Resurrection Evidence

[Resha Caner]

I think we could be speaking past one another I already responded to this earlier. We could begin a several response exchange to lay the ground work for what IS considered 'extraordinary evidence'. However, in this case, it is not necessary. We both agree a man rising from the dead, after 3 days of being dead, warrants 'more evidence', 'extraordinary evidence', 'other'...

We do not agree. I don't see how you can read my post and conclude this. But I hope you're having a good Christmas.

 

[muichimotsu]

We do not agree. I don't see how you can read my post and conclude this. But I hope you're having a good Christmas.

So evidence required is equal regardless of the nature of the claims made?

Me claiming there was a leprechaun in my backyard and claiming there was a peacock in my backyard are pretty different claims even if one aspect is the same. I can corroborate with others and investigate in regards to the peacock, but the leprechaun is seemingly just me being delusional (if I actually believed it, but no one else could remotely corroborate the claims or even likelihood)

 

[Resha Caner]

So evidence required is equal regardless of the nature of the claims made?

Give me an example where it would be different. Not an example of claims you consider extraordinary, but of evidence you consider extraordinary. Why is it so hard to understand what I'm saying?

For example, it may have been an extraordinary feat the first time a man went to the moon, but dirt from the moon is dirt just as dirt from the earth is dirt. The nature of the evidence is the same. Photos of the moon are the same type of evidence as photos of the earth. And there are people who reject both. There are people who believe photos of the moon were faked, and there are people who believe photos of the earth from space were faked. There isn't something extraordinary about dirt from the moon or photos of the moon that make them more believable than dirt from the earth or photos of the earth.

Me claiming there was a leprechaun in my backyard and claiming there was a peacock in my backyard are pretty different claims even if one aspect is the same. I can corroborate with others and investigate in regards to the peacock, but the leprechaun is seemingly just me being delusional (if I actually believed it, but no one else could remotely corroborate the claims or even likelihood)

Confirmation bias works both ways my friend, both in favor and against an idea, and that seems to be your issue here. Since you already believe peacocks exist, you're biased in favor of believing they're walking around in your backyard. Because you believe leprechauns don't exist, you're biased against believing they're walking around in your backyard. So you're trying to use that confirmation bias (hoping I share the same confirmation bias) to bolster your example.

But the issue is not what exists. Rather, it is whether you're delusional about what's in your backyard - something easily remedied by simply going there. Delusion is not an explanation. If you have a history of delusion, it is just as likely to make you mislabel a leprechaun and call it a peacock as it is to make you see leprechauns that aren't there. Because the issue is your delusion and not what exists, the evidence required is the same for both peacocks and leprechauns. Show me.

FYI, your exclusionary view is nothing new and not restricted to spiritual issues. It was something pointed out by Ernst Mach in his discussions on science.

Regardless, you believe in extraordinary evidence. OK. Show me what that is. Not the claim. The evidence.

 

[muichimotsu]

Give me an example where it would be different. Not an example of claims you consider extraordinary, but of evidence you consider extraordinary. Why is it so hard to understand what I'm saying?


For example, it may have been an extraordinary feat the first time a man went to the moon, but dirt from the moon is dirt just as dirt from the earth is dirt. The nature of the evidence is the same. Photos of the moon are the same type of evidence as photos of the earth. And there are people who reject both. There are people who believe photos of the moon were faked, and there are people who believe photos of the earth from space were faked. There isn't something extraordinary about dirt from the moon or photos of the moon that make them more believable than dirt from the earth or photos of the earth.



Confirmation bias works both ways my friend, both in favor and against an idea, and that seems to be your issue here. Since you already believe peacocks exist, you're biased in favor of believing they're walking around in your backyard. Because you believe leprechauns don't exist, you're biased against believing they're walking around in your backyard. So you're trying to use that confirmation bias (hoping I share the same confirmation bias) to bolster your example.

But the issue is not what exists. Rather, it is whether you're delusional about what's in your backyard - something easily remedied by simply going there. Delusion is not an explanation. If you have a history of delusion, it is just as likely to make you mislabel a leprechaun and call it a peacock as it is to make you see leprechauns that aren't there. Because the issue is your delusion and not what exists, the evidence required is the same for both peacocks and leprechauns. Show me.

