Challenge to prove resurrection. I fire a challenge back.
Posted on: April 22, 2008 - 6:28pm
Offline
Challenge to prove resurrection. I fire a challenge back.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------
From: <paulmcd@hotmail.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 8:01 AM
To: <sapient@rationalresponders.com>
Subject: [General Question] A Challenge for you.
> Paul sent a message using the contact form at
> http://www.rationalresponders.com/contact.
>
> Hi, according to the Christians, Jesus was God in human form and rose from
> the dead. If you want to debunk Christianity, why don't you go for where
> it is going to hurt the most, the roots, the ressurection of Jesus Christ.
> You see if you can debunk that, you will debunk Christianity. However I
> challenge you to come up with some evidence that will stand up in a court
> of law that disproves the ressurection. Are you up to the challenge? Do
> you think you can do it? I Challenge your whole team do to put it to the
> test and see what you come up with. A rational response to the
> ressurection what will you find - the truth?
> I look forward to your response
> Paul
I challenge you to prove Jesus Christ existed.
Atheist, Atheism, Agnostic, Rational Response Squad
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Aside from the obvious drivel, this person clearly does not know how the court of law works (He would have to prove his position in a court of law). But, in any event, he is confusing 'court of law' with 'scientific testing', which is really what would have to be done. He would have to prove that resurrections occur; and that these people can eat fish.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
First, courts are not where science is decided. Second, there is no good evidence that there was ever a man named Jesus that even remotely resembles the biblical account. Third, you don't disprove things. You prove them. It does not matter to us that Christians don't understand that they are responsible for proving their claim.
Christianity disproves itself. It doesn't need our help.
Never Mind, trust to chance -- keep a sharp look out -- There is many a happy slave.
--Charles Darwin, on whether or not he ought to marry.
Rook_Hawkins has just stated that the resurrection must be proven in a court of law and by the scientific method. I doubt that much history is proven by the scientific methodology, which is a demarcation criterion. History, archaeology, forensics, SETI, etc., are all within the realm of science and are approached as abductive inference. They are not directly testable by an empirical method. Alleged 'facts' are always constrained within one's worldview or basic presuppositions. If one restricts epistemology or knowledge to only allowing material explanations apriori, then the resurrection can never be proven within those parameters. My question to you is this; can you use the scientific method to prove the claim or proposition that only the scientific method is a valid form of knowledge? This would require the use of circular reasoning to some extent or begging the question.
One way that he has contradicted himself is that the scientific method he wants to use is often in conflict with accepted evidence in a law court. Law courts accept circumstantial evidence, whereas the tenets of the scientific method often do not.
Regards,
Chazmuze
Actually, history does in fact utilize the scientific method. Perhaps you need to review literature on the historical method and inductive/deductive reasoning, hypotheses, and anthropology.
Additionally your case is flawed, as you say courts generally accept circumstantial evidence. This is true, however the evidence is generally inadmissible if the link between the defendant and the evidence is too weak. I would say that suggesting a man rose from the dead without any scientific, or credible evidence that is more substantial is definitely too weak to be admitted into evidence to prove a case.
Although your post was something of an epic fail, we appreciate you playing.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
I'm certainly glad you don't teach in public schools.
I could see it now. You get hired by a believer, that believer is the principle. The principle was hired by another believer, who was hired by the school board, full of believers, who were ellected by a county full of believers who have a governor who is a believer.
You'd make a great teacher in an Islamic school if you were Muslim, you certainly show the same mentality.
Scientific method, unlike deity belief doesn't work like a court of law, nor is is done by proxy of popular belief. Scientific method is universal and the same methods can be taught to a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim and and atheist, REGARDLESS OF PERSONAL BELIEF.
Get back to us when you can pony up with some "Godsperm" and show us in a lab the mechinisms of HOW a ghost knocks up a girl. Get back to us when you can replicate a cadaver surviving rigor mortis and explain the mechinisms of HOW such an event happened.
Otherwise, your naked assertions deserve the same attention as "Thor makes lighting".
If oil flowed like deity claims gas would cost 10 cents a gallon.
Rook_Hawkins has stated that all evidence must be proven by the scientific methodology or demarcation criterion. If this is the case, then you have just wiped out your accepted evidence for SETI research, some aspects of Darwinism, some forensic reasoning, the inductive/deductive reasoning you suggested, and the use of any abstract realities. You still didn't prove, using the same method, that only this method is the main criterion for truth. Since you mention a few components of logical law, please show how the scientific method justifies them. One can empically demonstrate a few of them, but cannot justify them. The tired example of Shroeder's cat does not disprove any of the laws either. Particles are in both states due to the expermenter's inquiry. The resurrection will not be within your stacked-deck of presupposing naturalism apriori. A court of law is not an absolute unto truth. There are numerous cases that are debatable and later found incorrect. If one's ultimate axioms and presuppositions reject anything beyond the material realm, then how can you justify using abstract laws of logic, transfinite math, symbolism, propositions, conceptual universals, ad infinitum? Finally, rejecting exceptions to the normative laws of nature is an inductive fallacy. Your ideology cannot account for uniformity of nature. Just because natural laws have been generally uniform, does not mean there can never be isolated exceptions. To be dogmatic with your view, you would have to have examined all the workings of natural law at all times and in all places.
