Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[Valjean]

That is funny, care to provide an example from any person in history who was crucified, left in the cross for 1 week and then buried in a tomb?

But anyway that wouldn’t contradict the fact that Jesus Died and was buried,





Ok ok maybe, but that is a whole different objection, we are dealing with Bart Ehrmans objection

1 claim: romans didn’t allowed the burial of crucified people

2 reply, yes sometimes they did made exceptions we know this because crucified people have been found in tombs / Given that Jesus didn’t committed any serious crime , he was likely to be considered an exception.



So do you agree that the claim has been properly replied?



That’s my point, from the point of view of the romans causing a runckus in a Jews temple was not a big of a deal (Romans didn’t care about Jewish symbols.)

It was not a serious crime and therefore it´s likely that the romans would have made an exception and allow for the proper burial of Jesus

 

[leroy]

There is a scholarly consensus that Jesus existed and was crucified, the rest is unsubstantiated, Paul neither met nor knew Jesus, and the authorships of the gospels is unknown, the earliest written account of the resurrection we have is 2 to 3 decades after the fact, from second or third hand through Paul that is the very definition of hearsay. Your 5 claims are not facts, and it is a lie to claim there is a scholarly consensus they are.

Well that definition of hearsay is very different from the one you provided before

Which one is it ?

 

[leroy]

If something has never been evidenced as possible how can it be more probable, than anything we know is possible? If r.

That is easy

If "X" has explanatory power explanatory scope, makes accurate predictions its parsimonious etc ....... then it could be a better candidate than "Y" even if the existence of "X " has not been stablished .


For example inflation is a better explanation for the "flatness of the universe" than elephants despite the fact that we know that elephants excist and are possible / and nobody has established that inflation is even possible.




The point is that not stablishing the existence of "X" is not a deal breaker / it could still be a better explanation than " Y" if X has ither strengths that Y lacks.

Do you agree with thus point ? Did you see your mistake?

 

[joelr]

That is funny, care to provide an example from any person in history who was crucified, left in the cross for 1 week and then buried in a tomb?

But anyway that wouldn’t contradict the fact that Jesus Died and was buried,

I told you. Ehrman did a research project on Roman crucifixion. From what he found bodies were not taken down the same day. They were left for a period of time - several days and he also looked for exceptions in the Roman records. He found a few but they would not apply to the Jesus story.

Ehrman referencing it on his blog. In an interview he goes into more depth and says the empt tomb could not have happened as written.


"In my previous post I quoted a number of ancient sources that indicated that part of the torture and humiliation of being crucified in antiquity was being left, helpless, exposed not just to the elements but to scavenging birds and other animals. These sources suggest that the normal practice was to leave the victims on the cross to be pecked and gnawed at both before and after death; in some instances there are indications that this would go on for days.

And so the question naturally arises if the same thing could be expected in the case of people being crucified in Judea around the year 30 CE. As I pointed out John Dominic Crossan maintains that this was indeed the case and that Jesus’ corpse probably met the same fate. I used to think that was a ridiculous position to take, but now I’m not so sure.

To decide the issue, one needs to consider the ancient evidence, not simply go on what your personal opinions are based on what you’ve always heard and read about Jesus being buried by Joseph of Arimathea. The question is whether it is likely that some such decent burial was allowed by the Romans. To answer the question one has to look for instances in which Romans allowed such a thing. To my knowledge – and I will be very happy indeed if someone can tell me of more evidence! – there are four pieces of evidence that can be cited, and are cited, to suggest that the Joseph story could well be historical. None of them, however, seems to me to apply ."

Ok ok maybe, but that is a whole different objection, we are dealing with Bart Ehrmans objection

1 claim: romans didn’t allowed the burial of crucified people

2 reply, yes sometimes they did made exceptions we know this because crucified people have been found in tombs / Given that Jesus didn’t committed any serious crime , he was likely to be considered an exception.



