The existence or non-existence of a god/the gods

CiaranMT

Can't believe I spent close to half an hour reading this

Jakkass, King Mob, go out and kick a ball around, have a pint. Life's too short!

kiffer

CiaranMT wrote: »

Can't believe I spent close to half an hour reading this

Jakkass, King Mob, go out and kick a ball around, have a pint. Life's too short!

Yeah... I offered bonus pints to people but no one took me up on it...

ColmDawson

CiaranMT wrote: »

Life's too short!

Yeah, but if you think you've got one to spare...

strobe

CiaranMT wrote: »

Can't believe I spent close to half an hour reading this

Jakkass, King Mob, go out and kick a ball around, have a pint. Life's too short!

I'm with ye all the way man. Personaly I question the entire validity of people being on a discussion forum, and in particular an Atheism and Agnosticism discussion forum, trying to discuss the topic of the existance or non-existance of a god. It's confusing alright....:D

aidan24326

strobe wrote: »

I'm with ye all the way man. Personaly I question the entire validity of people being on a discussion forum, and in particular an Atheism and Agnosticism discussion forum, trying to discuss the topic of the existance or non-existance of a god. It's confusing alright....:D

It's an educational experience, you will never learn more than from absorbing the thoughts, ideas and philosophies of others. especially those who disagree with you.

strobe

aidan24326 wrote: »

It's an educational experience, you will never learn more than from absorbing the thoughts, ideas and philosophies of others. especially those who disagree with you.

....exactly.


("Strobe demands sarcasm tags!")

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass wrote: »

King Mob - I still haven't been presented a reasonable case to demonstrate how we progress from Jesus having died, and remained dead, to the disciples and all followers at Jerusalem proclaiming that Jesus had actually risen, to the risk of their own lives, without any financial gain in doing so.

In reality this happens all the time. People moved to fanaticism will often tell lies when they feel the ends justify the means, even at the risk of their own lives. If they fanatically believed that the spread of the words of their Mentor would indeed benefit society at large then it is no surprise they would exaggerate certain claims in order to achieve that. It is also possible, that in their own minds they really did believe the event. But we all know that a group of people believing an event happening, and the truth of that event actually having happened, are two separate things.

In a mere question of probability we can simply ask ourselves which is more plausible… that the entire process of human biology was suspended for a relative handful of people in an unprecedented one off event… or a group of people looking to sell an idea lied in an event with much precedent throughout human history.

I am not surprised in the least that people would give up financial and even personal well being in the pursuit of an ideal. It happens throughout our history and requires no divine assumption in order to understand it. People will give their life in order to support the society they want to see existing, not because of their own well being but because that is the society they want for those they love, whether that be their relatives, their off spring, or just their fellow man.

To suggest otherwise is an insult to all those who actually did give their lives to a cause for that very reason. If they could do it then merely declaring there is no other good reason why "the disciples" would do it in their religious fevor is just a mockery of the act. There is nothing about their actions, or those of Jesus were they to be accurate, that requires we assume anything on insufficient evidence in order to understand.

And your declaration that there is “no gain” to be had by dying in such a way, like you say in post #66 is patently false. The power of martyrdom and dying for an idea can never be underestimated.

It is more likely the resurrection is imagery and no more. This is why they do not “recognise” him in the stories after his resurrection. It was not the same person who came to them, but someone being a purveyor of the same beliefs. This imagery is both beautiful and telling. I can almost picture being there. “Who are you… this imposter coming before us claiming to speak like or even for Jesus….” but having listened to him for some time saying “Our Messiah is dead but I recognise in your dear brother all that we held dear from him and of him… I recognise you!”.

Remember, in language the verb to “recognise” is not limited merely to identifying X as X. We recognise in other senses too such as “recognising the court” or “recognising authority” etc.

Maybe it is all illusion that what Jesus was, which to me appears to be a moral philosopher behind our time but way ahead of his own, was killed on the Friday but on the 3rd day despite the attempt to beat it down it rose again.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not going to engage in a childish type of discussion where you make demands.

Yeah its so infuriating when you make claims and people don't just _accept_ them isn't it? They always want pesky back up for them all the time. Its such an imposition. Such an.... inconvenience. Who do people think they are!

Would that we could all live in a world where things we say are true would magically just become so and all would accept it. Sounds like a good idea of heaven to me.

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

King Mob - I still haven't been presented a reasonable case to demonstrate how we progress from Jesus having died, and remained dead, to the disciples and all followers at Jerusalem proclaiming that Jesus had actually risen, to the risk of their own lives, without any financial gain in doing so.

I still haven't been presented a reasonable case to demonstrate how we progress from Elvis having died, and remaining dead, to the fans from Memphis and all around the US proclaiming that Elvis is actually still alive, to the risk of their own reputations, without any financial gain in doing so.

checkyabadself

Definition of existance....
n.
1. The fact or state of existing; being.
2. The fact or state of continued being; life: our brief existence on Earth.
3.
a. All that exists: sang the beauty of all existence.
b. A thing that exists; an entity.
4. A mode or manner of existing: scratched out a meager existence.
5. Specific presence; occurrence: The Geiger counter indicated the existence of radioactivity.

Proof for the existence of god, hearsay, bronze age texts written generations after the events allegedly occured.
Proof that he still exists, none.

non·ex·is·tence *(nng-zstns)
n.
1. The condition of not existing.
2. Something that does not exist.
nonex·istent adj.

There is no evidence today that proves "god is nonexistant" to be a false statement.

There is no doubt that god does not exist in the world as we know it today. Technically he may have existed previously, in the same way that you can trust that Caesar existed.

The real argument is whether we believe the lofty claims from a mostly illiterate people from over a thousand years ago.

I don't believe it, but I can see how willful thinking coupled with the difficulty in questionig the validity of indoctrinated belief systems that were imposed by those who you trusted unconditionally could make someone cling to a possibility of it being true.

Zombrex

checkyabadself wrote: »

There is no evidence today that proves "god is nonexistant" to be a false statement.

Double negatives are for pussies.

checkyabadself

Wicknight wrote: »

Double negatives are for pussies.

I'll get my coat:)

@jackass I have to say that I find it strange that you repeatedly say that you won't entertain a q and a session and are complaining about being goaded.
What I find strange is that you are saying this in a thread you started as a theist in the atheist forum.
Firstly, what kind of reactions were you expecting?

Secondly, what were you hoping to achieve or learn from the debate?

Thirdly, you claim to want the moderators to review how they do their job here.

I mean no disrespect to you personally, but the last time I checked, a person who posted in a forum with clearly opposing views to the majority of posters and then refused to repeatedly answer basic fair questions, is known as a troll.
Just to point out I'm not trying to insult you, I just can't see how your posts differ to those who troll threads knowing the outcome from the very beginning.

Dades

checkyabadself wrote: »

Thirdly, you claim to want the moderators to review how they do their job here.

Musta missed that one.

checkyabadself wrote: »

Just to point out I'm not trying to insult you, I just can't see how your posts differ to those who troll threads knowing the outcome from the very beginning.

Jakkass is no more a troll than the reciprocal atheist posters in Christianity. Less of the public insinuations, thanks! Report button is there for such thoughts.

checkyabadself

Dades wrote: »

Musta missed that one.

