Proving The Resurrection By the "Minimal Facts" Approach

[PRmerger]

Some things are not passing through this imperfect medium of writing…

You are correct.

Someone, somewhere, preaches the good word, draws upon him disciples, goes against the established religious powers and gets himself killed. This person may or may not have actually existed.

Ok. I’m with you.

We can assume that he did, for simplicity, but it is not required and may have not existed, given the texts that Peter shared where such a figure is already present

Ok.

People, his followers, wanted him to resurrect.
This story is spread.

So let’s stop right here.

You have to identify who lied here.

Someone who spreads the story that they’ve seen the risen Christ, or know someone who has seen the risen Christ…

had to have lied.

What proof do you have that he lied?

And that folks didn’t just say: let’s go to the grave and see if you’re right?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, some things in the gospels are historical, some things are great insights into standard life in that place, at that time… but I don’t think anyone will draw a historical turning water to wine, multiplication of bread, healing of lepers… or the resurrection…

Assuming the God who created the universe and everything in it couldn’t manage little things like turning water into wine, multiplying loaves and fish, healing lepers or a resurrection and raising a dead body or two seems to radically misunderstand what is meant by the word “God,” no?

If you want to assume miracles could not occur BECAUSE your atheism dictates that to you, then stick with that story, but don’t try to argue that God exists AND miracles cannot occur.

The entire point of the Gospels was to show that Jesus was God. Those little miracle stories were intended to demonstrate what constituted “unbelievable” to those in the vicinity who could attest to them and answer the questions of skeptics.

By the way, as Habermas points out in the first link, ancient historians such as Tacitus, Seutonius and Herodotus (aka "the Father of History) all included miracle stories in their accounts. I suppose, you want to throw out the historical validity of all their accounts because of the included miracles, then?

If you want to deny the historicity of the existence of Jesus purely because the Gospels contain miracle stories, you may as well reject the existence of Alexander the Great, Tiberius and Julius Caesar since the accounts we have of these individuals are much farther removed from their alleged dates in history AND those accounts all contain miracle stories. So, to be consistent, pick your poison.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

What could probably be added to the minimal facts are:

1. The apostles and other early Christian witnesses, who were overwhelmingly Jews, radically rejected much of what defined them culturally as Jews - the works of the Mosaic Law, circumcision, animal sacrifice, etc. This was quite a bit different than a conversion from, say, Catholicism to Methodism.
2. The apostles and other early Christian witnesses did not stand to gain anything materially by their conversion - they earned the scorn and hatred of the pharisaical authorities, sometimes violent death at their hands (as with Stephen), ditto for the Romans, imprisonment, and torture. In exchange they received a moral code that was more stringent for men than they one they abandoned - they could no longer divorce and remarry, etc.

People don’t act in such ways because they became “confused” about the difference between an event they claimed to have witnessed and another story of a teacher. That defies common sense.

 

[Peter_Plato]

LOL!
How about this?
I believe there is a god, hence miracles are possible.
Miracles are true, hence God exists.

Circularity abounds.

It would only be “circular” if the same person made both arguments using nothing but “I believe,” “God exists” and “miracles happen” as premises, but that isn’t the case, now is it?

It’s called “building a case” starting with metaphysical and philosophical arguments, moving to historical corroboration and the occurrence of inexplicable miracles to augment the arguments. The case for New Testament reliability and the historicity of Jesus is far more robust than you even imagine.

By the way, have you ever heard of Craig Keener’s scholarly two volume set called Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts?

amazon.ca/Miracles-Credibility-Testament-Accounts-Volume/dp/0801039525

No one that I know would claim, “I think God exists because miracles occur” AND “I think miracles occur because God exists.”

You may as well accuse physicists of claiming: “I think the apple fell because gravity exists” AND “I think gravity exists because the apple fell.”

 

[PRmerger]

LOL!
How about this?
I believe there is a god, hence miracles are possible.
Miracles are true, hence God exists.

Circularity abounds.

Incidentally, the argument, as presented, needs a preface.

Here are reasons I believe God exists, and therefore, miracles are possible.

 

[pocaracas]

Oh, poca, you haven’t even begin to scratch the surface of what we have.

Oh really?

You come to a Catholic forum without examining the reasons to believe a God exists?

Perhaps I have examined many of them… perhaps none captivated me?
Why do you personally believe it is true?
How did you go from being an ignorant baby to a believer?

Read these, and then come back, and we can chat.

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

And before you say, “These arguments have been examined and refuted”, I will concede that some folks have read them and offered refutations.

I’d like to see *your *refutations.

Pick the argument you find to be the most compelling, and then tell us why you believe it fails.

In your own words, please.

NB: it is acknowledged that you don’t find any of them compelling. We get that. You’re an atheist.

