The Argument from Miracles: The Resurrection

[danserr]

And Pesch is hardly undisputed.

By whom and on what grounds?

Paul does not mention the empty tomb. Sure it implies that Jesus had been buried.

That Paul was in contact with an early tradition saying that Jesus was buried supports the empty tomb because if the burial story is early a reliable, then the location of Jesus tomb would be well known. Hence, it would be easy to verify that the tomb was really empty.

A.N. Sherwin-White, a Roman historian in Roman Society and Roman Law points out that sources for Greco-Roman history are typically biased and at least 1-2 generations removed from actual events, but historians use them confidently to reconstruct events. He says that tests show that even 1-2 generations is not enough time to wipe out the hard core of historical fact.

That is true if they were truly written as history, which the gospels may not have been, and the hard core of historical facts has to be identified as such.

Excellent, you now agree that if the gospels are types of sources similar to history, then 2 generations is not enough time for legendary development to wipe out the core of historical fact in them.
-Sherwin-White compares the gospels favorably to historical accounts and says they are clearly comparable to ancient biography.

• Or consider Luke, who in the preface to his gospel identifies himself as writing as a historian, Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed. (Lk. 1.1-4)
  The style here is that of a classical greek historian.
  -Next, Luke evidently traveled with Paul and because at various places in Luke, the third person switches to the first. This suggests that Luke was an eyewitness to the events he is writing about in acts.
• Sherwin-White says: “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd.”
• William Ramsey, the famous archeologist: “Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians”

so it is evident that the gospels are of the genre of history, and that given this, (as Sherwin-White shows) as you admit, 2 generations is insufficient time for legend to arise.

Your fondness for referencing a handful people who may claim to see Michael Jackson then, is irrelevant. Why? Among other reasons, there is no comparison to the wide groups of people, close to the event, all agreeing on the burial, empty tomb, appearance, and resurrection of Jesus. Second this fails for reasons I give under the hallucination hypothesis.

Have you checked their stories?

non sequitur.
give me even a shred of evidence they are comparable and that the historical/doctrinal context is in any way similar.

If they were truly motivated to do so , which I very much doubt, then they would have produced some body and claimed it was Jesus. Who could have proven it wasn’t Jesus?

Why do you doubt their motivation? Their motivation was to crush the disciples, which they persecuted and killed them to do (as I show above). Obviously, they would have also been motivated to produce the body. But there is no evidence that they tried to produce any body, Jesus’ or anyone else’s and claim it was Jesus. There is evidence that when confronted with the claim of the empty tomb, they accepted it and tried to explain it away by claiming that Jesus’ disciples’ stole the body. By which they admitted the tomb was indeed empty.

The fact that you have been forced into so many strange, and contradictory positions should make you wonder if the Resurrection really is the best explanation of the evidence. The evidence is widely accepted, I have shown why and you have not even tried to offer reasons to the contrary, only thrown out possibilities and challenged me to disprove them. This I have done. In light of this, and you admitting that you have no evidence in support of any of your positions, you should consider the evidence with an open mind and consider whether the Resurrection is historically probable after all.

 

[danserr]

I think that the quote is authentic… From The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr) on the New Advent website:

newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

I’ll let you and windfish figure out if it is authentic since it is not relevant for my position. What is this:
It was not believed that the emperors went bodily to heaven (Hercules for instance mounted his own funeral pyre), which alone makes this very different from Jesus. This is not (anastasis) resurrection; this is the typical view of the body as a prison from which the soul is released. (Resurrection of the Son of God pp.55-60) In this mindset, Resurrection was not even an option. That is why some Athenians sneered on hearing Paul, and he struggled with the Corinthians, They were classical ancient Greco-Roman culture, and they “knew” just as surely as the modern naturalist, that dead men do not rise.

 

[belorg]

The Empty Tomb: Evidence from early Jewish Polemic

If you are only disputing b2, then you are accepting my reasoning up to that point and admitting that this is an rational procedure by which historians may pull valuable historical nuggets from even an unreliable source,

Yes.

You admit that Matt really claimed this (obviously), and then that we may infer that he would not have said this unless the Jews were really claiming this. Excellent.

The Jews might have said something in discussions, but I wouldn’t say they actually claimed it.