Jakkass is no more a troll than the reciprocal atheist posters in Christianity. Less of the public insinuations, thanks! Report button is there for such thoughts.

Jakass- I'm not going to engage in a childish type of discussion where you make demands. I'm simply not, because I post here, to discuss, not be be goaded. Indeed, I'dE suggest this is something that the moderators need to work on. If people are discussing with theists, that's what it means. An interchange, mutual questioning and discussion. Not a one sided Q&A session. I made that clear from the start.

That's what I was referring to. My apologies for any insinuations or offence caused. Feel free to delete my posts, I won't post in this thread again.

Regards, Will.

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

Yes you did.

Apologies. You're correct I did say disregard. I meant for the time being, rather than in general.

Dades - As for the moderation. I did say the following.

I'm not going to engage in a childish type of discussion where you make demands. I'm simply not, because I post here, to discuss, not be be goaded. Indeed, I'd suggest this is something that the moderators need to work on. If people are discussing with theists, that's what it means. An interchange, mutual questioning and discussion. Not a one sided Q&A session. I made that clear from the start.

If that is deemed inappropriate, again apologies. The essence of what I am saying is, I come here to dialogue with unbelievers. I don't come here to have people demand me answer every single post they make, or have people complain about my absence in threads if God forbid I decide to do something else.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

An interchange, mutual questioning and discussion.

In all fairness, Jakkass, there are a few basic questions which you've been asked, and you haven't answer them. And while I don't believe that anybody is hectoring you inappropriately into answering them, or stalking off in a public huff if you don't, I do feel it's fair to point out that the question(s) that you're ignoring are central to the debate and people are free to conclude what they wish by this fact.

WRT moderation -- if you feel that a post is offensive in some way, then please feel free to use the 'report' button and the offending post and poster will be dealt with in accordance with the forum rules.

kiffer

Jakkass wrote: »

Apologies. You're correct I did say disregard. I meant for the time being, rather than in general.

Dades - As for the moderation. I did say the following.


If that is deemed inappropriate, again apologies. The essence of what I am saying is, I come here to dialogue with unbelievers. I don't come here to have people demand me answer every single post they make, or have people complain about my absence in threads if God forbid I decide to do something else.

No one expects you to respond to everyone but, of course, every one wants their post/points responded to...

You've repeatedly walked into the lion's den and you get swamped...

BUT you also ignore a number of points, dismiss things that we feel are important considerations and that really gets under peoples skins...

If you respond to a persons post and ignore some meaty solid pointed paragraph in order to pay lots of attention to some other part of the post... like ignoring any comment that references a religion other than Christianity, or skipping a large part of a post so that you can point out that the Christ wasn't killed by the stab wound to the side but was dead at already at that point then you are not really able to say I never got round to that post... or I missed that post in the mass of people... because you have responded to it... but ignored a lump of it.

Jakkass, you're taking on to many people at once...

((edit: Robin said it better... also maybe serpents' nest makes more sense then lion's den ))

philologos

robindch wrote: »

WRT moderation -- if you feel that a post is offensive in some way, then please feel free to use the 'report' button and the offending post and poster will be dealt with in accordance with the forum rules.

I don't think the posts are offensive, and indeed even if they were, that isn't a valid reason to use the report function. I'm quite happy for people to tell me that my reasoning is terrible, that I am irrational / illogical, unintelligent, bigoted, prejudiced etc. That's nothing new to me.

However, when people get into such nonsense such as demanding I deal with every post - that's where I draw the line personally. Most times, people are in general civil though, that must be said, and most times Dades and yourself do a good job moderating.

King Mob wrote: »

Right let's consider four scenarios.

A- the biblical story is completely factual and Jesus was supernaturally resurrected.

B- Jesus was a fraud and a huckster (possibility aided by some of his followers), and faked his miracles including his resurrection (either by direct visual illusions or by spreading false stories.)

C- Jesus was an honest preacher with honest followers who honestly believed, who after his death embellished stories with exaggeration and allegory.
("physical death to spiritual resurrection" becomes "Physical resurrection" over multiple tellings.)

D- Jesus and the events of his life are entirely fictional.

Let's go through them:

A - The position I currently accept, on the basis of early church history.

B - This is another option. However, it results in the denial of Jewish and Roman historical sources concerning the existence, and the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. Namely, Tactius, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and the Babylonian Talmud.

C - Even if we accept that the New Testament is embellished, the problem still exists if we look to the accounts I have described above:
1. A group of disciples follow Jesus around for 3 years.
2. He inspires them with His teaching and His ministry throughout those 3 years.
3. His views are controversial and result in his arrest initially by the Jewish authorities and then the Roman authorities.
4. Jesus of Nazareth is crucified.
-
6. The disciples enthusiastically proclaim of a Resurrection event, a claim that was made from the early Christian church onward.

The problem of how we get from 4 to 6 is still problematic. It is an issue for me in terms of making sense of the position you are telling me is more reasonable to hold.

D. Most historians are agreed, that Jesus of Nazareth did exist, and He was crucified at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Here is an graphic demonstrating the site.

King Mob wrote: »

Of course these are only a few possibilities there could be hundreds of others.

Granted.

King Mob wrote: »

Now each would explain all of the events more or less and all are possible.
Only A is different however.
For B to be true it would require that someone would go around deliberately fooling people into believe in his supernatural powers.
We can see hundreds of examples of this.
For C to be true it would require that people embellish stories and change them over time.
Again we can point to hundreds of examples of this.
For D to be true it would require that people write fictional stories that could be confused with fact.
Two people: Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes.

B - Granted, it would be easy if there weren't other factors to be taken into account, such as personal knowledge, the length of time they had to establish that it was indeed Jesus, and the amount of people who had seen Jesus in the last 40 days he spent before the Ascension.

C - There is no textual evidence that the New Testament manuscripts have been significantly changed. There is evidence to the contrary in fact. It's very easy to change 1 text. It is very difficult to change 40,000 manuscripts of the New Testament and make them all say the same thing. Analysis which was done on these manuscripts has suggested that they are at least 99.6% authentic.

D - This would also be a reasonable case were it not also true that there is historical writing to back up the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, and of the early church. If there was no other basis for establishing a historical Jesus, then your claim would be very strong. However, this isn't the case.

King Mob wrote: »

However for A to be true it requires that supernatural resurrection can happen.
But we can't find a single example of this that can be verified and exclude the possibility of trickery, delusion or other factors.

All we do now is apply occam's razor ....

So unless you have some verifiable evidence that any resurrection ever took place, you cannot honestly say that believing is the resurrection in the only reasonable position.

This is taking the emphasis of my original question. I'm asking you if there is a reasonable approach to explaining the history of the early church without a Resurrection event. The other approaches are flawed in numerous ways.

Shifting the question might be convenient, but there are serious questions to be raised about all of the other options you have raised so far.

Ockham's Razor can also be abused. For example, it may be deemed the simplest solution to assume God created the universe rather than accept that the situation may well be more complex. Yet you would hold a lot of issue to that reasoning.

Poor William of Ockham the monk would probably be writhing in his grave knowing that you used his theory in opposition to what he would have regarded as divine truth

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

Let's go through them:
A - The position I currently accept, on the basis of early church history.

That's clear.

Jakkass wrote: »

B - This is another option. However, it results in the denial of Jewish and Roman historical sources concerning the existence, and the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. Namely, Tactius, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and the Babylonian Talmud.

