No one saw the ressurection

[bjs]

I see no reason to give credence to the resurrection. No one saw it actually happen despite the obvious importance of that in lending credibility to the idea of Jesus being special. In none of the stories does anyone see a resurrected Jesus who is not already a follower of Jesus despite the obvious importance of unbiased witnesses to lend credibility to the alleged event.

I have seen this argument a few times, but I have never been able to make sense of it.

Imagine that you spent years living and traveling with a person. Then you saw that person killed. Absolutely, unquestionably put to death. Then you saw that person alive again a week later and you, as well as all the other people who knew that person well, were convinced that it really is the same person now alive. Would it matter if anyone saw that person come back to life? Wouldn’t that fact that the person was dead and is now alive be sufficient reason to believe that the person came back to life?

To make a more mundane analogy, imagine a place in your yard that is only grass. Now imagine that you walk out to that place tomorrow and find that there is a five foot tall sapling there. You did not see the sapling planted, but it is there now. Does the fact that you did not see the sapling being planted matter in any meaningful way? Would you insist that the sapling is not there because you did not see it being planted?

If someone were writing a fictional story about Jesus then we would expect someone to witness the resurrection in that story. If someone were writing a fictional story that they wanted to pass off as true it would make sense to have Jesus appear to various “unbiased� witnesses to lend credibility to the alleged event.

But if someone where recording actual events then the reason they do record any witnesses to the resurrection is because no one was there to witness it. If anything, this tends to lend a small amount of credence to the story. The gospel accounts defy what expect from fiction and instead seem closer to what we experience in real life.

For debate: Does the fact that the Gospels do not record any witnesses to the resurrection make the story less credible?

[bjs1]

I see no reason to give credence to the resurrection. No one saw it actually happen despite the obvious importance of that in lending credibility to the idea of Jesus being special. In none of the stories does anyone see a resurrected Jesus who is not already a follower of Jesus despite the obvious importance of unbiased witnesses to lend credibility to the alleged event.

I have seen this argument a few times, but I have never been able to make sense of it.

Imagine that you spent years living and traveling with a person. Then you saw that person killed. Absolutely, unquestionably put to death. Then you saw that person alive again a week later and you, as well as all the other people who knew that person well, were convinced that it really is the same person now alive. Would it matter if anyone saw that person come back to life? Wouldn’t that fact that the person was dead and is now alive be sufficient reason to believe that the person came back to life?

Imagine! Because that's all you can do, since it didn't happen.

Correct. This is a hypothetical person. No one is claiming that you actually saw any of this.

To make a more mundane analogy, imagine a place in your yard that is only grass. Now imagine that you walk out to that place tomorrow and find that there is a five foot tall sapling there. You did not see the sapling planted, but it is there now. Does the fact that you did not see the sapling being planted matter in any meaningful way? Would you insist that the sapling is not there because you did not see it being planted?

Imagine! Because that's all you can ever do, as it has never happened.

Correct. This is an analogy. No one is actually claiming a sapping actually appeared in your yard. A fictional analogy was created to illustrate a point.

If someone were writing a fictional story about Jesus then we would expect someone to witness the resurrection in that story. If someone were writing a fictional story that they wanted to pass off as true it would make sense to have Jesus appear to various “unbiased� witnesses to lend credibility to the alleged event.

But if someone where recording actual events then the reason they do record any witnesses to the resurrection is because no one was there to witness it. If anything, this tends to lend a small amount of credence to the story. The gospel accounts defy what expect from fiction and instead seem closer to what we experience in real life.

They are exactly what we expect from fiction: fanciful tales that we have to imagine.

In this specific case, they are not. You don’t have to agree that the gospels are true, but the fact that several people claim that the story should have happened in a different way than what was recorded is evidence that, in this case, they are not what most people would expect from fiction.

For debate: Does the fact that the Gospels do not record any witnesses to the resurrection make the story less credible?

No, they are already incredible. Walking on water, Messiahs, Gods, demons, miracle cures of leprosy and death, fish, loaves of bread, etc. Not to mention all of John's insane ramblings.

Where in the world did you ever get the idea that a man was resurrected? Let me guess, from the Church. Guess what, if you go to another building they'll tell you a guy ascended to Heaven on a horse. Go to another building and they'll tell you a guy has an elephant head. Go to another and you get to own a planet after you die. Go to another and you can rule with Xenu. Go to another and you can find total bliss within yourself.

