The problem of evil

[Abu]

Bahman #178
My question… if the emergence of devil was part of creation plan?

God created angels with free-will that was His design in action. Free-will means that one can choose good or evil and has to take the consequences. We know that some chose evil and had to face the consequences, now known as the devil (Satan) and his cohorts.

 

[Bahman]

God created angels with free-will that was His design in action. Free-will means that one can choose good or evil and has to take the consequences. We know that some chose evil and had to face the consequences, now known as the devil (Satan) and his cohorts.

I am aware of the story and the issue of free will and choices, bad and good. I am also aware that one of God’s attribute is omniscience which means that God knows everything so no evil should emerge from the creation which was perfectly planed to be good. I mean there is a clear paradox here. Either God does not know anything when it comes to our decisions or knows it. If knows it then the emergence of evil was part of plan and if it doesn’t know it then God doesn’t have omniscience.

 

[tskrobacz]

God protects us from nothing, but sustains us in all things. Just like a parent that recognizes that in order for a young adult child to learn they must be allowed to live the consequences of their choices to learn to choose the ways of love.

 

[DanAl]

I don’t understand your answer. My question from you is if the emergence of devil was part of creation plan?

No, It was not, God does not predestines anyone to go to hell. God creates all the the just endowed by free-will prior to seeing them committing sin and then these beings go to hell of their own accord. This is called an accidentally ordered series.

 

[Portofino]

The point here is that Judeo-Christian tradition has made a series of falsifiable claims about events in history. Claims that were not demonstrated to have been false when they occurred and have not been since.

They can’t be falsified, it is true; the proposition of a virgin birth can neither be verified nor falsified, as the forensics evidence (I won’t go into detail) would be long gone, like trying to collect a 2000-year-old fingerprint.

The Ascension of Mary – that her body was never laid into the earth, but that she was assumed body and soul into heaven – cannot be falsified nor verified, either. What we do know is that no body has been recovered (not surprising, after 2000 years), but it could not be verified whether A. remains were never discovered because they exist but have been lost to history (which normally can be presumed through experience, that the bodily remains of someone who possessed a body must exist); or B. she really was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, which is why no remains exist.

There is no forensic evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, nor could there be. What we have are individuals – the evangelists – who claim to have derived their written testimony from other individuals – the eyewitnesses – to the resurrection of Jesus. Written testimony to this effect is something, but written or verbal testimony – especially when it has to do with with something so extraordinary as the resurrection (being restored to life after 3 days of biological death, with a fully oxygenated brain and no bodily decomposition) – is not an ideal form of evidence. Divine intervention, in principle, could have made it happen, but that would have to be proven.

The Immaculate Conception cannot be proven; I don’t think that is subject to any material proof, as the phenomenon (unlike the virgin birth, the resurrection, or the ascension into heaven) would be immaterial in nature. This too, then, can neither be proven nor disproven, though it’s not unfair to put the burden of proof on those who would demonstrate that it positively occurred.

The Second Coming can be proven – if and when it happens, one can consider it a tested and verified prediction. The Second Coming is the ultimate prediction, in a way, and would be the ultimate confirmation of Christian claims (Ascension, resurrection, and divinity of Jesus would be demonstrated in one “fell swoop”). As I mentioned in another post, the verdict will still be out on that one, however, so long as it hasn’t yet transpired and so long as the species homo sapiens draws breath. The only way the prediction of the Second Coming could be falsified is for the species homo sapiens to become extinct without the Second Coming having occurred. Until then, it is a hypothesis, a prediction – but, again, it’s not unreasonable to put the burden of proof with those who would positively affirm that it’s going to happen.

I’ll check out the radio show, though : ) I actually enjoy questions of the historicity of the gospels and of the reliability of the evangelists, more so than I enjoy arguments for and against the existence of God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Because of several typos in a previous post, I am repeating it here to avoid confusion. I know I should proofread more often!

**When I was an atheist I used to comfort myself with the notion that I did not need proof that God does not exist. The more I thought about it, the more absurd I thought that position was. If I said to a crowded room full of people that I sensed there was a hungry bear outside the door waiting to devour us all, there would be two reactions necessary to everyone in that room. Prove the bear is outside the door. Or prove the bear is not outside the door.