You question b2, namely, that “by claiming the disciples stole the body, the Jews admitted the tomb was really empty.” Now this actually seems obvious, because if the tomb was really not empty, the Jews would just have claimed that. Why? It would be a far more effective rebuttal to claim that Jesus’ body was really there, than to claim the tomb was empty but Jesus’ disciples stole the body. But they did not.

Because they probably didn’t know what actually had happened, and most of them didn’t really care.

The fact is that there is no evidence that the Jews ever tried to produce a body and claim that it was Jesus’s, since this would have been the easiest way to refute Christianity, but they did not do it, this suggests that the tomb was really empty and Jesus’ opponents knew it. This is especially valuable evidence because it comes, not from Jesus’ own followers, but from his enemies!.

The fact that they never produced a body does not suggest the tomb was empty and the Jews knew it, because if it was so imporatant to them they would have produced a body anyway and told people that the disciples had stolen it but they had found it.

But they didn’t.

You try to claim (as you did once before, and I refuted) that maybe it was not worth the trouble for the Jews to produce the body. But this is clearly false, the disciples were obviously worth persecuting and killing (as Paul admits he himself did), think how much easier would it have been to produce Jesus’ body if that were really possible. But they did not. This implies they could not.

They could have, because who would have proven the body was not Jesus’?
But they didn’t, because Chrsitianity was such an insignificant sect in those days, that, apart from a few phanatics like Paul maybe, nobody actually cared that much.

The Empty Tomb: Evidence from the Presence of Women

I responded to this question is post 49, which I copy below for your greater convenience.

The point is that any role in which the women played a part, was a role that could have been better served by men. It would still be embarrassing that the first witnesses to the empty tomb were women, especially Mary Mag., who had a checkered past (from whom Jesus had driven 7 demons, ie.sin).

This entails that the gospels were written to convince the orthodox Jews, but there is no evidence for that. There is evidence, however, that in Christian circles, women were held in higher esteem, so to Christian the women would not have been an embarrassment.

If these stories had been invented to try to convince people, they would never have put the women, especially Mary Mag. in such a role. The pagan Celsus, for instance, just ridiculed the Christianity as “based on the testimony of some hysterical women.”

But they were not written to convince the pagans, but to convince those who were already open to the ideas of Christianity but needed some extra information to either really make the step towards Christianity or to rid some of some remaining doubts.

That the disciples did not believe the women at first only confirms this, that women were not considered reliable witnesses, and that they must themselves have required some stronger proof before they would believe. So by the criterion of embarrassment, the presence of women as the discoverers of the empty tomb strongly supports the idea that the tomb really was empty. Their presence was an embarrassment. It would not have been invented.

The disciples originally not believing things is a literary motif used at several places throughout the gospels. ,

St. Paul, for instance, when listing the witness to the Resurrection in Corinthians, never mentions the women. Why? Because they were an embarrassment. He didn’t say “well, the women saw it first, but then some men saw it too.” Mentioning the women was just pointless for trying to convince people that it happened. Yet, in spite of this, the gospel writers put the women front and center, which strongly supports the reliability of the accounts.

Because he probably did not know about any women. That was inveted later on.

 

[belorg]

They are two independent reasons, the Jewish polemic, and the presence of the women.

I have said all I wanted to say about the presence of the women and the Jewish polemic, if there was such a thing can be considered a line of evidence for the stealing of the body. And if more than one Jew claimed the body was stolen, we have several independent lines of evidence to show the body was stolen.

Another reason in support is that the graves of Jewish Holy men were often revered after death, but there is not evidence that Jesus’ tomb every was. This supports the empty tomb (since if the tomb were empty there would be no reasons for reverence the tomb.

First of all, if the disciples were under a constant threat of being persecutd and killed, there would have been no chance for them to revere the tomb, and secondly: if the tomb really had been emprty and its locaition had been known, it would have become a place of reverence even without a body. Why wouildn’t they have revered the place were this extraordinary event took place?

And since you admit that you have no evidence for your views, the rational thing to do is to reject them.

No, because although, I have no concrete evidence, and admiitedly cannoy say I believe this or that happened, I do have evidence in the sense that none of my possibilities requires a lrage stretch of the imagination.

Secondly, you have taken a variety of contradictory positions. You have alternately claimed that women could be reliable witnesses (which is obviously wrong),

This is not obviously wrong

and that it didn’t matter that they were unreliable because men checked the tomb anyway (also obviously mistaken).

The two positions are botyh possible and not contradictory at all.