You are free to make all random the declarations you want. These particular random declarations do not affect or apply to the topic of this thread.

Imagine!

Analogy: noun; a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have to be a bit brutal here, but argument by analogy sorta telegraphs the apologetics package 'How do we know what we know?' (incorporating the 'they denied powered flight' fallacy). This is to say, epistemology, or trying to make us doubt everything we thought we knew in hopes to make faithclaims seem more credible. It is (hate to be brutal) not at all different from denial of science when it doesn't suit Faith. And the fallacy is special pleading - it is never applied to anything else, including (of course ) other Faiths.

Which is perhaps all well expressed in the parable of the barber (which was quite a popular apologetic at one time ) to rebut 'Why doesn't God save everyone?'

"Why doesn't God save everybody?"

"Tell me, Simon, why do these scruffs infest the streets? The local barber could cut their hair for them."

"I suppose they have to go to him first to have their hair cut, master."

"Thou speakest sooth, Simon. In the same way, the unshriven have to go to God, in order to be saved."

The fallacy being that if the barber was able to do miracles, he could magic their hair cut, just as God could magic everyone saved, if he wanted. That's the debunk of that analogy and may be why we never hear it these days (1).

Point is - analogies are open to abuse and the Black swan (i the 'they laughed at powered flight' analogy is a false one, and based on a false (and theistic) misunderstanding of how faithclaims and evidence works.

Which is why the sapling in the backyard, the dragon in the garage and the personal experience claims that supposedly prove or validate a Faithclaim are not valid. Or as the old atheist saw has it 'Anecdote is not the singular of Data'. With the knock - on of 'If the Bible apologists had decent arguments, they would not need to try to wangle evidence and logic away with inverted epistemology.'

Apologies if that was your point but I think it was (relating to the OP) arguing for the epistemological fallacy of anecdotal miracle claims.

Which is why 'miracles don't happen' is not disproof, but is a valid objection. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proof.

(1) though there is a rebut, but why should I provide it for them? but the apologetics method is to drop it and search for another 'atheist - stumper'.

[bjs1]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #62]

In this case an analogy is used to explain the argument, not make the argument.

Also, the analogy was not used to validate any “faithclaim.” An argument was made against a common atheistic apologetic (8 years ago).

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #62]

In this case an analogy is used to explain the argument, not make the argument.

Also, the analogy was not used to validate any “faithclaim.” An argument was made against a common atheistic apologetic (8 years ago).

Very good. I agree. Or at least that is how analogy OUGHT to be used - to explain a known but difficult truth using a simpler and similar example. It should not be used as it was here - to validate an unvalidated claim with a known truth which looks or sounds similar. Specifically the black swan or powered flight fallacy:
"The skeptics denied the first powered flight". Craftily, they do not lay out the rest of the fallacy, as that would give the fraud away:

"Now we can make the skeptical experts who (supposedly) denied powered flight look silly. YOU don't want to look silly, do you? Then you should beleive our claim and not listen to those skeptical doubters."

That's how it goes, folks and fails because of the 'cold fusion' refutation. That claim did not go into the science books without query, but validation was awaited and of course it turned out that it was a false claim. Thus the skeptics were right to require validation of the powered flight claim, and when it came, they accepted it, and that is the right way to do it, not to swallow every anecdotal or Holybook claim made (but only if it is the right religion).

P.s or cue... 'That wasn't it..'
I think it was, even if it wasn't thought through, but of course I'll entertain a rejoinder to try to validate the way the analogous apologetic was supposedly used. E.g what the 'atheist apologetic' 8 years ago was. Refusal to do so would mean I had it right.

[Eloi]

The Bible says quite frankly that Jesus' brothers were not among his followers (Matt. 12:46-50; Luke 8:19-21; John 7:5). However, Paul says that Jesus appeared resurrected to James (1 Cor. 15:7), one of his half-brothers, while Luke places this brother of Jesus as one of the elders of Jerusalem (Acts 1:14; 12:17; 15:13; 21:18) in the newly formed Christian congregation shortly after Jesus' ascension. Secular history shows that James was killed as a Christian martyr. Would James have converted to Christianism if his brother's resurrection had been a sham and he had not seen him risen himself?