Still waiting for the explanation of how you would use the law courts to prove the above said examples (SETI, abstract math, Darwinism's extrapolation, laws of logic, propositional truths, etc.).
Cheers...
Interesting...state or public schools are not allegedly neutral. Humanism or statism has filled the vacuum left by early US education. Darwinism is the new science, relataivism the new ethics and empiricism for epistemology.
You didn't deal with the elements I mentioned in my post which do not involve the scientific method. Please explain how you would prove or justify the use of those using the scientific method.
I don't believe I mentioned God, you are creating a straw man thus far.
Cheers....
...just one other comment; I am trying to see what constitutes evidence for the resurrection. I am just showing you that your presuppositions will not allow anything other than material or natural explanations. If you reject historical testimony, then you have to reject most all historical documents from the first few centuries. We can discuss the historical written accounts, but first I would like for you to justify or account for why your axioms disallow anything other than a mechanistic/material or natural explanation. If you cannot, then your ultimate axioms are incoherent, as you appeal to abstract laws of logic, propositions, transfinite entities, and symbolic concepts. Please show me how those things can exist in an atheist and/or materialist ontology.
cheers....
What historical testimony do you have? The gospels don't qualify as the writers weren't witnesses. Paul's visions don't qualify either. So there is no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.
Resurrection stories of other gods don't count in the historical testimony department either for the same reasons.
What do you actually have?
Ok, let me see if I can dumb it down for you.
I hope you have thrown out the claim of Thor making lighting and put it in the trash can of ideas where it belongs. If you haven't you need help.
NO ONE, and I repeat, NO ONE here is trying to claim that humans should behave like robots with no emotions. WHAT we are saying is that a debunked idea is a debunked idea and dwelling on it WILL NOT help humanity solve life's problems.
"Deity, entity, supernatural/God/ universal conciousness/" are all versions of the same thing. Nothing more than gap arguments and an utterance from ignorance.
These are nebulous words with limitless meanings to suit the person postulating them. We have in human history discarded countless claims before and I see no reason why claims made today are any more credible when they are not testable, repeatable or falsifiable.
If you know of a better tool than that of the universal tool of scientific method that can be TAUGHT to anyone, regardless of personal whims, we are all ears.
What makes you think any current claim of the super natural is any less rooted in superstition than any claim made in the past? What would you suggest to determine the truth so that it would be something that could be universally taught and understood?
If oil flowed like deity claims gas would cost 10 cents a gallon.
Brian37,
A condescending attitude does not help determine truth. The issue isn't one of intellectual capacity, but of coherence within a worldview. You didn't read my post very well. I said that I would get to any evidences as such 'after' Rook_Hawkins offers an account for his ultimate presuppositions regarding epistemology, ethics or science. If his or your worldview is incoherent, then your acceptance/rejection will also be structured faulty.
Regarding so-called 'gap-arguments', Darwinism is also a gap type argument. One must merely attributes anything to time, natural selection and mutation. By the way, Darwinism and/or atheism is abductive inference and not direct empirical testing. I'll pose my unanswered question to you: can you use those criteria to prove that only those criteria are the ultimate form of epistemology? I have yet to get an answer to this. If not, then you must use another form of 'testing' to validate your position.
There are many Theists and scientists that have not discarded the subject at hand. You are leaving this out. Arguments by majorities (argumentum ad populum) does not determine truth. This is a major fallacy.
Lastly, please show how you prove any writtings or testimonies of historical persons with those criteria.
good day!
Any talk of 'proving' the resurrection occurred is misconceived. Even with much more than the hearsay 'evidence' recorded in the Bible it is questionable whether one could establish a totally water-tight case.
All we have is various, not even consistent, reports of meetings with the allegedly resurrected Jesus, where I think even some of the people present were not sure about the identity of the individual. Since even these reports are just stories written down well after the alleged event, subject to re-transcription and translation, we hardly have enough evidence to build even a prima facie case, especially for something as extraordinary as bodily resurrection, let alone even legal proof.
Added of course to the FACT that we do not even have PROOF of the existence of Jesus himself.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
If you reject the supernatural or immaterial entities such that I had mentioned in several posts, then your worldview needs examination. You have excluded the above mentioned, useful tools and entities for truth; i.e. laws of logic, propositions, etc.
Regarding historical documents, the Bible has had thousands of more handed down manuscripts, whereas Roman historians, i.e. Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, etc., have had very little in comparison, yet are accepted without question. It is a matter of what your worldview will allow. Apparently, you and all on this thread have one that will only allow material entities, therefore, alleged 'facts' will be interpreted accordingly.
It was fun...
Silly theist, imaginary friends are for kids. SETI is utter bullshit - laws of logic don't support anything supernatural - there is no evidence for anything supernatural. Read more on this site - the burden of evidence is always on the one who claims something exists.
The trouble with born again Christians is they're even more annoying the second time around.