But take the one that you find the best of the worst, and let’s discuss.

Yes, you’re right… they’re all bunk.
Let’s start with the first, why not?
The argument from change.
Let me try to sum it up: The Universe cannot change, unless something from the outside acts upon it. The Universe is changing, so there must be something outside it imparting change from the outside of matter and energy.

This seems to fail on several levels.
One, extrapolating internal local observations to the whole Universe.
Two, the observation that things only change when caused to do so by other things isn’t wrong in Newtonian physics… but it’s a bit weirder in quantum physics, where effects such as tunneling effect are possible.
Anything with temperature is thought as being in a state of unrest… an unrest proportional to the temperature, but fundamentally a random unrest… perhaps there are strings in here… perhaps not… the theory still needs some more work.
Three, the Universe, as a whole, may not be changing. Some astrophysicists have added up all matter, dark matter, energy and dark energy and came with the nice number Zero for their total. Also, things aren’t really moving away from each other, space-time is expanding. And the Universe is this share of space-time… all matter and energy within amount to nothing.

Some of these may also be applied to other arguments, like the Kalam…

 

[pocaracas]

Well, this assumes some sort of omniscience, doesn’t it. You’d have to know the details of everyone’s life, (past and present) to know that not a single one has ever had a miracle occur.

Can you say that you know this?

And, just to be clear: all it would take would be for ONE miracle to have occurred–ever, in the history of human existence–to disprove your theory.

One… properly verified…

Give me a floating rock, no magnetic fields, no electric fields, no anti-graviton fields, no nothing… just a rock floating indefinitely.
That would be a nice miracle.
And, if the God that is wishes for all of us to acknowledge that it exists, how about the crazy idea that it show itself to us all? periodically stop by and have a chat with each and every one. This would render all religions moot. God would take care of things… it should be effortless for him to do so. And pay much better than this whole belief business.

Don’t give me dusty, mythological, possible lies , for miracles…

 

[pocaracas]

So let’s stop right here.

You have to identify who lied here.

Someone who spreads the story that they’ve seen the risen Christ, or know someone who has seen the risen Christ…

had to have lied.

What proof do you have that he lied?

And that folks didn’t just say: let’s go to the grave and see if you’re right?

I have to identify who lied? Many people would have spread the tale, over their meals… how many meals does a person have?.. how many chances are there to spread the story? To expand it?

All stories in the gospels are told by unknowns… everyone knows that the names of the gospels are later attributions.

Proof that he lied? He added magic to the story.

 

[Gorgias]

And, if the God that is wishes for all of us to acknowledge that it exists, how about the crazy idea that it show itself to us all? periodically stop by and have a chat with each and every one.

Through His self-revelation, the God that is has identified that He doesn’t want mindless robots – or those who only believe because they’ve seen; rather, He wants us to love Him freely. Really, now: if the all-powerful Creator of the Universe popped into your dining room for tea today, would you really believe in Him… or just be scared out of your wits and follow Him out of fear?

This would render all religions moot.

All except one.

God would take care of things… it should be effortless for him to do so.

So… God should subordinate His plans for the universe because you’ve found an “effortless” way for Him?

And pay much better than this whole belief business.

Right – since our relationship with God is all about the benjamins. Riiiiiiight…

Don’t give me dusty, mythological, possible lies

Then, shouldn’t we ask the same courtesy from you?

 

[PRmerger]

One… properly verified…

Indeed.

Give me a floating rock, no magnetic fields, no electric fields, no anti-graviton fields, no nothing… just a rock floating indefinitely.
That would be a nice miracle.
And, if the God that is wishes for all of us to acknowledge that it exists, how about the crazy idea that it show itself to us all? periodically stop by and have a chat with each and every one. This would render all religions moot. God would take care of things… it should be effortless for him to do so. And pay much better than this whole belief business.

Don’t give me dusty, mythological, possible lies , for miracles…

You haven’t answered the question though.

Are you saying that you possess the charism of omniscience?

For that is what we must logically conclude if you are asserting that you know, with great certainty, that in the history of every single human person that’s ever existed, not a single miracle has ever occurred.

 

[pocaracas]

Assuming the God who created the universe and everything in it couldn’t manage little things like turning water into wine, multiplying loaves and fish, healing lepers or a resurrection and raising a dead body or two seems to radically misunderstand what is meant by the word “God,” no?

If you want to assume miracles could not occur BECAUSE your atheism dictates that to you, then stick with that story, but don’t try to argue that God exists AND miracles cannot occur.

Here is the problem that crops up when you allow some parts of the gospels as historical.
People go out of their way to assume you’re saying that the whole thing is historical.

Where did I argue that God exists? If I start with God, then anything is possible… If I start with a God, then I ask: why do we have so little evidence for it? Why do we have various religions? Can’t this God be consistent across populations? Are humans so complex that he couldn’t convey a single message to all?

