Re: For those who answered \"yes\"
 

"Unfair debating mister. You can't bring thes things up later. My post merely stated that the three arguments you originally mentioned were hardly persuasive given what you were arguing for."

I'm not bringing anything up that wasn't originally part of the discussion. The things I mentioned are part of the resurrection accounts in the Bible. It's not my fault if you didn't know that or understand the topic before we began this discussion.

Re: Question for the Non-Christians
 

Don't need one. 'Cuz it can't happen.

Re: Question for the Non-Christians
 

"God suddenly appeared and spoke to whole world simultaneously, or even a few thousand people."

I think about this one a lot, or at least try to. I haven't caught any unicorns eating apples in my backyard yet either, i guess.

Re: Question for the Non-Christians
 

How do you know it cant happen? How certain are you? Clearly you come to the table with some very strong presuppositions.

..."Miracles cannot happen because they cannot happen."

Re: For those who answered \"yes\"
 

"If Jesus did not rise from the dead, how do you explain the following:

1. Jesus staked his entire ministry on the fact that he would rise from the dead. Why would he risk destroying the entire movement of Christianity on a false prophecy?

2. The tombs of other religious leaders are visited and worshipped by many each year. This is true of Buddha, Confusious, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. Why is the same not true for Jesus?

3. The disciples hid following the arrest of Jesus for fear of being put to death. After the alleged resurrection, the disciples suddenly began to preach without fear of death. Why?"


1. People maintain whoppers all the time. Aren't there faith healers who maintain their "callings" with fakery? Haven't there been politicians who have maintained their good name with a string of lies, never expecting to be caught? I'm going to rise from the dead, I tell my cohorts, make sure I do.

2. & 3.: Wouldn't these things have happened if people merely thought that Jesus was resurrected, whether or not he really was?

Re: For those who answered \"yes\"
 

1. People maintain whoppers all the time. Aren't there faith healers who maintain their "callings" with fakery? Haven't there been politicians who have maintained their good name with a string of lies, never expecting to be caught? I'm going to rise from the dead, I tell my cohorts, make sure I do.

2. & 3.: Wouldn't these things have happened if people merely thought that Jesus was resurrected, whether or not he really was?

I find it quite offensive that you want to answer these deep religious questions with simple logic. Just because you might be good at puzzles doesn't mean that you are somehow better than other people (who use their heart and their pancreas for these questions, rather than their brain).

It is obvious ..
 

..ly the only sane thing to do. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: What have we learned so far?
 

[ QUOTE ]

You are wrong buster. It doesn't matter that Jesus being resurrected doesn't logically guarantee that Christianity is true. That wasn't what the question asked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to bump a thread that's been dead for a few days, but I had been away and had to respond.

Your word choice belies a certain amount of unwarranted hedging. You say, "doesn't logically guarantee," where the connotation is quite clear. You'd do better to say, "doesn't logically do much of anything." Denotatively, I suppose you can equate those two, but I hardly think you mean to.

As for the question asked, I suppose you could be correct in one sense (although I doubt it, since you don't hint at it all): I ignored the possibility of irrational conversion; someone could answer 'yes' honestly even if they understood the irrationality, if they felt like they would be emotionally or psychologically unable to maintain a course of reason under that circumstance. Perhaps I made an error in reading between the lines of the OP question. Perhaps he was really asking about some sort of personal reaction, rather than whether or not it would be logically convincing. If that's the case, though, who the [censored] cares?

[ QUOTE ]
If Jesus was in fact truly ressurected, it would be overwheming evidence that basic Chritianity is true. (And if even ONE mega miracle in the bible actually happened, God exists.) Anybody who thinks differently is the atheistic equivalent to spaminator.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply wrong, ahem, buster. Piers already addressed it pretty well, not to mention Nietzche in "Geneology of Morals." Given even a cursory examination of human history and psychology, it would be completely unsurprising for a mythology filled with fiction (ranging from mild to utter), like christianity, to arise from an event like the resurrection.

This is all assuming of course, as I believe Piers pointed out, that you don't just lump the entire definition of christianity into the word 'resurrection.' I'm taking it to mean, "a guy named Jesus was, by all measures, dead for a few days, then wasn't." This is the only honest way to define it for the question at hand. Note that I've completely dismissed trickery or magic or scientific ignorance; I'm granting the OP this much, which I think is fair.

David, I repeatedly see you express an acknowledged ignorance of major works of philosophy and religion, which you feel is excusable as you're only looking to work on a logical basis. I can sort of admire this (read: not completely dismiss it), but you put yourself at a huge disadvantage. Almost every time you ask a question or pose an argument that strays from basic issues of logic and math, this becomes apparent.

I'm thrilled that books like "Theory of Poker" and "Small Stakes Holdem" exist. There's no shame in doing a little reading to see what, in some cases, thousands of years of human thought as come up with. SSH probably saved me a year of learning and thinking about poker when I started becoming serious about it. A little sampler of modern philosophy might help you in a similar fashion. I'm just sayin'....

Re: What have we learned so far?
 

"If Jesus was in fact truly ressurected, it would be overwheming evidence that basic Chritianity is true. (And if even ONE mega miracle in the bible actually happened, God exists.) Anybody who thinks differently is the atheistic equivalent to spaminator.


This is simply wrong, ahem, buster. Piers already addressed it pretty well, not to mention Nietzche in "Geneology of Morals." Given even a cursory examination of human history and psychology, it would be completely unsurprising for a mythology filled with fiction (ranging from mild to utter), like christianity, to arise from an event like the resurrection."

Still wrong buster. As long as you agree that a resurrection is against the laws of physics, is therefore, before the fact, an event that has an infintesimal probability, and was predicted in advance. Last point being very important. (See my chapter on Coincidences in Poker Gaming and Life. The general concept, by the way, was given the stamp of approval by world reknowned statistician Persi Diaconis.)

Re: What have we learned so far?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Still wrong buster. As long as you agree that a resurrection is against the laws of physics, is therefore, before the fact, an event that has an infintesimal probability, and was predicted in advance. Last point being very important. (See my chapter on Coincidences in Poker Gaming and Life. The general concept, by the way, was given the stamp of approval by world reknowned statistician Persi Diaconis.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I mentioned it before but 'against the laws of physics' is the issue of diagreement. Most of the disagreements about logic have in fact been about the meaning of the premise.

chez