One of whom was from my little hometown!

...

I don't think that I could put any sort of number. At least not a meaningful one. As far as what is the prior probability that God (the creator of the universe) could raise someone from the dead, 1.

I just don't see that this is leading down a meaningful path. If people were rising from the dead all the time we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If nobody besides Christians made claims about rising from the dead we wouldn't be having this discussion either.

I'm pretty certain there are other faiths that also have stories of people rising from the dead. I'm betting the stories also include similar evidence to the resurrection of Jesus. I'm also pretty sure that no Christian considers any such resurrections as being very likely. (I realize I made a lot of conjecture, yet I'm pretty confident; since I'm pretty sure that the Jesus story has already been compared to earlier religions involving death and rebirth, I have no doubt with a lil' research I could list examples of other religions making such claims.)

I guess the question for Christians is... if there are other religions with similar stories (which in itself should make one question the validity and uniqueness of Christianity)... do you accept that the reincarnation likely took place because it is written?

Why not?
Does an unreasonable claim automatically become justified if only one sect makes it?

So you actually think it's more likely that there is some invisible divine entity existing outside of the universe that occasionally raises his favorite monkey child from the dead than it is that a single person, in the long and often exaggerated, manipulated and uncertain scope of history was mistaken for having been raised from the dead by people in a time and age whom you know passed on mystical and all too often incorrect stories and anecdotes?

This is not rational, and it's not based on knowledge. Everything we know about the current world goes against this fairy tale. If the story actually is true, it would imply that science knows so little about the world and the universe, that it has gone so far down the wrong path, that it would almost be a waste of time to continue trying to understand it.

Did you give up here, Jib?

Looks like you logged on, posted photographs of sports cars in another thread and then left without actually answering anyone here.

This is why I can't respect you.

Just to briefly touch on this post--

There is a certain method of determining the historicity of ancient writings, and by that standard the Scriptures hold up to scrutiny above almost all other writings in history. Of course if you come from a naturalistic framework, you would by definition be precluded from evaluating them, since your presuppositions are biased against the supernatural even if the supernatural existed.

If you ask me if Christ's resurrection and the world that results from the Scriptures is more likely than the Darwinistic one, obviously yes. Empirically, even, as Darwinism teaches the fairy tale that non-life produced life, randomness produces order, non-intelligence produces intelligence, one kind of animal produces another--and everything we've ever observed empirically and can reproduce in the lab is in direct opposition of those tenets, and agree wholly with the Bible's portrayal of how the world should be.

To think about moral law, the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature--these to me are very powerful evidences of God's existence--His necessary existence. In no worldview without a god can there be moral law (objective, abstract, universal law) or these other things. I've read and argued extensively regarding atheist explanations for these things (and I wont get into them here), but I find them lacking so strongly that I almost think I can rest my case for God on these things alone.

One thing I know...I feel I've tried very hard to understand Darwinism for my whole academic career, and the more I've studied it, the less I find it credible...at all. And the more I read, the more I discover the body of scientists who likewise see the deficiencies. For me, at least, once the Darwinistic framework was shown to be false, it opened up my eyes to seeing the evidence for the God of the Bible.

For those who are still seeking, the key is not to read only pro-Darwin texts, but to read Darwin himself. Read what started this "boom", and if you see a massive falling short of real evidence or proof for his claims, don't jump on the bandwagon just yet. Keep evaluating it. If nothing close to proof ever comes, and if indeed you see contradictory evidence, you should probably look elsewhere for the answers to questions Darwinism can't handle-and they are many.

I wish I could go into this more...actually, I do plan on posting a thread on 'the resurrection of Jesus Christ as fact' in the (semi?) near future--it all depends on when I have time to defend my assertion for a weekend. So I'll refrain from imposing any further in this thread.

It was just tongue-in-cheek. He said miracles can't happen too often or they wouldn't be miracles. I'm saying that if they were claimed less often, they'd be even MORE unique! (and that would help his cause)

Of course the same ridiculous amount of evidence is required to back up a claim of that nature, but in no way should that level of evidence be required of all sects except the one you happen to belong (or were born in) to.

If one was rising from the dead we wouldn't be having this discussion. Because then we'd know it could have happened before too.

And there is a reason Josh McDowell is praised by theists and rejected by historians.

No it doesn't (though we have demonstrated that it is possible in a lab)

Never heard a decent explanation as to why this is a problem (also ignoring the very vague term 'order')

Same as above

We do know this happens

This one is just flat out false

Then you do not understand what constitutes strong evidence. In fact, you had a thread a while ago about this and got schooled pretty badly in it.

Not only is this one false (impossible, in fact), but in the thread mentioned above I gave you two examples of how it could exist three times and you never addressed either of them.

Then you have quite a ways to go as the argument from morality is probably the weakest standard apologetic there is.

May I ride in your time machine?

Sounds good. Unfortunately, evolution is one of the most well supported scientific theories we have.

Plz don't further distract Jibninja's (limited) attention from Justin A's posts.

But I wanna hear what he has to say about my question dag nab it!

Hey I just realized dag nab it sounds like Jibninjas awe crap I need some sleep.

typical ending to jibs threads lmao

I appreciate the support, but it doesn't look like he's going to put in the kind of effort I was hoping for in his responses. Makes me appreciate madnak's skill in getting a detailed discussion going.

Yes, absolutely true. No one has found his body despite all the historical evidence of his disciples. Obviously, finding historical evidence of his body would be the end of Christianity. Also, anything that today can be verified in the Bible can be. Obviously there are a lot of things that cannot.

Also, the tomb he was buried in for 3 days has archeological proof that it was enlarged in a hurry by turning a tomb that was intended for a smaller person into a tomb that could fit Jesus (the scrapings to enlarge the tomb are on the wall) as they frantically tried to find a place to bury him.

Shocking.............

Well since Jibs has forfeited this thread I will step up and take his place. First order of business: you are all banned for life. Good day.




This thread has been locked
Reason: banhammertime

Kurto: good points.

Allow me to address them as honestly as I can, whilst also trying to inform you a little of my position, which is not what you seem to have assumed, if your above post is indicative of your stance on my stance, so to speak.

1. Intuition is quite often wrong, I agree. I have experienced stunning examples of intuitive "hits" in my life, some of which might even make genuinely entertaining anecdotes, but there are times my intuition has been wrong too. no doubt.

I am a naturally intuitive person, it ties in with who I am, and this is something I have developed over the years with reflection and meditation to the point where I rely on it strongly and it does me far more good than bad. I clear my mind and look deep inside for the answers, "feel" what to do, and then do it: for me there is simply no other way to be. This is however a personal aspect of my life and has no bearing on how anyone else chooses to live their life or on any greater truth outside the bounds of my own character.

The thing that makes intuition, and processes akin to it, very important is that all great spiritual teachers have taught that this is how we live in accordance with our deepest levels of self, our soul, our spirit, our true self, whatever words you would choose. Thing is, if we are to really get in touch with it to the point where it is a regular part of our lives and we can rely on it as a process, we must develop it, which takes a lot of work, and is a big part of what the "spiritual path" concerns itself with.

2. I do not dismiss followers of any religion, for a number of reasons. Firstly, I probably do not know enough about their religion to have a valid enough opinion to be rubbishing it, and secondly, I believe most religions are the result of man's efforts to try and interpret a higher truth that no man can fully understand or translate; hence the differences and ambiguities. I have experienced spiritual "revelations" that, were I to try and put into teachings and spread to Xthousands of people, would seem very bizarre and possibly at odds with other beliefs people have. The original experience itself was real, and valuable, and transcendant: my subsequent attempt to interpret it and tell others about it and they in turn, having never even had the experience, trying to tell others about it etc. has led it down a path of confusion.

3. Logic and science have no bearing on the spiritual experience. they go bye-bye very quickly.

4. This i found very interesting. I probably have more in common with a well-rounded spiritual atheist than I do with a randomly selected christian, despite believing as I do in the teachings of Jesus Christ. My spiritual journey and the experiences I've had have led me to the conclusion that there is a reality behind the word God, albeit one possibly far removed from most peoples' misconceptions.

A true mystic does not pick and choose what to believe though, and this is very important. They seek only the truth and believe only that which is revealed to them and profoundly resonates of truth. I never chose to believe in God, believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, or believe in a whole host of other things that I believe in. IMO, quite the opposite: I was left with no choice but to believe.

The nature of the spiritual path is one whereby issues such as those you raise are unavoidable and simply integral to the process, given its nature.

I also found this very interesting and relevant,


Having studied various spiritual systems and mythologies, and being well aware of the resurrection myth as it exists outside of christianity, I will say this: there is a deep spiritual truth represented by the symbol of the resurrection, this is why resurrection is a recurring theme throughout otherwise unrelated spiritual systems from different eras and places.

The real meat and bones of spirituality are these deep truths which if understood are capable of transforming a person. There is nothing else. As Joseph Campbell said, people can get hung up on the road signs, when they should be wise enough to realise road signs in and of themselves are useless if you fail to follow in the direction they are pointing.

For every person that follows those road signs somewhere worthwhile, a thousand are left on the kerb bickering over what the sign says, or simply gawping at it waiting for it to do something. It is faith that gives us the strength to follow to where the signs are pointed, and wisdom that gives us grace not to miss the point of the signs in the first place.

Sucks, because to avoid being devastated by your line of argument, Jibninjas has to self-censor in some very interesting ways. (He has to avoid giving a non-zero probability to the event: 'no human being has actually been the Creator of the universe.' A tricky task.)

Why not try and convince my why I should care about your argument. I am not going to do all the work for everyone.

I can't make my argument until I know what some of your specific beliefs are regarding the evidence. Otherwise I'd be attacking a strawman. Honestly, I still don't have any sense of what you think the likelihood in my first question is. In my last post I said you don't have to give me a number, but that some sort of reference frame would help, and you responded by saying you couldn't put a number on it. Then you answered a question I didn't ask (of which the answer was obvious anyway) and basically ignored my second question.

I'm not asking for a lot here, it's not like I'm telling you to go research stuff for me. I just want to have a discussion about your belief in the resurrection in the thread you started about it, and I just need to get a better idea of some of your beliefs if that's going to happen.

Edit/ I just reread your post. Convince you that you should care about my argument? You can't spend ten minutes answering questions that you already know the answer to because you're not convinced that you'll care about the argument I haven't made yet (and can't make until I know more)? Again, this is your thread. If you don't want to participate, don't start threads.

What sort of meaning does any number that I could put on the probability have? Let's there is a .05% chance that everything could have happened exactly the same way without the resurrection.

You are asking me to make up numbers. And you are clearly going down a probabilistic road, of which I don't feel will have any real meaning to this conversation. Just like I don't thing that Bayes Theorem is interesting when talking about miracles or anything of the such. It completely misses the evidence.

It is obvious what sort of argument you are trying to make. I am saying that if you want me to play your game then you need to convince that probabilities has any sort of real meaning in this discussion. Or even more importantly that the numbers you are asking me to arbitrarily create are going to have any real meaning.

If I hold AhKh there is a very low probability that the flop will be 10h Jh Qh. But if that is what the flop is, talking about probabilities that I hold that hand are meaningless. I don't need someone to run the calculations (which if applied in the same manner that I believe you are trying now would tell me that I don't hold the hand that I hold!), I know what my hand is and what the board is, I am looking at it.