Atheists: Can you disprove the resurrection or Jesus' existence?

[Captain Scarlet]

Yep, Padriac is on it, pretty much any atheist you ask to disprove the resurrection will start by pointing out that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, and then point out that there is no conclusive proof on your end. I asked everyone their thoughts on their subject on the topic of disproving Christianity and the opinion was pretty much unanimous with the "burden of proof" idea.

The arguments for xtianity have been refuted time and time again. If you are convinced by these refutations then xtianity is debunked, if not then it isn't. Speaking personally I am. The arguments for atheism have in turn been refuted by xtian theists, if you are unconvinced by these refutations then xtianity is debunked. Again I am.

If you track the great apologetic debates (such as theodicy) they all switch gears around the 70's because the influence of post-modernism was undermining their arguments (on both sides). (For example, the "God cannot be both all good and all powerful if there is evil" argument was almost completely abandoned because of some work by Alvin Plantinga.) To be sure both sides still have their lines drawn, but it's changing so fast it makes for an interesting show.

Plantingas FWD distilled down says it isn't logically impossible if god has a reason to allow evil. This argument has been refuted by Ray Bradley, amongst others. But notwithstanding that it says nothing about William Rowes inductive problem of evil. The world is much more consistent without there being a loving diety than with one, and whilst it may be logically possible that doesn't mean it is in the slightest bit convincing. In fact imo a more convincing case can be made logically for an all evil diety allowing us to do good things but willing us to be evil. But of course this is never put forward as it's not the xtian concept.

In my opinion it looked like the atheist side was winning the debate up through the 70's then starting with Plantiga it more or less evened out until the very late 90's, now it looks like the Christian side has a fairly healthy lead.

Yep and in my opinion that wrong, but then this of course subject to our own bias.

[Greatest I am]

Can you give me your best evidence that Jesus was not the son of God and died on the cross, or that he didn't exist? There's a theory that was in the movie ''Zeitgeist'' where the filmmakers claim that Jesus was a myth and never existed. They also claimed that all religion came from ancient astrology and sun worship.

Best evidence is both physical and moral.

On the physical side.
To believe the story of Jesus, one would have to believe in miracles of all kinds from the guiding star to invisible flying sperm that targets virgins.

On the moral side.
One would have to believe that the trinity Jesus would use his own mother to reproduce himself and that is incest.
Further, if God is one species and man another, one would have to believe that God promotes bestiality.

Oh Oh. God is at it again.


http://imgur.com/a/90sTN
Regards
DL

[coffeeveritas]

The arguments for xtianity have been refuted time and time again. If you are convinced by these refutations then xtianity is debunked, if not then it isn't. Speaking personally I am. The arguments for atheism have in turn been refuted by xtian theists, if you are unconvinced by these refutations then xtianity is debunked. Again I am.

A very nice summary. I like thinking about where the different positions draw their lines, always informative.

Plantingas FWD distilled down says it isn't logically impossible if god has a reason to allow evil. This argument has been refuted by Ray Bradley, amongst others. But notwithstanding that it says nothing about William Rowes inductive problem of evil. The world is much more consistent without there being a loving diety than with one, and whilst it may be logically possible that doesn't mean it is in the slightest bit convincing. In fact imo a more convincing case can be made logically for an all evil diety allowing us to do good things but willing us to be evil. But of course this is never put forward as it's not the xtian concept.

Oh for sure people have long since countered Plantiga, but the classic proof as stated above was abandoned. If you look at the refutations of Plantiga they all change track to a more postmodern direction. I hope I didn't make it sound like Plantiga won the debate once and for all, I was just noting that there are key works that take the debate in a new direction.

Yep and in my opinion that wrong, but then this of course subject to our own bias.

Oh, for sure I am biased. It's just been a hobby of mine to think about if the apologetic debate between Christianity and atheism was being scored like a debate in debate club, who would be in the lead. I actually think that a lot of the arguments the atheists were making towards the end of the modernist era were way better than the Christian ones, but the trend reversed as of late. (Of course this is just one judge on the panel, many people may see it differently.) That being said, if you look at a Sam Harris debate, he usually beats his Christian opponent. It's all just for fun really, because regardless of how much progress either side makes it's not like the arguments will get so good the other side will close up shop. Just a hobby of mine.

[Minimalist]

Haha! I love that one, it's so over the top. I really want it to pick up right after the last part with, "And then the cross brought forth its mighty array of lasers and vaporized all the Romans. And verily did three ninjas come forth from the ground to slay the three men, but the Kung Fu of the three men was too powerful and the ninjas did die. And indeed again there came forth from the ground Godzilla and Megatron . . ."

Certainly a far better story. I can see Toho making that one....wonder who they'd get to replace Raymond Burr for the US audience?

