@Crazy Anglican:
I have not changed my opinion at all.

There are other religions that had resurrection mythology and virgin birth before the bible was imagined.

@Tantris - I wasn't going to jump into this, but I think it is important to note that Judaism predicted Christ's virgin birth far before any other religion had conceived that notion. There is a group of people who claim that Egyptians gave Jews this idea, but most scholars agree that it is the other way around.

I am biased against the supernatural? No. Every time we have an event that is explicable in terms of natural law, we have evidence in favour of natural law and therefore against what we call supernatural. Indeed, its very name is because of the overwhelming number of examples contrary to it. There has never been a miracle which is able to surpass all evidence in favour of physical law.

But don't you see, now you are arguing that even without already believing in Christianity, I should still be concluding the truth of the resurrection? Well, from there the most likely conclusion is indeed Christianity, so in fact you are arguing that the argument from miracles works, even if you don't utilise that claim elsewhere.

You cannot seriously claim that the supernatural and natural explanations lie on the same level. First, the supernatural explanation un-explains everything that was previously explained naturally, because the concept of physical law, cause and effect is now broken. But second, look where it leaves you- you have to admit that every time an apple falls, it is just as probable that there was a supernatural explanation as that it was gravity. Do you even countenance the possibility that the apple falling is caused by some supernatural effect?

"Let's look at the evidence and try to find out what happened."

I have looked at the evidence, indeed, all the evidence. I have looked at the historical evidence, and given it benefit of doubt where I don't know it, and yes, for the sake of argument, let's say that the historical evidence points strongly towards a resurrection. Now let's look at the scientific evidence. The Scientific evidence says to a certainty which is orders of magnitude stronger than the historical evidence that it is impossible. So we must choose the scientific evidence.

If you had to estimate the probability of the testimony being wrong, lets say you put a figure of 1 in a million on it.

Now, I need to show that the odds of somebody being resurrected are lower than 1 in a million.

Looking back over the last few centuries, we can say that approximately 50 billion people have died, and none have been resurrected. If the chances of a ressurection were 1 in a million, that would give a chance of those 50 billion all not being resurrected of 1.928*10^-22000

So I can say, to a significance level of 2*10^-21998 % (and bear in mind that we normally consider significance levels of 1% to be very powerful) that the historical evidence is weaker.

We could go for a bolder claim from your side...1 in a billion. The science still has you beaten to 22 orders of magnitude.

But historical evidence is never so strong as to be 1 in a million against it being wrong, even.... your judgement is just appallingly wrong!

I admit that I am too lazy to actually hunt down sources about the death of the Apostles and what they held independent of the text of the Gospels.

But like.... I dunno. I was sort of hoping someone would have some word on that that's not totally biased by atheism/theism.

But whatever lol clearly my question will unanswered you guys enjoy your religious debate.

(I've always found religious debate to be rather stupid and tiresome. Neither side can have any confidence that they know what they're arguing... so why are they arguing?)

I've been precisely trying to answer the question. Basically, however strong the historical evidence, it is still orders of magnitude weaker than the scientific evidence against resurrection happening.

@TheGhostmaker - you are right that it is impossible to validate the Christ resurrection from a scientific standpoint, I don't think it is a point worth beating to death. If there were a statistically significant amount of people documented as being resurrected then Christ's resurrection would be meaningless to Christians.

It was a unique event that was historically documented as being witnessed by over 150 individuals, and if you believe that their perception of reality was incorrect (which isn't out of the ordinary for a small amount of people such as 150) then no one is forcing you to become a Christian.

Exactly your catch-22. If it were believable, it would not be remarkable, if it were remarkable, it would not be believable. That answers the original question of, "What is the refutation of that [Jesus' resurrection being proof of Christianity] argument?", which is why I was beating it to death.

My discussion of religion in general is always one of 'can we validate it?' or 'is it true?', because we need to get past that stage to make anything else meaningful. The answer to me has always been "no" and "no".

The bible isn't evidence, it's folklore mashed with moral & ethics. If I took a moral manual for primary/high school and combined it with a folklore manual I'd get the equivalent of the bible.

