"Eric Miller" wrote in message .net...
"Corrie" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote
The difference is, I started the investigation with the premise, "It
may have happened." You start with, "It did not happen." As you so
ably pointed out, your beginning assumptions have a great deal of
influence on your conclusions. In this case, your initial assumption
prevents you from reaching any conclusion other that your initial
premise. I'm still stunned that you don't see this.

There's no difference between our starting positions, I'm not unconvincible,
just unconvinced.

There is a huge difference. Subtle, but huge. I assume that the
resurrection MAY have happened - let's see whether there is any
plausible non-supernatural explanation. You assume that it DID NOT
happen unless "proven" oherwise.

Our only difference is our standards for evidence and proof. Mine are
reasonable and yours are ludicrous

Funny, I see it as QUITE the other way around. ;p


If you said you accept it on faith, that'd be fine and I'd let it go, but to
say there's proof is just silly.

I never said there was proof. There isn't and can't be proof,
oherwise there would be no need for faith. Faith is another word for
trust. God wants us to trust him. He didn't build robots that have
no choice. He gave us free will and wants us to exercise it to trust
him.

So there isn't proof, but there is evidence, a preponderance of
evidence IMO. The evidence is sufficient to convince this skeptical
inquirer that it is more likely than not that the resurrection did in
fact occur. It is the most plausible explanation that fits the facts.
Facts which include solid historical/documentary evidence that a LOT
of people claimed to have seen and interacted with the risen Jesus.

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.

Your example doesn't examp. This isn't a geometry lesson.

How can you possibly say this isn't an accurate parallel?

Well, maybe it is, at that. I remember my high-school geometry,
staring dumbfunded at the blackboard while the teacher assured us that
this set of symbols proved thus-and-such theorem. The proof was
correct, even though I didn't comprehend it. So I suppose the example
DOES examp after all!

There's nothing wrong with an answer of "I don't know".
It takes a wise man to say "I don't know".
Only a fool says he knows when he doesn't... or doesn't know what he doesn't
know in the first place.


Oohh, are we going to get into epistimology?
How-do-you-know-what-you-know, what is knowledge, all that good stuff?
Careful with that can opener, Eugene! That aside, you *aren't*
saying that you don't know. You're saying that you *do* know: "The
resurrection did not happen unless you prove that it did."

I'm the fellow saying that I don't know: "Maybe the resurrection
really happened, maybe it didn't. Let's investigate the evidence and
the hypotheses."


Sufficient proof is what will convince me. By definition, if something
doesn't, it's insufficient.
I may or may not know what "sufficient" is in advance. In this case, I can't
even imagine it.


Still sounds like a cop-out to me. :-P


If you can't define "extraordinary evidence," that sentence has no
meaning.

Extraordinary evidence means demonstrably and repeatable.
Not really that extraordinary, unless you're claiming something that isn't
true, and then it's not just extraordinary, it's impossible!
If something isn't demonstrable and repeatable, it's useless.
If the Wright Brothers' powered flight couldn't be demonstrated and
repeated, it would've been of interest to no one and long since been
forgotten.

You're mixing apples and oranges. We're not talking about a
technology demonstration, we're talking about a singular historical
event.

If a magician produced a rabbit out of hat, would you believe he conjured it
out of thin air?
What if he only did it once and refused to do it again so you could watch
and examine his movements more closely?
What if the only time he did it was 2000 years ago?
What if the only witnesses were illiterate peasant-folk?
What if they told the story about the magician, back and forth, over the
next 50 years, and it grew with each retelling, until finally it was heard
by someone that knew how to write who then put pen to paper?
What if?

You seem to be making the "legendary accretion" argument. Doesn't
work. The time interval between the reported date of the resurrection
and the earliest collection is too short for "golly we sure miss
Jesus" to become "I saw Jesus alive again - and so did Jerry over
there!" Not all the witnesses were illiterate peasants. Jesus'
followers were from all walks of life. He had very few friends among
the Pharisees, but even on the Sanhedrin he had some supporters.


I can accept mundane specific events that don't violate the laws of physics.

If an observation conflicts with our understanding of how the world
works, then either the observation or our understanding may be in
error. You're assuming that your undertanding of the way things work
is accurate. Two hundred years ago, it was believed that a human
being would die if he traveled at more than 25 miles per hour. A
hundred and ten years ago, it was believed that heavier-than-air
flight violated the laws of physics. Seventy years ago, it was widely
believed that supersonic flight was impossible. Fifty years ago, the
thought of living in space was the stuff of fantasy.

Today, laboratory observations of quantum synchronicity phenomena
appear to violate the laws of physics. Does that mean that the
observations are erroneous, or that the "laws of physics" need to be
revised?

Now, I already know that you're going to counter with the "but those
are repeatable experiments." But they are repeatable only if you're
willing to use the tools. If I refuse to believe the evidence of an
airspeed indicator, then you can never convince me that Yeager broke
Mach 1. It's like the "Apollo was faked" crowd. They reject or
reinterpret every piece of evidence there is. What will it take to
convince them of the truth? They don't know and they can't say. :-D

Concepts of reality change. My view of what is possible is simply
larger than yours. Prayer works. But you have to actually PRAY to
find that out.

BTW, have you ever read "Flatland"? It's a very good metaphor for
what we're talking about. There's a whole race of beings that exist
in two dimensions. The all live on a flat plane called "Flatland."
One day a sphere passes through. The Flatlanders see it as a dot that
grows into a circle, expands, and finally shrinks back to a dot and
vanishes. Some Flatlanders perceive this phenomenon as evidence of
the 3rd dimension. Skeptics argue that the third dimension simply
does not exist. They've never personally experienced it, don't trust
eyewitnesses who saw the circle, and have no use for such silly
superstitions.


