off the ground.

Unless you are a religious shithead who believes in "miracles."  Then...anything is possible if you want it to be.

[Jenny A]

I don't say so to boast, but to prove a point: I was totally unindoctrainated as a child. Not raised "atheist", just not any beliefs forced on me at all. I was 5 years old when I was first presented with people trying to convince me of this crap. My critical thinking was developed enough even then to understand this is nonsense. Randy couldn't have convinced me even then. He would have been faced with a child asking him why an adult believes in fairy stories.

I was raised in a very Christian household.  But I do remember sitting in church during a sermon concerning Genesis and wondering how adults could believe any of it (it happened before kindergarten but how much before I don't know). It's a question that returned to my mind over and over. But no one tried to convince me.  They simply presented god as a given.  And they didn't talk of learning to believe in god, though they did pray to continue to believe in him (imagine a group of physicists praying to continue to believe in The Theory of Relativity despite the opposition of the world) which was not very reassuring.

When I confessed my unbelief rather than swear to a lie at confirmation, no one suggested rational proofs of god.  They suggested I examine my heart.  Or said to try very hard to believe.   Or said they'd pray for me. Or said to behave as if I believed in hopes I would believe (ignoring the last 15 years of my life).  I did try out of desire to please my parent (who I love) to believe.  I really did.  Now I can't figure out why even the desire to please would make me want to.

You see, there are no successful rational arguments for god.  Either you accept because you accept what you are taught, or determinedly set about believing for whatever personal reasons.  Virtually no one comes to faith in god by rational argument.

In fairness to my parents, no one yelled at me, threatened me, deprived me of college money, grounded me, or any other punishment.  They were simply bewildered and hurt.

We have raised our children without indoctrination.  We've let grandparents have a go at it, but discussed the girls questions about the books and videos their grandparents sent.  We let them go off with friends to Christian youth groups.  And what we have is little atheists who ask would be indoctrinating friends troubling questions.

[robvalue]

I'm sorry you had to go through that Jenny. I think some people are too rational to be duped, although if the indoctrination is ruthless enough anyone can probably be broken. I am glad your parents didn't react as badly as they could have done.

I wasn't an amazing child at 5, I was simply lucky to have a clear head. I'm not trying to claim superiority over anyone, even those who believe even today. Many much cleverer than me I'm sure have been conned into it because their minds have been poisoned by those responsible for their most basic education. It may well be done with good intentions, although I do wonder how much of it is the fear of having to explain it to a clear headed person rather than force it into a vulnerable young mind.

If there's one thing I despise the most about religion at a basic level I think it's indoctrination. It is what keeps religion going, possibly the only thing.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So at this point in this thread, it seems appropriate to post this:

[Longhorn]

Sooo, I'm Nemo for good now? Cool.

Looks like I really do roll so hard motherfuckers wanna find me

[Randy Carson]

Why do you believe that supernatural miracles do not occur?

If they do occur, why should I have to "believe" that they do occur? Why Am I restricted to "believing"?
Why are they so secret that people must become aware of them through writings or tales by other people?

You're not restricted to "believing". You can experience God's presence in your life, and then you would "know".

AS others have told you in the past: put aside your moldy miracles and bring forth some new ones.
(pro tip - cures for as-yet not fully understood conditions, like cancer, do not count; but human limb regrowth without any exterior aid does count)

There are examples of miraculous things that have occurred more recently, but you discount them. And here's the thing: you're operating from a hermeneutic of suspicion which seeks to find a way to eliminate any proposed miracle. Now, I agree that others are too quick to believe everything is a miracle, but the correct approach is to find a neutral ground from which the data can be evaluated more objectively.

I'm not sure you could actually do that, frankly.

So, I can put you down as being in the Conspiracy Theory Camp?

The disciples made up the whole thing and conspired to spread what they knew to be a lie. That's your view?

I don't think that's an accurate representation of what I wrote.
Luke was not a disciple, nor was Paul.
Concerning "Luke's" contribution to the NT, the wiki says something interesting:

The majority view is that Luke the Evangelist, the companion of Paul, was not the author of Luke-Acts.[5] The anonymous author took for his sources the gospel of Mark, the sayings collection called the Q source, and a collection of material called the L (for Luke) source;[6] the most probable date is around 80-100 CE, and there is evidence that it was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.

Whoever wrote this "Luke" did, most likely, lie or was induced into lying by the content on which he(or they) was based.

The disciples... could be extras on the story, for all we know.
The very existence of a Jesus that was crucified is barely supported... the existence of that person's disciples, on the other hand, seem to be assumed by you. Why?
Well, someone did perpetuate the tale; someone did spread it as far as modern-day-Turkey and turned into a cult... You can call whoever did that a disciple... but was that accomplished by the people in the tale? Or someone else? Someone unnamed, nameless, unknown, missing... Someone whose relation to the original Jesus is unknown. Someone who may have carried a part of a previous tale with him, so as to make it easier to memorize... the tale of a teacher, perhaps?
Ultimately, it's unknown.

Luke was written earlier than you claim and it was based in part upon Luke's personal investigation as well as his reliance on OLDER written materials (Q, Mark and L as you noted). 80-100? No. This is not the date range of most scholars.

ALL of the four gospels were completed within the lifetime of the last living Apostle, John.

So, I ask again, what is your theory that explains the five facts I have posted in this thread? It sound to me like you are uncertain as to whether Jesus himself ever existed and that consequently, there probably weren't any first century disciples. Is that a fair summary of your view?

Still, for the relevance it supposedly has, Id' expect a good, caring, powerful god to show people that it's there.
People of every generation (throughout the ages) and every geographical location should be made equally aware of this god.
Unfortunately, reality paints a picture of a very localized (both in time and space) deity. A great hint that it is far from divine, and closer to man-made.

Why is equality of knowledge of God a requirement? God judges people based on what they know of him; we are not accountable for what we do not know. So, South American jungle tribes have less knowledge of God - but not NO knowledge - while Muslims and Jews know more, etc.

Why is this a problem?