Not really, how many of these sources were actually there to witness the events?
Specifically if it was Jesus on the Cross?

Jakkass wrote: »

C - Even if we accept that the New Testament is embellished, the problem still exists if we look to the accounts I have described above:

No it doesn't.
How many of them actually describe the exact same details in the bible?

Jakkass wrote: »

1. A group of disciples follow Jesus around for 3 years.
2. He inspires them with His teaching and His ministry throughout those 3 years.
3. His views are controversial and result in his arrest initially by the Jewish authorities and then the Roman authorities.
4. Jesus of Nazareth is crucified.
-
6. The disciples enthusiastically proclaim of a Resurrection event, a claim that was made from the early Christian church onward.

The problem of how we get from 4 to 6 is still problematic. It is an issue for me in terms of making sense of the position you are telling me is more reasonable to hold.[/QUOTE]
We have already shown this argument to be false.

How do you explain the events around Joseph Smith and his golden tablets?
Where they real?
Cause there is no other explanation as to why he has so many followers some even willing to die for him....

Jakkass wrote: »

D. Most historians are agreed, that Jesus of Nazareth did exist, and He was crucified at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Here is an graphic demonstrating the site:

And there still exists the possibility that they are wrong/falsified etc.

Jakkass wrote: »

Granted.

So how can you discount them when you have no direct clear evidence the resurrection took place?

Jakkass wrote: »

B - Granted, it would be easy if there weren't other factors to be taken into account, such as personal knowledge, the length of time they had to establish that it was indeed Jesus, and the amount of people who had seen Jesus in the last 40 days he spent before the Ascension.

I wasn't talking about just the resurrection, but picture this.
Take a willing follower, have him agree to die in your place. (we can provide clear evidence of **** like this happening. hell this could have even been done without Jesus's knowledge.)
Have the Romans arrest and torture this dude. (again we know this because the bible specifically says they didn't know what he looked like, and needed Judas to identify him.)
The Romans tell everyone this guy is Jesus so the crowds come out.
Crucify him, and of course the disciples wouldn't say much wanting to protect the real Jesus. (of course if memory serve not all of them visited the cross, so only a few would have recognised him. Assuming of course the Romans didn't **** up his face.)
Then after he's buried nick the body, and get some ladies to lie about seeing angels etc.
Then real Jesus appears three days later.
Ta-da!

How, when you only have (what you're told is)first hand accounts by people who many have actually been in on this, can you honestly say that supernatural resurrection is the only explanation?

Jakkass wrote: »

C - There is no textual evidence that the New Testament manuscripts have been significantly changed. There is evidence to the contrary in fact. It's very easy to change 1 text. It is very difficult to change 40,000 manuscripts of the New Testament and make them all say the same thing. Analysis which was done on these manuscripts has suggested that they are at least 99.6% authentic.

And they couldn't have been embellished between the time they happened and the time they were written down?
Remember there's a lot of stuff in there that only the disciple would have seen...

Jakkass wrote: »

D - This would also be a reasonable case were it not also true that there is historical writing to back up the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, and of the early church. If there was no other basis for establishing a historical Jesus, then your claim would be very strong. However, this isn't the case.

And again, they only say the man existed and was a preacher, that's it.
They don't have detailed accounts of any of his tricks or resurrection.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is taking the emphasis of my original question. I'm asking you if there is a reasonable approach to explaining the history of the early church without a Resurrection event. The other approaches are flawed in numerous ways.

You explanation requires magic and trusting that everyone is telling the truth and can't be mistaken or fooled.
If you think this is a reasonable position, I have these magic beans and a bridge...

Jakkass wrote: »

Shifting the question might be convenient, but there are serious questions to be raised about all of the other options you have raised so far.

Really? That rich since you are the person shifting the burden of proof.
I don't have to provide any evidence for these scenarios, just present them as other possibilities.
Because you're argument is that there are no other possibilities.

Jakkass wrote: »

Ockham's Razor can also be abused. For example, it may be deemed the simplest solution to assume God created the universe rather than accept that the situation may well be more complex. Yet you would hold a lot of issue to that reasoning.

Poor William of Ockham the monk would probably be writhing in his grave knowing that you used his theory in opposition to what he would have regarded as divine truth

Yes I would take issue with that reason because it's not how Occam's Razor works.
You explanation requires a supernatural event.
My explanations require only thing we can see today being used and abused by people.
Occam's razor means the explanation that doesn't require the addition of an unknown is most likely the correct one.

Unless you have clear verifiable and scientific evidence that any resurrection ever happened.
Why is it so hard for you to answer this simple yes/no question?

sonicthebadger*

Jakkass wrote: »

Ockham's Razor can also be abused. For example, it may be deemed the simplest solution to assume God created the universe rather than accept that the situation may well be more complex. Yet you would hold a lot of issue to that reasoning.

Only replying on this specific point, that's not exactly how it works. The simplest solution is not to say this complex thing was made by something more complex. The question to always ask is could this have happened without [insert assumption here].

Never mind, King Mob was way ahead of me! :pac:

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

Not really, how many of these sources were actually there to witness the events?
Specifically if it was Jesus on the Cross?

Granted. They were secondary sources.

Most historians are in agreement that a person Jesus of Nazareth did exist, and most historians are also in agreement that this Jesus of Nazareth was crucified.

What is not agreed by historians is whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, had any supernatural powers, and so on.

Most of these sources also agree that this happened under the reign of Caesar Tiberius, and that Pontius Pilate was the procurator.

It's not as if this is being pulled from thin air. This doesn't just hinge on the veracity of the New Testament alone. That is my point.

King Mob wrote: »

No it doesn't.
How many of them actually describe the exact same details in the bible?

Was I arguing that it was in the exact same details as the Bible?
The point is that the common ground exists in relation to the Crucifixion of Christ, and the mission of the early church. My question concerns the gap from Crucifixion to evangelisation. Again, it is a valid question.

It is of little relevance as to whether or not this was done in the same detail as the Bible or not, what matters is that there is affinity on areas relevant to this question.

For the time being I am arguing that the Resurrection occurred, not that the extra detail in the Bible is warranted. That would involve a discussion on whether or not the Bible is reliable or not, and we would be here all night and for several days more discussing that if we did.

King Mob wrote: »

We have already shown this argument to be false.

You haven't at all in the slightest.

King Mob wrote: »

How do you explain the events around Joseph Smith and his golden tablets?
Where they real?
Cause there is no other explanation as to why he has so many followers some even willing to die for him....

This is sidetracking from our current discussion. The Golden Plates is a different situation in numerous respects.
The Biblical texts and the historical texts I am discussing remain with us to be translated and studied in their original languages. The Golden Plates don't.

It's a totally different argument in numerous respects, as the death of Jesus would have been a lot more disheartening, than the existence or lack thereof of Golden Plates.

If Jesus did not rise again, it was game over. He had been lying or insane. He said explicitly to the disciples on three occasions that he was going to be killed and rise again on the third day. Christianity was, and is false without a Resurrection event. Indeed 1 Corinthians 15:14 makes this clear, without the Resurrection our faith is in vain.