[ThomM]

YES - easily

1)THE letter "j" did not exist in any language at the supposed time of the christ
No one named jesus - ever lived at that time

2) The claim of the christ is a genetic impossibility - a human male requires a human Y chromosome - the claimed combination does not have one
THe christ therefore could not be a human male

3) WHEN two different species attempt to procreate - they do not produce a being exactly like one of the species - but a MUTT - a being with characteristics of both - example - a MULE. THE claim that the christ was totally human could not be true

4) THe bible itself says that no man has seen god. IF the christ were are real person - then he would have been seen. ONLY a MYTH would not have been seen

Since the christ cannot have existed as claimed - things that cannot have existed to begin with cannot have ressurected.

[coffeeveritas]

YES - easily

1)THE letter "j" did not exist in any language at the supposed time of the christ
No one named jesus - ever lived at that time

2) The claim of the christ is a genetic impossibility - a human male requires a human Y chromosome - the claimed combination does not have one
THe christ therefore could not be a human male

3) WHEN two different species attempt to procreate - they do not produce a being exactly like one of the species - but a MUTT - a being with characteristics of both - example - a MULE. THE claim that the christ was totally human could not be true

4) THe bible itself says that no man has seen god. IF the christ were are real person - then he would have been seen. ONLY a MYTH would not have been seen

Since the christ cannot have existed as claimed - things that cannot have existed to begin with cannot have ressurected.

1.) Haha! I guess you're technically right on that one. The letter "j" is actually how you transliterate an iota with a rough breathing, but there is no clear corresponding letter in Koine Greek.

2 - 3.) The complexities of the God-human hybrid, we're going to need to breed a geneticist with a priest. Hmm.... But how will we get him to break his vow?

4.) The Bible also says that no man can see God and live, so the question becomes, did Jesus melt peoples' faces like the ark from the India Jones movie?

- I believe the traditional defense of this supposition is that it's one of those God mysteries, like the three-in-one. God can be both God and man, because He's God, and He felt like it. It is fair to say that an infinite God would have properties that we just wouldn't understand, but it does end up sounding like a Christian "get out of jail free" card.

[ElDinero]

Like every other argument religious people have ever put forward, you mean...

[Thor]

2 - 3.) The complexities of the God-human hybrid, we're going to need to breed a geneticist with a priest. Hmm.... But how will we get him to break his vow?

Very easily! Just have a ten year old boy drop his pants.

[Minimalist]

Coffee,

Ever see this one?

[ThomM]

YES - easily

1)THE letter "j" did not exist in any language at the supposed time of the christ
No one named jesus - ever lived at that time

2) The claim of the christ is a genetic impossibility - a human male requires a human Y chromosome - the claimed combination does not have one
THe christ therefore could not be a human male

3) WHEN two different species attempt to procreate - they do not produce a being exactly like one of the species - but a MUTT - a being with characteristics of both - example - a MULE. THE claim that the christ was totally human could not be true

4) THe bible itself says that no man has seen god. IF the christ were are real person - then he would have been seen. ONLY a MYTH would not have been seen

Since the christ cannot have existed as claimed - things that cannot have existed to begin with cannot have ressurected.

1.) Haha! I guess you're technically right on that one. The letter "j" is actually how you transliterate an iota with a rough breathing, but there is no clear corresponding letter in Koine Greek.

2 - 3.) The complexities of the God-human hybrid, we're going to need to breed a geneticist with a priest. Hmm.... But how will we get him to break his vow?

4.) The Bible also says that no man can see God and live, so the question becomes, did Jesus melt peoples' faces like the ark from the India Jones movie?

- I believe the traditional defense of this supposition is that it's one of those God mysteries, like the three-in-one. God can be both God and man, because He's God, and He felt like it. It is fair to say that an infinite God would have properties that we just wouldn't understand, but it does end up sounding like a Christian "get out of jail free" card.

THe problem is that the claim of an infinite god - and that claim that we could not understand it is another ploy of theists - who fail to understand reality still has to apply.

In the real world - an infinite god simply cannot be true. IT still remains that suggestion creates the paradoxes that cannot be overcome. THE ability to do ONE thing often prevents the ability to do another thing - that is simply the way reality works - you cannot simultaneously be BOTH the smallest object in existence AND the largest one - by definition. So - for the bible to claim that Nothing is impossible with god (Luke) - that god cannot exist as defined because it cannot be true.

Among the things that is apparently impossible with gods is the complete inability to provide testable and verifiable proof of their existence - none have - but then things that do not exist really have no power at all anyway.

As far as the priest breaking his vow - you forget - his vow is not to marry - ie. - be celibate. Marriage is not a requirement for procreation - as we ALL know.