Try these mundane events, also drawn from historical documents: An
itenerant preacher draws large crowds - no problem believing that, I
presume? Happens even today. He repeatedly accuses the local leaders
of hypocrisy. He's arrested as a troublemaker and tried with false
witnesses in a kangaroo court - still all very believable, right?
He's sentenced to be tortured and executed by a particular method
known to scholars to have been used in that time and place. He dies,
and the death is verified by the executioner. His body is placed in a
hole carved in the side of a hill, and his followers are sad and
afraid.

So far, there's absolutely nothing that you would take issue with,
right? Very believable. Simulatable, even.

I have no problem with a historical Messiah. In fact, there have been
several dozen purported messiahs since the first century BCE.
Notably, Muhammad clearly stated he was NOT a messiah, perhaps because
messiahs tended to meet untimely ends.


None of them ever claimed to have risen from the dead.


And then the narrative ends with a remarkable thing - the followers
return to the tomb a day later and find it empty. How to explain
that? Oh, there're plenty of possibilities. But now other
contemporary ancient texts pick up the thread, with the utterly
startling assertion that the dead guy came back to life and was seen
my lots of people.

Now we have a real problem, because the same texts that contain this
fantastic tale also contain these utterly mundane observations. And
the literary styles of the day don't include fiction that reads like
this. There's fiction, but it's very different. This stuff really
reads like authentic eyewitness accounts. You can't just dismiss it -
you have to account for it somehow.

I don't HAVE to do anything.


There you go again, copping out and avoiding the issue.


Fortunately, there's no need to, because I suspect human nature has changed
very little over 2000 years.
People are just as poor observers, just as gullible, just as superstitious
and just as willing to believe what they want to believe today.

That's not an argument based on the evidence. That's merely a slur
directed at people of a different culture. A thousand years from now,
people will look back at us as hopelessly backwards, gullible, etc.
(Remember Star Trek's Dr. MCoy's reaction to the idea of surgery?
"Cutting people open and sewing them back up - how BARBARIC!")

I challenge you to get off your modernist high-horse and actually
investigate the scholarly evidence. I'm not suggesting that you take
the Bible on faith. Just look at it through the lens of a scholar.
Set your assumptions and prejudices aside and just look at the
evidence.

That leaves the claim of a divine power that just doesn't feel like
convincing me right now.
As the SNL Church Lady would say, "How convenient!"


He's the potter, we're the clay. For all I know you're a just a skeet
target. I'm not going to argue with him. I just keep hacking at the
weeds.


Do you ever wonder why several billion people, including many highly
educated, intelligent, non-superstitious all belive this crazy idea?
We're not talking about a dozen or so social outcasts who believe that
a UFO is flying right echalon on a comet.

No, I don't wonder at all.
People believe in life after death because they don't like the idea of a one
time existence and then vanishing forever into nothingness.

Oddly enough, Jewish theology does NOT contain the idea of life after
death. "Sheol" is simply the "land of the dead," not a reward or
punishment.

What I find truly disturbing is that these people find more comfort in the
possibility of eternal torment than in just being snuffed out.

Interesting point. There's a fairly large school of thought within
even conservative Christianity that suggests that Hell is eternal
destruction, not eternal torment. Dead and gone, not dead and
burning. Either way, it's a ****-poor alternative to eternal life in
paradise. Imagine - no need for annuals or pre-flights! :-D

Probably because they all belief the eternal torment part will happen to
someone else.

Actually, Luther's whole motivation was that he had no assurance that
he was going to heaven.


You know, when Fido dies, we tell Little Sally that we sent him off to a
farm, somewhere upstate, where he can run around in fields chasing rabbits
all day.

Not me. My kids know what death is. I've been close on several
occasions. Our elderly neighbor died a year or so ago. The kids know
she's not on vacation.

Believing in life after death is no different, except it's a lie you tell
yourself and let yourself believe. Grow up Little Sally!

I see it as just the opposite. Believing that this-is-all-there-is
lets you avoid the unpleasant thought that maybe there really is a
Judge, and that you don't measure up - no matter how "good enough" you
think you are. Grow up indeed.



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.

You can say the same for murder and pillage. "We just do it, and we
do it well." Didja ever stop to consider that the civilization we
take for granted here in the US is wildly atypical? Most of the world
settles disagreements with guns and knives, not words. People band
together, sure - to help their own tribe. But we better kill the
other guys before they take our stuff - THAT is the history of the
human race. Sad but true.

Murder and pillage are also universally punished.

Not when it's government policy, or if there's no government. Just
ask anyone from Cambodia, Bosnia, or Rwanda. And just try to set up a
sign in a US courtroom that says "Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not
steal" and see what happens. *Where* are we going and *why* are we in
this handbasket?

And if the amount of violence in the world exceeded the amount of
benevolence we wouldn't be 6-7 billion strong now.

Don't confuse birthrate with benevolence. Human populations grow to
the limit of their food supply, just like any other critter. We're
just clever enough to alter the environment. If agriculture hadn't
replaced foraging, we'd still be living in small tribal clusters.

Anyone else find the idea of a religious cynic and an atheistic optimist to
be ironic? :-)


The optimist believes we are living in the best of all possible
worlds. The cynic knows this to be true. :-D


Corrie