I accept evidence when it is reliable. In other words, I believe that a man named Jesus existed, that he was married, had children. I don't believe that he resurrected, though, or did anything any wise and smart guy couldn't do. Much less that he is the son of god.

@TheGhostmaker - admittedly I wasn't really involved in this thread (and didn't particularly want to be), but I think you missed the point of the question. The question wasn't "If we can validate the resurrection doesn't that prove Christianity?" but rather "If the resurrection was false would all of the apostles have sacrificed their lives for Christ long after his death?".

The second question then apparently becomes a "proof" for christianity, which I wouldn't necessarily agree with. I don't think that you can arrive at Christianity by logic purely because the supernatural is not with in the realms of what can be tested. I am however a devout Christian because I believe that Christianity can be experienced and affirmed that way (but certainly not proven).

That second question should read:

"If the resurrection was false, *why* would all of the apostles have sacrificed their lives for Christ long after his death?"

@DominicHJ - I think you'll find that if you approach religion from that perspective you will have a hard time finding people who want to discuss it with you. Even if you think something is crazy, you should approach it from the center and voice your opinion with reason, rather than just voicing your opinion.

'the scientific evidence against resurrection happening.' - you have scientific evidence of people in general not resurrecting - but the available evidence is that Jesus did, ok it is weaker, in your mind - So your assumption is that Humans don't come back from the dead, and Jesus was a human.

I mostly agree with you, but i'd like to point out, Jesus not being the son of God is what makes him so important, an example of a human tempted by the same things we are, preaching a message which others would have feared preaching (after all he was killed for it) He gave his life for his message - while not having any special super powers or great foreknowledge of what would happen - yeah sure, the bible says he knew the romans were coming to get him, but most people could have figured that much out - the point is he didn't flee he chose to stay and face them, without violence it seems.

anyway, that's just my non-christian reasons for appreciating Jesus, the Christians seem to think his message is only valid BECAUSE he is the Son of God, and if he wasn't no-one would bother listening at all... go figure.

You assume I care for discussing with theists. If they can be so convinced with so little proof, then there's no helping them. I'm not even affirming or denying there is a god, I just won't recognize any wild folklore book be used as historical evidence. Of all the faiths that ever existed, I'm supposed to believe that this one was true, just because?

The initial question is interesting, but my opinion on the bible is also my answer. If you consider the fact that the founder of the roman catholic church was a roman emperor, that the lore was heavily tampered with and selected by early religious leadership, that the texts were written centuries later on oral tradition, etc., you find that the book has very little historical value for questions like that.

So why would 11 guys go preach and face death to spread the word of something they had witnessed? Well, a lot of people got killed for what they believed in, and we don't even know for sure if they actually did believe as they are said to have believed. It could have been a scheme, it could have not happened at all and fabricated after the facts, they could have been lead to believe something which wasn't true, they could have assumed something without knowing the truth, they could have been misunderstood by the people to which they preached, they could have had their messages completely distorted by later leadership to make the message easier to spread and impose, etc., etc. With the lack of reliable neutral historical sources and the abundance of possibilities, a miracle is as acceptable a theory as saying that Elvis is still alive.

@orathaic: that is, if he died. You are relying on the bible for your opinion, of course the info you'll have available will make you respect him like that (not that I disrespect him). It's interesting, though, that both other "people of the book" don't recognize this, but Muslim book states he wasn't even killed at all, for example. Jesus having been beaten and humiliated by the romans as no other had sounds as credible to me as the states saying that Irak has the nuke. Yea, sure it does.

Oh right, we've known for a long time that it doesn't. Some people still believe they did, though.

@ Dominic

"You assume I care for discussing with theists."

He's actually got a good reason for the assumption. I mean you are here and you're discussing with theists and all....

"If the resurrection was false, *why* would all of the apostles have sacrificed their lives for Christ long after his death?"