The lack of the Golden Plates doesn't have the same effect on Mormonism. Not even the death of Joseph Smith has the same effect, as Joseph Smith (correct me if I am wrong) did not make claims as Jesus did concerning his mortality, or that he would rise again as Christ did.

King Mob wrote: »

And there still exists the possibility that they are wrong/falsified etc.

It could be, but it seems more likely that they would have good reason to come to such a conclusion rather than not given their expertise. If you wish to challenge their conclusions that's up to you.

King Mob wrote: »

So how can you discount them when you have no direct clear evidence the resurrection took place?

Actually, King Mob, this is in itself indicatory evidence that Jesus did rise from the dead. All of it is, the lack of a real reason to account for the transition from mourning disciples, to confident evangelists indicates that something must have happened in between that was of significant circumstance.

Of course it is only one of the major indications that gives me reason to believe in Christianity and its message, but it is the central one. The other options you have mentioned, make little sense in light of what actually happened. I've explained why it doesn't make sense.

King Mob wrote: »

I wasn't talking about just the resurrection, but picture this.
Take a willing follower, have him agree to die in your place. (we can provide clear evidence of **** like this happening. hell this could have even been done without Jesus's knowledge.)
Have the Romans arrest and torture this dude. (again we know this because the bible specifically says they didn't know what he looked like, and needed Judas to identify him.)
The Romans tell everyone this guy is Jesus so the crowds come out.
Crucify him, and of course the disciples wouldn't say much wanting to protect the real Jesus. (of course if memory serve not all of them visited the cross, so only a few would have recognised him. Assuming of course the Romans didn't **** up his face.)
Then after he's buried nick the body, and get some ladies to lie about seeing angels etc.
Then real Jesus appears three days later.
Ta-da!

The Qur'an makes such a claim. However, with a guarded tomb, and with Judas explicitly pointing the Jewish authorities to Jesus Himself, the Jewish authorities who had witnessed Jesus preaching to them blasphemies in the Temple court, and throughout Judea would all have had to be mistaken.

This is forgetting that Jesus was something of a celebrity amongst the people, a celebrity perhaps of notoriety amongst the Pharisees, and the scribes perhaps, but a celebrity none the less.

Again, when piecing together the circumstances it just doesn't seem likely to me.

King Mob wrote: »

How, when you only have (what you're told is)first hand accounts by people who many have actually been in on this, can you honestly say that supernatural resurrection is the only explanation?

I can't say that it is the only explanation. It would be dishonest for me to say that. You yourself have offered numerous explanations, others have offered numerous explanations also in the past, and into the present. The question isn't that they aren't explanations in their own right.

The question is whether or not they are reasonable explanations in light of the circumstances. To me, they simply aren't.

There is of course another idea that needs to be discussed. That idea is, is it possible for such a Resurrection to occur in the first place. However, that question itself is dependent on what position you come from at the beginning.

If one believes in God, of course it is reasonable that God can alter the laws of his creation to perform miracles.
If one does not believe in God, believes the world is solely material (which isn't accepted by certain philosophers), of course one cannot believe that anything external can have any impact on the natural world.

Indeed, in the latter case, it is absolutely absurd to think that such a miracle can happen in the first place.

King Mob wrote: »

And they couldn't have been embellished between the time they happened and the time they were written down?
Remember there's a lot of stuff in there that only the disciple would have seen...

Granted, this is also true. They could have been embellished from the first time they were written down, but if we put the New Testament on a chronological time stamp. You have to recognize that the evangelists themselves, were dotted all over from Egypt, to Greece. It is doubtful that there was much contact amongst them. Paul, was the first writer of a book in the New Testament circa 54AD (1st Corinthians), then there was Mark (60AD), Luke (70AD), John (90AD).

If there were just one Gospel writer, I might agree with you. It would be incredibly easy to embellish.

Luke's Gospel goes further than just the disciples experience with Jesus, he notes at the start of His Gospel:

Luke 1:1-4 wrote:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

King Mob wrote: »

And again, they only say the man existed and was a preacher, that's it.
They don't have detailed accounts of any of his tricks or resurrection.

Agreed. They do contain the information that cause the problem to arise, with or without the New Testament.

We need to know what happened between 4 and 6. Even if we dismiss the New Testament and look at it based on the historical texts, we have a group of disciples, mourning their failed leader at one point, and a group of evangelists proclaiming a Messiah who has not only fulfilled the Jewish prophesies concerning Him, but who has triumphed over death, not only that He has triumphed, but we have triumphed also, because He was wounded for our transgressions (Isaiah 53:5). That's a pretty remarkable transition, the question is how did it happen and why?

King Mob wrote: »

You explanation requires magic and trusting that everyone is telling the truth and can't be mistaken or fooled.
If you think this is a reasonable position, I have these magic beans and a bridge...

My position doesn't require magic, rather what it requires is God's existence, that is a personal God who cares for us, and a personal God that has the power to manipulate the scientific laws of the universe. It isn't beyond reason that there could be a God, or that He indeed created the world.

Words such as "magic" only trivialise the actual case being made.

Really? That rich since you are the person shifting the burden of proof.
I don't have to provide any evidence for these scenarios, just present them as other possibilities.
Because you're argument is that there are no other possibilities.

King Mob wrote: »

Yes I would take issue with that reason because it's not how Occam's Razor works.
You explanation requires a supernatural event.
My explanations require only thing we can see today being used and abused by people.
Occam's razor means the explanation that doesn't require the addition of an unknown is most likely the correct one.

Of course it is. Ockham's Razor which arose in Medieval Philosophy, involves the most pragmatic, or simplex solution being more likely than more complex solutions. Unless Ockham's successors have managed to strawman it since, this is a reasonable point to put across.

That is unless one doesn't regard God creating the world as being any more simplex than the others, which is a valid objection. Although most skeptics I have discussed with on and off boards do regard God as being a simple solution to a more complex issue.

King Mob wrote: »

Unless you have clear verifiable and scientific evidence that any resurrection ever happened.
Why is it so hard for you to answer this simple yes/no question?

This is attempting to dodge the subject. I'm suggesting that the lack of sense in alternative explanations to the Resurrection gives credence to the Resurrection actually having occurred.

I've made clear from the very start that not all evidence is scientific, and indeed, I won't be putting science on a pedestal when discussing this. I've also told you that I won't be solely considering science as the only evidence to Biblical claims.

If you choose to have a narrow view of evidence, that's your prerogative.

A closing point, there is another textual factor of the Resurrection account that also makes it more unlikely to have been fabricated.

The first witnesses of the risen Jesus were women. In Jewish society and in much of the Greek world also, women weren't to be regarded as legitimate witnesses in court. As such it would have been more pragmatic for the writers if they were indeed fabricating to omit this information. Indeed, it would have been embarrassing were it not true.

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

Granted. They were secondary sources.

So they contain none of the details of the crucifixion.

Jakkass wrote: »

Most historians are in agreement that a person Jesus of Nazareth did exist, and most historians are also in agreement that this Jesus of Nazareth was crucified.

What is not agreed by historians is whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, had any supernatural powers, and so on.

Most of these sources also agree that this happened under the reign of Caesar Tiberius, and that Pontius Pilate was the procurator.

It's not as if this is being pulled from thin air. This doesn't just hinge on the veracity of the New Testament alone. That is my point.

