Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[doubtingmerle]

How do you know your thoughts are simply a part of your brain working and not the thoughts put there by an evil spirit?

Occam's razor.

I have no need to multiply ad hoc explanations when explaining thought. I have no need to postulate spirits which put thoughts in my head.

 

[miknik5]

You are reasoning in a circle, yes? Do you have any other reasons for thinking he is alive, other than reasoning in a circle and saying you know he is alive because he is alive?

Being closed to something that could not possibly be otherwise is one thing. Being closed to something that could possibly be different than what you think is quite another thing. I do not see how you can look at the sparse evidence we have about Jesus and say you could not possibly be wrong.
May I ask you how you know the external world is real? All your knowledge comes from your senses. Is it not possible your senses are deceiving you?

I admit the possibility that the external world is not real is so unlikely, we need not waste another second thinking about it. But we cannot be absolutely certain that it is real. Perhaps our senses are deceiving us.


Believing something for good reason is good, yes. But refusing to accept the possibility that one might misunderstand is not good, in my view.

And yet all your confidence is based on Paul, who doesn't even clearly testify to a bodily resurrection, and the four gospels, which were written significantly later by unknown writers who do not identify themselves or name their sources. Further, these books contradict each other. Yet based on this, you know that they are correct even when claiming something as unlikely as a resurrection?


Why not? Josephus reports a man who survived crucifixion. Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story: Probability of Survival vs. Miracle - Assessing the Odds .

If you know nothing about a man other than that he was crucified, what are the odds he survived? 1 in 10,000?

If you know nothing about a man other than that he was crucified and died, what are the odds that he rose bodily from the dead 3 days later? 1 in 1,000,000,000,000?


Or maybe they were mistaken about where the body was. Or maybe Joseph of Arimathea did it on his own. Or maybe the legend grew up later.

Why not? That is what the Roman's always did with the bodies. How do you know the gospel story did not come later?


OK, but why squander a life on a story before making sure the story is true?

The story is true because HIS SPIRIT is still poured out and HIS SPIRIT testifies to the story as TRUE

 

[miknik5]

It's why the witnesses still testify even today but not all men receive their testimony

 

[doubtingmerle]

The story is true because HIS SPIRIT is still poured out and HIS SPIRIT testifies to the story as TRUE

And how does HIS SPIRIT do that? By somehow speaking a thought into your mind? So you are sitting there, and suddenly this thought comes and you think, "He is risen"? Is that what you are talking about?

Sorry, but you would never accept this kind of evidence if another religion claimed that HIS SPIRIT told a person that this other religion is true. Why should I find this convincing?

 

[anonymous person]

Occam's razor.

I have no need to multiply ad hoc explanations when explaining thought. I have no need to postulate spirits which put thoughts in my head.

Ok great. But you did not answer the question.

How do you know the thoughts you have are not put into your head by an evil spirit.

 

[anonymous person]

And how does HIS SPIRIT do that? By somehow speaking a thought into your mind? So you are sitting there, and suddenly this thought comes and you think, "He is risen"? Is that what you are talking about?

Sorry, but you would never accept this kind of evidence if another religion claimed that HIS SPIRIT told a person that this other religion is true. Why should I find this convincing?

I don't think you should find it convincing.

You see you misunderstand what we are doing when we appeal to the witness of the Holy Spirit.

When we appeal to this we are doing so in response to the questions, "How do you know God is alive, or that He is speaking to you?"

We do not appeal to this when asked, "how do you show that God is speaking to you or that He is alive?"

Showing something and knowing something are two different things. We can know God is speaking to us without being able to convince you that He is in the same manner that a man accused of committing a crime can know that he is really innocent without being able to convince the detectives who believe he is guilty of his innocence.

 

[miknik5]

And how does HIS SPIRIT do that? By somehow speaking a thought into your mind? So you are sitting there, and suddenly this thought comes and you think, "He is risen"? Is that what you are talking about?

Sorry, but you would never accept this kind of evidence if another religion claimed that HIS SPIRIT told a person that this other religion is true. Why should I find this convincing?

Yep

That's exactly what happened

HIS SPIRIT
And HIS SPIRIT testifies to only ONE TRUTH


...not many

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ok great. But you did not answer the question.

How do you know the thoughts you have are not put into your head by an evil spirit.

Again, Occam's razor.

Occam's razor says, when we add multiple ad hoc explanations to explain something, it is less likely that our explanation is true. Thus, when you add spirits and postulate they are affecting our minds, it is less likely the explanation is true.