But think about it, the fact that you have been forced into so many contradictory and ad hoc positions, should make you wonder if the Resurrection is probable after all.

I have been forced into no contradictory position because I haven’t taken any position, except that of scepticim, which is justified in the case of extraordinary claims.

There is Paul’s own testimony.

Which happened after the ascension.

He claims he saw the risen Christ. Second, visions are solely in the mind, Paul’s companions also saw something take place.

Of which we have two contradictory accounts.

Third, Paul was in no way disposed toward hallucination.

I am not a psychiatrist and I have never met Paul, so I gave no idea what he was disposed toward.

This James was always an unbeliever even during Jesus’ lifetime, yet he saw the risen Christ after his Resurrection.

What evidence is there that he was an unbeliever?

Obviously. But it does nothing to show that the account of the empty tomb is a legend as you seem to want to claim.

I do not claim Mark contains legend, I only claim it is possible for Mark to contain legend

Simply saying “Legends can form within days” is not evidence that they did so form (which is mistaken anyway as Sherwin-White shows).

Whatever Sherwin-White shows, legend can form within days as we see around us. Urban legends, e.g. do not take years to form at all.

Rather, the simplicity of the burial account and the obvious fact that it shows no signs of legendary development support the idea that is it now legend, and hence provides another independent reason for thinking that Jesus’ tomb was really found empty.

The simplicity of the burial account is evidence for Mark’s writing style, nothing more. I’ve seen the same urban legends described in a very simple way and in a very complex form, with lots of fantastic details.

 

[tonyrey]

I think that the quote is authentic… From The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr) on the New Advent website:

newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

You are taking his words out of their context. In Chapter 23 St Justin goes on to say:

"Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power…"

The three previous chapters are concerned with analogies to Christian doctrine, the history of Christ and His Sonship…

 

[belorg]

By whom and on what grounds?

That Paul was in contact with an early tradition saying that Jesus was buried supports the empty tomb because if the burial story is early a reliable, then the location of Jesus tomb would be well known. Hence, it would be easy to verify that the tomb was really empty.

 

[tonyrey]

danserr;7751519:

No, I should do no such thing, I always presuppose a naturalistic explanation and for good reasons: if we abandon this principle, science is dead. And we all use this principle in all other cases, so why wouldn’t we use it here?

We do not use naturalistic explanations to explain everything unless we are materialists - which is an obsolete outlook for any right thinking person!

 

[danserr]

Originally Posted by danserr View Post
No, I should do no such thing, I always presuppose a naturalistic explanation and for good reasons: if we abandon this principle, science is dead. And we all use this principle in all other cases, so why wouldn’t we use it here?

We do not use naturalistic explanations to explain everything unless we are materialists - which is an obsolete outlook for any right thinking person!

Tony, you are making it look like I’m the one insisting that we assume naturalism. Which would be odd, given the rest of my posts!

 

[danserr]

Belorg,

I am glad that we have made some progress, at least, even if we still disagree about a lot. You now agree that historians may use even an unreliable source to pull out interesting nuggets of information. Therefore a case for the resurrection does not rest on the Bible being a reliable source, which is an important point.

On the Early Jewish polemic for the empty tomb

You keep trying to claim that the reason the Jews never produced a body was because they just didn’t care enough and it was too much trouble. Now this is just mistaken. It would have been very little trouble to actually go and check the tomb. Second, they obviously cared enough to persecute and kill Christians. To suggest that they cared enough to do that, but not enough to take the far simpler and more convincing step of producing a body is just completely implausible. Paul was not a fanatic, he was acting with the rest of them, as he himself says. By claiming that the tomb was empty because the disciple’s stole the body, the enemies of Christianity themselves admitted that the tomb was empty! They never tried to deny this fact even though it would have been very easy to do. This suggests the tomb really was empty.

p.s. a brief mention of your claim that maybe the disciples stole the body. I have already proven (and you have not refuted) that the disciples suffered and died for their beliefs. This makes the charge of body snatching ridiculous.

The Presence of the Women

• Among your contradictory claims, you have claimed: 1. women’s testimony really was reliable, 2. Women’s testimony was not reliable, but that didn’t matter because men also appear as witnesses, and 3. Women were sort-of reliable because the earliest Christians had a better opinion of women.