Was I arguing that it was in the exact same details as the Bible?
The point is that the common ground exists in relation to the Crucifixion of Christ, and the mission of the early church. My question concerns the gap from Crucifixion to evangelisation. Again, it is a valid question.

It is of little relevance as to whether or not this was done in the same detail as the Bible or not, what matters is that there is affinity on areas relevant to this question.

For the time being I am arguing that the Resurrection occurred, not that the extra detail in the Bible is warranted. That would involve a discussion on whether or not the Bible is reliable or not, and we would be here all night and for several days more discussing that if we did.

So they contain no details other than, he existed and was reported to be crucified.
Leave the ONLY source for the details, the Bible.

Jakkass wrote: »

You haven't at all in the slightest.

This is sidetracking from our current discussion. The Golden Plates is a different situation in numerous respects.
The Biblical texts and the historical texts I am discussing remain with us to be translated and studied in their original languages. The Golden Plates don't.

It's a totally different argument in numerous respects, as the death of Jesus would have been a lot more disheartening, than the existence or lack thereof of Golden Plates.

If Jesus did not rise again, it was game over. He had been lying or insane. He said explicitly to the disciples on three occasions that he was going to be killed and rise again on the third day. Christianity was, and is false without a Resurrection event. Indeed 1 Corinthians 15:14 makes this clear, without the Resurrection our faith is in vain.

The lack of the Golden Plates doesn't have the same effect on Mormonism. Not even the death of Joseph Smith has the same effect, as Joseph Smith (correct me if I am wrong) did not make claims as Jesus did concerning his mortality, or that he would rise again as Christ did.

Mormonism is based on the supernatural discovery of Golden Tablets which were translated by supernatural means.
Since it's clear you do not think this is not the case, why do you believe people, including people who actually met Smith, believed that it was the case?
It must have been supernatural, there's no other explanation, right?
Except there is a very simple one, and there reason you are avoiding answering that very simple question is because it demolishes you arguement.
So, why do people believe Joseph Smith?

Jakkass wrote: »

It could be, but it seems more likely that they would have good reason to come to such a conclusion rather than not given their expertise. If you wish to challenge their conclusions that's up to you.

I'm not seriously doing so, but it's still a possibility that by all reasoning is more likely than supernatural resurrection.

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually, King Mob, this is in itself indicatory evidence that Jesus did rise from the dead. All of it is, the lack of a real reason to account for the transition from mourning disciples, to confident evangelists indicates that something must have happened in between that was of significant circumstance.

Of course it is only one of the major indications that gives me reason to believe in Christianity and its message, but it is the central one. The other options you have mentioned, make little sense in light of what actually happened. I've explained why it doesn't make sense.

It's not evidence, it's an argument form incredulity.
You can't think of a reason.
Several have been provided, and you have not been able to exclude them.

Jakkass wrote: »

The Qur'an makes such a claim. However, with a guarded tomb, and with Judas explicitly pointing the Jewish authorities to Jesus Himself, the Jewish authorities who had witnessed Jesus preaching to them blasphemies in the Temple court, and throughout Judea would all have had to be mistaken.

How do you know the tomb was guarded in the first place?
Guards didn't take bribes in the first century, or couldn't be knocked out or killed?

So then how do you know they didn't just find a guy who look a bit like Jesus and then the Romans ****ed up his face, a common occurrence in torture.
Plus he was covered in blood from that crown.
How do you exclude this possibility?

Jakkass wrote: »

This is forgetting that Jesus was something of a celebrity amongst the people, a celebrity perhaps of notoriety amongst the Pharisees, and the scribes perhaps, but a celebrity none the less.

Again, when piecing together the circumstances it just doesn't seem likely to me.

And did the bible have everyone's account?
No, just the disciples.
Maybe someone did point out that it wasn't Jesus, just no one believed him.

Are you honestly going to base this on the idea that people can't mistake one guy from another?

Jakkass wrote: »

I can't say that it is the only explanation. It would be dishonest for me to say that. You yourself have offered numerous explanations, others have offered numerous explanations also in the past, and into the present. The question isn't that they aren't explanations in their own right.

The question is whether or not they are reasonable explanations in light of the circumstances. To me, they simply aren't.

And you've not shown why they aren't reasonable, other than "it says so in the bible" or "I don't see how that could happen".

Jakkass wrote: »

There is of course another idea that needs to be discussed. That idea is, is it possible for such a Resurrection to occur in the first place. However, that question itself is dependent on what position you come from at the beginning.

If one believes in God, of course it is reasonable that God can alter the laws of his creation to perform miracles.
If one does not believe in God, believes the world is solely material (which isn't accepted by certain philosophers), of course one cannot believe that anything external can have any impact on the natural world.

Indeed, in the latter case, it is absolutely absurd to think that such a miracle can happen in the first place.

So no you can't provide a single instance of a resurrection?
how about of any supernatural miracle?

I suppose if you believe in faeries or aliens....

Jakkass wrote: »

Granted, this is also true. They could have been embellished from the first time they were written down, but if we put the New Testament on a chronological time stamp. You have to recognize that the evangelists themselves, were dotted all over from Egypt, to Greece. It is doubtful that there was much contact amongst them. Paul, was the first writer of a book in the New Testament circa 54AD (1st Corinthians), then there was Mark (60AD), Luke (70AD), John (90AD).

If there were just one Gospel writer, I might agree with you. It would be incredibly easy to embellish.

Why does having multiple authors reduce the chances of embellishing exactly?

Jakkass wrote: »

Agreed. They do contain the information that cause the problem to arise, with or without the New Testament.

We need to know what happened between 4 and 6. Even if we dismiss the New Testament and look at it based on the historical texts, we have a group of disciples, mourning their failed leader at one point, and a group of evangelists proclaiming a Messiah who has not only fulfilled the Jewish prophesies concerning Him, but who has triumphed over death, not only that He has triumphed, but we have triumphed also, because He was wounded for our transgressions (Isaiah 53:5). That's a pretty remarkable transition, the question is how did it happen and why?

Because they where either crazy or out for profit or a combination of both.
I don't see how this is an unreasonable position.
It's probably your position on why people followed Joseph Smith....

Jakkass wrote: »

My position doesn't require magic, rather what it requires is God's existence, that is a personal God who cares for us, and a personal God that has the power to manipulate the scientific laws of the universe. It isn't beyond reason that there could be a God, or that He indeed created the world.

Words such as "magic" only trivialise the actual case being made.

I don't see how it's not magic.

Can you provide a single example of God manipulate the scientific laws of the universe?
(Something makes me think you'll ignore this question too.)

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course it is. Ockham's Razor which arose in Medieval Philosophy, involves the most pragmatic, or simplex solution being more likely than more complex solutions. Unless Ockham's successors have managed to strawman it since, this is a reasonable point to put across.

That is unless one doesn't regard God creating the world as being any more simplex than the others, which is a valid objection. Although most skeptics I have discussed with on and off boards do regard God as being a simple solution to a more complex issue.

You've completely misunderstood how Occam's razor works.
Simple didn't and doesn't mean fewest words, but rather the fewest variables.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is attempting to dodge the subject. I'm suggesting that the lack of sense in alternative explanations to the Resurrection gives credence to the Resurrection actually having occurred.

Really, accusing me of dodging a question?
Irony.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've made clear from the very start that not all evidence is scientific, and indeed, I won't be putting science on a pedestal when discussing this. I've also told you that I won't be solely considering science as the only evidence to Biblical claims.

