Resurrection Evidence

[Tom 1]

I'd say 'no'. You'd say 'yes'.

I wouldn't necessarily say yes. Not everyone has such basic notions, my impression is that seeing the world as a basic series of 'yes' and 'no' questions doesn't have much to do with reality, beyond a limited number of things. What is your evidence for your point of view? You can perhaps take this opportunity to demonstrate the validity of your line of thought, by proving your own point of view.

It's certainly an interesting area to read about and discuss. I'd suggest Jung's memories, dreams, reflections to give a broader grounding, but that's quite long so you could start with this - https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...ist-who-believed-people-could-tell-the-future - you can use the evidence that supports your view of the world to explain what you think about it, and why.

 

[cvanwey]

By putting together a number of different things from various perspectives you can be led to think about them, in ensemble. That is generally how opinions are formed. Sometimes that is a conscious process, sometimes it isn’t.

Sure, I agree. Now, I would assume you have some haphazard order of importance?

 

[Tom 1]

It's not unreasonable to ask which piece of evidence you would lead with.... In such a case, you would either lead with a less 'powerful one', or what you might feel is a 'more powerful' one...

You need to cross the 'what Cvanwey thinks' / discussing with other people barrier, if you want a discussion that is. Simply repeating endlessly the things you think is not a discussion.

 

[cvanwey]

I wouldn't necessarily say yes. Not everyone has such basic notions, my impression is that seeing the world as a basic series of 'yes' and 'no' questions doesn't have much to do with reality, beyond a limited number of things. What is your evidence for your point of view? You can perhaps take this opportunity to demonstrate the validity of your line of thought, by proving your own point of view.

It's certainly an interesting area to read about and discuss. I'd suggest Jung's memories, dreams, reflections to give a broader grounding, but that's quite long so you could start with this - The Psychiatrist Who Believed People Could Tell the Future - you can use the evidence that supports your view of the world to explain what you think about it, and why.

Nice try in attempt to shift the burden of proof

All I need to say, on my side, is I have doubt. You are asserting a positive claim. Please 'justify' it.

 

[Tom 1]

Sure, I agree. Now, I would assume you have some haphazard order of importance?

To address this question, you can demonstrate good faith by explaining the process by which you arrived at your understanding of life the universe and everything, what your evidence is and so on. This would demonstrate that you actually believe in what you are asking and how you are asking it, that you believe it to be a useful means of arriving at some point - which you could also identify - rather than what it appears to be, an expression of some internal frustration.

 

[cvanwey]

You need to cross the 'what Cvanwey thinks' / discussing with other people barrier, if you want a discussion that is. Simply repeating endlessly the things you think is not a discussion.

So you find it unreasonable to ask what are some of your more important pieces of evidence for your positive claim of a resurrection?

 

[Tom 1]

Nice try in attempt to shift the burden of proof

All I need to say, on my side, is I have doubt. You are asserting a positive claim. Please 'justify' it.

That would be a valid point if you were expressing doubt, however that isn't the case. You repeatedly make random assertions without any attempt to provide evidence, so it is quite reasonable to ask for some. As I said earlier, in the post you keep referring back to, you brought up the issue of the dating of different books of the NT. I addressed this point directly, I would be interested in your evidence for a late dating of Luke and how you explain away the issues with that. That would be a direct response to my direct response to the issue you raised - you see? As you asked, direct and specific.

Can you clarify what it is you are asking about Mark 16? How do I 'deal with it' - what do you mean? Deal with what, in relation to what?

 

[cvanwey]

To address this question, you can demonstrate good faith by explaining the process by which you arrived at your understanding of life the universe and everything, what your evidence is and so on. This would demonstrate that you actually believe in what you are asking and how you are asking it, that you believe it to be a useful means of arriving at some point - which you could also identify - rather than what it appears to be, an expression of some internal frustration.

It's becoming more and more apparent, that you have no intentions for justification to the claim of a resurrection. Either $h1+, or get off the proverbial pot

As I've told others, and maybe even you...

No amount of preparation, readiness, other, was required to reconcile that I was wrong in 2016. Meaning, I would have bet any amount of money that Trump would not win. But then He did. I trust I do not need to describe the evidence, necessity in preparation, or any prior beliefs, before-hand?

 

[Tom 1]

So you find it unreasonable to ask what are some of your more important pieces of evidence for your positive claim of a resurrection?