How do you know your thoughts are not caused by smart ants shouting out messages to elephants who pass wind into microphones which feed the sound into computers that make your thoughts?

Neither spirits nor flatulent elephants makes as much sense as belief that thoughts are caused by our own minds.

Where is this strange side track leading to, anyway?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yep

That's exactly what happened

HIS SPIRIT
And HIS SPIRIT testifies to only ONE TRUTH


...not many

That's it? A thought comes into your mind that he is risen. You know immediately that it is not you that thought that thought, but that the Holy Spirit within you created that thought. Therefore, he is risen?

Can you understand how some might say your evidence is shaky?

 

[anonymous person]

Again, Occam's razor.

Occam's razor says, when we add multiple ad hoc explanations to explain something, it is less likely that our explanation is true. Thus, when you add spirits and postulate they are affecting our minds, it is less likely the explanation is true.

How do you know your thoughts are not caused by smart ants shouting out messages to elephants who pass wind into microphones which feed the sound into computers that make your thoughts?

Neither spirits nor flatulent elephants makes as much sense as belief that thoughts are caused by our own minds.

Where is this strange side track leading to, anyway?

There is strange track indeed, but not the one I am on, but rather the one you are on, for you are arguing in a circle.

How do you know that the thought that "adding multiple ad hoc explanations to explain something means that it is less likely that the explanation is true" is not a thought put into your mind by an evil spirit?

You cannot appeal to a thought to show that the thought was not put in your mind by an evil spirit without arguing in a circle.

 

[miknik5]

Again, Occam's razor.

Occam's razor says, when we add multiple ad hoc explanations to explain something, it is less likely that our explanation is true. Thus, when you add spirits and postulate they are affecting our minds, it is less likely the explanation is true.

How do you know your thoughts are not caused by smart ants shouting out messages to elephants who pass wind into microphones which feed the sound into computers that make your thoughts?

Neither spirits nor flatulent elephants makes as much sense as belief that thoughts are caused by our own minds.

Where is this strange side track leading to, anyway?

THIS strange sidetrack leads to what is TRUE and TRUTH

Not to elephants
Not to ants

And not for elephants
And not for ants

 

[doubtingmerle]

When we appeal to this we are doing so in response to the questions, "How do you know God is alive, or that He is speaking to you?"

OK, so you know God is alive because sometimes certain thoughts occur in your mind, and you think God is the one that caused those thoughts to occur. Therefore, God.

Can I ask how you know it is God who caused those thoughts to occur?

Traditionally, it was considered so obvious that we are the ones who are making our own thoughts, that the mere act of thinking was thought to prove our existence: "I think, therefore I am." You seem to change this to, "I think, but that does not prove I am, it might mean that some spirit is making these thoughts."

I would tend to go along with the idea of, "I think, therefore I am".

 

[doubtingmerle]

How do you know that the thought that "adding multiple ad hoc explanations to explain something means that it is less likely that the explanation is true" is not a thought put into your mind by an evil spirit?

Oh now you are going to get off into logic puzzles?

How do you know your mind is not so garbled that all your reasoning is invalid?

How do you know that you are not asleep, and one day will wake up to find your entire life was a dream?

How do you know that you are not a brain it a vat, and all the reality you ever experienced was just electrical signals sent to your brain in a vat, and is not real?

How do you know that this entire universe is not a simulation in somebody's far off computer, and one day the computer will crash?

We can entertain ourselves all day with such silly questions. The bottom line is we are faced with a reality. All the evidence points to this reality being real, and so I choose to live in this reality, and take it as being real.

If you prefer worrying that you might be in some simulation where evil spirits create your every thought, or in a world where smart ants control flatulent elephants who toot out your thoughts into a computer, be my guest.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Interesting read.

OK, so you find a scholar that differs with Ehrman? So who is right? It comes across that, maybe, you will report that those scholars that agree with you are right, and those who disagree are wrong. But is that necessarily so?

Interestingly, if you follow the link within your link to the source document, it does not disagree with Ehrman on the extent of the changes to the scripture. Rather, it disputes that the direction of the change is always in the direction Ehrman thinks, and disputes the motivation of the changes.

For the verse we are concentrating on, Luke 3:22, he agrees that a change was made to the verse, and agrees it was probably changed in the direction that Ehrman claims. He does say that Ehrman exagerates the evidence, and that the change was probably earlier than Ehrman claims. That, of course, is a good question for scholars to dispute: the extent of the documentary evidence for a particular claim. As neither you or I are an expert on ancient Greek documents, the best we can do is look for a consensus among scholars where we can find it. The consensus of these two scholars is that the change probably occurred away from the "this day I have begotten you" reading, but they disagree on what is known about when this happened.