And I have made it exceedingly clear what I meant by "scientific".
Are you not reading my posts?
I've pointed these very issue out three times now.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you choose to have a narrow view of evidence, that's your prerogative.

Yes I do choose to narrow what I consider to be good evidence to evidence that can be verified and is clear and free of the possibility of trickery and psychlogical effects.
Why is this such a bad thing.

Jakkass wrote: »

A closing point, there is another textual factor of the Resurrection account that also makes it more unlikely to have been fabricated.

The first witnesses of the risen Jesus were women. In Jewish society and in much of the Greek world also, women weren't to be regarded as legitimate witnesses in court. As such it would have been more pragmatic for the writers if they were indeed fabricating to omit this information. Indeed, it would have been embarrassing were it not true.

Unless they were the only ones they could pay...
They didn't need to prove it in a court of law, just had to get the word out there.

King Mob

To be honest it's pointless addressing the post Jakkass since you continue to dodge and ignore the main questions I'm asking you.

1) The main one: Do you have any clear verifiable evidence for God or the resurrection that can be shown to be reasonably free of trickery, psychological effect or other such factors?
Yes or no?

2) The other one that's since come up and you've tried hard to dodge.
Why do you think people believe in Joseph Smith's story of supernaturally reviled golden tablets?

Your continued dodging is frankly getting tedious and silly.

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

So they contain none of the details of the crucifixion.

So they contain no details other than, he existed and was reported to be crucified.

Not quite as limited. They contain information about who Jesus was tried under, the Christian community, and key members in the Christian community such as Jesus' brother James who is also the author of James in the New Testament canon.

It is enough that we have information, that Jesus was crucified, and that the community of Christians with the leadership of the disciples preached what they did to pose the question of what happened in between Jesus' death, and their preaching the Gospel. I'm open to suggestions as to what happened in between, but to suggest nothing happened in between makes little sense.

King Mob wrote: »

Leave the ONLY source for the details, the Bible.

See above. There is enough information in the secular / Jewish sources to pose the same question to you concerning what happened.

King Mob wrote: »

Mormonism is based on the supernatural discovery of Golden Tablets which were translated by supernatural means.
Since it's clear you do not think this is not the case, why do you believe people, including people who actually met Smith, believed that it was the case?
It must have been supernatural, there's no other explanation, right?
Except there is a very simple one, and there reason you are avoiding answering that very simple question is because it demolishes you arguement.
So, why do people believe Joseph Smith?

I don't know why people believed Joseph, but all I do know is that the scenario is radically different to that of the Crucifixion in nature.


I'm not seriously doing so, but it's still a possibility that by all reasoning is more likely than supernatural resurrection.

King Mob wrote: »

It's not evidence, it's an argument form incredulity.
You can't think of a reason.
Several have been provided, and you have not been able to exclude them.

Of course it is. It indicates that it is more likely than not that Jesus rose from the dead.

If you remember at the start of our discussion, I said quite explicitly that the best we would be able to do in the absence of absolute proof is to be able to discuss what indicates (indicatory evidence) to us the truth or falsity of the Christian Gospel. That's all you and I are going to be able to do.

The mere fact that this question remains unresolved, and that alternative explanations are falling short, gives credence to the truth of the Resurrection.

King Mob wrote: »

How do you know the tomb was guarded in the first place?
Guards didn't take bribes in the first century, or couldn't be knocked out or killed?

That's actually a very good question.

The Matthew account in the New Testament is where the notion would arise from. I assume in the case of itinerant preachers, in order to prevent such claims of the miraculous it would be important for there to be the guard at the tomb. Likewise, I assume Jewish pressure would have also made this likely.

Moving on to bribes. The disciples were peasants, as were most of Jesus' followers at that time. Do you think they could have afforded to bribe a sufficient amount? Likewise, as for knocked out or killed, it depends on how many guards were in place, and how well armed the guards were in comparison to those who would be attacking.

However, even if this occurred, and its probably the best point you have brought up thus far. There is still the question of how Jesus came back to life, and how he was witnessed post-Resurrection. The question of why the disciples would risk their lives, knowing that this was false is also a huge question.

King Mob wrote: »

So then how do you know they didn't just find a guy who look a bit like Jesus and then the Romans ****ed up his face, a common occurrence in torture.
Plus he was covered in blood from that crown.
How do you exclude this possibility?

Judas finding Jesus, happened before the crown of thorns was put on his head. The Jewish authorities found Jesus before this bleeding and disfigurement occurred. So Jesus would have appeared as He did when preaching in the Temple court.

King Mob wrote: »

And did the bible have everyone's account?
No, just the disciples.
Maybe someone did point out that it wasn't Jesus, just no one believed him.

The Biblical text includes accounts of what the Jewish people expected of the Messiah as well as what happened concerning Jesus death. However, that's neither here nor there.

Let's carry on with the identification stuff below:

King Mob wrote: »

Are you honestly going to base this on the idea that people can't mistake one guy from another?

That isn't what I am basing it on though. I'm basing it on how well Jesus was known, (and despised in some cases) amongst Jewish circles. They would have made sure that it was Him that they were about to kill. It is evident given how Jesus' preaching led up to His death, and the controversy that He had caused, that He would be well known.

King Mob wrote: »

And you've not shown why they aren't reasonable, other than "it says so in the bible" or "I don't see how that could happen".

I've shown how the alternatives aren't all that plausible in comparison to the Gospel account by this mere discussion I'm having with you.

King Mob wrote: »

So no you can't provide a single instance of a resurrection?
how about of any supernatural miracle?

Provide a single instance? We're discussing a single instance right now. If the Resurrection certainly didn't happen, it shouldn't be difficult to provide a good reason why the disciples went from point A of mourning their deceased leader to point B of evangelising what they believed as truth with confidence.

King Mob wrote: »

I suppose if you believe in faeries or aliens....

All it takes is the belief in a Creator, with intimate knowledge of the scientific laws that He had created.

King Mob wrote: »

Why does having multiple authors reduce the chances of embellishing exactly?

More checks and balances. Pretty much the same way we usually have more witnesses to the stand in court than just one before ruling a verdict.

King Mob wrote: »

Because they where either crazy or out for profit or a combination of both.
I don't see how this is an unreasonable position.
It's probably your position on why people followed Joseph Smith....

It is up to the Mormons to defend the veracity or lack thereof in relation to Joseph Smith.

King Mob wrote: »

I don't see how it's not magic.

I'm assuming that you wouldn't distinguish between a miracle, and magic either? - A miracle, is when God becomes involved with the universe He created to put forward an outcome that would be extremely unlikely otherwise.
Magic, is entirely human centred.

King Mob wrote: »

Can you provide a single example of God manipulate the scientific laws of the universe?
(Something makes me think you'll ignore this question too.)

Why would I? We're discussing an example of how God manipulated the scientific laws of the universe right now. The Resurrection.

Likewise, the parting of the Dead Sea, the Angel of Death passing over the Egyptians, the Virgin Birth, Christ walking on water, the Feeding of the Five Thousand and so on.

King Mob wrote: »

You've completely misunderstood how Occam's razor works.
Simple didn't and doesn't mean fewest words, but rather the fewest variables.

I'm not all that sure I have. There is little or no point in squabbling over Medieval Philosophy however.

King Mob wrote: »

And I have made it exceedingly clear what I meant by "scientific".
Are you not reading my posts?
I've pointed these very issue out three times now.

I told you right from the start that this was going to be about evidence in general. Irrespective of arbitrary standards that you happen to place on it.

King Mob wrote: »

Yes I do choose to narrow what I consider to be good evidence to evidence that can be verified and is clear and free of the possibility of trickery and psychlogical effects.
Why is this such a bad thing.

It's not a bad thing at all. Searching for good evidence for ones beliefs or otherwise is noble.

The assumption that all evidence must be scientific of nature is just fallacious however. A lot of evidence, including that which is provided in a courtroom is not scientific.

King Mob wrote: »

Unless they were the only ones they could pay...
They didn't need to prove it in a court of law, just had to get the word out there.

What are you talking about payment for? The women were followers of Jesus. Irrespective of whether or not they are paid doesn't make this any less of a potential issue that they would have wanted to hide if they were fabricating something.

Indeed, if they were looking to "pay" witnesses, why would they bother if they could just conjure up the fiction themselves as if they were writing a novel?

Such a hypothesis is problematic as I have mentioned before, because it also involves history as well as this account. If there wasn't any bridge between certain events in this account and history, it would be much easier to dismiss as mere fiction.

philologos

King Mob - It's nothing about dodging. The question concerning Joseph Smith, is nothing like that of the Resurrection. I even explained exactly why it isn't akin to the Resurrection going into the details of the Joseph Smith and the Golden Plates. If one wants to argue that has relevance, by all means do. The Crucifixion, and its lasting impact most certainly wouldn't result in the growth and development of the early church and in the perseverance of the disciples. Whether or not the Golden Plates existed or not, in and of itself wouldn't be an impediment to the growth and spread of Mormonism.

I've already answered your question about evidence. Infact I am answering it right now. The lack of a sufficient alternative to explain the history of the early church and what happened, indicates that the Resurrection account in the Gospels is more true than not.

I explained right from the start I would be using indicatory evidence to explain my position. Despite your posts to the contrary, it appears that you are still conflating absolute proof with evidence. I've made also very clear that in the absence of absolute proof, we have to make our case by indication. What indicates to me that Christianity is true, that God exists, that Jesus was who He said He was.

That's what indicatory evidence involves. The other side of the coin is what indicates to you that Christianity is not true, that God does not exist, that Jesus was not who He said He was. That's all we can do. If you want me to prove God's existence in a simple step, I won't be able to. Likewise if I wanted you to prove God's existence in a simple step you wouldn't be able to either.

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

King Mob - It's nothing about dodging. The question concerning Joseph Smith, is nothing like that of the Resurrection. I even explained exactly why it isn't akin to the Resurrection going into the details of the Joseph Smith and the Golden Plates. If one wants to argue that has relevance, by all means do. The Crucifixion, and its lasting impact most certainly wouldn't result in the growth and development of the early church and in the perseverance of the disciples. Whether or not the Golden Plates existed or not, in and of itself wouldn't be an impediment to the growth and spread of Mormonism.

That's exactly what I called a dodge, as you didn't answer the actual question.

The whole Mormon mythology comes from a supernatural event.
People believed in this supernatural event, to the point of risking their lives.

Other than your insistence, there is no difference other than time between the two.

So if Smith was lying how can you possibly explain Mormons belief?
But I think we both know the reason why you are dodging the question.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've already answered your question about evidence. Infact I am answering it right now. The lack of a sufficient alternative to explain the history of the early church and what happened, indicates that the Resurrection account in the Gospels is more true than not.

That's not evidence.
Arguments form incredulity do not make evidence.

Let's take an example.
Gravity in my house is caused by a fairy who lives in the attic who I cannot see.
Now this book I've written says things fall faster in my house than they do outside.
there is a lack of sufficient alternative to explain this difference, therefore the fairy exists.

Jakkass wrote: »

I explained right from the start I would be using indicatory evidence to explain my position. Despite your posts to the contrary, it appears that you are still conflating absolute proof with evidence. I've made also very clear that in the absence of absolute proof, we have to make our case by indication. What indicates to me that Christianity is true, that God exists, that Jesus was who He said He was.

That's what indicatory evidence involves.

I am not asking for proof. (fifth time.)
I am asking for clear verifiable evidence that is reasonably free of the possibilities of tricky etc.

I can provide such evidence for scientific concepts and natural phenomena.
I cannot provide proof as it is impossible.

I've been fairly clear about this from the start but you keep trying to pretend I'm asking for something I'm not.

Because you refuse to do so it's apparent you cannot provide any evidence that is either clear, verifiable, or reasonably clear of the possibly of trickery etc.
Thus the only evidence you have is faulty, either because it is not clear or verifiable or it is possibly the result of trickery or psychological effects.

And you've been spending the last few pages trying to pretend otherwise.

Jakkass wrote: »

The other side of the coin is what indicates to you that Christianity is not true, that God does not exist, that Jesus was not who He said He was. That's all we can do. If you want me to prove God's existence in a simple step, I won't be able to. Likewise if I wanted you to prove God's existence in a simple step you wouldn't be able to either.

All I asked you for is for the best clear evidence you have.
The best you can provide is an argument from incredulity, among a lot of question dodging and nonsense.

And you still can't understand why atheists are atheists?

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

But they don't contain any of the details about the crucifixion, which you are basing your points on.
These details only exist in the bible.

This is irrelevant, as I've already explained. As long as the prerequisites for the problem exist, it doesn't matter whether or not it makes direct reference to the Resurrection in secular sources. The problem still remains, what happened between Jesus' death, and the disciples going out preaching the Gospel?

Even if the New Testament doesn't come into the situation this question is still important.

King Mob wrote: »

So then it must have been true because there is no other explanation as to why he has so many followers, some of whom would die for it.

It's an indication as to it being true. I never said that it must be true, rather I am saying that the gap between the point of Jesus' death, and the disciples proclaiming the Gospel throughout the world gives credence to something extraordinary having taken place between His death and the beginnings of the Christian church.

King Mob wrote: »

If you are to hold to you own logic, Mormonism must be true.

Despite there being no affinity between the situation you described with Joseph Smith and the Resurrection?

King Mob wrote: »

Again, not asking for proof.

There isn't much difference, in how you are defining evidence.

King Mob wrote: »

Fourth time telling you this.

I know you've said it, its just not convincing by this point. It becomes apparent each time you mention the term that evidence and proof are basically one and the same in your mind.

King Mob wrote: »

No they aren't, you're just saying they can't be true because you can't see that they work.
Arguments from incredulity =/= evidence.

This is nonsense. Reasonable people determine what makes sense from what doesn't, and in turn determine that it is reasonable to believe one thing over another. This happens all the time. I could equally accuse you of incredulity in your atheism, but it would be fruitless as to you that is more reasonable, even if it may be a flawed position to hold.

I've already explained what I am aiming to do. I am aiming to show that there is indication from what we do know, that the Resurrection is more likely to have taken place than any of the alternatives that you have brought up thus far.

King Mob wrote: »

And is it impossible for them to have the money or raise the money? No.
Is it impossible that they killed the guards? No.

It's impossible for peasants to have enough money to sufficiently bribe the guards? No, but unlikely.
Is it impossible that they killed the guards. No but unlikely.

King Mob wrote: »

Because he never died.
Because his cult was brainwashed and when a new guy was placed in power, no one questioned it.
Because the new guy claimed that Jesus's spirit was resurrected in his body and he was now Jesus and people honestly believed this. (And still do, the Dalai Lama.)

I've already been through how according to the Gospel accounts that it is unlikely that Jesus survived the crucifixion. It is actually extremely unlikely that anyone could survive what Christ went through on that day. Then there is the factor of the soldiers even going so far as to verify that Jesus had indeed died after he gave up his last breath.

King Mob wrote: »

Because maybe they didn't think they would be put to death?
Because maybe the ones who died weren't in on it?
Because maybe they were aware of the risk but kept going anyway?

1) Why wouldn't they? - Jesus had been put to death by the Roman authorities, so there was a pretty good precedent that they would too.
2) What do you mean weren't in on it? - Most of the disciples were martyred, even the ones who were "in on it".
3) Why would they? This is the major question we are dealing with. Why would you risk your life when you knew yourself that it was a lie?

King Mob wrote: »

Why did the Waco boys keep going when the ATF was at the front door?
Why did L. Ron Hubbard keep going when he could have been arrested?

They didn't know that it was a lie. Pretty much.

King Mob wrote: »

And so on and so on.
The are infinte possibilities that are far far more likely than anything supernatural.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. What has been brought up so far doesn't really present a viable alternative to the account that is actually witnessed to by Christians.

King Mob wrote: »

And a look a like was impossible because.....

I've already gone through this in detail. Not impossible, just very unlikely in comparison to the Christian explanation of what took place.

King Mob wrote: »

Wow seriously?

All it takes is the belief in aliens/faries with advanced technology/magic....

It's reasonable, despite your comparisons, to hold the belief that there is a cause for why we are here. In philosophy the question is put "Why is there something rather than nothing?". Irrespective of your ridicule, this is a reasonable question to ask, and it is and will be a question that people will continue to ask.

If one wants to ignore such a position that is your choice. However, for most people it is reasonable to hold the position that there was a starting cause to all that we come to know.

Belief in God is about as much a fairytale as your belief in the material world. You're pretty much applying the same reasoning that Berkeley used to the material world, to God. It does not always mean that this reasoning is useful, pragmatic, or indeed in accord to reality.

King Mob wrote: »

So then all their stories about Jesus are consistent all the way through?
What about the gospels and other works left out of the bible?

This is ignoring that there are reasons why such works were left out of the Bible. Indeed, watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_f_veY11

King Mob wrote: »

Well seemingly no-one can provide an explanation as to why people believe in the golden tablets, so therefore they must be true....

Again, its an entirely different situation to the Resurrection. I've explained why already.

King Mob wrote: »

And neither have ever been demonstrated to exist.
So no i really don't bother to distinguish them.

Indeed, the material world hasn't been demonstrated conclusively enough to Berkeley's standards to exist, yet I can be pretty certain for pragmatic purposes that it does.

It doesn't even take an absolute certainty that they occur to believe in the potential for miracles. All it takes is that it is possible that a miracle could happen, given God's existence, His knowledge of the scientific laws He created.

King Mob wrote: »

So no direct verifiable evidence that is clear of the possibility of trickery or other factors.

Direct verifiable evidence == absolute proof

We're dealing with indicatory evidence, I.E what indicates that something is true rather than not. Despite all your claims to the contrary you are still conflating absolute proof with evidence.

King Mob wrote: »

And again, All I'm looking for is clear verifiable evidence that is clear of the possibility of trickery, psychological effects or other factors.
Because you refuse to provide such evidence (or even answer the question directly) it's clear you cannot provide any evidence that is verifiable or clear or reasonably free from the possibility of trickery or psychlogical effects or similar.

See above.

King Mob wrote: »

how can you hold a position based on faulty evidence?

I'm not. The evidence holds up, and it indicates that the Resurrection occurred.

King Mob wrote: »

So they would just have to have come across an empty tomb?
And are you seriously asking why someone might want to spread the idea that their cult had a miracle?

No, I'm questioning your Biblical knowledge. The women knew Jesus, and they knew where He had been laid according to the Gospel accounts. Joseph of Arimathea had laid him in his own personal tomb.

They weren't random women who had been paid, but they were Jesus' followers. They were also the first to be there.

It has been an interesting discussion. I don't think we will be getting anywhere, but it has been good to discuss the ins and outs of the case for the Resurrection anyway.

We're getting to the point where we are rehashing a lot of the others material.

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

It has been an interesting discussion. I don't think we will be getting anywhere, but it has been good to discuss the ins and outs of the case for the Resurrection anyway.

We're getting to the point where we are rehashing a lot of the others material.

I think so. You've made some good points above (but not enough to convince me).
But the posts are getting a bit long...

There's just the one point I want to address, it's possibly the sourse of some disagreement.

Jakkass wrote: »

Direct verifiable evidence == absolute proof

This is simply not true.
Absolute proof is impossible outside maths and logic.

Direct verifiable evidence is easy to get for stuff that happened.
For example, WW2 occured in 1939.
There's more than enough directly verifiable evidence to show this fact, including millitary documents, photographs, newspaper articles, eye witness testimony, spend shell cases on the field of France and Poland....
And so on.

I don't believe verifiable equals proof.

philologos

God's existence itself is unverifiable, if it were verifiable, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The best we can do, in both the situations of God's existence being unverifiable, and in the case of there being no absolute proof of God's existence (I'd generally regard these as one and the same), is determine what indicates that God exists rather than not or vice versa. That's all we can ever hope to discuss, unfortunately!

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

God's existence itself is unverifiable, if it were verifiable, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The best we can do, in both the situations of God's existence being unverifiable, and in the case of there being no absolute proof of God's existence (I'd generally regard these as one and the same), is determine what indicates that God exists rather than not or vice versa. That's all we can ever hope to discuss, unfortunately!

Well no, you could present the best evidence that indicates there is a god, but that evidence, to be convincing to me, must the verifiable (i.e. excludes stuff I cannot independently check is true), clear (i.e. is unambiguous) and excludes the possibilities of trickery (i.e. excludes deliberate cheating or fabrication), psychological effects (i.e. confirmation bias, apophenia ) or other factors.

Your argument that the apostle's devotion after the resurrection shows that it happened however is not such evidence.
It mainly consists of an argument from incredulity, that you cannot think of a reason why they would do so otherwise.
This isn't evidence it's a logical fallacy.

Furthermore your objections for alternative explanations rely on claims of fact that you cannot back up with any verifiable evidence.

Also you cannot explain why this argument does not apply to other faiths you believe to be false.

Hence why I do not find your argument convincing.

Dr. Loon

Jakass, which is the more likely scenario regarding the resurrection?

1) Jesus existed, is crucified, and buried. Rises from the dead. Wahey.

2) Jesus existed, is crucified, and buried. Stays that way. Dead forever more. Some new preacher takes his place, and the apostles "recognise" him as Jesus, and so Jesus lives on in him and they all continue his teachings?

In reality, which is more likely? Like really? Is it number 1 or number 2?

No need for paragraphs and paragraphs, just 1 or 2?