FYI, your exclusionary view is nothing new and not restricted to spiritual issues. It was something pointed out by Ernst Mach in his discussions on science.

Regardless, you believe in extraordinary evidence. OK. Show me what that is. Not the claim. The evidence.

I'm not the one making extraordinary claims, I'm also not the one that's determining extraordinary evidence. It would probably, if pushed to answer, be something overwhelmingly conclusive, not merely something that fits with a plausibility argument. And something happening that's unexpected doesn't mean the argument that makes the most sense to explain it must necessarily be true at all.

~~~~~

The nature of the evidence is not the same, they're merely both dirt, but one is composed of stuff that would likely only be on the moon or have a different composition in general. What makes them extraordinary is the consistency: using conspiracy theorist ad hoc rationalization to bring the quality of evidence into question is intellectually lazy, because it's logically fallacious thinking that tries to ignore anything contrary to whatever preconception the person is entrenched in, like the earth being flat because it "makes sense" (which is not how we determine the truth of claims as rational thinkers)

~~~~

Not being convinced of a claim is not the same as making a claim to the contrary: I'm not convinced God exists, I'm not convinced God does not exist, one is an affirmation, the other is skepticism of the claims' reliability

Methinks you don't have a basis to insinuate what I consider plausible or not based on limited conversations. Leprechauns are far more compelling as something that could exist to me with conclusive evidence than God, because God is utterly transcendent and contradictory, fairies are preternatural.


~~~~

What basis do you have for concluding God exists beyond your fallacious inferences about agency that aren't shared by others? The confirmation bias in terms of applying skepticism is hardly comparable to the bias in trying to fit any evidence into supporting the existence of something that's unfalsifiable by nature (outside the universe fundamentally, etc). But that's especially notable in taking a resurrection as confirmation of divinity and such rather than just some presently unknown, but still natural explanation of people coming back from death in particular circumstances that doesn't require violating Occam's razor by multiplying entities

~~~~

If you're just going to play burden tennis, methinks we're done here, because you're not willing to admit the folly of a position that is convinced of something because of mere plausibility and not anything remotely reliable (since we don't have ANY other accounts of Jesus apart from the Gospels that aren't suspect in even referring to him precisely rather than vaguely)

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm not the one making extraordinary claims …

Agreed. You're not … yet.

... I'm also not the one that's determining extraordinary evidence.

You're not? Then why did you ask the question (So evidence required is equal regardless of the nature of the claims made?)? If you agree with me about evidence, the question doesn't seem necessary.

It would probably, if pushed to answer, be something overwhelmingly conclusive, not merely something that fits with a plausibility argument.

A little vague, but I appreciate the attempt so let me suggest something. Feel free to accept or reject the clarification. Are you referring to confidence levels? In my engineering work we typically establish something like a 95% confidence level - a specific probability that can be measured. Is that what you mean?

If so, I've never had someone say, "I know we typically ask for 95% confidence, but this is an extraordinary idea, so I'm going to demand 99% confidence." It just doesn't happen, so I don't get it. Why would you accept 95% for peacocks, but demand 99% for leprechauns? I'd be happy with 95% for both cases.

The nature of the evidence is not the same, they're merely both dirt, but one is composed of stuff that would likely only be on the moon or have a different composition in general.

I didn't say they would be the same. I said neither is extraordinary, but the evidence is of the same nature: dirt from respective locations. If it's likely to find that composition on the moon, then it's not extraordinary to find that composition on the moon. You got what you expected.

Leprechauns are far more compelling as something that could exist to me with conclusive evidence than God, because God is utterly transcendent and contradictory, fairies are preternatural.

How did you come to know the nature of God and leprechauns? Very curious that you're so certain of such things.

What basis do you have for concluding God exists beyond your fallacious inferences about agency that aren't shared by others?

You know my experiences are fallacious even though I haven't told you what they are? Wow. That's … clairvoyant.