So do you agree that the claim has been properly replied?,

No according to Ehrmans research they left bodies up for several days do animals could pick at them for further humiliation. I don't know if they would be buried later at some point? I can't find the interview. I mean, this seems nit-picky compared to the points Carrier raises in his article about why Mark invented the empty tomb? There are so many good points to cover.
Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb? • Richard Carrier


"
And yet it’s worse than that even. We actually have evidence that Mark fabricated the story; not just a complete lack of evidence that he didn’t. Finding a tomb empty is conspicuously absent from Paul’s account of how the resurrection came to be believed (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). And of course Mark himself gives us a clue that he is fabricating when he conveniently lets slip that no one witness to it ever reported it—evidently, “until now” (see Mark 16:1-8). Always grounds for suspicion. But Matthew’s stated excuse for introducing guards into the story of the empty tomb narrative reveals a rhetoric that apparently only appeared after the publication of Mark’s account of an empty tomb, and this exposes the whole tale as an invention. For Mark shows no awareness of the problem Matthew was trying to solve (and with yet further fabrication—in his case borrowing ideas for this from the book of Daniel, as I show in Empty Tomb and, more briefly, Proving History; likewise, Matthew adds earthquakes to align the tale with the prophecy of Zechariah 14:5, and so on; Luke and John embellish the narrative yet further, though dropping nearly everything Matthew added: Historicity, p. 500-04; Empty Tomb, pp. 165-67).

It clearly hadn’t occurred to Mark when composing the empty tomb story that it would invite accusations the Christians stole the body—much less that any such accusations were already flying! Which should be evidence enough that Matthew invented that story, as otherwise surely that retort would have been a constant drum beat for decades already, powerfully motivating Mark to answer or resolve it—if his sources already hadn’t, and they most likely would have, and therefore so would he. If he was using sources at all. There can therefore have been no such accusation of theft by the time Mark wrote. The full weight of every probability is against it. Mark simply didn’t anticipate how his enemies would respond to his story. But this also means Mark must have invented the whole empty tomb story—precisely because no polemic against it had arisen by the time Mark published it. That a polemic against the tale only arose after Mark published it, evinces the fact that Mark is the first to have told it.

On top of that, is the fact that the earliest Christian history shows no knowledge of there having been any empty tomb story at any point in the religion’s first three decades. Though claiming the body was gone would peg Christians as suspects in a capital crime of grave robbery, an obvious boon their enemies would not fail to exploit, and though the book of Acts records case after case of Christians being interrogated at trial before both Jews and Romans on other offenses (e.g. Acts 4, 5, 6–7, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26), never once in this entire history of the church are they ever suspected of or questioned about grave robbery. It’s as if there was no missing body to investigate; no empty tomb known to the authorities. Which means the Christians can’t really have been pointing to one. If they had, they would have been questioned about it—and possibly convicted for it, innocent or not. Yet Acts shows there were no disputes at all regarding what happened to the body, not even false accusations of theft, or even questions or expressions of amazement."...

Also the resurrect after 3 days was a really popular myth
"The same idea was popular long before Judaism. The first recorded myth of a crucified and resurrected deity, that of the Sumerian goddess Innana, relates that after her naked, murdered corpse is nailed up, her minions come to feed her the food and water of life and she is raised back to life “after three days.” Many pagan legends of resurrection feature rising “on the third day,” including that of Aridaeus, Timarchus, and Rufus of Philippi "

That’s my point, from the point of view of the romans causing a runckus in a Jews temple was not a big of a deal (Romans didn’t care about Jewish symbols.)

It was not a serious crime and therefore it´s likely that the romans would have made an exception and allow for the proper burial of Jesus

Well then you need to meet your own standards. Find an example of Romans letting people off easy and getting a quick burial or a scholar who found one and can say why this relates to Jesus.

But if you want to come at this with this type of logic then there are other concerns. You don't escape Roman law without an issue?