Now, it is true that Christianity had a higher opinion of women tha the ancient Jews, and especially the ancient pagans, but I am afraid this does not help you. It is till the case that any role in which the women appear at witnesses, was any role that could have been better filled by men, especially if, as you admit, the gospels were written to convince people. Even though Christians came to have a higher opinion of women than pagans and even ancient Jews (a fact I am glad that you acknowledge), they still would not have seen women’s testimony as equal to men. And remember the earliest Christians were Jews, they would have had much of the same biases. This is why Paul never included the appearances to the women, he knew perfectly well that that would be shooting himself in the foot. So your claim that the women were made up later is wholly implausible. If the stories were made up later, men would have been put in the role of finding the empty tomb, because men were more reliable witnesses. That this did not happen, is evidence that the stories were early, and that they really did find an empty tomb.

For all the attempts you have made to escape the importance of women finding the tomb, you just can’t get around the problem that any role the women would play, is the role better served by men. So if they stories were made up, men would have appeared in the role. They did not, which shows the stories were not invented.

Another reason in support is that the graves of Jewish Holy men were often revered after death, but there is not evidence that Jesus’ tomb every was. This supports the empty tomb (since if the tomb were empty there would be no reasons for reverence the tomb.

First of all, if the disciples were under a constant threat of being persecutd and killed, there would have been no chance for them to revere the tomb, and secondly: if the tomb really had been emprty and its locaition had been known, it would have become a place of reverence even without a body. Why wouildn’t they have revered the place were this extraordinary event took place?

But I though you claimed that only Paul and maybe one or two other fanatics were threatening the early Christians? I am glad, though, that you now agree with the vast majority of scholars and recognize that this is nonsense.
Second, a very good question. The disciples did not reverence the tomb anyway, because in Jewish though, it was the remains of the body that made the tomb sacred (not too unlike Christians and relics today). If the body was gone, there was no point reverencing the empty tomb. So that the tomb was not reverenced implies it was really empty.

 

[danserr]

I am not a psychiatrist and I have never met Paul, so I gave no idea what he was disposed toward.

Then you have zero justification justification for speculating that he hallucinated and should give that idea up, as most scholars today do.

What evidence is there that [James] was an unbeliever?

This fact is also widely admitted.
John 7:5 “for even his own brother did not believe in him.”
Yet in spite of this, after Jesus’ death James became such an ardent believer that the Jews killed him by throwing him from the pinnacle of the temple.

I do not claim Mark contains legend, I only claim it is possible for Mark to contain legend

Yet you have refused to say which part of the burial account you think is legendary despite my repeated requests that you do. So even if you continue (with not evidence or argument) to claim mark contains legend, you have offered no reason to think that the burial account is legend.
-And you are correct not to. The burial account is stark, unadorned, with no legendary developments, this supports its reliability.

The simplicity of the burial account is evidence for Mark’s writing style, nothing more. I’ve seen the same urban legends described in a very simple way and in a very complex form, with lots of fantastic details.

And yet Mark’s burial account contains no fantastic details! They buried him and went away. Hardly the stuff of legend.

Whatever Sherwin-White shows, legend can form within days as we see around us. Urban legends, e.g. do not take years to form at all.

Evidence? And you agreed that your MJ example is not relevant since the context is wholly different. a handful of people scattered here and there with no doctrinal/historical context hardly makes for a legend.

But Paul does not mentin the tomb, so you just cannot include him in your multiple attestation because he didn’t attest it.

He testifies to the burial, which supports the empty tomb because it means the location of Jesus’ tomb was well known and would have been easy to verify to see if it was really empty.

The style here is that of a classical greek historian.
-Next, Luke evidently traveled with Paul and because at various places in Luke, the third person switches to the first. This suggests that Luke was an eyewitness to the events he is writing about in acts.

That is also very much disputed.

Who disputes it and what arguments do they use? I have given you arguments and scholars, you have not given anything comparable.

Acts is a text-book example of a legendary account of people having a sorcerer’s duel with all sorts of fantastic details.

Thank you for making my point. You are confusing acts with the apocryphal gospel of Peter. The latter describes the dual you are thinking of. It is from the second century or later and shows real legendary development.

• In acts, simon magnus offers the apostles money for their power to heal. Peter tells him “may your money perish with you.” Simon repents and says “pray God for me.”
• In the later Apocalypse of Peter, the story develops into a legend with a full out magical duel where Simon flies around in a magic chair before being brought crashing to the earth by Peter.

