Evidence: The Gathering

[rexbeccarox]

That's the rub.  The possibilities for an empty tomb are: theft (with benign or malignant intent for honest or fraudulent reasons), waking up from what wasn't really death; failure to actually inter the body (again for benign or malignant reasons); the witnesses lied; dogs, people, or other animals ate the body; or rising from the dead like Lazarus is said to have done; or even more improbably waking to eternal life.  The first five are reasonably probable.  The later two impossibly improbable.  It is not for those arguing that it might of been one of the first five to show that it was a particular one of the five, but he who argues for the impossible to show that the first five are really and truly impossible.  Otherwise the empty tomb is proof of nothing like resurrection.  It is circumstantial evidence of nothing in particular, just possibilities, much like the light that doesn't come on.

Jenny-

I'm aware of all of these theories; however, they simply do not account for ALL of the facts...not even the Five Minimal Facts.

For example, how would dogs eating the body of Jesus account for Paul's conversion? As an enemy of the early Church, Paul would have been quick to accept that theory more readily than the resurrection theory.

But he became a Christian. Why?

When you demonstrate your five minimal facts are, in fact, facts, then we'll have something to talk about. Simply harping on them as such doesn't make them so, now, or the eight thousand other times you've tried it.

[KevinM1]

It's so cute that he capitalizes it, as though it's a real thing.

[robvalue]

Randy: You have been throwing the word "fact" about quite a bit regarding things we can supposedly learn from the bible. Surely this means that such evidence would be acceptable to put you down for murder, if it is a fact?

Even for things you wouldn't say are facts, you're admitting us atheists have no reason to believe the supernatural stuff happened beyond reasonable doubt? And considering we're talking about supernatural stuff, what is reasonable doubt is much bigger in scope. At least it should be, for anyone interested in the truth.

I agree, historical study often does not put things beyond reasonable doubt. But that's not the message I've been getting from you, and joining a religion seems to be putting a lot more than historical probability into action.

I didn't get an answer to this so I'm putting it up again.

[Pat Mustard]

ಠ_ಠ



This is my hometown, Matera Italy. Every year, on July 2, there's the feast of the Madonna della Bruna (Our Lady of... I really don't know how to translate it).

the police are there because the float gets attacked by the people at the end of the procession, it's fucking nuts

But it's OK, Catholics don't worship Mary.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

---

I could quote a buttload of other feasts in which Mary is celebrated, prayed to and worshipped as the patron saint of places all over Italy. Bite me.

No need to do all that.

Simply provide a single quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which explains to me, a Catholic, how and why I should worship Mary.

Alternatively, perhaps you could lay out a convincing argument that ALL prayer is necessarily worship. Can you do that, pray tell?

A third choice would be to explain that there are no real distinctions between dulia, hyperdulia and latria.

Do you have a preference?

Sé do bheatha, a Mhuire,
atá lán de ghrásta,
Tá an Tiarna leat.
Is beannaithe thú idir mná,
Agus is beannaithe toradh do bhroinne, Íosa.
A Naomh-Mhuire, a Mháthair Dé,
guigh orainn na peacaigh,
anois, agus ar uair ár mbáis.
Amen.


For those of us who don't speak Irish, the second most important and said prayer in the rcc cathechism in English:

---

Hail Mary, full of grace
the lord is with thee.
Blessed are thou amongst women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, mother of god,
give us this day
our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses.
Amen

---

[Randy Carson]

Jenny-

I'm aware of all of these theories; however, they simply do not account for ALL of the facts...not even the Five Minimal Facts.

For example, how would dogs eating the body of Jesus account for Paul's conversion? As an enemy of the early Church, Paul would have been quick to accept that theory more readily than the resurrection theory.

But he became a Christian. Why?

When you demonstrate your five minimal facts are, in fact, facts, then we'll have something to talk about. Simply harping on them as such doesn't make them so, now, or the eight thousand other times you've tried it.

I have already done this in another thread.

Simply wishing away the scholarship of thousands of trained professionals (theist and atheist alike) doesn't make these facts go away.

[rexbeccarox]

Yeah...

no.

[Minimalist]

Shithead still does not know what a "fact" is, huh.  Amazing that so much stupid can be piled into one person.  I bet the church makes you a saint, Randy.

[Crossless2.0]

Shithead still does not know what a "fact" is, huh.  Amazing that so much stupid can be piled into one person.  I bet the church makes you a saint, Randy.

Don't they need one or two "confirmed" miracles? I suppose a conversion or two here at AF might qualify.

[Randy Carson]

Randy: You have been throwing the word "fact" about quite a bit regarding things we can supposedly learn from the bible. Surely this means that such evidence would be acceptable to put you down for murder, if it is a fact?

"put you down for a murder" must be a British idiom...I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Does that mean "accuse me of murder"?

But let me begin by asking: What is a fact of ancient history, rob?

How can we know with certainty that something actually occurred before the invention of photography, audio recording and so forth? In fact, given the ease with which something can be photoshopped, edited or altered, how can we even be certain of ANY electronic evidence anymore?

Even for things you wouldn't say are facts, you're admitting us atheists have no reason to believe the supernatural stuff happened beyond reasonable doubt? And considering we're talking about supernatural stuff, what is reasonable doubt is much bigger in scope. At least it should be, for anyone interested in the truth.

There is a chain of evidence to consider, rob.

A is probably true. And if so, that points to the possibility that B is true. And if B is true, then C would have to be true, also.

It seems to me that atheists begin with the presupposition that GOD DOES NOT EXIST, and all the rest of their efforts are geared toward explaining away anything that suggests otherwise.

I agree, historical study often does not put things beyond reasonable doubt. But that's not the message I've been getting from you, and joining a religion seems to be putting a lot more than historical probability into action.

A jury in a courtroom examines the evidence presented and comes to a decision. If they believe beyond a reasonable doubt - not beyond ALL doubt (because some doubts may not be reasonable) - then they can vote to convict the defendant.

If a non-believer listens to the arguments and evidence for theism and Christianity, he or she evaluates whether it is convincing or not. If this is done objectively and with determination to follow the evidence wherever it might lead, then it is not all that unusual for the person to become a believer because the arguments in favor of Christianity are persuasive. They're just not coercive.

But this is just the beginning, rob.

God is real. God is alive. And God can and does make Himself known to those who seek him. This knowledge is not based on archaeological evidence or examination of ancient texts...it is based upon revelation and relationship.

Conversely, there are people to whom God reveals Himself first - in which case all the facts and figures and dates, etc. are merely interesting bits of information that confirms what they already know to be true: God is real.

[Cyberman]

To be put down for a crime, aka sent down, is to be convicted and sentenced. Not merely accused.