Resurrection Evidence

Tom 1 · Jun 20, 2020

Tinker Grey said:
Then you still haven't told me "what evidence convinced you".
So what evidence convinced you?

It's not pointless at all. I want to know what is true. If you know something true, particularly if it is going to affect me eternally, I want to know what it is and I want to know how you know it.

What evidence convinced you of the resurrection?

No, you don’t. You have already decided what you consider to be true, and you are attempting to insist that the bible should be definable within those terms. Good luck with that, as they say.

Tinker Grey · Jun 20, 2020

Tom 1 said:
Why repeat myself? The bible, and everything it makes allusions to, comes as one interconnected passage. For me, as I’ve worked through parts of it in reference to the context in which they were written, over time it has made more sense. Like anything else written in another era, you need to find ways of putting yourself in the writer’s shoes to understand what their meaning is. The bible on its own terms is valid, this childish business of demanding it fit in with some other set of temporary notions about the world is not worth bothering with. The bible claims the proof of it is in the pudding, in various ways, and for me that has generally turned out to be true.

So no evidence. OK.

Tinker Grey · Jun 20, 2020

Tom 1 said:
No, you don’t. You have already decided what you consider to be true, and you are attempting to insist that the bible should be definable within those terms. Good luck with that, as they say.

Get your money back on your mind-reading helmet.

I'm not insisting on anything. I'm asking you for evidence. You don't have any.

Tom 1 · Jun 20, 2020

Tinker Grey said:
Get your money back on your mind-reading helmet.

Lol I don’t need to mind read when you’re telling me that yourself.

Tom 1 · Jun 20, 2020

Tinker Grey said:
So no evidence. OK.

Again, back to the question you wouldn’t answer- like what?

Tom 1 · Jun 20, 2020

Tinker Grey said:
Get your money back on your mind-reading helmet.

I'm not insisting on anything. I'm asking you for evidence. You don't have any.

You’re asking why I believe - as I said a couple of times, my belief is based on the ‘proof is in the pudding’ type, being as that is the kind of evidence the scriptures claim for themselves. For reasons of your own, you appear to believe there should be some other sort of unspecified ‘evidence’, without which the bible cannot be true. Given that you have this absolute standard, surely it is beneath you to discuss such things with mere mortals? If you deign to perhaps you could produce your own ‘evidence’ of something or other so the world can gasp in amazement at the sheer truth defining amazingness of it.

Tinker Grey · Jun 20, 2020

Tom 1 said:
Again, back to the question you wouldn’t answer- like what?

Back to my previous answer: What have you got?

Tinker Grey · Jun 20, 2020

Tom 1 said:
You’re asking why I believe - as I said a couple of times, my belief is based on the ‘proof is in the pudding’ type, being as that is the kind of evidence the scriptures claim for themselves. For reasons of your own, you appear to believe there should be some other sort of unspecified ‘evidence’, without which the bible can not be true. Given that you have this absolute standard, surely it is beneath you to discuss such things with mere mortals? If you deign to perhaps you could produce your own ‘evidence’ of something or other so the world can gasp in amazement at the sheer truth defining amazingness of it.

Yeah, see, evidence that you can't present to me is useless to me.

Tom 1 · Jun 20, 2020

Tinker Grey said:
Back to my previous answer: What have you got?

Like what? In asking this question presumably you have something in mind? A Polaroid maybe? A 2000 year old witness? A Grateful Dead roadie?

Tom 1 · Jun 20, 2020

Tinker Grey said:
Yeah, see, evidence that you can't present to me is useless to me.

? And your point is?

Tinker Grey · Jun 20, 2020

Tom 1 said:
Like what? In asking this question presumably you have something in mind? A Polaroid maybe? A 2000 year old witness? A Grateful Dead roadie?

This is a dodge. Either you have evidence or you don't. You don't.

If you were married, you'd show me a picture of your spouse. If I were a doubter, we might arrange to meet in person. If I still doubted, you might show me your wedding license (or the Romanian equivalent) and introduce me to the person who officiated.

If you have nice car, you'd show me a picture of it. If I were a doubter, we might meet and you might let me drive it. If I still doubted, you could show me the title to the car (or the Romanian equivalent).

But, you tell me there is a god, he has a son whom he arranged to have killed on our behalf, that this god raised his son from the dead ... and you can't provide a reason to believe ... except that for you to live as if it were true "works".

Come on. If the thing were real, you'd know what you'd show me to convince me. But, you don't.