If you're just going to play burden tennis, methinks we're done here, because you're not willing to admit the folly of a position that is convinced of something because of mere plausibility and not anything remotely reliable (since we don't have ANY other accounts of Jesus apart from the Gospels that aren't suspect in even referring to him precisely rather than vaguely)

I was trying to clear all the baggage people bring to these conversations - judgmental leaps that muddy the water before you even know my position. I've not yet encountered a non-Christian in this forum who will pause for a moment to listen. Rather they seem all too anxious to rush in and rattle off why they're going to dismiss me before I've even said anything.

I thought you might be different, but if I was wrong, then, yeah, best to end it now.

Or, if what you're really after is someone to listen to what you believe (rather than what you don't believe), I'm willing to do that too. But if neither of those … OK.

 

[muichimotsu]

Agreed. You're not … yet.



You're not? Then why did you ask the question (So evidence required is equal regardless of the nature of the claims made?)? If you agree with me about evidence, the question doesn't seem necessary.



A little vague, but I appreciate the attempt so let me suggest something. Feel free to accept or reject the clarification. Are you referring to confidence levels? In my engineering work we typically establish something like a 95% confidence level - a specific probability that can be measured. Is that what you mean?

If so, I've never had someone say, "I know we typically ask for 95% confidence, but this is an extraordinary idea, so I'm going to demand 99% confidence." It just doesn't happen, so I don't get it. Why would you accept 95% for peacocks, but demand 99% for leprechauns? I'd be happy with 95% for both cases.



I didn't say they would be the same. I said neither is extraordinary, but the evidence is of the same nature: dirt from respective locations. If it's likely to find that composition on the moon, then it's not extraordinary to find that composition on the moon. You got what you expected.



How did you come to know the nature of God and leprechauns? Very curious that you're so certain of such things.



You know my experiences are fallacious even though I haven't told you what they are? Wow. That's … clairvoyant.



I was trying to clear all the baggage people bring to these conversations - judgmental leaps that muddy the water before you even know my position. I've not yet encountered a non-Christian in this forum who will pause for a moment to listen. Rather they seem all too anxious to rush in and rattle off why they're going to dismiss me before I've even said anything.

I thought you might be different, but if I was wrong, then, yeah, best to end it now.

Or, if what you're really after is someone to listen to what you believe (rather than what you don't believe), I'm willing to do that too. But if neither of those … OK.

I clearly don't agree with you on what constitutes evidence or I'd believe the resurrection happened, which I don't: thought that was clear

~~~

The nature of the claim is what males a peacock vastly different from a leprechaun, because we have consistent evidence that peacocks exist and what they are, leprechauns aren't remotely the same. And the same applies to near death versus actual death in terms of people coming back, especially with modern understandings of what constitutes death (rather than just mere stopping of breath, it's cessation of brain activity). Jesus' coming back is not the same as me nearly dying if my heart stops and then coming back with a defibrilator, he was supposedly completely dead, which we've NEVER seen happen and it be a reliable account.

~~~~

The account of Jesus's resurrection is FAR more suspect than the claims that are also suspect of supposed miracles that occur today where we can find reliable accounts in general rather than specifically to convey a religious/spiritual message with the preconception it happened the way they believe it did

~~~

One is extraordinary in that we can't usually just get dirt from the moon unlike how I can just pick up dirt from my backyard, that's ordinary, most people in human history have not gone to the moon and it's not just a hop skip and a jump. So me claiming I have moon dust/dirt would be an extraordinary claim, since you have no reason to believe I just have the capacity to go to the moon and retrieve it

I never said finding dirt on the moon was an extraordinary thing, the claim is having moon dirt when you're on the earth and we have no reason to just take your word that you went to the moon. Not sure how you're confusing the claims in such a way that I'd be saying something effectively commonplace given the context (of COURSE we'd find moon dirt on the moon, what'd be extraordinary is finding Mars dirt on the moon, or even Earth dirt)

~~~~

What is your evidence that the resurrection happened? That's all I'm asking, I've heard plenty and it tends to be very similar, I'm skeptical you're going to be different, but it's not impossible. Heck, I've heard a whole sermon about the alternate explanations for the resurrection, still didn't convince me the Christian explanation is more compelling. Also, that guy wasn't really a preacher, to my knowledge, he was a voice actor (kind of out of work now due to controversy, you might've heard of him, but not sure)

 

[Resha Caner]

I clearly don't agree with you on what constitutes evidence or I'd believe the resurrection happened, which I don't: thought that was clear

It wasn't, though I understand you don't accept the Resurrection. From the beginning I have indicated an awareness that different people are convinced by different types of evidence. I allow that because it's actually happened. Not all Christians who accept the Resurrection accept it for the same reason I do. I have no expectation you would accept it for the same reasons I do. But that doesn't make any of those reasons extraordinary evidence. It simply makes them different.