This is not the only scholar that disagrees with Ehrman, there are many more and not all are conservatives. I read one of his earlier books and it was very similar to your posts, he was constantly taking verses out of context and having very superficial readings of them. I have noticed that most atheists do that. I have already dealt with the Luke verse so will not rehash it.

 

[anonymous person]

OK, so you know God is alive because sometimes certain thoughts occur in your mind, and you think God is the one that caused those thoughts to occur. Therefore, God.

No, that is not what I have stated.

Can I ask how you know it is God who caused those thoughts to occur?

I will answer this if you answer the question I have asked you without arguing in a circle.

Traditionally, it was considered so obvious that we are the ones who are making our own thoughts, that the mere act of thinking was thought to prove our existence: "I think, therefore I am." You seem to change this to, "I think, but that does not prove I am, it might mean that some spirit is making these thoughts."

I would tend to go along with the idea of, "I think, therefore I am".

The man you quote was a Christian and also spoke of the idea of a being that is supremely perfect and infinite, and suggests that "of all the ideas that are in me, the idea that I have of God is the most true, the most clear and distinct." Descartes, Rene "Meditations on First Philosophy, 3rd Ed., Translated from Latin by: Donald A. Cress

 

[anonymous person]

Oh now you are going to get off into logic puzzles?

How do you know your mind is not so garbled that all your reasoning is invalid?

How do you know that you are not asleep, and one day will wake up to find your entire life was a dream?

How do you know that you are not a brain it a vat, and all the reality you ever experienced was just electrical signals sent to your brain in a vat, and is not real?

How do you know that this entire universe is not a simulation in somebody's far off computer, and one day the computer will crash?

We can entertain ourselves all day with such silly questions. The bottom line is we are faced with a reality. All the evidence points to this reality being real, and so I choose to live in this reality, and take it as being real.

If you prefer worrying that you might be in some simulation where evil spirits create your every thought, or in a world where smart ants control flatulent elephants who toot out your thoughts into a computer, be my guest.

Exactly.

This was the point I was making.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Exactly.

This was the point I was making.

Ok, so we agree that silly questions about alternate realities affecting our mind are silly diversions. We live in a reality, as far as we can tell, so we talk about that reality.

In this reality our thoughts are not the result of lifelong dreams/demons/elephant flatulence or computer simulation.

So can we get back to reality, please?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I will answer this if you answer the question I have asked you without arguing in a circle.

Oh for crying out loud. By your definition all statements are in a circle, for all statements assume that statements can be valid.

By your logic all words are meaningless, for all words are defined by other words, which are defined by other words, which eventually circle back. By very nature, the entire dictionary consists of a circular definition of words that circle back around. All assume that words can have meaning, even though at base they cannot be defined by anything other than words.

But again, we live in a reality in which words and statements and thoughts and objective reality exist and have validity. Telling me you will no longer listen to a word I say unless I can prove all of this is not some evil spirit or computer simulation is ridiculous. You could use that logic on everybody, and tell us you will not listen to another person until they prove to you without using words that words can have meanings.

All of this is a silly diversion. I asked you a simple question. You have thoughts that occur in your brain, which you insist came from God, and which you say thus prove Jesus resurrected. I asked you how you know those thoughts came from God. I note that you refuse to answer, using one of the silliest dodges I have ever seen.

 

[anonymous person]

Oh for crying out loud. By your definition all statements are in a circle, for all statements assume that statements can be valid.

By your logic all words are meaningless, for all words are defined by other words, which are defined by other words, which eventually circle back. By very nature, the entire dictionary consists of a circular definition of words that circle back around. All assume that words can have meaning, even though at base they cannot be defined by anything other than words.

But again, we live in a reality in which words and statements and thoughts and objective reality exist and have validity. Telling me you will no longer listen to a word I say unless I can prove all of this is not some evil spirit or computer simulation is ridiculous. You could use that logic on everybody, and tell us you will not listen to another person until they prove to you without using words that words can have meanings.

All of this is a silly diversion. I asked you a simple question. You have thoughts that occur in your brain, which you insist came from God, and which you say thus prove Jesus resurrected. I asked you how you know those thoughts came from God. I note that you refuse to answer, using one of the silliest dodges I have ever seen.

I thought I appealed to the witness of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is not a thought, He is a person.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I have already dealt with the Luke verse so will not rehash it.

That is quite an interesting switch in tactics!