James was not the only half-brother of Jesus to become a Christian after his resurrection; We know that Jude, the author of the letter that bears his name, was another of Jesus' brothers. Surely both were included among those relatives who before the death of Jesus thought that their brother had lost his mind:

Mark 3:21 But when his relatives heard about it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying: “He has gone out of his mind”.

[Wootah]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #60]

And yet isn't 'Imagine' the anthem of the atheists.

'Imagine there was no religion ... etc.'

You aren't debating you are punching with the left and the right. Imagination is of course as you would no doubt say important in other contexts.

--

No one saw X doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[TRANSPONDER]

The Bible says quite frankly that Jesus' brothers were not among his followers (Matt. 12:46-50; Luke 8:19-21; John 7:5). However, Paul says that Jesus appeared resurrected to James (1 Cor. 15:7), one of his half-brothers, while Luke places this brother of Jesus as one of the elders of Jerusalem (Acts 1:14; 12:17; 15:13; 21:18) in the newly formed Christian congregation shortly after Jesus' ascension. Secular history shows that James was killed as a Christian martyr. Would James have converted to Christianism if his brother's resurrection had been a sham and he had not seen him risen himself?

James was not the only half-brother of Jesus to become a Christian after his resurrection; We know that Jude, the author of the letter that bears his name, was another of Jesus' brothers. Surely both were included among those relatives who before the death of Jesus thought that their brother had lost his mind:

Mark 3:21 But when his relatives heard about it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying: “He has gone out of his mind”.

That is a fair argument IF you accept what the Bible says as accurate, not to say truthful. Because there is reason to doubt the accounts. For one thing, i think it is likely that James was a full brother and one of the 12, but 'Less' than the others. One suspects that he became head of the Jerusalem 'Saints' after Jesus because he was the next relative. One then notes your point. He was the last to have his sight of Jesus. So if he was one of the 12, or 11 as Luke says, since Thomas was with them (you see why we can't trust the accounts?) hadn't he seen the resurrection for himself? No, I don't think he did and the resurrection -s tories were invented. I Cor. suggests that was not how it happened at all.

I have also had the feeling that his family sound more like some of the 12 than not. I even wonder whether Joseph of Arimathea (agreed by all four and demanding a bit of credit) explains what happened to Joseph, Jesus' father.

Hypothetical, I know; but reason to have an alternative story to consider.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #60]

And yet isn't 'Imagine' the anthem of the atheists.

'Imagine there was no religion ... etc.'

You aren't debating you are punching with the left and the right. Imagination is of course as you would no doubt say important in other contexts.

--

No one saw X doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Imagination is excellent, but it also needs mental discipline, not just believing whatever pops into the head and rejecting anything that contradicts it.

'Wisdom is foolishness' is the anthem of the Christians. Just waiting for a good tune.

[Wootah]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #60]

And yet isn't 'Imagine' the anthem of the atheists.

'Imagine there was no religion ... etc.'

You aren't debating you are punching with the left and the right. Imagination is of course as you would no doubt say important in other contexts.

--

No one saw X doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Imagination is excellent, but it also needs mental discipline, not just believing whatever pops into the head and rejecting anything that contradicts it.

'Wisdom is foolishness' is the anthem of the Christians. Just waiting for a good tune.

Well, Christians can't be accused of that. Mostly the need to get rid of religion is so that whatever pops into the head can be imposed on the people.

[boatsnguitars]

No one saw X doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Nor does it imply it did.
And, yet, that isn't the claim, is it? Isn't the claim that a multitude saw it, or at least it's outcome? Yet, they all stayed silent - some even chose not to believe. Why, if it was so apparent?

But, the context - important to this specific discussion - is that when Christians say "imagine" they act as though it is evidence. Specifically, they use it for supernatural events because they never - actually - have the actual supernatural event to point to.

They say, "Imagine if you saw a man rise from the dead in front of you!" or, "Imagine if you died and went to Heaven and met God, then would you believe?", or "Imagine you saw the stars spell "Jesus", then would you believe?" or "Imagine if you saw a hurricane hit a junkyard and it created a Boeing 747?"

etc.

The point is, why don't you point to the actual supernatural event and ask us to assess that?

Because there are no supernatural events to point to, is there?