They all have arguments, sure. But what I understood you to be saying was that they all had some sort of historical event to point to.
All relikgions point to some real world event as evidence that they are the One True Faith (tm).
Nope, the literal meaning is still what's important. But the literal meaning includes issues of genre and the like that require critical approaches. But it's not an either/or proposition.
A literal interpretation of the Bible leads to countless contradictions.
It does, you just don't understand it. It's a question of scholarship.
Sure it does.
It's never been the critical factor to my argument, the precise dating isn't as important as the centrality alongside no naturalistic account.
No naturalistic account? I gave you an explanation for it that requires no supernatural events at all.
I accept it as the most reasonable explanation, though my faith depends far more on personal experience than on argumentation.
Personal experience is nowhere close to a valid way to find truth.
Though certainly if the resurrection weren't true my faith would be built on unstable foundations. But why should I suspect it's not true?
So you're closed minded?
Again with an attack on motives? Let that ad hominem go.
It's not an ad hominem if it relates to the issue being discussed.
I didn't, but I understand that memory can be extremely faulty. Yet we must rely on it if we are going to do historical research.
Oh, look at that. I give you resources to support my position and you don't even bother looking at them.
Seems very clear that you are not interested in actually having a discussion about this, doesn't it?
Tell me: why should I bother talking with you if you aren't even going to read the sources I provide?
You display them quite obviously.
And what part of that gives you the right to disagree with me about my own personal beliefs?
Nope, no extraordinary claims. Just claims and evidence.
So a God come to earth in Human form resurrecting from the dead is not extraordinary to you?
That's your subjective judgment, but who's the judge of when a claim is extraordinary and when it's not? What's the objective criteria? All you're expressing is personal incredulity, which is not a valid argument.
Well, let's judge the extraordinariness of a thing by comparing it to how often it (or a similar thing) happens in the real world, shall we?
The claim "I have slept within the last 24 hours" is a very ordinary claim, since most people in the world have slept within that timeframe. I'm sure you have, after all. So very ordinary evidence is sufficient to show that it's very likely that I also have slept within the last 24 hours. If my husband came and posted, "Yes, I can confirm that Kylie was asleep for 6 hours and woke up about 6 and a half hours ago," that should be enough, right?
But would you accept the same evidence if he said that I magically turned into a panda that danced in the front yard for the amusement of my neighbours?
I doubt it.
You're here arguing for a reason..but go on pretending that you're just an unbiased "skeptic"
Look at you claiming you know more about my beliefs than I do.
The issue is your definition of "valid" leads to a circular argument. If all you will accept is scientific evidence, then all you will get is scientific "facts"...but as my friend
@2PhiloVoid hinted at there is an epistemic issue with gettier problems that must be discussed when identifying what valid evidence is.
Anything that is testable.
If you can examine it and get a certain result, and I can examine it and get the same result, then I will accept it as valid.
But if you and I examine it and get different results, then why should I accept it as evidence of anything?
Your circular arguments are your problem. My question is, if you're simply going to refuse to consider anything that conforms to your idea of "evidence" why are you in this discussion at all? Who are you trying to convince?
Why do you insist on using evidence that CAN'T be verified?
That wasn't the question.
I think it was.
You said, "No, but he met Peter and James and the disciples and confirmed what he was taught about Jesus. "
I showed how Paul could have been aware of those things already and could have had a vision in which he imagined Jesus telling him those things he already knew.
This doesn't deserve a response.
Why not?
You claimed that Peter and James confirmed his vision. They couldn't even verify that he HAD a vision. For all they knew, he was just saying he did!
Not at all, but you go off. You want to overextend the warrant of inductive reasoning, which can never prove an absolute, and declare an absolute without any sort of investigation. Then you use that absolute to justify not looking for or considering what evidence exists. Your reasoning is nothing but a circular argument that makes it impossible for you to consider the evidence that does exist unbiasedly. if you believe it flatly impossible, why pretend to be amenable to evidence? And if you're not amenable to evidence, why enter the conversation? Why not just say "well, it's impossible and nothing will ever change my mind"?
You seem to think that if something is not an absolute then there is a 50/50 chance of it being right.
I can't prove there are no aliens in my kitchen right now, but that doesn't change the fact that it's extremely unlikely that there are aliens there.
But you seem to think that since we can't prove that no one comes back from the dead, that it's quite plausible that Jesus did.