This shows how legend develops! You can see how the first account (Acts) is very simple, while the later apocalypse of Peter shows real legendary development. This supports both what I say about legend taking a long time to develop, and supports Acts as reliable history. As the scholars I have cited agree.

Which is very strange if they were as motivated as you claim.

yes, it suggests there was no body to produce, that the location of the tomb was well known, and that the tomb was empty.

 

[danserr]

No, I should do no such thing, I always presuppose a naturalistic explanation and for good reasons: if we abandon this principle, science is dead. And we all use this principle in all other cases, so why wouldn’t we use it here?

As I said, to co,vince me that the Resurrection is probable would take much more evidence that you are anyone else has presented, just I am not prepared to believe it is proabable the Michael Jackson is alive or that Sai Baba resurrects people, depite the fact that these stories are also multiply attested.

If you reject the Resurrection solely because of personal biases and preconceptions, then you are not considering the evidence with an open mind, which is hardly reasonable of you.

And no, science would not be dead if you did not assume naturalism. Many of the greatest scientific advances have been made and continue to be made by people who reject naturalism, namely, Christians! Such include Galileo, Isaac Newton (an Arian Christian, but a Christian still), Gregor Mendal, Francis Collins (director of the human genome project and author of The Language of God, a Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief), Owen Gingerich, Paul Davies, and Christopher Isham (famous British quantum cosmologist. Rejection of naturalism has hardly destroyed science for these people.

Science is not overthrown because of one remarkable miracles and you have no reason for thinking that it is. So this attempt to reject miracles a priori will not work.

And accepting the resurrection does not obligate you to accept people claiming MJ is alive because there is not comparable evidence for it; there is superior evidence that he is dead (not just your biases), and there is no historical/doctrinal context for MJ’s resurrection. Accepting the Resurrection in no way obligates you to accept nonsense like MJ being alive. I know you like to make alot of this, but it is just a red herring.

Instead, you should be willing to consider the evidence with an open and unbiased mind and see where it leads you. Would it be such a terrible thing if the Resurrection really happened? I have given good evidence for it. You have not presented evidence against it. Why not consider it?

 

[belorg]

And no, science would not be dead if you did not assume naturalism. Many of the greatest scientific advances have been made and continue to be made by people who reject naturalism, namely, Christians! Such include Galileo, Isaac Newton (an Arian Christian, but a Christian still), Gregor Mendal, Francis Collins (director of the human genome project and author of The Language of God, a Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief), Owen Gingerich, Paul Davies, and Christopher Isham (famous British quantum cosmologist. Rejection of naturalism has hardly destroyed science for these people.

I wasn’t going to respond anymore, danserr, but just to make sure you do not misunderstand me. Of course theists in general and Christians in partcicular can do and in fact do great science, but in order to scientifically investigate something, one simply must always presuppose a naturalistic explanation of what one is investigating.
Otherwise we would still be stuck with ‘the Thunder God causes thunderstorms’.

That does not mean that one must presuppose there cannot be supernatural entities or supernatural explanations for things, but they must be regarded as the exception, not the rule. If no naturalistic explanation is available or a naturalistic explanation is extremely unlikely, the supernatural might come in.

That’s why, until further evidence is shown, I hold to a naturalitic explanation and I remain very sceptic as to supernatural claims.

And, yes, some of the things you suggest make the supernatural hypothesis more likely than in the absense of said evidence, but since the prior probability of a supernatural explanation is extremly low, also in light of various claims of the supernatural that have been succesfully explained by natural causes, much more evidence is needed.

That’s why, until very convincing evidence comes along, I am not prepared to believe that Sai Baba really resurrects people or that Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley and JFK are still alive or have risen from their graves. Extraordinary facts require extraordinary evidence and some stories by members of a sect claiming al kinds of wonderful things about that same sect is not going to do it.

And, I think you take the same approach to every other claim of the suprenatural that does not involve your God.

And accepting the resurrection does not obligate you to accept people claiming MJ is alive because there is not comparable evidence for it; there is superior evidence that he is dead (not just your biases), and there is no historical/doctrinal context for MJ’s resurrection. Accepting the Resurrection in no way obligates you to accept nonsense like MJ being alive. I know you like to make alot of this, but it is just a red herring.

I don’t make a lot of this, but you dismiss this evidence without having looked at it, and for good reasons, but it seems to me you don’t apply the same good reasons when it comes to something you (want to) believe

Instead, you should be willing to consider the evidence with an open and unbiased mind and see where it leads you. Would it be such a terrible thing if the Resurrection really happened?