"Worse than that, the Romans would have had an even more urgent worry than body-snatching: the Christians were supposedly preaching that Jesus had escaped his execution, was seen rallying his followers, and then disappeared. Pilate and the Sanhedrin would not likely believe claims of his resurrection or ascension (and there is no evidence they did), but if the tomb was empty and Christ’s followers were reporting that he had continued preaching to them and was still at large, Pilate would be compelled to assume an escape had occurred, and would have to haul every Christian in and interrogate every possible witness in a massive manhunt for what could only be to his mind an escaped convict—who was not only guilty of treason against Rome for claiming to be God and king, as all the Gospels allege (Mark 15:26; Matthew 27:37; Luke. 23:38; John 19:19-22), but now also guilty of escaping justice and continuing to lead a rebellion! And the Sanhedrin would feel the equally compelling need to finish what they had evidently failed to accomplish the first time: finding and killing Jesus.

Yet none of this happens. No one asks where Jesus is hiding or who aided him. No one is at all concerned that there may be an escaped convict, pretender to the throne, thwarter of Roman law and judgment, dire threat to Jewish authority, alive and well somewhere, and still giving orders to his followers. Why would no one care that the Christians were claiming they took him in, hid him from the authorities and fed him after his escape from justice (as Acts 1 pretends), unless in fact they weren’t really claiming any such thing back then? Harboring fugitives would have been accounted a crime. Why were they never charged with it? Think about it.

So either Acts deliberately suppresses the truth about what happened to the body and what was really being argued, said, and done about it (which eliminates Acts as being of any historical value, and supports every suspicion you might have had that the real story was actually embarrassing to Christians, not corroborative), or there was no missing body and no one was claiming there was. The latter is the most inherently probable, being the simplest of explanations, and the most consistent with all the other evidence. So there simply was no empty tomb. Mark made it up."

 

[joelr]

That is easy

If "X" has explanatory power explanatory scope, makes accurate predictions its parsimonious etc ....... then it could be a better candidate than "Y" even if the existence of "X " has not been stablished .


For example inflation is a better explanation for the "flatness of the universe" than elephants despite the fact that we know that elephants excist and are possible / and nobody has established that inflation is even possible.




The point is that not stablishing the existence of "X" is not a deal breaker / it could still be a better explanation than " Y" if X has ither strengths that Y lacks.

Do you agree with thus point ? Did you see your mistake?

Kind of like how the tomb being a myth (x) perfectly explains the reason for the story vs. (Y) being a literal reading.



"We therefore have no difficulty explaining why Mark would make this up. He made it up for the same reason he made up a story about Jesus magically drowning thousands of pigs (to relate a message about the doom attending militarism) and withering a fig tree for no reason (to relate a message about why God allowed his temple to be destroyed by heathens), both of which I discuss in Chapter 10.4 of Historicity. These things never happened. No one witnessed them. They were not stories people passed on orally about Jesus. Mark made all these things up. Just as he did the empty tomb.

Mark made all these things up to tell a story, the meaning of which lies in the interpretation, not the literal truth. Anyone who takes him literally, really isn’t getting it. They are, as Jesus says, the outsiders who hear but don’t understand, and who are therefore doomed; these are the people Mark has Jesus mock and condemn, so that:

They may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!

MARK 4:12
Such is the Christian who takes Mark to have meant his empty tomb story literally, as history, rather than as a symbol for his message, his message about the gospel, in other words, as a mythic stand in for the truth: that the least shall be first, and only those who give up on the body shall be saved.

 

[Sheldon]

Well that definition of hearsay is very different from the one you provided before

Which one is it ?

Every time you repeat this ludicrously dishonest falsehood, you're embarrassing yourself. It's clear this dishonest evasion is easier than addressing the content of the post.

There is a scholarly consensus that Jesus existed and was crucified, the rest is unsubstantiated, Paul neither met nor knew Jesus, and the authorships of the gospels is unknown, the earliest written account of the resurrection we have is 2 to 3 decades after the fact, from second or third hand through Paul that is the very definition of hearsay. Your 5 claims are not facts, and it is a lie to claim there is a scholarly consensus they are.