Well, they were mistaken is the obvious explanation of that. Otherwise, they were absurdly deceitful. The point I am making is that the evidence has to suggest that the resurrection almost certainly was not a miracle. Those who died thinking it was miraculous were mistaken, but I don't think that that was Thucydides' original question (but I wouldn't vouch for it).

"Theist" was the wrong term to use, actually. I have nothing whatsoever against theists, rather against those who follow organized religion. If someone believes everything the bible says, then he can come to no other conclusion that Jesus did resurrect and that it was indeed a miracle, as the possibility of surviving what was described is pretty much non-existent. But if the world wasn't created in 6 days, like the bible says, or that it didn't all start with Adam and Eve, that God didn't flood the entire planet to recolonize it with Noah, then why is it so far-fetched to think that maybe the part about Jesus getting martyred is also made-up folklore as well?

@TheGhostmaker - when you say "the evidence has to suggest that the resurrection almost certainly was not a miracle." what do you mean by that?

If it Christ was resurrected it was a miracle, if he wasn't then it is just a story. The only "evidence" we have is written documentation. Your last statement was exactly what the question was getting at:

"Those who died thinking it was miraculous were mistaken"

This is the entire point, the question asked, why would they take their faith to the grave. Why would they commit their lives to something they didn't believe happen. I think we can conclude that they (the disciples) believed that Jesus was resurrected, and that they died because they refused to recant their belief.

Now at the end of the day, you must question the meaning of the answer. You think that they were mistaken, I as a Christian do not. So what it essentially boils down to is that it is the question itself that is flawed. Christians find significance in the fact that the disciples took their faith to the grave, and non-christians think the disciples were delusional. Therefore the question is moot.

So far as the original question was concerned, it seems we've reached a concensus, namely that the non-Christian explanation is that they were mistaken. Let's break for lunch!

Yes, KaptainKool:
"If the resurrection was false, *why* would all of the apostles have sacrificed their lives for Christ long after his death?"
That is indeed my question.

And DominicHJ:
"they could have had their messages completely distorted by later leadership to make the message easier to spread and impose"
That is the closest satisfactory answer I have seen yet.

The reason I didn't "close the case" Stukus is that I found it hard to believe that they were mistaken. It doesn't make sense. They would have to be totally sure if they were to die like they did, and if there was any room for being mistaken (which human beings are pretty good at sensing), then one would think they'd have collapsed under pressure. What I mean is that people know if what they are saying is sort on shaky ground like "oh yeah actually we just sort of thought we saw Jesus... it could have been anybody but we like to think it was him."

No one is going to actually sit there on the stake, knowing the above, and essentially say "yes I stand by what I have said, which is that I spoke to Christ in the flesh after his death."

But anyway, I like the "they could have had their messages completely distorted by later leadership to make the message easier to spread and impose" explanation much better.

It makes sense. The reason for their dying is not totally clear, so it is more sensible to believe that they were not preaching what we now believe that they preached, but some other form of Jesus' message, and that the whole resurrection story and other detailed elements were added later without the Apostles' consent.

Much better.

NOW it just might be case closed.

You can be mistaken and think you're totally right. I mean, in both scenarios, they believe that Jesus came back from the dead. It's just in one they're right and in one they're wrong. That has no bearing on their certainty. I'm sure all of us have meet extremely certain and extremely wrong people.

Christianity was about monotheism, love, and pacifism which became popular among the poor and oppressed classes. It can be easy to see why the leaders of a polytheistic, slave-driven and militaristic empire would want such movement to stop, not to mention that monotheism means these slaves are much easier to rally together to start causing trouble and riots. The idea of Jesus being the son of god or that he was resurrected wouldn't have been necessary for the roman authorities to want to crush the movement.

Since you can explain the persecution of the apostles by omitting the resurrection, then clearly, to answer the initial question, their going to the grave to preach what they believed in does not prove the resurrection, as we only know they went to the grave for what they preached, not what they were actually preaching.

Also, with oral tradition, it's easy for stuff to get out of proportion over time, it's possible that the distortion was a honest mistake by people who actually believed it. The possible explanations of it are endless.

