My analysis of the evidence offered for the resurrection
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-01-2014, 06:14 PM
My analysis of the evidence offered for the resurrection
I've been spending a lot of time researching the evidence offered for the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and all of the responses from the skeptics, and the responses to those responses, it is a never-ending debate, a bottomless pit.
However, I think I've made an observation that, as far as I can tell, hasn't been pointed out anywhere online, which makes me think that my observation might be incorrect. I'm not sure. So, just going to offer this to the masses for criticism and peer review, I suppose. I just don't want to keep this observation to myself since I can't seem to find an online source anywhere that has made the same observation.
Anyway.

Here is the typical evidence offered in support of the resurrection. Note that I don't think it matters either way if all of these are true if my observation is valid, so that's really for a separate discussion entirely:
* Jesus's burial in the tomb
* The discovery of the empty tomb
* The eyewitnesses who claim to have seen him post-resurrection
* The conversion of Paul
* The conversion of James
* The evidence of "changed lives"
* The early belief in the resurrection
* That the apostles were willing to die for their belief in the resurrection, and did

So there it is, it may not be necessarily an exhaustive list, but that is what is typically offered as evidence for the resurrection. Many naturalistic theories have been proposed to explain all of this such as swoon theory, stolen body theory, hallucination theory, etc, and each has its own black hole of back and forth refutation.

The way the apologist attempts to argue for the resurrection is to simply rule out any naturalistic explanation, and simply by just pointing back to the unexplained phenomena. We have something we can't explain, therefore supernatural explanation. I think you already see where I'm going with this.

As an analogy, let's talk about Penn and Teller's Magic Bullet.

Here is my evidence that Penn and Teller possess magic bullets:
* The bullets were signed by random audience members on the bullet and the casing
* Penn and Teller never crossed the stage
* The bullets were loaded into the gun and visibly cocked
* The laser sight confirmed that the guns were pointed at each other's faces
* The loud noise confirmed that the guns were fired
* The glass broke when the bullets were fired
* The bullet fired from Penn's gun was found in Teller's mouth
* The bullet fired from Teller's gun was found in Penn's mouth
* The audience members confirmed their markings on the bullets, and that they were fired
* The audience members confirmed their markings on the shells, and that they were fired
* There were probably a few hundred eye witnesses there who will attest to what they saw
* All of it was captured on video for millions to see
* Penn and Teller told us that they were magic bullets

Therefore, Penn and Teller clearly possess magic bullets.

Penn and Teller perform their trick, which leaves us with unexplained events. They've taken several precautions to make sure that no natural explanation can be offered, such as not crossing the stage, the glass, the markings on the bullet and the casing, the laser sights, etc.

In my attempt to argue that Penn and Teller possess magic bullets, I only point you to the mystery that you are already aware of. All I did was point you to what is not explained, and said therefore, magic bullets. I pointed you to how several natural explanations have been ruled out, as if that somehow adds support for my position that the bullets are magic.

I spend no time actually arguing for magic bullets, however that would work. I'd first have to come up with some kind of falsifiable test that determines whether a bullet is magic or not, and then test the bullets for the property of magic. I have no idea how that would work. But I spent no time doing that. The same goes for the argument for the resurrection.

I think you see what I'm getting at now. I'm saying "Neither you nor I can think of a natural explanation to explain it, therefore my supernatural explanation." Or I might also be saying "My explanation of the magic bullets stands until you debunk it with a natural explanation." In either case, I'm either using argument from incredulity or the argument from ignorance, respectively.

This is analogous to the resurrection. The evidence offered for the resurrection just points you back to the unexplained that you already knew about, and attempts to conclude resurrection. It somewhat implicitly and somewhat explicitly points you to several natural explanations that cannot explain it, and attempts to support its conclusion by ruling out a few obvious natural explanations. It spends no time actually arguing for the resurrection, which would likely involve some kind of test on the body itself, but we have no idea under what circumstances a corpse would come back to life after being dead and buried, so I'm not sure what that test would look like.

So, to wrap this up, my observation is that the argument for the resurrection of Jesus, which always seems to come with this kind of evidence, is nothing more than either an argument from ignorance or an argument from incredulity. Which one depends on what the person is implying: that they are right until proven wrong, or that if you can't offer an alternative explanation, that it somehow makes their conclusion the right one.

