The athist argument:
the argument was teh atheist say "resurrections form the dad don't happen,therefore, Jesus' resurrection probably didn't happen.
My argument: you can't use that (world view--naturalism) to dismiss the evidence for the Res because it's begging the question. The issue we are disputing is Resurrection did in fact happen and the evidence demonstrates it, the argument that you do't see it happen you do't believe in it is not evidence that it didn't happen. you still have to examine the evidence.
My dialogue on carm with Donald.
Originally Posted by Metacrock
Why should we assume the validity of your approach?Meta
how can you go back in time and verify it? you have to get on the TARDIS with the doctor. do you know the Doctor? I haven't seen him around in a long time. of cousre that's no problem for him.
It has nothing to do with going back in time. It is easily observed, empirically, that miracles are infrequent at best.Meta
what's wrong with you? I answer them as they come. I have answered the arguments the ignorant one's have given. Blame your colleagues for the qualities of the arguments I have to deal with.
Okay- then feel free to show me where one of my "colleagues" has presented an argument like you suggest in the following:Meta
"we know you are atheists so saying you don't believe it is not an argument and not new info, so it's not telling us anything. your refusal to believe is not proof. Saying it doesn't happen enough is merely begging the question. Because it happened once and that's all needs to happen. "
go read it!Donald
Sure- just as soon as you tell me what you were referring to by this:Meta
"we know we have different world view. merely telling me you don't accept mine is not a reason to reject my view."
well that you may have won given the approach being used before I got involved, ok I have to give you some points.that is the reference to the fact that the therad was long already before I got into it.
But then I got into I mean come there's nothing unfair about a team sending in the first string when the second string isn't doing well (ooooooo swordsman,---sorry I was just kidding!)Swordsman is another Christian who was already arguing, he might not like me saying I'm the first string and he's the second!
O well armatures what can you do?
This is part of the problem. When you state that the atheists lost the res debate, you don't qualify it. Which res debate did we lose? Did we lose the debate regarding Swordsman's claim that the historical evidence is of the type and quality that the only reasonable conclusion is that the resurrection occurred? That the historical evidence, in and of itself, proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus was resurrected? I should say not- I would hope that you'd be able to see how absurd this is.
Did we lose the debate concerning whether it's only by means of naturalistic assumptions that one could reasonably deny the resurrection? Again, I would hope you realize the flaw with this argument as well- it is addressed by the probability argument which, again, makes no naturalistic assumptions- rather, that it only assumes that miracles of this type are rare.
But if the argument is that it's not unreasonable for Christians to accept the historical evidence for the resurrection as further confirmation of their beliefs, then that's fine. I'm not arguing against it- but, then, I haven't seen such an argument presented.that is pretty much what I'm concerned with. I think Christians are unwise to try and argue for proving the resurrection as an apologetic tool to prove the Bible.
both sides have our boosters and those whose contributions would be better spend supplying the tea and cookies, you know what I mean?Donald
Yes- but it would be nice if you could make this clear- call them out on their bad arguments, rather than giving the strong impression that you believe they have bested us.
I didn't have to. I cut all that stuff out when I denounced the idea whole hog, the idea that it has anything to with probability. trying to pin God down to probably is a flood errand.it's like trying weigh a scale with itself.
You can't translate into probability the will of mystical reality. you can't do it. ti's beyond our understanding.Meta
I did say that. my position assumes all probability stuff is down the dumper.
Yes- assumes. I understand your position that probability doesn't apply to the supernatural itself- in other words, if we were to deny the resurrection on the grounds that resurrections are improbable, in and of themselves, then you'd have a point. A resurrection would be a supernatural event, and to declare supernatural events to be improbable, a priori, would require acceptance of a naturalistic foundation. To declare that they are rare (which would mean that the truth of any PARTICULAR resurrection claim is improbable), however, makes no naturalistic assumptions. You are free to dispute the premise- but you are not. You are disputing a whole different premise. You have asserted, without support, that this approach is invalid, despite the fact that it's been explained and supported by those who propose it (including myself). No refutation has been forthcoming, aside from bald denial. Reality rules, Honor the Truth.
Metawhat doyou mean without support? what without support? Neither you nor a single perosn on your side in this thread has done one single bit of analysis concerning the historical evidence for the res. The support we have for it has gone untouched it's a total joke to even say that.
In this debate atheists are trying to use Probability to say that the presumption has to be agaisnt the believer because the idea of a resurrection is totally against the grain of all of our experiences. Jesus resurrection is unique so being rare has nothing to do wtih it, that's not even a mark agianst it.
The atheists in this thread are trying to use the rarity of it to express a presumption against belief, but the presumption has to go with the preponderance of the evidence you have not touched the evidence. you are still trying to lionize your world view and make the assumption of naturalism the framework in which to examine the resurrection, with the conclusion that it must no have happened already made before the debate begins.