@ Thucydides

That might be an okay idea if the apostles weren't still alive when the first written testimonies came about. The earliest epistles that we have are well within the lifetime of the longest living apostles. The epistles being penned around 70 AD and St. Andrew living to around 80 AD. It seems unlikely that St. Paul (a comtemporary who was in contact with St. Peter, and St. James) would speak of the resurrection of Christ and not be corrected in some form. Peter and Paul had disagreements about lots of things that are documented. Why not this one? We have copies of the epistles from 70AD. They show no revision even though some of the aposltes' deaths are after that date.

@TGM (my apols Thucydides for the Natuarlism vs. Theism aside)

"I am biased against the supernatural? No. Every time we have an event that is explicable in terms of natural law, we have evidence in favour of natural law and therefore against what we call supernatural. Indeed, its very name is because of the overwhelming number of examples contrary to it. There has never been a miracle which is able to surpass all evidence in favour of physical law."


This is a wonderfully phrased affirmation of naturalistic philosophy; which is not to be confused with a “scientific outlook”. If the question is one of bias, let’s take a look at that last statement. It’s a clear bias toward one position. In response to it I’d only ask if you’ve seen all the data on all reported miracles (or even if there is data to be studied on all), or if you’re trying to generalize based an assumption. If you’re trying to generalize based on an assumption then you have a bias in favor of it.

I’m simply saying that as part of the discussion at hand. I’m willing to look at the evidence that I have available that pertains to this event.

@TGM

“But don't you see, now you are arguing that even without already believing in Christianity, I should still be concluding the truth of the resurrection? Well, from there the most likely conclusion is indeed Christianity, so in fact you are arguing that the argument from miracles works, even if you don't utilise that claim elsewhere.”

From there I can only conclude that I did not answer your question in a way that was convenient, so you need to reword my stance in a way that works better for your argument. Anyway you cut that, it’s a strawman. Let me be clear. I am willing to look at the evidence for and against this event occurring without asserting that it’s evidence of divinity. Please stop telling me what I ought to be arguing and attend to what I’m actually saying.

@TGM
“You cannot seriously claim that the supernatural and natural explanations lie on the same level. First, the supernatural explanation un-explains everything that was previously explained naturally, because the concept of physical law, cause and effect is now broken. But second, look where it leaves you- you have to admit that every time an apple falls, it is just as probable that there was a supernatural explanation as that it was gravity. Do you even countenance the possibility that the apple falling is caused by some supernatural effect?”

This is clearly the fallacy of reductio ad-absurdum. I accept that a group of eye-witnesses to an extremely rare event were probably not lying as they went to their death without recanting. Everything else you attribute to me is a clear misrepresentation. Gravity is completely unrelated to the issue and quite safe as far as I’m concerned.

@ TGM

“I have looked at the evidence, indeed, all the evidence. I have looked at the historical evidence, and given it benefit of doubt where I don't know it, and yes, for the sake of argument, let's say that the historical evidence points strongly towards a resurrection.”

Okay

“Now let's look at the scientific evidence. The Scientific evidence says to a certainty which is orders of magnitude stronger than the historical evidence that it is impossible. So we must choose the scientific evidence.”

What scientific evidence? Science states that if this occurred it would be singularly rare. It does not deal with events that cannot be replicated. Don’t take my word for it though. Here is another scientist (a chemist this time) and his thoughts specifically refuting your assertion that science has anything to say about this event.

http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/essays/resurrection.html#return2

Could they even read, the apostles?

@TGM

at the numbers part (which did get a giggle)

I dunno I'd estimate that the liklihood they were correct precisely at

754,879,122,768.68 to 1

so clearly the historical evidence is much nore compelling and I win


c'mon TGM

You might as well say the liklihood of God's existence is only 0.05% and base an argument off of that. I'd certainly quip that no I'd put the probability at 99.95%. You admit that it's based on estimate and therefore it has no weight at all. It's just a bunch of numbers with no base. Especially in light of the berger essay that refutes your assertion that there is any scientific evidence to be considered.