"Corrie" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote
All three forms of logic have their strengths and weaknesses which you
have
to be aware of when using them.

My point exactly. The issue is the initial assumption. I maintain
that you have blinders on with an initial assumption that
"resurrections don't happen unless proven otherwise. "

There's nothing wrong with the assumption that the dead don't rise from the
grave.
We both believe it, just as we both believe that coming back to life would
be an extraordinary event.
The difference is, you believe it happened once, on what I consider flimsy
evidence.

You say, "there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.".
I say, "it's good to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain
falls out."

Good question, and I don't have an answer... but then I don't need to
have
one, convincing me is your job.
If I come across some convincing and acceptable evidence, I'll let you
know,
but nothing I've seen comes even remotely close, so don't hold your
breath


IOW, "I'll know it when I see it?" Oh, c'mon now. That has to be the
ultimate cop-out! It proves my point exactly! Your initial
assumption is that supernatural events DO NOT happen. Not that they
PROBABLY DON'T happen, but that they DO NOT. And with that FAULTY
initial assumption, your deduction winds up wrong.

Not a cop out, and certainly doesn't prove your point.

If a teacher is trying convey geometry to teach a student who doesn't get
it, and asks the question "what will make you understand this?", a response
of "I don't know" doesn't mean the student is unteachable or uncooperative
(or that you're right ;p).
At some point the student will get it and only then will they be able to
identify what made them understand.

And while I didn't state it, I don't believe that supernatural events
happen, but that won't prevent me from accepting one given sufficient proof.
However, in the entire history of the world, there hasn't been a single
certifiable, repeatable, supernatural event.
"That's mighty suggestive," he says with tones of massive understatement

"I can't even say what evidence would convince me." Pshaw. Even
Doubting Thomas was able to specify the conditions under which he
would believe.

This is a one-time historical event we are talking about, not a
repeatable experiment. Do you believe that the Saxon King Harold
caught an arrow in the eye at Hastings in 1066? That Pickett led a
charge at Gettysburg? That Hannibal crossed the Alps? You're trying
to apply the rules of science to history - using a screwdriver to
swage a Nicopress fitting. (Gotta keep SOME homebuilding content in
here.)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, mundane claims do not.

Saxon king gets too close to a battle and a random arrow fells him. I'd
believe that.
Civil war general leads civil war charge. Makes sense.
Punic war general takes only unguarded land route to surprise Romans (taking
tremendous losses en route). Sure, why not.

All mundane, if decisive, events. All can be accepted at face value. Most
especially because all could conceivably be simulated if not duplicated.

(And clearly a hammer is the correct tool for swaging. I'm not even sure
what a "screwdriver" is; my toolbox only contains two tools: a hammer and a
bigger hammer :-)

BTW, it is NOT my job to convince you. Are you familiar with the
parable of the seeds? "Some fell on rocky ground, some fell on good
soil" - that one. Remember it from Sunday School? My job is not to
make the seeds take root - that's what "convincing you" is. It's
humanly impossible to convince someone who will not be convinced. All
I can do is shoo away birds and maybe pull out a few rocks and weeds.
The rest is up to God.

Of course I was speaking figuratively. Would you prefer the wording "it's
not my job to prove your case for you" ?

However, my mind is the most fertile of ground and you've cast your seeds.
By your claim God isn't doing his job, ipso facto, there is no God

Lack of evidence isn't evidence, so lack of silence doesn't mean there
*wasn't* a conspiracy.

Best to keep your foil hat on tight, then. You never know when THEY
are listening.... :-p

Again, I'm not, and never have, suggested a conspiracy; I don't require
anything so convoluted.

First, I have no proof (or even suggestion) of an afterlife, so I don't
need
hard fast rules to live and die by.

Consider the suggestion made, then: There IS an afterlife. Look into
it. Sure I'm crazy - but what if I'm right?

I didn't mean suggested by a person, I meant suggested by even the hint of a
shred of the tiniest piece of evidence.

Yes, it's crazy, and the world at large doesn't waste time disproving every
crazy idea. If it did, nothing else would ever get done.
For this reason, crazy ideas have to prove themselves before they're
accepted and the explanation for why they're not crazy to begin with is
found.
This is the cornerstone of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence."

BTW - If you think that Christianity is about following a set of
rules, you have it very very wrong. The whole point of Christianity
is that humans CAN'T follow even a simple rule like "love your
neighbor." THAT'S why we need a Savior. "Make it up as you go along"
doesn't work.

People all over the world, regardless of religion, are generally good.
We band together and help each other in times of need.
We don't have to be told this, we just do it, and we do it well.

This is a far cry from "Here is a set of rules which your sorry asses can't
be expected to follow in the first place".

Human history and human progress has done just fine "making it up as we go
along".
It has proceeded from before, until after, the supposed resurrection
uninterrupted and unaffected.
It was, both figuratively and literally, a non-event.

Eric