If I say to the unbeliever that I sense the presence of a hungry God who created the universe and wants to devour us with his love, I would expect to be asked for some kind of evidence that such a God exists, and I would try to offer that evidence. But if the unbeliever says, “There is no such hungry God, and I don’t have to prove it,” I would think the unbeliever was denying me the same kind of evidence I was offering him.

Why is there no evidence that God does not exist? For the same reason we cannot prove that Zeus does exist. Neither proposition is true. If they were true, it would be possible to prove them.**

 

[grannymh]

They can’t be falsified, it is true; the proposition of a virgin birth can neither be verified nor falsified, as the forensics evidence (I won’t go into detail) would be long gone, like trying to collect a 2000-year-old fingerprint.

The Ascension of Mary – that her body was never laid into the earth, but that she was assumed body and soul into heaven – cannot be falsified nor verified, either. What we do know is that no body has been recovered (not surprising, after 2000 years), but it could not be verified whether A. remains were never discovered because they exist but have been lost to history (which normally can be presumed through experience, that the bodily remains of someone who possessed a body must exist); or B. she really was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, which is why no remains exist.

There is no forensic evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, nor could there be. What we have are individuals – the evangelists – who claim to have derived their written testimony from other individuals – the eyewitnesses – to the resurrection of Jesus. Written testimony to this effect is something, but written or verbal testimony – especially when it has to do with with something so extraordinary as the resurrection (being restored to life after 3 days of biological death, with a fully oxygenated brain and no bodily decomposition) – is not an ideal form of evidence. Divine intervention, in principle, could have made it happen, but that would have to be proven.

The Immaculate Conception cannot be proven; I don’t think that is subject to any material proof, as the phenomenon (unlike the virgin birth, the resurrection, or the ascension into heaven) would be immaterial in nature. This too, then, can neither be proven nor disproven, though it’s not unfair to put the burden of proof on those who would demonstrate that it positively occurred.

The Second Coming can be proven – if and when it happens, one can consider it a tested and verified prediction. The Second Coming is the ultimate prediction, in a way, and would be the ultimate confirmation of Christian claims (Ascension, resurrection, and divinity of Jesus would be demonstrated in one “fell swoop”). As I mentioned in another post, the verdict will still be out on that one, however, so long as it hasn’t yet transpired and so long as the species homo sapiens draws breath. The only way the prediction of the Second Coming could be falsified is for the species homo sapiens to become extinct without the Second Coming having occurred. Until then, it is a hypothesis, a prediction – but, again, it’s not unreasonable to put the burden of proof with those who would positively affirm that it’s going to happen.

I’ll check out the radio show, though : ) I actually enjoy questions of the historicity of the gospels and of the reliability of the evangelists, more so than I enjoy arguments for and against the existence of God.

May I gently point out that the concept of falsification is part of the Inductive (scientific) Method used to explore hypotheses based in the material/physical realm of scientists. In this realm, which is our environment of the universe, nature in all its glories becomes the evaluator of the degrees of truth. This is proper.

What is not proper is to apply the sound-bite “cannot be falsified or verified” to the spiritual realm of the Creator. The human person is considered a spiritual creature because, being in the image of God, human nature is an unique unification of both the material world* and* the spiritual world. We are literally decomposing anatomy and rational spiritual soul.

The Catholic Church teaches that
Divine Revelation trumps.

 

[Portofino]

Portofino
Do you believe that atheism is falsifiable?

I’m going to use the analogy, here, of two events – one, of an election that has not yet taken place (i.e., voting day has not yet arrived); two, of an event that will occur only after the stopping of the clock.

The equivalent of the “election that has not yet taken place” is the Second Coming of Christ. That is a testable prediction that is falsifiable, such that it can be definitively proven or disproven depending on whether the event occurs. I would also say that its occurence definitively would disprove atheism. Until that either happens or does not happen, both sides are like pundits arguing over the outcome of an election day that has not yet come. Both are making predictions (“Jesus is coming back”; “Jesus is not coming back”). Only time will tell who was right.

The equivalent of an event that will occur only after the clock stops – beyond time – is whether the human personality survives death and meets God face to face. Pascal comes to mind. A testable prediction is being made – “after death, there is nothing”; “after death, you will experience either heaven, hell, or purgatory.” Here again, only time will tell who was right; until that time, we are again like political pundits arguing over an election that has not yet occurred (near-death-experiences are certainly an interesting topic of study, albeit a double-edged sword, in that they are embraced by “New Agers” as fervently, if not more fervently, than they are by Christians).