So your claim for five facts, supported by a scholarly consensus simply isn't true.

Hearsay
noun

1. information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour

This remains the primary dictionary definition, and I have not once strayed from it. Paul's writings were second hand at best, and of course beyond the crucifixion, and the existence of an historical Jesus cannot be substantiated, ipso facto they are hearsay. Your claim that these and your other claims were known to be true to a "high degree of certainty" is risible hyperbole, for all of those claims, and laughably false for most of them.

 

[Sheldon]

If something has never been evidenced as possible how can it be more probable, than anything we know is possible?

Your claim was demonstrably false, leaving that aside it was a subjective unevidenced claim, that a supernatural event was more probable than an unknown natural event.

If "X" has explanatory power explanatory scope, makes accurate predictions its parsimonious etc ....... then it could be a better candidate than "Y" even if the existence of "X " has not been stablished .

Supernatural claims are an appeal to mystery, they have no explanatory powers by definition.

Your analogy is of course yet another false equivalence fallacy. Since it involves a particularly idiotic straw man. You really ought to grasp what common logical fallacies are, and learn to avoid them.

The point is that not stablishing the existence of "X" is not a deal breaker / it could still be a better explanation than " Y" if X has ither strengths that Y lacks.

Another straw man fallacy, no one mentioned existence. We are discussing your claim that a supernatural resurrection we don't have any evidence is even possible, is a more probable explanation than an unknown natural event, which we know are possible.

Do you agree with thus point ? Did you see your mistake?

Which one?

I made no mistake, you don't even seem to understand what was said, as you've gone off into straw man fallacies about elephants causing universe expansion, and existence, when we were discussing possible as opposed to probable.

The starting point was your completely unevidenced assertion that a supernatural resurrection was the most probable explanation, of a hearsay event that a body was buried and then later was found to be missing from the tomb.

The claim is unevidenced subjective nonsense you simply made up, and it is axiomatic that there are multiple natural hypothesise that could better explain this hearsay event, and that are known to be possible, ipso facto they are more probable than an unevidenced supernatural miracle, we have no evidence is even possible. Your elephant analogy is a false equivalence fallacy, since it involves a ludicrous straw man claim about elephants no one has used.

 

[leroy]

Every time you repeat this ludicrously dishonest falsehood, you're embarrassing yourself. It's clear this dishonest evasion is easier than addressing the content of the post.



So your claim for five facts, supported by a scholarly consensus simply isn't true.

Hearsay
noun

1. information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour

This remains the primary dictionary definition, and I have not once strayed from it. Paul's writings were second hand at best, and of course beyond the crucifixion, and the existence of an historical Jesus cannot be substantiated, ipso facto they are hearsay. Your claim that these and your other claims were known to be true to a "high degree of certainty" is risible hyperbole, for all of those claims, and laughably false for most of them.

Your claim that these and your other claims were known to be true to a "high degree of certainty

The why aren't you dealing with the evidence that has been provided multiole times ? Rather that repeating Hearsay Hearsay without any justification?

For example the emty tomb is supported by the fact that multiple independent sources talk about it ...... making the "hearsay hypothesis " unlikely because it is unlikely for multiple independent sources to invent the same rumor

 

[leroy]

Your analogy is of course yet another false equivalence fallacy. Since it involves a particularly idiotic straw man. You really ought to grasp what common logical fallacies are, and learn to avoid them.

Its not a strawman / you are clearly saying that explanations that are known to be possible are "ipso facto" more probably true than explanations that are not know to be possible.

The starting point was your completely unevidenced assertion that a supernatural resurrection was the most probable explanation

,

Yes and I still hold that view, the resurection is the best explanation / feel free to provide your favorite explanation / elaborate your hypothesis and explain why is it a better explanation.