The entire point of the Gospels was to show that Jesus was God. Those little miracle stories were intended to demonstrate what constituted “unbelievable” to those in the vicinity who could attest to them and answer the questions of skeptics.

Yep… the whole point of the Gospels was to show that Jesus was God… you said it!
So they had an agenda when they wrote the Gospels. Convince people that Jesus was God… people who had no access to any tomb, nor any cross… People far away from the origin of the story…

By the way, as Habermas points out in the first link, ancient historians such as Tacitus, Seutonius and Herodotus (aka "the Father of History) all included miracle stories in their accounts. I suppose, you want to throw out the historical validity of all their accounts because of the included miracles, then?

If you want to deny the historicity of the existence of Jesus purely because the Gospels contain miracle stories, you may as well reject the existence of Alexander the Great, Tiberius and Julius Caesar since the accounts we have of these individuals are much farther removed from their alleged dates in history AND those accounts all contain miracle stories. So, to be consistent, pick your poison.

See what I mean above?
I can grant gospels details about life in the first century as historical. Places and rulers… But the main dish? miracles and god and Jesus? I’m skeptical.
What is also curious is how many people lived in there and also didn’t become christian… how does that happen? Why was Jerusalem still jewish after that mother of all miracles?

 

[PRmerger]

How did you go from being an ignorant baby to a believer?

I examined the evidence, poca.

Faith and reason brought me to the place I am today.

Yes, you’re right… they’re all bunk.

Careful, poca.

It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, so it would be a shame for you to be banned or not permitted to dialogue.

You cannot misrepresent another’s position.

So, for example, if you say, “I believe that Pope Francis is a good man”, it would be impermissible for me to say, “You’re right. I’m glad that you acknowledge that Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ”.

So just follow the rules and you’ll be good.

Let’s start with the first, why not?

I’ll address your refutation in a bit…

Off to Mass now!

 

[pocaracas]

It would only be “circular” if the same person made both arguments using nothing but “I believe,” “God exists” and “miracles happen” as premises, but that isn’t the case, now is it?

It’s called “building a case” starting with metaphysical and philosophical arguments, moving to historical corroboration and the occurrence of inexplicable miracles to augment the arguments. The case for New Testament reliability and the historicity of Jesus is far more robust than you even imagine.

By the way, have you ever heard of Craig Keener’s scholarly two volume set called Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts?

amazon.ca/Miracles-Credibility-Testament-Accounts-Volume/dp/0801039525

No one that I know would claim, “I think God exists because miracles occur” AND “I think miracles occur because God exists.”

You may as well accuse physicists of claiming: “I think the apple fell because gravity exists” AND “I think gravity exists because the apple fell.”

Allow me to not go out and buy that 2 volume book… is there any amputee who grows back the limb?
Or is it all internal things easily attributed to something else?

 

[pocaracas]

Through His self-revelation, the God that is has identified that He doesn’t want mindless robots – or those who only believe because they’ve seen; rather, He wants us to love Him freely. Really, now: if the all-powerful Creator of the Universe popped into your dining room for tea today, would you really believe in Him… or just be scared out of your wits and follow Him out of fear?

If this Creator had been doing it since he started the whole thing, it would be expected and he would be welcome. Why would I fear a being that, whenever it talks to me, provides some helpful insight? And whom I find, by talking to other people, is doing the same to them all!

Love comes after knowing it’s there.
Believers believe it’s there… hence assume it’s there and love that which is assumed.
Non-believers try to keep it real. If it doesn’t seem to be there, why should I waste my love on it?

All except one.

At best!

So… God should subordinate His plans for the universe because you’ve found an “effortless” way for Him?

Because… wait, how would you know there’s any plan?
Damn hackers!

Right – since our relationship with God is all about the benjamins. Riiiiiiight…

For him. It would be better for him. People would be so much more compliant.

Then, shouldn’t we ask the same courtesy from you?

Am I lying?
Am I providing dusty non-miracles? LOL

 

[pocaracas]

You haven’t answered the question though.

Are you saying that you possess the charism of omniscience?

For that is what we must logically conclude if you are asserting that you know, with great certainty, that in the history of every single human person that’s ever existed, not a single miracle has ever occurred.

Indeed I don’t possess such omniscience…
I go by what I get from all over, but that is only a small subsample of all possible events.
Still, only claimed miracles… and they tend to get debunked: either due to being the product of lies, or mistaken diagnosis of the original condition, spontaneous remission, etc…
Has there ever been anyone claiming to have a leg grown back after amputation? That’s something difficult to misdiagnose, or to have some natural cause…
Although, some lizards are known to regrow parts of their bodies, so I am aware of research going into the possibility of applying the same principle to induce human limb regrowth.
Science doing what we successfully fail to see any God doing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Let’s start with the first, why not?
The argument from change.
Let me try to sum it up: The Universe cannot change, unless something from the outside acts upon it. The Universe is changing, so there must be something outside it imparting change from the outside of matter and energy.