To reiterate:

Observing the results of Christianity when practised has persuasive power for me. This is handy, being that this is the standard of evidence the bible makes for itself, so that matches up quite well.

I'm yet to come across a single good reason to buy into the materialist worldview/belief system. Science is certainly useful, but materialism is a transitory thing, and materialists appear to live within a self-contradictory bubble of thought, in that the reasons given for not believing some other thing are equally applicable to materialism. I don't see any good reason to reject outright all claims of things that might happen outside the explanatory power of our tiny island of collective knowledge.

The bible, taken as a whole, is a well crafted and fascinating book. It's hard to get at the meaning of much of it, but when I do I find it profoundly useful. The character of God is, to my mind, convincingly portrayed. Most of the reasons given for rejecting the bible itself as a source of belief are generally superficial and not often worth bothering with.

These are some reasons, I see no value in placing them in some order of relative importance. Again, if that's what floats your boat you can demonstrate why with a clear explanation of your own beliefs etc.

 

[Tom 1]

It's becoming more and more apparent, that you have no intentions for justification to the claim of a resurrection. Either $h1+, or get off the proverbial pot

As I've told others, and maybe even you...

No amount of preparation, readiness, other, was required to reconcile that I was wrong in 2016. Meaning, I would have bet any amount of money that Trump would not win. But then He did. I trust I do not need to describe the evidence, necessity in preparation, or any prior beliefs, before-hand?

Are you aware that you are continually dodging any questions put to you, even those that relate directly to your own points? I'm just asking if you are doing that with some level of awareness.

 

[cvanwey]

That would be a valid point if you were expressing doubt, however that isn't the case.

It most certainly is. Why else do you think I label myself a 'skeptic', in regards to this forum? I do not go around labeling myself a skeptic outside of here

You repeatedly make random assertions without any attempt to provide evidence, so it is quite reasonable to ask for some. As I said earlier, in the post you keep referring back to, you brought up the issue of the dating of different books of the NT. I addressed this point directly, I would be interested in your evidence for a late dating of Luke and how you explain away the issues with that. That would be a direct response to my direct response to the issue you raised - you see? As you asked, direct and specific.

Can you clarify what it is you are asking about Mark 16? How do I 'deal with it' - what do you mean? Deal with what, in relation to what?

It's as if you have not read any of my prior responses. Why do you invoke such double standards?

 

[Tom 1]

Nice try in attempt to shift the burden of proof

Wait a minute - what proof? Please explain why suggesting you read something and give your opinion on it is asking you to prove something? You stated your belief with an emphatic 'no' - as you can see from the post you responded to, I am not asking you to prove your belief, I am suggesting a means by which we could arrive at the starting point of a useful, germane discussion. That is not a request for proof.

 

[cvanwey]

To reiterate:

Observing the results of Christianity when practised has persuasive power for me. This is handy, being that this is the standard of evidence the bible makes for itself, so that matches up quite well.

I'm yet to come across a single good reason to buy into the materialist worldview/belief system. Science is certainly useful, but materialism is a transitory thing, and materialists appear to live within a self-contradictory bubble of thought, in that the reasons given for not believing some other thing are equally applicable to materialism. I don't see any good reason to reject outright all claims of things that might happen outside the explanatory power of our tiny island of collective knowledge.

The bible, taken as a whole, is a well crafted and fascinating book. It's hard to get at the meaning of much of it, but when I do I find it profoundly useful. The character of God is, to my mind, convincingly portrayed. Most of the reasons given for rejecting the bible itself as a source of belief are generally superficial and not often worth bothering with.

These are some reasons, I see no value in placing them in some order of relative importance. Again, if that's what floats your boat you can demonstrate why with a clear explanation of your own beliefs etc.

NOTHING in this response tells me why you buy the assertion of a resurrection? Again, do we AGREE that without corroborated eyewitness attestation, it becomes perfectly reasonable to discard the claim?

All you are arguing for is general deism/theism. I'm asking you why you feel a resurrection happened?

 

[Tom 1]

It most certainly is. Why else do you think I label myself a 'skeptic', in regards to this forum? I do not go around labeling myself a skeptic outside of here



It's as if you have not read any of my prior responses. Why do you invoke such double standards?

?
You've baffled me with this one.

Doubt = doubt, a lack of certainty.
Definite beliefs = certainty, a lack of doubt.