The claim is unevidenced subjective nonsense

Then it shouldn't be hard to provide a better hypothesis

you simply made up, and it is axiomatic that there are multiple natural hypothesise that could better explain this hearsay event, and that are known to be possible, ipso facto they are more probable

Why support your claim / again elephants are not ipso facto a more probable explanation than inflation for the flatness of the universe despite the fact we know that elephants are possible.

E] Your elephant analogy is a false equivalence fallacy, since it involves a ludicrous straw man claim about elephants no one has used.

The point of the analogy is that something that is known to be possible is not necessarily a better explanation than something that we don't know if its possible.

Do you agree with the point ?

 

[Sheldon]

The why aren't you dealing with the evidence that has been provided multiole times ? Rather that repeating Hearsay Hearsay without any justification?

I have labelled as hearsay, only that which is demonstrably hearsay, I cannot be culpable if you set your personal bar for belief so low as to think second and third hand hearsay is sufficient evidence for any claim, let alone to support extraordinary claims about supernatural magic.

For example the emty tomb is supported by the fact that multiple independent sources talk about it ......

No it isn't, there is a scholarly consensus for an historical Jesus and the crucifixion. Though even these are not "known to be facts to a high degree of certainty" as you falsely asserted. The empty tomb is second hand hearsay at best. It would also of course not support any conclusion, even if we knew the body had been in there, and then disappeared with no idea how it happened, all we would have is an inexplicable event. As has been explained already.

making the "hearsay hypothesis " unlikely because it is unlikely for multiple independent sources to invent the same rumor

You don't have multiple independent sources, the gospel authorships are unknown, and the earliest examples we have date well after the event, thus by definition they are third hand hearsay. Paul's writings likewise are not contemporary, dating to decades after the fact, thus again they are by definition hearsay. If you think hearsay from different authors means it ceases to be hearsay, then again, this failure in reasoning is something you will have to come to understand yourself, or not of course, as I see little honest motive on your part to examine these claims and beliefs critically.

 

[Sheldon]

Its not a strawman

Don't be idiotic, please quote anyone claiming an elephant caused the expansion of the universe? They did not, ipso facto it was a straw man you created, to create a false equivalence fallacy.

Yes and I still hold that view, the resurection is the best explanation

And it's unevidenced nonsense.

feel free to provide your favorite explanation / elaborate your hypothesis and explain why is it a better explanation.

I don't need an alternative, it's your claim and your belief. You are again using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. The anecdotal hearsay presented does not support any conclusion. Least of all an extraordinary supernatural one based on inexplicable magic.

Then it shouldn't be hard to provide a better hypothesis

It's not, I hold no beliefs about it, since there is nothing but second and third hand hearsay to examine. However as you were told before, hypothetically if we wanted to indulge in conjecture...

1. The whole thing is made up.
2. The body was never in the tomb.
3. There was no empty tomb.
4. The body was removed from the tomb.

If you want to indulge in conjecture, and to be clear I do not, then there are 4 explanations, and not one of them needs any appeals to mystery, magic or anything supernatural. The more extraordinary the claim, the more more extraordinary the evidence must be, thus those 4 conjectures would be more probable, thus your claim a supernatural event of inexplicable magic is the most probable explanation, is demonstrably false, not least because it has no explanatory powers at all, since all miracles and claims for supernatural events are appeals to mystery. .

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Why support your claim / again elephants are not ipso facto a more probable explanation than inflation for the flatness of the universe despite the fact we know that elephants are possible.

I never claimed they were, that is demonstrably a straw man you created, to create a false equivalence, sadly you don't seem to understand your error, but again I encourage you to learn about common logical fallacies.

The point of the analogy is that something that is known to be possible is not necessarily a better explanation than something that we don't know if its possible.

In your false equivalence using your straw man, but not in the example being discussed. Since I said any natural explanation, and elephants are not an explanation, natural or otherwise, for the expansion of the universe, this was an idiotic straw man you created.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's not, I hold no beliefs about it, since there is nothing but second and third hand hearsay to examine. However as you were told before, hypothetically if we wanted to indulge in conjecture...