Except that isn’t the argument from change.

More like (at least where the universe is concerned) …

All change requires an adequate explanation.
Absent a sufficient internal explanation for a change, an external explanation is necessary.
The universe’s change from non-existence to existence 13.7 billion years ago does not have a possible internal explanation BECAUSE everything in and about the universe – anything that could possibly explain any changes about the universe at all – all came into existence 13.7 billion years ago.
Therefore, there MUST be something outside it that explains the coming into existence of the universe.

Now, unless you subscribe to the possibility of things, in general, and universes, in particular, bootstrapping themselves into existence your rendition of the argument seems somewhat inadequate.

I would recommend Michael Augros’ Who Designed the Designer or Andy Bannister’s The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist – special emphasis on Chapter 1: The Loch Ness Monster’s Moustache (or: The Terrible Consequences of Bad Arguments).

 

[pocaracas]

I examined the evidence, poca.

Faith and reason brought me to the place I am today.

Did you examine the evidence before or after having faith?

Careful, poca.

It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, so it would be a shame for you to be banned or not permitted to dialogue.

You cannot misrepresent another’s position.

So, for example, if you say, “I believe that Pope Francis is a good man”, it would be impermissible for me to say, “You’re right. I’m glad that you acknowledge that Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ”.

So just follow the rules and you’ll be good.

Oh… I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to be that mean…
It’s just that I’ve seen the some arguments against those arguments you presented and they got debunked in my mind.

I’ll address your refutation in a bit…

Off to Mass now!

Enjoy!

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yep… the whole point of the Gospels was to show that Jesus was God… you said it!
So they had an agenda when they wrote the Gospels.

And YOU had an agenda when you wrote that post.

I suppose we can dismiss everything you say as false merely because you have an agenda.

Well, that was easy.

No need to even THINK about whether it was true or not, just raise a sign with the word

[SIGN]Agenda[/SIGN]

and think no more of it.

That’s even more effective than Occam’s Razor.

Unfortunately, it gets us no nearer the truth than we were before, which is concerning – that is, if you are interested in the truth and not merely having your opinion reinforced.

 

[Peter_Plato]

One… properly verified…

Give me a floating rock, no magnetic fields, no electric fields, no anti-graviton fields, no nothing… just a rock floating indefinitely.
That would be a nice miracle.
And, if the God that is wishes for all of us to acknowledge that it exists, how about the crazy idea that it show itself to us all? periodically stop by and have a chat with each and every one. This would render all religions moot. God would take care of things… it should be effortless for him to do so. And pay much better than this whole belief business.

Don’t give me dusty, mythological, possible lies , for miracles…

Well, I gave you a two volume set of them and you say…

Allow me to not go out and buy that 2 volume book… is there any amputee who grows back the limb?
Or is it all internal things easily attributed to something else?

Quite revealing, actually.

 

[pocaracas]

Except that isn’t the argument from change.

More like (at least where the universe is concerned) …

All change requires an adequate explanation.
Absent a sufficient internal explanation for a change, an external explanation is necessary.
The universe’s change from non-existence to existence 13.7 billion years ago does not have a possible internal explanation BECAUSE everything in and about the universe – anything that could possibly explain any changes about the universe at all – all came into existence 13.7 billion years ago.
Therefore, there MUST be something outside it that explains the coming into existence of the universe.

Now, unless you subscribe to the possibility of things, in general, and universes, in particular, bootstrapping themselves into existence your rendition of the argument seems somewhat inadequate.

I would recommend Michael Augros’ Who Designed the Designer or Andy Bannister’s The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist – special emphasis on Chapter 1: The Loch Ness Monster’s Moustache (or: The Terrible Consequences of Bad Arguments).

Oh… that’s something else, indeed.
But I was going by the description provided in that website. I may have misread it…

This argument tells only that there must be something out of our Universe.
Such is the standard assumption that goes into Krauss’s Universe from Nothing.
The Nothing he speaks of isn’t really nothing… it’s just empty space.
And empty space has been shown to theoretically bring forth particles and their corresponding anti-particles.
There is an infinite empty space-time. locally, it can, as far as we can tell, spontaneously, bring forth particles - if too many or too great are produced in a single location, the space-time is compressed beyond recognition, only to then try to get back to it’s previous geometry.
It’s a hypothesis… how to check for it? I don’t know… I don’t know if it will ever be properly verified.

It requires that space-time inside the Universe behave as space-time outside of the Universe… if there is space-time outside of the Universe…

No god required.