What you have expressed are definite beliefs, not doubts.

Ok, to simplify:

You continually refer back to post 505: yes/no?

In that post you raise the issue about the dating of books in the NT: yes/no?

I respond directly to that point and suggest a starting point for discussing that point, the point you raised: yes/no?

You go off on some other random tangent, and avoid the question, the question that relates to the point you raised, in the post you keep referring back to.

?

 

[cvanwey]

Wait a minute - what proof? Please explain why suggesting you read something and give your opinion on it is asking you to prove something? You stated your belief with an emphatic 'no' - as you can see from the post you responded to, I am not asking you to prove your belief, I am suggesting a means by which we could arrive at the starting point of a useful, germane discussion. That is not a request for proof.

Do gremlins exist? No. Does Santa Claus exist? No. Is a teapot orbiting the earth? No.

Sure, we can spent countless exchanges talking about how you cannot 'prove they don't exist.' I concede this quickly. But this lends little/nothing to this topic

 

[Tom 1]

NOTHING in this response tells me why you buy the assertion of a resurrection? Again, do we AGREE that without corroborated eyewitness attestation, it becomes perfectly reasonable to discard the claim?

All you are arguing for is general deism/theism. I'm asking you why you feel a resurrection happened?

Um, no. As you can read in the post you responded to, my comments relate to the practice of Christianity, as in the Christian religion, which is the religion we know as Christianity. You see? Not deism/theism. I also refer to knowledge of the bible, which is the text from which knowledge of the Christian religion is sourced. Clear?

Clearly you think that 'corroborated eyewitness attestation' is the whole story. Good for you, but, so what? Some sort of a point could be arrived at by sifting through different ideas about the gospels that might have some relevance to this, but for some reason you don't respond to questions relevant to that.

 

[cvanwey]

?
You've baffled me with this one.

Doubt = doubt, a lack of certainty.
Definite beliefs = certainty, a lack of doubt.

What you have expressed are definite beliefs, not doubts.

Ok, to simplify:

You continually refer back to post 505: yes/no?

In that post you raise the issue about the dating of books in the NT: yes/no?

I respond directly to that point and suggest a starting point for discussing that point, the point you raised: yes/no?

You go off on some other random tangent, and avoid the question, the question that relates to the point you raised, in the post you keep referring back to.

?

Double standard - a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.

I've asked you countless times to either agree, or demonstrate why corroborated eyewitness attestation is not the only viable means to verify a past one time miraculous event. (i.e.) resurrection. You have yet to answer. You skate around it, avoid it, ignore it.

Why should I engage in any and every response you posit, when you continually avoid mine?

 

[Tom 1]

Do gremlins exist? No. Does Santa Claus exist? No. Is a teapot orbiting the earth? No.

Sure, we can spent countless exchanges talking about how you cannot 'prove they don't exist.' I concede this quickly. But this lends little/nothing to this topic

Not the point - you have an emphatic belief that no supernatural phenomena, events, etcetera can exist. That is an entirely different kettle of fish to stating that fictional creatures don't exist. That gremlins and so on don't exist is a trivial point, what reason would there be to question that? There are however numerous reasons to question whether or not events that might be thought of as supernatural can or do occur. And this is something that can be explored, you barely have to put any effort into doing so.

 

[cvanwey]

Um, no. As you can read in the post you responded to, my comments relate to the practice of Christianity, as in the Christian religion, which is the religion we know as Christianity. You see? Not deism/theism. I also refer to knowledge of the bible, which is the text from which knowledge of the Christian religion is sourced. Clear?

Clearly you think that 'corroborated eyewitness attestation' is the whole story. Good for you, but, so what? Some sort of a point could be arrived at by sifting through different ideas about the gospels that might have some relevance to this, but for some reason you don't respond to questions relevant to that.

Do you even KNOW what 'corroborated' and 'eyewitness' mean?

 

[cvanwey]

Not the point - you have an emphatic belief that no supernatural phenomena, events, etcetera can exist. That is an entirely different kettle of fish to stating that fictional creatures don't exist. That gremlins and so on don't exist is a trivial point, what reason would there be to question that? There are however numerous reasons to question whether or not events that might be thought of as supernatural can or do occur. And this is something that can be explored, you barely have to put any effort into doing so.

And yet, you want to make no effort in justifying a resurrection claim, but make much effort in others???