Shadow thread for Resurrection H2H

[Zzyzx]

.
Anyone interested in commenting on the Resurrection H2H (For_The_Kingdom vs. Zzyzx) is welcome to do so here.

[rikuoamero]

From FtK

so I am not bound strictly by scientific methodology anyway.

What is scientific methodology?

The overall process involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct.[5] There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, they are better considered as general principles.[29] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (or to the same degree), and are not always in the same order. As noted by William Whewell (1794–1866), "invention, sagacity, [and] genius"[10] are required at every step

From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Process

Note that when it talks about experiments above, it does NOT have to mean mixing chemicals in a lab. A paleontologist (someone who studies dinosaurs) can make a hypothesis that a certain dinosaur species has their fossils in a certain layer of rock and do an experiment by digging to find out if they are indeed there.
One experiment I perform with regards to history is 'Do many people talk about it?'
For example, Gospel Matthew makes the claim that after Jesus died, the saints rose from their graves and wandered into Jerusalem.
Surely such an event would have caused some talk in the town, and had others write it down. But nope. All we have is Gospel Matthew.

What always has me worried about someone, anyone, saying they are not bound to scientific methodology is that I am worried they do not reject beliefs they do not have supporting evidence for.

[rikuoamero]

I notice that FtK also claims

that you are willing to accept the existence of King Tut without any extra-Egyptian sources corroborating his existence

Of course, this entire line of reasoning ignores the fact that we have the body. It also is attempting to conflate physical artifacts with writings.
If all we had of King Tut were Egyptian writings that claimed he had magic powers, that he did great deeds in foreign nations, but that those other nations make no mention of him, then his comparison is apt.
Sadly for FtK, it isn't. We have the body of Tut. We have Tut's treasures. To the best of my knowledge, what writings we have on Tut do not claim he had magical powers.

[Divine Insight]

I've been reading the debate and in fact just came from having read the last post there.

I agree with the conclusion of your last post in that thread (at this writing post #5). Thus far the only "evidence" that has been presented for the resurrection of Jesus amounts to the argument that some of the disciples of Jesus appear to have believed that he was resurrected from the dead.

I personally do not find that argument to be compelling or convincing. I've actually had experiences in my own life with people who have claimed to have seen supernatural things that I know they did not see, because I was with them at the time in question. I have even seen others jump on the bandwagon proclaiming to have seen the same supernatural event when in fact, they weren't even there at the time.

So the fact that humans are quick to support superstitious claims when in fact then never witnessed any such thing seems far more reasonable to me.

Your opponent, For_the_Kingdom, continually holds to the argument that since these people claim to believe this, then it's more likely to be true than not, simply doesn't hold water. In fact, this is a very bad conclusion, IMHO.

Just because people convince themselves to believe something doesn't mean that it's more likely to be true than not.

If that's the sum total of his "evidence" (and this appears to be the case), then my conclusion is that he has no credible evidence to present at all.

The argument that just becasue someone believed something it's more likely to be true than not is simply not compelling.

In fact, I can give many reasons why people who had their hero crucified by their enemies could easily be compelled to support a rumor that their hero had magically raised from the dead. So the idea that these people would create this rumor and perpetuate it swearing that they actually saw it for themselves does not surprise me in the least.

And of course there are other explanation as well. So this hardly constitutes compelling evidence for the resurrection of a someone who was claimed to be a demigod.

In fact, if they were already making up rumors about Jesus being a demigod, then it shouldn't be the least bit surprising that they would include something as outrageous as having him rise from the dead.

And this is especially true if his body was somehow missing from a tomb because it had either never been placed in the tomb to begin with (which is a theory that can actually be backed up by scriptures) or if the body was stolen from the grave site. Either event would easily spark rumors that this man had "Raised from the Dead".

So the idea that because these rumors exist its more likely they are true than not doesn't hold water. It's actually far more likely that there is a rational explanation for how these rumors came to be what they are.

So if that's the sum total of his "evidence" then he has no evidence at all.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 8 by Zzyzx]

I don't want to distract too much from your debate so I will limit my discussion here. I just would recommend on your next head-to-head that you admit that you are really looking for SCIENTIFIC verification for stories in the Bible. If you admit your scientific agenda from the start, then perhaps many won't go into these trying to debate you on a historical level.

Less frustration and confusion for both parties involved.

[Divine Insight]

.

Less frustration and confusion for both parties involved.

I am neither frustrated or confused (nor emotional nor impatient). If others become that way it is their problem, not mine.

Why should Z be frustrated or confused? He's not the one who is making a claim that he can't provide any evidence for.

It would appear to me that the people who are frustrated are those who believe ancient rumors without sufficient evidence and apparently become frustrated when other people don't embrace their level of naivety.

[OpenYourEyes]

.
Anyone interested in commenting on the Resurrection H2H (For_The_Kingdom vs. Zzyzx) is welcome to do so here.

Please keep the following in mind for your debate,

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741

3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

In other words, the Bible can be used as a valid historical source and this is in line with the field of history, just as historians accept Plato, Socrates, and some of the other ancient historical figures based on written accounts. If you want "conclusive" proof then you won't find it with history, especially ancient history.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 9 by OpenYourEyes]

So far in the Z vs FtK debate, (I will double check for any updates after writing this), I am aware of only one real piece of 'evidence' that FtK has given; the disciples really believed.
That's it.
If that is a valid yardstick for measuring the truth of claims, why is it not valid when looking at the claims of Islam? Muhammed's disciples really believed. Buddhist disciples really believed. XYZ disciples really believed.
Perhaps the most egregious example is Heaven's Gate, where the disciples really believed an alien spacecraft was waiting to retrieve their souls post death. To be consistent, FtK would have to conclude there really was such a spacecraft.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 13 by OpenYourEyes]

just as historians accept Plato, Socrates, and some of the other ancient historical figures based on written accounts.

Historians believe the Trojan War happened, based on ancient written accounts. They do not however accept that Paris of Troy had to officiate in a godly beauty contest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement ... _narrative
You're implying that all ancient written sources are of equal validity here (while amusingly enough not implying the same when it comes to claims made by Islam). Your arguments ring hollow.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 9 by OpenYourEyes]

So far in the Z vs FtK debate, (I will double check for any updates after writing this), I am aware of only one real piece of 'evidence' that FtK has given; the disciples really believed.
That's it.
If that is a valid yardstick for measuring the truth of claims, why is it not valid when looking at the claims of Islam? Muhammed's disciples really believed. Buddhist disciples really believed. XYZ disciples really believed.
Perhaps the most egregious example is Heaven's Gate, where the disciples really believed an alien spacecraft was waiting to retrieve their souls post death. To be consistent, FtK would have to conclude there really was such a spacecraft.

You have to probe a little deeper and factor in why the early Christians believed. Things that come to my mind are Jesus's death, the empty tomb, the Nazareth Inscription that may've been in response to Jesus's tomb, the early witnesses, etc, etc. This issue has been debated many times on this forum and on dozens of college campuses so this topic is nothing new.

My main point here is to address some of Zzyzx demands, which unless agreed on beforehand, is more restrictive than the forum rules and more restrictive than the historical method which both allow for written accounts to serve as HISTORICAL (not empirical, not scientific, not necessarily logical nor objective) evidence. History is our the best tool for knowing about human affairs in the past so it's best that we get familiar with it and its methods or you can stop making historical claims entirely if you have a problem with the field of history.