If, however, you are going to demand extraordinary evidence of me, then you need to define what that means.

Jesus' coming back is not the same as me nearly dying if my heart stops and then coming back with a defibrilator, he was supposedly completely dead, which we've NEVER seen happen and it be a reliable account.

Apparently you haven't seen all my posts in this thread, because we do have documentation of such things. There are cases of a person being declared legally dead, and then autoresuscitation (reviving without medical assistance) after that. If your standard of "completely dead" is different than a legal, clinical declaration of death by a credentialed doctor, then, um … I dunno ...

FYI, the documented record for reviving after clinical death is 17 hours.

[edit] Sorry. I forgot that you asked for the evidence that convinced me. As I said earlier, it wasn't "evidence" that convinced me, but experience. All the evidence I've seen given for the Resurrection came after I already believed in God. That's a lengthy discussion in and of itself.

 

[muichimotsu]

It wasn't, though I understand you don't accept the Resurrection. From the beginning I have indicated an awareness that different people are convinced by different types of evidence. I allow that because it's actually happened. Not all Christians who accept the Resurrection accept it for the same reason I do. I have no expectation you would accept it for the same reasons I do. But that doesn't make any of those reasons extraordinary evidence. It simply makes them different.

If, however, you are going to demand extraordinary evidence of me, then you need to define what that means.




Apparently you haven't seen all my posts in this thread, because we do have documentation of such things. There are cases of a person being declared legally dead, and then autoresuscitation (reviving without medical assistance) after that. If your standard of "completely dead" is different than a legal, clinical declaration of death by a credentialed doctor, then, um … I dunno ...

FYI, the documented record for reviving after clinical death is 17 hours.

[edit] Sorry. I forgot that you asked for the evidence that convinced me. As I said earlier, it wasn't "evidence" that convinced me, but experience. All the evidence I've seen given for the Resurrection came after I already believed in God. That's a lengthy discussion in and of itself.

Convinced by different types of evidence does not mean all evidence is equally valid relative to all claims. But accepting the resurrection based on particular evidence doesn't mean it's better thought out or justified versus other evidence when it's still not remotely conclusive in the first place.

~~~~~

Extraordinary evidence would be that which is consistent with the claim in an objective manner rather than selectively interpreting or otherwise being convinced by something merely being plausible rather than possible and actual. And that's not exactly conceivable when the major evidence you have is a single grouping of texts that are already convinced of the truth rather than conveying it as a secular contemporary would on those events (which we have no contemporaries relative to that time suggesting anything like the events in the gospels happened). The problem becomes whether, even given the examples you bring of autoresucitaiton, why are we to believe the accounts of the gospels as indicating something that actually happened and can be verified in any historical sense?

