Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[IanHulett]

Think of each of these five facts - accepted AS FACTS (not opinions) by professional NT scholars of all faith positions (believers and non-believers alike) - as signposts pointing toward a destination - namely, that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.

I also want to point out that you're presenting an appeal to majority/authority. You're saying 2 things in this statement here:

1. Many people accept it as fact (appeal to majority)
   
2. Those people are professional NT scholars of all faith positions (appeal to authority)
   

You're saying that because many people accept it as true, and that they have credentials, that your statements must be true. That's not how discussions work.

[The Grand Nudger]

The truth is out there.

It may be "out there", but it isn't in -your posts-...and that's the problem......or was that not clear?

[Longhorn]

Are you reading my mind again, Rhythm?

[Cato]

The truth is out there.

Yes it is and god isn't part of it. God is a denizen of the minds of the gullible.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you reading my mind again, Rhythm?

Only always......and you're a sick...sick person...btw.  

[IanHulett]

Is there a reason you're ignoring EVERYTHING I'M SAYING? I'M NOT SAYING GOD DOESN'T EXIST. Stop twisting my words, and stop shifting the burden of proof. You're making the assertion that god exists, and so it's YOU'RE JOB TO PROVE IT.

According to the majority of religious people, no matter what evidence you provide for them, they will never change their mind, so no it doesn't depend on the evidence. They explicitly say that.

Gee. Thanks for taking me off the hook when I was never on the hook to begin with. I was never making a positive assertion. You're just presenting a straw man, accusing me of saying something I never said in order to escape the burden of proof you placed on yourself.

And I did take into consideration your five "facts," just as any skeptic would, but they didn't add up. Sorry.
---
---
Remember when I said you were being intellectually dishonest? Well, you just proved my point.

Or you proved you didn't understand what I was saying. It's okay. We can move on.

Dude? What the fuck are you talking about?

You came here presenting "facts," and when I said they didn't add up, you claim that I didn't understand what you're saying. There are plenty of rebuttals to your argument through out this thread. Are you refusing to consider them? Why are you even bothering trying to discuss this?

[The Grand Nudger]

He's not discussing, he's not here to discuss, he's here to proselytize.....clear that up for you?

[Randy Carson]

Think of each of these five facts - accepted AS FACTS (not opinions) by professional NT scholars of all faith positions (believers and non-believers alike) - as signposts pointing toward a destination - namely, that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.

I also want to point out that you're presenting an appeal to majority/authority. You're saying 2 things in this statement here:

1. Many people accept it as fact (appeal to majority)
   
2. Those people are professional NT scholars of all faith positions (appeal to authority)
   

You're saying that because many people accept it as true, and that they have credentials, that your statements must be true. That's not how discussions work.

Of course it is.

There is no reason to dispute what reliable, knowledgeable people tell you is true.

Or do you plan to re-work of all Stephen Hawking's calculations just because you don't want to appeal to him as an authority?

[IanHulett]

1. Obi-Wan Kenobi died in a lightsabre duel.
2. Kenobi's apprentice and former master saw he had risen and appeared to them.
3. Darth Vader, the persecutor of the Jedi, was suddenly changed.
4. Han Solo, the sceptical pilot for Kenobi, was suddenly changed.
5. Kenobi's robes were found to be empty.

Why don't you consider THIS rebuttal? It works perfectly. It shows that your "facts" or "logic" can be used to justify ANYTHING.

[IanHulett]

I also want to point out that you're presenting an appeal to majority/authority. You're saying 2 things in this statement here:

1. Many people accept it as fact (appeal to majority)
   
2. Those people are professional NT scholars of all faith positions (appeal to authority)
   

You're saying that because many people accept it as true, and that they have credentials, that your statements must be true. That's not how discussions work.

Of course it is.

There is no reason to dispute what reliable, knowledgeable people tell you is true.

Or do you plan to re-work of all Stephen Hawking's calculations just because you don't want to appeal to him as an authority?

I don't consider his arguments because he is Stephen Hawking, or at all because I don't know any of his arguments. If I did know them, I would not consider them because of his credentials, I'd consider them based on whether or not they have evidence to support them. That's the difference between you and me. I value evidence and sound logic over what I'm told is true.