Resurrection Poll for Non-Christians

[txag007]

I thought it might be interesting to do this again.

[RJT]

Txag,

One who is convinced that Jesus rose from the dead is a Christian.

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Txag,

One who is convinced that Jesus rose from the dead is a Christian.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
random babbling #3469 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

We've had this tactic before and I think it was the tx then as well.

As you point out it's hard to say no, and if we resond 'yes' tx will respond with huge volumes of extremely dubious evidence that can't possibly be refuted without a great deal of time being wasted by people who can't see much point in wasting time disproving dubious evidence.

Somehow there will be an attempt to infer that this means the evidence has value.

chez

[David Sklansky]

"As you point out it's hard to say no, and if we resond 'yes' tx will respond with huge volumes of extremely dubious evidence"

Here's where you screw things up. Whether the evidence is dubious or not is not the big issue. By making it so you draw out the debate. Because even strong evidence is almost irrelevant if the evidence points toward an event that requires a suspension of the laws of science (eg the Salem Witch Trials), as long as no similar suspension has ever occurred. That is why proving even one significant "miracle" would change the whole equation.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought it might be interesting to do this again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Btw, I think it was interesting when David S. did it the first time. I don't necessarily agree that it is interesting the second time. (Thus my glib post above.) But, I don't want to stifle conversation, so, I'll shut up.

RJT

p.s. Hello, Uncle David. (As in Hello, Uncle Leo - ala Seinfeld.)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"As you point out it's hard to say no, and if we resond 'yes' tx will respond with huge volumes of extremely dubious evidence"

Here's where you screw things up. Whether the evidence is dubious or not is not the big issue. By making it so you draw out the debate. Because even strong evidence is almost irrelevant if the evidence points toward an event that requires a suspension of the laws of science (eg the Salem Witch Trials), as long as no similar suspension has ever occurred. That is why proving even one significant "miracle" would change the whole equation.

[/ QUOTE ]
We had a rather good post about this in the past, if you want to continue it I'll drag it up. I thought you screwed up (as you so nicely put it) with believing what jesus said in conclusion even if his prediction came true.

but its all irrelevent here and this is the biggest screwup. no-one is going to prove a significant miracle here. Even if its true that jesus was ressurected, its not going to be proved. If the tactic is to confuse with quantities of dubious evidence (argument ad nauseum I think its called) then that's what we should respond to.

Welcome back by the way [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

chez

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
If I became convinced that Jesus actually rose from the dead

[/ QUOTE ]

I vote "absolutely!", but I don't want to give the impression that this would be an easy thing to be "convinced" of...

just as with any type of event..if we know of no natural way for it to occur, there would have to be amazing amounts of evidence that it did occur supernaturally in order to "convince" me that this event was indeed supernatural.

but yes..if I was convinced..I would probably turn Christian

EDIT: thinking about it more..this

[ QUOTE ]
just as with any type of event..if we know of no natural way for it to occur, there would have to be amazing amounts of evidence that it did occur supernaturally in order to "convince" me that this event was indeed supernatural.

[/ QUOTE ]

that should probably be taken out of the sentence

[chezlaw]

here's the first time

here's a start on the dubious evidence tactic:
[ QUOTE ]
If Jesus did not rise from the dead, how do you explain the following:

1. Jesus staked his entire ministry on the fact that he would rise from the dead. Why would he risk destroying the entire movement of Christianity on a false prophecy?

2. The tombs of other religious leaders are visited and worshipped by many each year. This is true of Buddha, Confusious, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. Why is the same not true for Jesus?

3. The disciples hid following the arrest of Jesus for fear of being put to death. After the alleged resurrection, the disciples suddenly began to preach without fear of death. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

chez

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
here's the first time

here's a start on the dubious evidence tactic:
[ QUOTE ]
If Jesus did not rise from the dead, how do you explain the following:

1. Jesus staked his entire ministry on the fact that he would rise from the dead. Why would he risk destroying the entire movement of Christianity on a false prophecy?

2. The tombs of other religious leaders are visited and worshipped by many each year. This is true of Buddha, Confusious, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. Why is the same not true for Jesus?

3. The disciples hid following the arrest of Jesus for fear of being put to death. After the alleged resurrection, the disciples suddenly began to preach without fear of death. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

ughh..looks like an excerpt from "The Case for Christ"

[David Sklansky]

"I thought you screwed up (as you so nicely put it) with believing what jesus said in conclusion even if his prediction came true."

In other words you are taking the extreme opposite position that even if miracles occurred, it wouldn't be strong evidence for the Bible's truth. While at the same time claiming the evidence for miracles are dubious. (I don't know enough to agree or disagree. I claim it doesn't matter as long as alternative explanations for events are theoretically possible and the Bible explanation is not).

Please understand that the stuff I am writing now is not really about religion. I am speaking about the more general topic of using Baye's Theorem to evaluate evidence.