Hi,
What's supernatural about the laws of logic? Or are you saying atheists only believe in the tangible? If the latter, you'd be lying (but you may already know that).
It's funny that you mention Pliny the Younger and Tacitus. they were living when your Jesus supposedly was. If Jesus made as much of an impression as the Bible claims, you'd think they'd have noticed it enough to write it down. One of them may have made a mention of Chrestus and "chrestoi" - not the same thing inless you stretch things to fit your beliefs.
Why it's silly to say "supernatural" exists
Never Mind, trust to chance -- keep a sharp look out -- There is many a happy slave.
--Charles Darwin, on whether or not he ought to marry.
Eye witnesses...
How many of these witnesses even RECOGNIZED the man proported to be Jesus? Even after spending years in close proximity, sleeping under bridges and the like, the man who claimed to be the resurected Jesus was largely unrecognizable...
That is assuming, without any historical backing, that these 'eyewitnesses' existed.
Now, to the physical evidence...
After three days in a moderately warm climate, the human body would go through the normal stages of decay. Rigor Mortis would have been entered within 8 hours or so, and the blood would have pooled at the lowest resting points of the body.
After a day, the bacteria that inhabit our systems normally would have kicked into overdrive, and some fairly noxious fluids would begin to be expelled from all orafices as gas builds up in the digestive system. After 2 days, the skin will take on a 'marbled' greyish blue appearance, and there would be a inescapable noxious odor about the body. Bloating of the abdomin would be pronounced.
By the third day, the skin would in some parts of the body blister and slough off if handled, the face would be scarcely recognizable, swollen and a blackish blue. The eyes would be disicated, dried and shrunken, the brain would be a pile of greyish blue goop. The rest of the organs would have a blackish tinge and be noticably putrid. The body cavities would be filled with a yellowish oily fluid. Did I mention the maggots?
At this point, I'd say in my expert opinion, he ain't coming back.
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacrements of canibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
Greetings folks,
I find it interesting that most atheists hold to empiricism as the main form of knowledge. Empiricism only gives us how things are at a given moment, not how they should be at all times. To discredit the resurrection based upon natural laws is a fallacy. Forms of probability are always open in empirical studies. I'm sure you've heard of Hume's skepticism of induction, etc. One can never have 100% certainty using the scientific method, empirical studies, rationalism, etc. There is always a probability factor in these forms of knowledge. That leaves a 'probability' to a resurrection open. Dogmatism is foolish since one cannot know how nature has, does, or will operate at all times and in all places. To say that the future will be like the past, based upon the past is circular and question begging.
Laws of logic are not material in essence or substance. How can a propositional law be material? They can't be a product of 'brains', as the brain could not even construct concepts without the laws of logic being apriori. Laws of logic are binding upon all brains and rationality is related to objective morality. It is an absolute moral obligation to be rational. Why is this organization even called 'Rational Response Squad' if rationality is not important? If laws of logic are material in nature or a mere construct by humans, can you demonstrate how they were constructed without the use the very same laws being constructed? That is; one requires the laws of identity, excluded middle and contradiction to even begin such a task. Dr. Greg Bahnsen showed this in the online debate with Dr. Gordon Stein. Is this video referenced on this site? Ummm...
One other comment...since you implied that an atheist is open to the existence of non-material entities, how can you justify the existence of such? What do they eminate from or how do they exist as transcendent entities in the atheist worldview? If they evolved as mere brain constructs, please explain the transitional forms if you will.
Jesus rose from the dead based upon forces of nature ?
When I die I want to go like my grandfather did, peaceful and in my sleep, not screaming like the passengers in his car.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xl42z_salivaclickclickboom_music http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x174ly_suicidal-tendencies-you-cant-bring_music http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8uln_drowning-pool-tear-away_music
I didn't say that for certain. God may have superseded the laws of nature on a temporal basis and/or used them as a means. The Christian Bible does not say what means was used. My point was against a strict empiricist / naturalist who will only allow those means or criteria for all truth.
Do you also accept the resurrections of Inanna & Romulus?
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
A Sumerian goddess that was not absolute in her nature is not a foundation for the major tenets of reality; epistemology, ethics and science. Romulus was one of many gods that was a mere deification of man, another contingent entity and not the foundation for a coherent worldview. Romulus is even referred to as mythology. The religions of both were works-based and there would be no need for a resurrection. Christ's resurrection accomplished justification for God's elect. Your question is therefore irrelevant to the topic of this thread.
You should perhaps refrain from making extraordinary claims (e.g., resurrection) until such time as you are certain.
Or superstitious 1st century humans may have produced a mediocre myth which certain 21st century humans are finding unduly difficult to let go of.
Precisely what are the criteria for being "absolute in (one's) nature"?
Are there any other pertinent requirements for a "foundation for the major tenets of reality" you'd care to mention, or are you just going to make them up as you go?
Likewise jesus.
"contingent entity"? Precisely what are the criteria that make romulus "a contingent entity", to the exclusion of jesus?
Are there any other disqualifying factors for being "the foundation for a coherent worldview" you'd care to mention, or are you just going to make them up as you go?