Interestingly, both the Second Coming of Christ and the afterlife could prove both atheists and Christian theists to be wrong. In other words, an afterlife could exist – but not exactly the way Christians hypothesized that it would. And Christ could come back – but not exactly in the way everyone (including Christians themselves) expected him to come back. It would not be the first time in history that well-meaning human beings were nonetheless misguided or mistaken in their understanding of things.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Portofino
**
Interestingly, both the Second Coming of Christ and the afterlife could prove both atheists and Christian theists to be wrong. In other words, an afterlife could exist – but not exactly the way Christians hypothesized that it would. And Christ could come back – but not exactly in the way everyone (including Christians themselves) expected him to come back. It would not be the first time in history that well-meaning human beings were nonetheless misguided or mistaken in their understanding of things**

A lot of “could be” in there.

The equivalent of an event that will occur only after the clock stops – beyond time – is whether the human personality survives death and meets God face to face. Pascal comes to mind. A testable prediction is being made – “after death, there is nothing”; “after death, you will experience either heaven, hell, or purgatory.” Here again, only time will tell who was right; until that time, we are again like political pundits arguing over an election that has not yet occurred.

But according to Pascal, one would be foolish to bet on “after death there is nothing.”

What can one hope to gain by doing so. Pascal condemns the hopeless gambit.

 

[Abu]

Bahman #182
there is a clear paradox here. Either God does not know anything when it comes to our decisions or knows it. If knows it then the emergence of evil was part of plan and if it doesn’t know it then God doesn’t have omniscience.

Of course there is no paradox, because there is no contradiction.

1. The assumption that God “planned” evil is false.
   God created angels and mankind with free-will. Any thinking person thus knows that means that mankind can choose good or evil. God knows that, of course. He then rewards those who choose good and punishes those who choose evil. The choice is that of the created, whether angels or mankind.
2. The assumption that God doesn’t have omniscience if He didn’t know of the “emergence” of evil is false.
   God knows of everything and that’s why He planned the redemption of mankind by God the Son taking a human nature as Jesus Christ, and enabling the reward of heaven for those who follow His Will.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Until then, it is a hypothesis, a prediction – but, again, it’s not unreasonable to put the burden of proof with those who would positively affirm that it’s going to happen.

At what level do you set this “burden of proof?” More probable than not based upon a preponderance of evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Absolutely certain?

Every time we make a decision about a course of action to take into the future we must do so based upon “best evidence” available to us. If we set the burden of proof regarding choosing for future outcomes too high we would be paralyzed by that burden.

In a sense, all future outcomes are unfalsifiable because they are not subject to falsification until after they occur. To choose any course of action, then, we must act in the present based upon evidence that is currently available and, therefore, unfalsifiable until the future has run its course to determine the outcome. We are constantly making decisions where the outcomes are unfalsifiable (according to rigid standards) until after we choose a course of action and take that to its final outcome, an outcome that was indeterminable and unknowable - if the “burden of proof” is set unreasonably high - and, therefore, unfalsifiable beforehand.

I’ll check out the radio show, though : ) I actually enjoy questions of the historicity of the gospels and of the reliability of the evangelists, more so than I enjoy arguments for and against the existence of God.

I am currently half way through his book and highly recommend it for its detailed explanation of how evidence needs to be considered and managed in making reasoned judgments and as an antidote to false notions concerning what “burden of proof” entails, specifically regarding the Gospels as evidence.

 

[Portofino]

At what level do you set this “burden of proof?” More probable than not based upon a preponderance of evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Absolutely certain?

That’s a valid question. I think those skeptics who say that we cannot even say with certainty that the historical Jesus *existed * * are setting a burden of proof that few historical personages could satisfy. For example, I suppose one knows that Socrates probably existed not just because of Plato but because of Xenophon (the two were not friends, to my knowledge, and in fact had competing visions of Socrates) and Aristophanes.

I think reasonable people can disagree as to how high the burden of proof ought to be for claims of bodily resurrection from the dead, however. Our current knowledge of reality also plays a role in our assessment of this, no doubt. If I know that you exist, I can very reasonably assume that you were born; that you started as an infant, progressed to a toddler, to a child, adolescent, young adult, etc. It’s not inherently logical for that to be the case, but it’s in conformance with what we’ve experienced to be the case with 100.0% of human beings who have reached adulthood.