Tinker Grey · Jun 20, 2020

Tom 1 said:
? And your point is?

That this is an apologetics forum where you are supposed to defend your faith. This sub-forum is part of the sub-forum Outreach. If you aren't here to convince me, why are you here?

The point is that you aren't defending your faith; you aren't "reaching out". You are complaining that the questions aren't to your liking.

Tom 1 · Jun 20, 2020

Tinker Grey said:
except that for you to live as if it were true "works".

Well, yes. That is exactly what the bible claims for itself, in terms of ‘proof’, although that notion as you understand is is miss-applied. You don’t understand that? Clearly you think there should be some producible proof, in some form as you say like a picture or something. You genuinely don’t see a problem with that? Perhaps you should think it through. Think about it, if there is a God, what reason would he have for doing things your way? Or some other way some other bloke thinks would be better? Why? Going back to the original point you ducked around, behind what you are saying are layers of assumptions which - you guessed it - you don’t have any evidence for, and yet have got you to a point where you believe whatever someone else thinks should be definable according to the random notions you carry around about something that claims for itself something entirely different. You appear to think that makes sense.

Tom 1 · Jun 20, 2020

Tinker Grey said:
That this is an apologetics forum where you are supposed to defend your faith. This sub-forum is part of the sub-forum Outreach. If you aren't here to convince me, why are you here?

The point is that you aren't defending your faith; you aren't "reaching out". You are complaining that the questions aren't to your liking.

The questions have no bearing on the topic.

Tom 1 · Jun 20, 2020

Tinker Grey said:
If you aren't here to convince me, why are you here?

That’s a fair question. I occasionally see a thread like this and think there might be something to discuss, but invariably it’s just a revolving door of fixed belief in disguise. I don’t know why I bother either tbh.

cvanwey · Jun 20, 2020

Hmm? You do not seem consistent here? Can you please make up your mind? You first accused me of not 'properly' engaging; by telling me "as always, I shut down every conversation before it can start." I then asked you for some elaboration, (i.e.) for starters, at least the post number for which you plucked such a quote. And instead of providing a simple answer to a simple question, you now shift gears.

Okay, great, I'll follow you where you decide to go [now], I guess....?

Tom 1 said:
Is there evidence that someone rose from the dead 2,000 years ago? Like what?

Please re-read my OP:

What exactly makes the evidence(s) for a claimed resurrection so dang compelling, as opposed to claims of other messiahs, god(s), other?

Tom 1 said:
If you want an actual discussion of the topic you need to a) ask better questions and

Disagree.... Why? A) What would {you} define as 'better questions'? B) I have already gathered, from past experience, that each and every Christian adheres to differing pieces of evidence, which convinced them of a resurrection. Therefore, I'm asking which pieces of evidence convinced you, and why? C) IF memory serves me correctly, the last time you and I engaged, I gave you everything you asked for, in another thread... And I'm still awaiting some kind of result. Hint - (a verifiable prayer request)...

Tom 1 said:
b) respond to people who ask you questions. I find it hard to understand what you hope to get from these closed loops you keep posting.

I'm responding now, and have also in the past... I can't believe that I still have to continue reminding some of you that this is the apologetics arena. You are here to defend your faith against people of opposing positions.

I ask again, if you should decide not to address above: What exactly makes the evidence(s) for a claimed resurrection so dang compelling, as opposed to claims of other messiahs, god(s), other?

cvanwey · Jun 20, 2020

Tom 1 said:
That’s a fair question. I occasionally see a thread like this and think there might be something to discuss, but invariably it’s just a revolving door of fixed belief in disguise. I don’t know why I bother either tbh.

The OP is pretty straight forward. If you have no intentions of engaging in this straight forward OP request, then maybe you shouldn't

cvanwey · Jun 20, 2020

Tom 1 said:
Why repeat myself? The bible, and everything it makes allusions to, comes as one interconnected package. For me, as I’ve worked through parts of it in reference to the context in which they were written, over time it has made more sense. Like anything else written in another era, you need to find ways of putting yourself in the writer’s shoes to understand what their meaning is. The bible on its own terms is valid, this childish business of demanding it fit in with some other set of temporary notions about the world is not worth bothering with. The bible claims the proof of it is in the pudding, in various ways, and for me that has generally turned out to be true.

I would love to probe and explore these statements. However, it looks as if you are not open for examination to your beliefs. Which still begs the question...

WHY hang out in an apologetics forum arena?