~~~~

And now you're selectively finding evidence to support your claim when I'm almost certain the comparisons are barely in the same ballpark as a man supposedly beaten to near death and crucified. The likelihood of him coming back from the dead versus people in regards to modern context coming back seems pretty low. And, as I've noted in response to those claims, that still doesn't indicate anything specifically Christian in relation to those incidents, as if resurrection is somehow a claim only Christianity has ever made.

~~~~

Then you've practically admitted it's all post hoc rationalization to fit your belief in God after the fact rather than actually being convinced in a remotely objective fashion. Not sure that's meant to be convincing, except in that people can delude themselves into believing things because of emotional context, etc. Someone turning to Jesus in prison is no more indication of validity of the claims than someone turning to Islam in prison. The situation of prison is such that some people will be more open to suggestion of some absolute authority, I'd argue

 

[Resha Caner]

Extraordinary evidence would be that which is consistent with the claim in an objective manner rather than selectively interpreting or otherwise being convinced by something merely being plausible rather than possible and actual.

Nice words that don't mean anything. If you're intent on changing my mind, I think you'll need to provide an example - an example that utilizes quantifiable data in a scientific sense.

Then you've practically admitted it's all post hoc rationalization to fit your belief in God after the fact rather than actually being convinced in a remotely objective fashion.

I've admitted no such thing, but if you want to leap to that conclusion, it will make the conversation shorter. I'd hate to provide further explanation if you've already decided that's the outcome, so I appreciate you cutting this short. Maybe we should just focus on one thread.

 

[muichimotsu]

Nice words that don't mean anything. If you're intent on changing my mind, I think you'll need to provide an example - an example that utilizes quantifiable data in a scientific sense.



I've admitted no such thing, but if you want to leap to that conclusion, it will make the conversation shorter. I'd hate to provide further explanation if you've already decided that's the outcome, so I appreciate you cutting this short. Maybe we should just focus on one thread.

Evidence proportional to the claim might be a better way of phrasing it: claiming you saw someone nearly get struck by lightning is different than saying you saw someone get struck by lightning and not only live, but get superpowers. Jesus' death and resurrection has two problems to consider: 1) we have no real reason to consider the claims made in the gospels as reliable, since there's no real historical corroboration otherwise to any claims related to him and 2) even if we grant his resurrection happened, it's a whole other level of unfalsifiability to suggest that he did anything related to "sin" and the "afterlife", both things that aren't really demonstrable in any consistent manner that isn't just abstractions


If you were already convinced of God's existence, then how is it a stretch to believe in other miraculous things if they're connected to the God you're already convinced exists? It's an easy gradation, but still, it means your standards could be argued to already be low as to what counts as evidence for believing in things, particularly as regards the supernatural

 

[Resha Caner]

If you were already convinced of God's existence, then how is it a stretch to believe in other miraculous things if they're connected to the God you're already convinced exists? It's an easy gradation, but still, it means your standards could be argued to already be low as to what counts as evidence for believing in things, particularly as regards the supernatural

You don't know what would be a stretch for me or what my standards are since you don't yet know anything substantial about what I believe. I have no idea how you would argue anything. Signing out. It's best we focus on the other thread.

 

[muichimotsu]

You don't know what would be a stretch for me or what my standards are since you don't yet know anything substantial about what I believe. I have no idea how you would argue anything. Signing out. It's best we focus on the other thread.

If you qualified why you believed in God in the first place, we can then establish more accurately what your evidential standards are for these supernatural claims versus seemingly anything else (assuming, maybe, you believe in the earth being round, orbiting the sun, evolutionary theory, etc)

 

[cvanwey]

We do not agree. I don't see how you can read my post and conclude this. But I hope you're having a good Christmas.

I hope your holidays are going well!

- We agree that a man rising from the dead, after being dead for three days, is extraordinary.
- We also agree, therefore, extraordinary evidence must adjoin such a claim.
- You stated that we must first establish [what] constitutes 'extraordinary evidence'. However.... (see below).

As I've told others here, to entertain the idea that this claim was 'for real', would at least necessitate the need for multiple contemporaneous corroborated extra-biblical sources reporting of a being demonstrating return from His own death. We do not seem to have as such? Hence, seems perfectly reasonable to dismiss the claim. If not, then please explain why?

If it should turn out that such an event did happen, and such a being expected me/myself to 'have faith' that such a claimed event in history took place, and wished to condemn me for not already believing; then I guess I would get to spend the rest of eternity, or other, scratching my head.

I again ask you

What evidence persuaded [you] to believe that a man rose from the dead, after being dead for ~ 3 days?

 