But if you told me you were never a child, that you came to this earth as a full-fledged adult, I’d want to see more proof of that. The same would go with the difference between the burden of proof for someone’s having been born, versus someone’s having risen from the dead after 3 days of bona fide death (i.e., no heartbeat and no brain activity).

Hume had some good ideas about how it cannot be proven that the sun will rise tomorrow; nonetheless, we all reasonably assume that it will. We book hotels, make restaurant reservations, fill up our appointment books, based on the assumption that the world will still be here – as it’s “always” been.

Regarding testable predictions, though, I was reminded of how Einstein’s theory of relativity was considered validated by its successful prediction of certain measurements in connection with a 1919 solar eclipse (Einstein’s physics and Newton’s physics predicted different measurements; Einstein’s were confirmed, Newton’s were not).

This is a big part of any believer’s life, as well, but it is inevitably contains an element of subjective appraisal. For example, a believer might say, “God turned my life around; from the moment I started believing in God, my entire life was transformed.” It’s hard to communicate that to others, however, in a more public venue, or subject it to any objective standard of measurement. One could always say that if belief in God has helped me to relate to my life with more positivity, then it is my positivity that was the decisive factor. And what could be God for one person, could be having children for another, or finding the love of one’s life; or finding one’s passion (in music, in philosophy, etc.).

Solutions to the problem of evil pose a particular challenge, at least from an empirical standpoint, insofar as one could never predict, in advance, what would happen in a world where God loves us. By that I mean you could be told, “a plane has been highjacked and is heading to a major metropolitan area, with the intention of harming as many lives as possible. Everyone on board that plane is a Christian – in fact, one is a high-ranking cardinal, destined for sainthood – and all are fervently praying, in unison, for God to spare the lives of everyone involved. In a world where God loves us, what would happen.” You cannot predict that; you cannot say whether any on board will survive – and if so, how many.
In this limited sense, the proposition “God loves us and listens to our prayers” has no predictive power. It becomes a very private, very personal thing – very subtle, in fact. But just so, it becomes difficult to communicate it publicly, or to consider it proven.

am currently half way through his book and highly recommend it for its detailed explanation of how evidence needs to be considered and managed in making reasoned judgments and as an antidote to false notions concerning what “burden of proof” entails, specifically regarding the Gospels as evidence.

Thanks again for sharing it; will check it out.*

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Portofino

**I think reasonable people can disagree as to how high the burden of proof ought to be for claims of bodily resurrection from the dead, however. **

Only one instance of a resurrection needs to be believed. Since the whole point of Jesus’s life was to give us hope in our own resurrection from the dead, it stands to reason that he would prove the validity of our hope by his own resurrection. The gospels all agree in this one remarkable fact, that Jesus rose from the dead. If every gospel writer was lying, one has to believe in a gargantuan conspiracy to hoodwink the whole world into believing some unheard of had happened. That means you have to believe that Paul, Peter, and all the others were frauds, and that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were co-conspirators. What a gang of villains you would have to posit.

For me, that is a good deal more unlikely than the resurrection.

 

[Portofino]

If every gospel writer was lying, one has to believe in a gargantuan conspiracy to hoodwink the whole world into believing some unheard of had happened. That means you have to believe that Paul, Peter, and all the others were frauds, and that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were co-conspirators. What a gang of villains you would have to posit.

Or it’s possible at least some of them they were honestly mistaken – the evangelists, in particular. They themselves were not eyewitnesses to the resurrection; rather, they had heard of it second-hand, from others who claimed to have witnessed the event. Paul was not an eyewitness, either.

So much of these arguments do have to do with “character” and psychology, though. These were grief-stricken individuals, whose entire world would have been turned upside down by Jesus’ death. We know, from our lives, that aggrieved individuals often convince themselves that the departed one either “didn’t really die” or that they are “coming back.” Seeing a body is considered an important part of closure, of verifying that the death was real.

But if the body was never recovered, or if the tomb was empty…

me, that is a good deal more unlikely than the resurrection.

I view it differently; I agree with Hume that to posit that the evangelists were A. lying (and there is such thing as lying for what one believes to be a noble purpose) or B. honestly mistaken would be less miraculous than the fact of the resurrection itself. It is no miracle to tell a lie, or to be honestly mistaken, whereas a resurrection from the dead would indeed be miraculous. The former is more likely.