Nihilist Virus · Jun 20, 2020

the iconoclast said:
Hey hey

I am in no way convinced by this trilemma. I would like to first see how you apply it before I could consider such a thing.

Ok.

Well check this out.

I gave you the option to go on the offense and you said "Anyway, is there anything you wanted to discuss aside from semantics, or do you truly want to delve into the definition of nihilism?"

I took you up on the offer and asked you "What does meaningless mean to you and how does it fit in with your philosophy?"

You post this article about - the trilemma - which has a section that says "The trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics."

I assume that when you replied with this trilemma, it has a relevance to your philosophy and it is intergal to how you prove the impossibility to demonstrate ANY truth, even in the fields of LOGIC and MATHS.

So far, so good.

I supplied a very simple math equation (.eg 1+1+1+1=4) for you to demonstrate how the trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in the fields of LOGIC and MATHS.

The trilemma states that nothing at all can be proved unless you appeal to circular reasoning, infinite regress, or axioms.

So what exactly is it you're asking me to do with 1+1+1+1=4? You want me to prove it? I already told you it can't be done without appealing to the trilemma. So... isn't it your job to prove it without appealing to the trilemma?

Or are you asking me to prove 1+1+1+1=4 from the axioms? That would be trivial.

2. How can you demonstrate that the word seed is defined in terms of other words?

I'm quoting you out of order in this section because this question of yours highlights the approach you're taking.

When I first read this, I thought it was one of the dumbest questions I've ever seen. But then it occurred to me that you are trying to construct all language and logic from nothing. The only word that exists is seed, apparently.

Here is my question again

If I have a seed and no others then we label that seed as one or singular to express quantity.

We label the seed, "seed". This way you and I cannot get confused when we communicate.

I find another seed of the same variety and label my quality as 2 seeds. I find another and label that quantity as 3. I find yet another one and call this quantity 4.

1+1+1+1=4.

The truth is I have seeds of the same variety that yield the number 4.

1. Show me how the thought experiment (.eg trilemma) demonstrates the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in this mathematic equation?

Well... the only word available to us is "seed." So here's my answer:

Seed. Seed seed, seed. Seed? Seed! Seed seed; seed, seed, seed. 1 seed 1 seed 1 seed 1 seed 4 seed. 1 seed 2 seed 3 seed 4 seed. 1 2 3 4. 1+1+1+1=4.

Seed.

Seed?

In the metaphysics of identity, the ship of Theseus is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object.

It is supposed that the famous ship sailed by the hero Theseus in a great battle was kept in a harbor as a museum piece, and as the years went by some of the wooden parts began to rot and were replaced by new ones; then, after a century or so, every part had been replaced.

The question then is if the "restored" ship is still the same object as the original.

My intent to label the seeds with numbers was to show quantity (.eg to demonstrate the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in this mathematic equation?).

The ship of Theseus is not a relevant question as the thought experiment relates to; if components are replaced does something remain fundamentally the same object.

I agree. Let's make sure we're on the same page before we move on to the next topic. Are we talking English or seed?

We are talking about a mathematical outcome and the truth of the equation.

What's a mathematical outcome? What is "what"? What? Seed.

Lets say you and I are walking together. I find a unit of reproduction of a flowering plant, capable of developing into another such plant. I call it a seed to differentiate from other things and so we I communicate to each other about this unit of reproduction.

3. Does the seed have an identity and is identity meaningless?

Seed...?

Now please excuse me however you seemed to have missed a question. I shall repeat it.

My uncle dies and I notice that every person - who lived on this earth - eventually dies.

4. It is a certainty that all who live will die. Show me how this thought experiment demonstrates the impossibility of proving this truth?

Cheers

Seed.

Tom 1 · Jun 20, 2020

cvanwey said:
I would love to probe and explore these statements.

Sure, if that means something other than repeatedly asking the same question. For clarity, no there is not a photograph, video, or any evidence of that sort for a resurrection. As you were aware of that before asking the question, it seems rather disingenuous to pose it in the first place. If you can explain what kind of evidence you think might exist, that would be a starting point. But I suspect, for reasons I can only guess at, that you won’t.

Resurrection Evidence

Optimistic sceptic

Wanderer

Wanderer

Optimistic sceptic

Optimistic sceptic

Optimistic sceptic

Wanderer

Wanderer

Optimistic sceptic

Optimistic sceptic

Wanderer

Wanderer

Optimistic sceptic

Optimistic sceptic

Optimistic sceptic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Optimistic sceptic

Similar threads