No it wouldn’t. It would just be one more of those unexplained facts. I do not worry about that. If there really was good evidence, I would consider it.

 

[danserr]

Extraordinary facts require extraordinary evidence

Yes, I got the sense earlier that this was behind alot of your skepticism, but didn’t want to say anything until you mentioned it. I know this slogan (efree) is much loved by the online free-thought community, and sounds very plausible at first, but it is very easy to show why it is mistaken.

I hope you will watch the following 2 minute link explaining it. It explains it more clearly than I will, but I will write it out anyway.
youtube.com/watch?v=5M9pphsSLPs

Your argument is that the antecedent probability of an event (here a miracle) occurring is so low that it would take an extraordinary amount of evidence to accept the claim. This was essentially Hume’s argument against miracles, that a miracle is so extraordinarily improbable that no evidence would suffice to establish it.

The problem with this reasoning is that if applied, we could never believe many things that we do everyday. If this slogan (efree) were true, then you could never believe that a lottery pick reported on the evening news as the winning pick was a certain number, because that is an extraordinarily improbable event. In fact, that odds of that number being picked (about 1 in 70 million or so) are so high, that even if the news media is 99.99 percent reliable, the sheer improbability of that number being picked would far dwarf the reliability of the news media. So you should never believe any winning number reported on the evening news was the winning number! But this is clearly wrong.

Probability theorists since Hume, thus recognized that you cannot consider only the antecedent probability of the event; rather, you must also take into account the probability that the evidence would be what it is, if the event did not occur. So you do believe the report of the winning lotto even though it is extraordinarily improbable because you also know that it is very unlikely the evidence (media report of it as the winning number) would be what it is, if they event did not occur.

So applied to the Resurrection, we do not weigh only the antecedent probability of the Resurrection, which for the sake of argument, i grant may be low (though how would you know this?) Rather, you also have to take into account the probability that the evidence, (the empty tomb, appearances of the risen Christ, and origin of Christian belief) would be what it is, if the event (The Resurrection) did not occur.

This is why Hume’s argument, that extraordinary fact/events require extraordinary evidence is recognized as a total failure today. Actually, when the agnostic philosopher of science, John Earman, published as study of Hume, he choose as his title, Hume’s Abject Failure. amazon.com/Humes-Abject-Failure-Argument-Miracles/dp/0195127382/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302631679&sr=8-1

So on the contrary, I am being perfectly consistent by believing the Resurrection on the basis of the evidence, but not in MJ’s being alive. Rather, you are inconsistant in unevenly applying your claim EFREE, which as you can see, is a failed argument in any case. Understood in this sense, you can see that there is no need to assume in advance that naturalism is true at all because you take into account probability of the event and the probability the evidence would be what it is if the event did not occur. Actually, there was a thread on this a couple weeks ago, I figure it would come up and wanted it out of the way before I started considering the actual evidence.

Given this, then I would urge you to drop your admitted biases and consider the Resurrection as the best explanation of the evidence.

 

[gentle_atheist]

.

I hope you will watch the following 2 minute link explaining it. It explains it more clearly than I will, but I will write it out anyway.
youtube.com/watch?v=5M9pphsSLPs

God help us (can an atheist say that?), let’s not go down that road again.

 

[gentle_atheist]

The bottom line is this: If Jesus rose from the dead, then where is He?

 

[Pieman333272]

The bottom line is this: If Jesus rose from the dead, then where is He?

Heaven. Ascension, remember?

 

[gentle_atheist]

Heaven? Where is that? And how did He get there?

 

[belorg]

Yes, I got the sense earlier that this was behind alot of your skepticism, but didn’t want to say anything until you mentioned it. I know this slogan (efree) is much loved by the online free-thought community, and sounds very plausible at first, but it is very easy to show why it is mistaken.

I hope you will watch the following 2 minute link explaining it. It explains it more clearly than I will, but I will write it out anyway.
youtube.com/watch?v=5M9pphsSLPs

Your argument is that the antecedent probability of an event (here a miracle) occurring is so low that it would take an extraordinary amount of evidence to accept the claim. This was essentially Hume’s argument against miracles, that a miracle is so extraordinarily improbable that no evidence would suffice to establish it.