[Silmarien]

As I've told others here, to entertain the idea that this claim was 'for real', would at least necessitate the need for multiple contemporaneous corroborated extra-biblical sources reporting of a being demonstrating return from His own death. We do not seem to have as such? Hence, seems perfectly reasonable to dismiss the claim. If not, then please explain why?

I don't understand this focus on extra-biblical sources. Do you really think anyone who actually witnessed the Resurrection would just carry on, business as usual, go back to their normal lives and not join the new movement? For a claim like this, I don't know where you think unbiased corroborating reports are going to come from.

 

[cvanwey]

I don't understand this focus on extra-biblical sources. Do you really think anyone who actually witnessed the Resurrection would just carry on, business as usual, go back to their normal lives and not join the new movement? For a claim like this, I don't know where you think unbiased corroborating reports are going to come from

I disagree. I trust you agree there exists no true standard for evidence, right? He could produce His evidence to many, and some may not still believe. However, If God really wanted to demonstrate His glory, seems as though He might have at least done so globally. Regions across the globe, whether they believed the claim or not, would still report what they saw or witnessed. (i.e.) I have the ability to write, live in America, and report 'seeing a strange object in the sky.' Someone in China reports the same thing.

Other cultures would write or report of seeing a 'magical man' claiming to be a Messiah, but 'not believe He actually was.'

This is what would create pause for me, or raise an eye-brow. --- Seeing reports of an alleged event from a global stance. But instead, He chose to provide demonstration of His powers the way He did?

 

[Silmarien]

I disagree. I trust you agree there exists no true standard for evidence, right? He could produce His evidence to many, and some may not still believe. However, If God really wanted to demonstrate His glory, seems as though He might have at least done so globally. Regions across the globe, whether they believed the claim or not, would still report what they saw or witnessed. (i.e.) I have the ability to write, live in America, and report 'seeing a strange object in the sky.' Someone in China reports the same thing.

Other cultures would write or report of seeing a 'magical man' claiming to be a Messiah, but 'not believe He actually was.'

This is what would create pause for me, or raise an eye-brow. --- Seeing reports of an alleged event from a global stance. But instead, He chose to provide demonstration of His powers the way He did?

This seems like a separate concern than saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, though. You're taking issue with the revelation itself as not being universal enough, not with the evidence presented for the event. That's more a theological question than an evidentiary one.

 

[Tone]

I disagree. I trust you agree there exists no true standard for evidence, right? He could produce His evidence to many, and some may not still believe. However, If God really wanted to demonstrate His glory, seems as though He might have at least done so globally. Regions across the globe, whether they believed the claim or not, would still report what they saw or witnessed. (i.e.) I have the ability to write, live in America, and report 'seeing a strange object in the sky.' Someone in China reports the same thing.

Other cultures would write or report of seeing a 'magical man' claiming to be a Messiah, but 'not believe He actually was.'

This is what would create pause for me, or raise an eye-brow. --- Seeing reports of an alleged event from a global stance. But instead, He chose to provide demonstration of His powers the way He did?

Ummmm...we have many millions of people (extra-biblical folks) who have personally corroborated the resurrection story...all across the globe...over a couple thousand years.

 

[cvanwey]

This seems like a separate concern than saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, though. You're taking issue with the revelation itself as not being universal enough, not with the evidence presented for the event. That's more a theological question than an evidentiary one.

I again ask, do you agree that there exists no true standard for evidence? I trust this is actually a compulsory question

My own personal standard for evidence appears lacking, for the claims of a man returning from the dead, after 'being dead for ~3 days.'

Do you find the method, in which God used, sufficiently extraordinary? If so, as I've asked others, what evidence makes the claims of His alleged resurrection compelling?

 

[cvanwey]

Ummmm...we have many millions of people (extra-biblical folks) who have personally corroborated the resurrection story...all across the globe...over a couple thousand years.

I trust you are aware of the difference? (i.e.)

Jesus coming to earth, demonstrating evidence to 'Doubting Thomas', 'the unnamed 500', 'the women at the empty tomb', etc., (verses) prior/later anecdotal claims of 'God helping them or speaking to them.'

People have been claiming God's contact prior and since this claimed event. The evidence of a resurrection lies distinctive from all other arbitrary anecdotal claims of 'God's' general contact.

 

[Silmarien]

I again ask, do you agree that there exists no true standard for evidence? I trust this is actually a compulsory question

I'd agree with that, yes.

Do you find the method, in which God used, sufficiently extraordinary? If so, as I've asked others, what evidence makes the claims of His alleged resurrection compelling?

I don't find it extraordinary that God would transmit a revelation like this locally rather than globally, no. I'm not even sure what it would mean for God's method to be extraordinary.