Truth be told, what I think shakes the credibility of the evangelists the most severely, in my mind, is A. conflicting genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, showing that he was from the house of David (clear motive existed to give the Jews what they wanted, which was a Messiah who was David’s direct descendant); and B. dubious invocations of a fulfillment of Scripture, which appear to have been “ripped” from their original context and forcibly reappropriated to justify Jesus as the Messiah (I’m no Biblical scholar, of course, but let’s just say that the instances of “fulfillment of the prophecy” did not impress me, and there are many Jewish scholars who would agree). If their conduct on relating the genealogy of Jesus, or of interpreting Old Testament Scriptures was questionable – and, in my mind, it is – then I’m more likely to question other facts that they relate.

There’s also the possession by demons/mental illness issue; I think some of the evangelists may have been confused, when they referred to demonic possession and demons carrying on conversations with Jesus or others. I’ve personally never seen anyone possessed by a demon, whereas I have seen – in some manner – schizophrenics, epileptics, and manic depressives. So it would not at all be miraculous, in my mind, if the evangelists were honestly mistaken regarding what was “miraculous”, and what wasn’t.

Truth be told, I’m not even convinced that people in those times – or, even, anyone in our own time who is not a medical doctor – could always tell the difference between the dead and unconscious. When Jesus would have told someone, “Lazarus is not dead; he’s just sleeping”, it’s quite possible to me that was what he trying to express was, “Lazarus is unconscious.” As you know, many people have been buried alive, throughout history, because others were so sure that they were dead, but were mistaken (cases of this happening today still make the papers, as when an elderly woman wakes up in the morgue after having been unconscious for several hours). dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254595/Grandmother-dead-spending-days-morgue.html

I don’t know what happened regarding the alleged resurrection of Jesus, but I harbor reasonable doubts.

 

[Bahman]

Of course there is no paradox, because there is no contradiction.

1. The assumption that God “planned” evil is false.
   God created angels and mankind with free-will. Any thinking person thus knows that means that mankind can choose good or evil. God knows that, of course. He then rewards those who choose good and punishes those who choose evil. The choice is that of the created, whether angels or mankind.
2. The assumption that God doesn’t have omniscience if He didn’t know of the “emergence” of evil is false.
   God knows of everything and that’s why He planned the redemption of mankind by God the Son taking a human nature as Jesus Christ, and enabling the reward of heaven for those who follow His Will.

Of course there is a paradox here:

1. God is good and its creation should lead to good outcome.
2. The emergence of devil cannot be denied. The emergence of devil is a bad outcome since it would lead to punishment of them and those who follow them in hell forever.
3. God is omniscience so it knew that devil would eventually emerge out of creation. Simple, it happened so God knew it.

This paradox cannot be resolve unless one accept one of the following statement:

1. God has omniscience but it is not aware of our decisions (since we have free will) and as a result was not aware of outcome of creation. By omniscience I mean, weak omniscience, the knowledge of everything but our decisions.
2. God has omniscience (strong omniscience meaning that God is aware of our action as well) was aware of devil emergence and that was part of plan. We could not have a sense of bad without devil anyway. So the emergence of devil was in fact necessary.

 

[Abu]

Bahman #195
So the emergence of devil was in fact necessary.

False. Such speculations belie the facts.

Since God created everyone, angel and human, with free-will accompanying reason, the fact that He knows what each will do has no bearing on that fact. The purpose is to allow each one to freely love and worship His Creator, God. The gift of free-will obviously allows obedience and disobedience – it is foolish in the extreme to feel otherwise.

This purpose is therefore to choose between good and evil, freely. Some angels chose to disobey God, fully knowing what they were doing because of their nature, and were punished by God with hell. God did not make them disobey Him as part of a “plan” that made the devil necessary! Good angels (guardian angels) can help us to goodness, and bad angels (Satan and his minions) can mislead us to evil, if we allow them.

Adam and Eve disobeyed His order and lost the power over death, wounding human nature and closing off access to heaven, which God repaired by sending His only Son to make amends for this catastrophe and enabled sanctification through His Church, and Purgatory as required, so that amends for sin could be complete and entrance to heaven possible.

Distorting facts helps no one, and there is nothing that can alter the above known facts.

 

[Bahman]

False. Such speculations belie the facts.

Since God created everyone, angel and human, with free-will accompanying reason, the fact that He knows what each will do has no bearing on that fact.

This is in fact very contradictory. If God knows each being fate then this acts as a strong constrain on each individual will, forcing them to move and act on a precise known line by God. Simple, just don’t create those beings that turns to devil and problem is solved, why bother with creating them, causing a lots of trouble for others and then punishing them. It was very simple to create an absolute perfect heaven, just don’t create any angel with bad fate which was feasible option for God.

This purpose is therefore to choose between good and evil, freely. Some angels chose to disobey God, fully knowing what they were doing because of their nature, and were punished by God with hell.

What do you mean “with their nature”? You mean that they couldn’t help it because they couldn’t go against their nature? If yes, why God should create being that their fate would be falling from heaven because of following their nature. Why even bother with creating of a being with evil attributes at first place. Just create being with good attributes and create an absolute perfect good place. Heaven is the place of peace of mind and heart and how a being could have perfect state of being if its mind and heart is diluted to a little devil thing.

God did not make them disobey Him as part of a “plan” that made the devil necessary!

God knows the fate of a being in your opinion and God has a reason/plan for each its creation so the process of creating a being that ultimately turns into devil based on definition of God and creation as you provide is something planned.

Adam and Eve disobeyed His order and lost the power over death, wounding human nature and closing off access to heaven, which God repaired by sending His only Son to make amends for this catastrophe and enabled sanctification through His Church, and Purgatory as required, so that amends for sin could be complete and entrance to heaven possible.

Distorting facts helps no one, and there is nothing that can alter the above known facts.

Who was responsible for such a catastrophe? Creation of devils could be avoided and as a result we didn’t have fall of angels and as a result Adam and Eve were still in the Garden since there was no one to seduce them. Moreover I have several other problems with Purgatory that is outside of the current topic.

 

[tonyrey]

             *

1. How devil could possibly emerge from a perfect good being and perfect good plan/creation?*

No response!

3) How devil could possibly interact with our minds, seducing us to do evil things? Why God gave devils the access to our mind?

We are not isolated individuals but members of** one** family.

No response!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Portofino

From your post # 194 Full of “possiblies” and “maybes” … pure conjecture

Or it’s possible at least some of them they were honestly mistaken – the evangelists, in particular. They themselves were not eyewitnesses to the resurrection; rather, they had heard of it second-hand, from others who claimed to have witnessed the event. Paul was not an eyewitness, either.

“For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures;a 4that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;b 5that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.” I Corinthians 15:3

You have an irritating habit of putting a lot of “possiblies” and “maybes” in your very long posts seeking to explain away the truthfulness or the evangelists. Then of course you say things that don’t make sense, such as that none of the evangelists witnessed the resurrection. Did you not read that John was among the first to arrive at the empty tomb? And did you not know that Paul wrote about the resurrection long before the gospels were written? If the resurrection was not made up until the evangelists wrote, how is it Paul, living at the same time as the apostle, was writing about it and not being disciplined by Peter and others for telling a great lie?

It has become tedious for me to read your posts because they are so full of speculation that favors cynicism about the truthfulness in the gospels. If it is your view that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then it is your view that everything else in Scripture must be fake (even though well intentioned fakery). You have no proof of any such thing. You have just the pleasure of sowing doubt in the minds of Christians any way you can, even with sloppy logic and a poor knowledge of the historical facts.

 

[polytropos]

Or it’s possible at least some of them they were honestly mistaken – the evangelists, in particular. They themselves were not eyewitnesses to the resurrection; rather, they had heard of it second-hand, from others who claimed to have witnessed the event. Paul was not an eyewitness, either.

So much of these arguments do have to do with “character” and psychology, though. These were grief-stricken individuals, whose entire world would have been turned upside down by Jesus’ death. We know, from our lives, that aggrieved individuals often convince themselves that the departed one either “didn’t really die” or that they are “coming back.” Seeing a body is considered an important part of closure, of verifying that the death was real.

I think this might be plausible if it were 2, or maybe 3, people who claimed to have appearances. But with each individual that you add to the list, it becomes exponentially less likely that they had some sort of appearance nearly identical to those of the others.

But if the body was never recovered, or if the tomb was empty…

But this really just kicks the problem back a level. If one submits that the disciples were mistaken, then one would need a separate theory for the empty tomb. And none is forthcoming, since it is unlikely, given the circumstances of Jesus’s death, that the location of the tomb would be forgotten or that the body would have been stolen.

The evidence for Jesus’s resurrection is, of course, empirical, so one could always hold that the event was too miraculous and there must be an alternative explanation, even if we could not know it.