The problem with this reasoning is that if applied, we could never believe many things that we do everyday. If this slogan (efree) were true, then you could never believe that a lottery pick reported on the evening news as the winning pick was a certain number, because that is an extraordinarily improbable event. In fact, that odds of that number being picked (about 1 in 70 million or so) are so high, that even if the news media is 99.99 percent reliable, the sheer improbability of that number being picked would far dwarf the reliability of the news media. So you should never believe any winning number reported on the evening news was the winning number! But this is clearly wrong.

Probability theorists since Hume, thus recognized that you cannot consider only the antecedent probability of the event; rather, you must also take into account the probability that the evidence would be what it is, if the event did not occur. So you do believe the report of the winning lotto even though it is extraordinarily improbable because you also know that it is very unlikely the evidence (media report of it as the winning number) would be what it is, if they event did not occur.

So applied to the Resurrection, we do not weigh only the antecedent probability of the Resurrection, which for the sake of argument, i grant may be low (though how would you know this?) Rather, you also have to take into account the probability that the evidence, (the empty tomb, appearances of the risen Christ, and origin of Christian belief) would be what it is, if the event (The Resurrection) did not occur.

This is why Hume’s argument, that extraordinary fact/events require extraordinary evidence is recognized as a total failure today. Actually, when the agnostic philosopher of science, John Earman, published as study of Hume, he choose as his title, Hume’s Abject Failure. amazon.com/Humes-Abject-Failure-Argument-Miracles/dp/0195127382/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302631679&sr=8-1

So on the contrary, I am being perfectly consistent by believing the Resurrection on the basis of the evidence, but not in MJ’s being alive. Rather, you are inconsistant in unevenly applying your claim EFREE, which as you can see, is a failed argument in any case. Understood in this sense, you can see that there is no need to assume in advance that naturalism is true at all because you take into account probability of the event and the probability the evidence would be what it is if the event did not occur. Actually, there was a thread on this a couple weeks ago, I figure it would come up and wanted it out of the way before I started considering the actual evidence.

Given this, then I would urge you to drop your admitted biases and consider the Resurrection as the best explanation of the evidence.

No, I won’t drop them, because while it is true that we must consider both the probability that the evidence would be what it is, if the event did not occur and the antecedent probability.
Now the antecedent probability is low. And I base my claim on the fact that miracles are indeed very very rare and the probability that the evidence would be what it is, if the event did not occur is higher. Let’s say it’s 75% (although that is very subjective, but I’ll grant 75%)
and let’s ay, FTSOTA,I’ll estimate the antecedent probability at 50% (which is extremely high, but OK)
Then the joint probability that the resurrection occured is 37.5%. roughly 1/3.
Not so impressive, my friend.

 

[tonyrey]

Tony, you are making it look like I’m the one insisting that we assume naturalism. Which would be odd, given the rest of my posts!

Mea culpa! I apologise for giving that impression. I took your statement out of context…

 

[danserr]

No, I won’t drop them, because while it is true that we must consider both the probability that the evidence would be what it is, if the event did not occur and the antecedent probability.
Now the antecedent probability is low. And I base my claim on the fact that miracles are indeed very very rare and the probability that the evidence would be what it is, if the event did not occur is higher. Let’s say it’s 75% (although that is very subjective, but I’ll grant 75%)
and let’s ay, FTSOTA,I’ll estimate the antecedent probability at 50% (which is extremely high, but OK)
Then the joint probability that the resurrection occured is 37.5%. roughly 1/3.
Not so impressive, my friend.

I’m afraid your probability calculus is mistaken. Do you really think that Earman, a well known agnostic philosopher of science, made a mistake that obvious? I’ll try to give more details tomorrow, though. If you are curious in the meantime look up bayes theorem. it is not so crude as to simply multiply the probabilities as you have done.

Based on the same logic you are using, there is a 0.0001% chance of that being the winning number (actually far lower) in the lotto multiplied by a 99.99% chance the media is honest. The final answer is 0.00000099. so based on your logic, there is a .000099% chance that that winning lotto number is the correct number. Which is obviously absurd.

If you are really curious I will try to type in the details of Baye’s theorem tomorrow, but it is a little difficult for me to type that sort of thing out. At least though, this example makes it obvious that your simply multiplying the probabilities together is overly crude, and should cause you to reconsider your argument. I mean, I have to repeat, did you really think Earman was that sloppy with his thought?