As a final note, I don't think this can be called an argument for the resurrection, I see it as an argument against natural explanations for the-mysteries-surrounding-Jesus's-death-if-we're-assuming-all-the-evidence-offered-is-true (needs a shorter name there).

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M DOING
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like parsonf's post
21-01-2014, 06:19 PM
RE: My analysis of the evidence offered for the resurrection
Keep in mind that there is no evidence available at all.


All you really have is a story in a book, with no corroborating evidence for it at all.


The book itself (and the stories contained therein) are the claim.

The book and the stories therein cannot be used as evidence to support the claim, as the book and the stories are the claim. See?

It's like using the events Grimm's fairy tales to try to prove that Grimm's fairy tales are true.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
21-01-2014, 06:20 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2014 08:06 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: My analysis of the evidence offered for the resurrection
There is as good or better "evidence" that the Salem Mass witches really were witches, than there is for the resurrection.





http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
21-01-2014, 06:22 PM
RE: My analysis of the evidence offered for the resurrection
I got it Penn and Teller are Jesus.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 06:26 PM
RE: My analysis of the evidence offered for the resurrection
(21-01-2014 06:19 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Keep in mind that there is no evidence available at all.

True. I'm definitely granting more than is deserved, certainly. I just think that even if we granted all of their offered evidence (which we shouldn't, of course), it still fails anyway.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M DOING
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 06:29 PM
RE: My analysis of the evidence offered for the resurrection
(21-01-2014 06:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is as good or better "evidence" that the Salem Mass witches really were witches, than there is for the resurrection.

I love you for sharing that video. Never seen that.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M DOING
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2014, 03:31 PM
My analysis of the evidence offered for the resurrection
What staggers to amaze me is that all those in this topic who claim to be atheist have so much to say about the Christian religion, most are studying the Christian faith so deeply in fact that it makes me wonder why ?

I believe in no such thing as an atheist.
The definition of atheist is that you believe in no religion yet most atheists can not help themselves from studying religion trying to find points to argue about.

Yet as Christians every single one of us, Catholic, Methodist, Calvinist will have at one point experienced true love and the Holy Spirit. We have something that we live for and makes us smile and generally happy people yet atheists like yourselves do not.

Of course you will experience great joy but I assure you that not one will have as much pleasure and deep joy as a Christian does.

Undoubtedly you will argue against this as that is what atheists do and what they love to do yet in my opinion that is rather sad.
I pity you.
Yet I hope and pray that you understand and come to terms with what most of you so desperately try to work out and question all the time.

Smile

Using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2014, 03:43 PM
Re: RE: My analysis of the evidence offered for the resurrection
(21-01-2014 06:22 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  I got it Penn and Teller are Jesus.

That would be Jesi..

Using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Phil Hill's post
29-01-2014, 03:46 PM
RE: My analysis of the evidence offered for the resurrection
Evidence for the resurrection? Don't you think it would be a good idea to show evidence (not Christian fables) that Jesus existed?

Using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2014, 03:58 PM
RE: My analysis of the evidence offered for the resurrection
(29-01-2014 03:31 PM)ProudChristian Wrote:  What staggers to amaze me is that all those in this topic who claim to be atheist have so much to say about the Christian religion, most are studying the Christian faith so deeply in fact that it makes me wonder why ?

I believe in no such thing as an atheist.
The definition of atheist is that you believe in no religion yet most atheists can not help themselves from studying religion trying to find points to argue about.

Yet as Christians every single one of us, Catholic, Methodist, Calvinist will have at one point experienced true love and the Holy Spirit. We have something that we live for and makes us smile and generally happy people yet atheists like yourselves do not.

Of course you will experience great joy but I assure you that not one will have as much pleasure and deep joy as a Christian does.

Undoubtedly you will argue against this as that is what atheists do and what they love to do yet in my opinion that is rather sad.
I pity you.
Yet I hope and pray that you understand and come to terms with what most of you so desperately try to work out and question all the time.

Smile

Rolleyes Welcome to the forum anyway. Weirdo.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: