Why favor natural explanations over supernatural ones for the resurrection?

[AgnosticBoy]

I often hear skeptics of the resurrection assert that any natural explanation is more probable than a supernatural explanation. Some even go as far as coming up with theories or details that are not even mentioned in the story, like Jesus's body being stolen or that Jesus had a look alike. Perhaps the disciples also assisted in stealing the body. I question this standard or assertion.

What is the justification for favoring the natural explanations? Is it simply that scientists have only accounted for natural or physical phenomenon? In my view, evidence is evidence. If evidence points to a supernatural explanation, one that simply posits a violation of the laws of nature, then that should be the more probable explanation. It doesn't matter if that evidence goes against pre-existing knowledge.

[brunumb]

Jesus's resurrection was witnessed by his disciples. They touched his wounds.

Or so the story goes. That's all we have. Not much of a hook to hang your hat on.

[Tcg]

Jesus's resurrection was witnessed by his disciples. They touched his wounds.

Or so the story goes. That's all we have. Not much of a hook to hang your hat on.

Even the story doesn't report anyone witnessing the resurrection. The synoptics don't even record any disciple witnessing the crucifixion. The gospel of John alone claims that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was at the crucifixion. The disciples reportedly saw the aftereffects of this event, not the event itself. Not a single person is recorded as seeing the resurrection proper, not that there's any reason to take the story as authoritative. However, if one were to, witnessing the resurrection isn't supported. All we have is a decades old story and even it doesn't support AgnosticBoy's claim that, "Jesus's resurrection was witnessed by his disciples."


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

Jesus's resurrection was witnessed by his disciples. They touched his wounds.

Or so the story goes. That's all we have. Not much of a hook to hang your hat on.

There ain't even it a hook, for the hanging of a hat.

[JoeyKnothead]

Jesus's resurrection was witnessed by his disciples. They touched his wounds.

Or so the story goes. That's all we have. Not much of a hook to hang your hat on.

Even the story doesn't report anyone witnessing the resurrection. The synoptics don't even record any disciple witnessing the crucifixion. The gospel of John alone claims that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was at the crucifixion. The disciples reportedly saw the aftereffects of this event, not the event itself. Not a single person is recorded as seeing the resurrection proper, not that there's any reason to take the story as authoritative. However, if one were to, witnessing the resurrection isn't supported. All we have is a decades old story and even it doesn't support AgnosticBoy's claim that, "Jesus's resurrection was witnessed by his disciples."


Tcg

When decades old stories become em two thousand years of em.

[Difflugia]

I would hope that experts, atheists, theists, or otherwise, can work together to come up with a more fair and balanced standard than what skeptics are offering here.

You keep offering variations on this as though it's unfair to reject poor evidence. Why is unwarranted credulity the mark of fairness?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 57:

First, let me say that science does not have to be limited to natural/physical explanations.

Sure, science oughta be so broad based, as to quit being it.

In principle, we should be able to determine the regularities and/or limitations of phenomenon, and when things violate that, then we can all that extraordinary or supernatural.

"Extraordinary" is it one thing, "supernatural" is it a whole different nothern.

We have no reason, no evidence, to co lude there's something beyond the natural, but don't it beat all, once we do, wouldn't that be it "extraordinary".

But to address the main point you asked about, it's the difference between doing the scientific work it would take to examine a claim (document, test, explain, etc.) vs. just imposing a natural explanations or just saying that the natural is more probable than any other type of explanation.

It ain't immediately the responsibility of folks to do the work for those who make claims.

Keep in mind that supernatural is not always associated with nonphysical or immeasurable. Jesus's resurrection was witnessed by his disciples.

My rising up to godhood was witnessed by my discipelers.

Do you challenge my claim?

They touched his wounds.

So it's claimed and I hope it ain't a euphanism.

1st challenge

I challenge you to show you speak truth right here.

I don't need to go as far as saying that God was involved, just going from dead to undead is enough.

Cool.

So show us all folks can be em dead, and then all of a sudden not.

1st challenge

Take also consciousness. Consciousness is not directly measurable, and we can even say that it's questionable that it's entirely physical, but yet scientists are willing to place it within the realm of science (although they once rejected it because it wasn't observable).

Consciousness is measurable. We note that "How y'all doing" is sometimes met with, "fair to middling, til the creeks dry up".

That science fails to explain something doesn't mean "because superntural" is suddenly the truth.

This kinda gets back to what I explained to brunumb. What I'm bringing up is proven to exist to an extent.

Our problem here is to figure out to how much an extent that extent got it figured out.

A guy is dead for days and all of the sudden he's back walking around. But even if proven is too strong of a word then I can at least say that there is evidence but it's not on the level of proof.

Evidence that ain't it to the level of proof is speculation, hopeful hopenings, and all such as that.

...
I don't buy that you have a story that yields evidence for a supernatural occurrence, and yet that evidence gets ignored and placed below explanations that can't be shown to apply to the story (e.g. Jesus's twin brother, hallucinations, etc). I'm a non-believer, and I see a problem with that. I would hope that experts, atheists, theists, or otherwise, can work together to come up with a more fair and balanced standard than what skeptics are offering here.

We ought never conspire with those who declare reality ain't.

That's like asking the Republicans to set up an examination of the January insurrection.

[historia]

what do UFOs have to do with this thread?

I think it's a useful counter-example to explore the underlying logic here.

UFOs defy current science, but they are still accepted as phenomenon that exist. In other words, we don't need to have something scientifically validated (documented, tested, AND explained) in order to accept its existence.

I don't think anyone denies the existence of these aerial phenomena. The real question is which hypothesis best explains them.

It's useful to look at this in terms of Bayesian probability. In Bayesian analysis, before you look at any evidence, you have to first take into account the prior probability of each possible hypothesis. And then, secondly, weigh each possible hypothesis against all competing hypotheses in light of the available evidence.

One hypothesis here is that aliens are behind these phenomena. But, given our background knowledge -- the exceptionally large distances between stars, speed of space travel, etc. -- the prior probability that aliens have come undetected to the earth is very low. Other hypotheses -- e.g., that some clandestine government program is behind these phenomena -- will have inherently higher prior probabilities.

Now, even an exceptionally low prior probability can be overcome given enough evidence. If we could somehow take possession of one of these objects, for example, that might provide undeniable evidence that they are of alien origin, essentially ruling out all competing hypotheses.

But, without such compelling evidence, no one hypothesis far exceeds the other hypotheses in explaining the available evidence. And, in that scenario, people will naturally favor a hypothesis with a higher prior probability over a hypothesis with a low prior probability.

What is the justification for favoring the natural explanations?

What I just said.

Now, that doesn't mean that aliens aren't behind these phenomena, or, in the case of the Resurrection, that God didn't raise Jesus from the dead. It just means the evidence we currently possess isn't enough for us to be certain those are the best explanations.

[Difflugia]

I think it's a useful counter-example to explore the underlying logic here.

I've mentioned it before, but one of my favorite books is Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens by Susan Clancy. Considering the topics touched on in this thread and the ways that people's beliefs have been presented as evidence, I think this book is particularly relevant.

[Purple Knight]

Is anyone claiming that UFOs are supernatural? If they aren't, what do UFOs have to do with this thread?

UFOs might contain extraterrestrial life and/or technology (even if it is more likely that they don't). This equals supernatural to many people since we don't have science to cover that yet. This is what I was getting at with people confusing supernatural with what is simply not understood yet. If there are superpowers or magic, then there are laws of nature that cover that and magic works according to those laws.

Nothing is supernatural. There are just unknowns that might only be explained by laws of nature or science we haven't discovered yet.

[Purple Knight]

Then present these conversations for analysis, or get exposed as an "intellectual coward", "intellectually honest", or

A "liar"!

I haven't recorded them on tape. But I can give you the gist. Here's an example.

Buddy A is talking about what might be out there. He talks about panspermia as an explanation for life existing on earth at all. He talks about the fossils of primitive life found on Mars. This is about the time the fossils are first found and Buddy A is basically saying that since it's unlikely for the life on Mars to have started from the life on Earth or vice-versa, panspermia is a likely explanation for life on Mars and life on Earth.
Buddy B and C proceed to start making fun of him. They dismiss him as a sci-fi nerd (which he happens to be) who just wants there to be aliens. They even dismiss the fossils saying that the scientists are probably wrong or faking it.

You dare, you danged dare to call people "intellectual cowards"?

Yes. The only people I'm calling intellectual cowards are people who are dismissive in the way I've described. If you think I'm making it up then I'm not calling anyone an intellectual coward. I haven't put this insult to anyone on the forum. I have only put it to people, and I obviously don't mean every last person on Earth; I mean the people who do it. According to me the vast majority of people on Earth have this tendency (and I cite the same as AgnosticBoy, the fact that people won't come out with their own experiences because they fear the dismissal), but it may be that I'm highly cynical and there are more good ones than I think. Even so, though, the people who will dismiss anything are loud.