1. The whole thing is made up.
2. The body was never in the tomb.
3. There was no empty tomb.
4. The body was removed from the tomb.

I am voting for 1. The whole thing is made up.

 

[leroy]

You don't have multiple independent sources,

there are 8 independent sources that you keep ignoring (sources at the end of this post)

the gospel authorships are unknown

Irrelevant we still have 6 independent sources (multiple independent sources disprove the hearsay hypothesis)

, and the earliest examples we have date well after the event, thus by definition they are third hand hearsay.

Paul's writings likewise are not contemporary, dating to decades after the fact, thus again they are by definition hearsay

So any text that is not contemposary is hearsay by definition?

. If you think hearsay from different authors means it ceases to be hearsay,

Since you are just playing semantic games with the term hearsay your comment is meaningless // but multiple independent sources disprove that the event is an “unsupported rumor” (which was your original definition of hearsay)

1. Mark’s Gospel closes with the story of the women’s discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb. But Mark did not compose his account out of whole cloth. He appears to have drawn upon a prior source for Jesus’ Passion, that is, the final week of his suffering and death. When you read the Gospel of Mark, you will find that it consists of a series of unconnected anecdotes about Jesus, rather like beads on a string, which may not always be chronologically arranged. But when it comes to the final week of Jesus’ life, we do find a continuous, chronological account of his activities, arrest, trial, condemnation and death. Scholars thus think that Mark drew upon a pre-Markan Passion story in the composition of his Gospel. Interestingly, this pre-Markan Passion source probably included the account of Jesus’ burial by Joseph in the tomb and the women’s discovery of the empty tomb. Since Mark is already the earliest of our Gospels, this pre-Markan Passion story is an extremely early source which is valuable for our reconstruction of the fate of Jesus of Nazareth, including his burial and empty tomb.

2. Matthew clearly had independent sources (designated “M”) apart from Mark for the story of the empty tomb, for he includes the story of the guard posted at Jesus’ tomb, a story not found in Mark. The story is not Matthew’s creation because it is suffused with non-Matthean vocabulary, which indicates that he is drawing upon prior tradition. Moreover, the polemic between Jewish Christians and Jewish non-Christians presupposes a history of dispute that probably goes back before the destruction of Jerusalem to the earliest debates in that city over the disciples’ proclamation, “He is risen from the dead.”

3. Luke also has independent sources (designated “L”) for the empty tomb, since he includes the story of the visit of Peter and another, unnamed disciple to Jesus’ tomb to verify the women’s report. This incident cannot be a Lukan creation because it is also mentioned in John, which is independent of Luke’s Gospel.

4. John’s Gospel is generally recognized to be independent of the other three, called the Synoptic Gospels. John also has an empty tomb narrative which some would say is the most primitive tradition of all.

5. The apostolic sermons in the book of Acts were probably not created by Luke out of whole cloth but also draw upon prior tradition for the early apostolic preaching. In Acts 2, Peter contrasts King David, whose “tomb is with us to this day,” with Jesus, whom “God raised up.” The contrast clearly implies that Jesus’ tomb was empty.

6. In I Corinthians 15.3-5, Paul quotes an old Christian formula summarizing the apostolic preaching. The pre-Pauline formula has been dated to go back to within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion. The second line of the formula refers to Jesus’ burial and the third line to his rising from the dead. No first century Jew could have understood this in any other way than that Jesus’ body no longer lay in the grave. But was the burial mentioned by the pre-Pauline formula Jesus’ burial by Joseph in the tomb? A comparison of the four-line formula with the Gospels on the one hand and the apostolic sermons, for example in Acts 13, on the other allows us to answer that question with confidence. The pre-Pauline formula is an outline, point for point, of the principal events of Jesus’ death and resurrection as related in the Gospels and Acts

 

[Sheldon]

there are 8 independent sources that you keep ignoring (sources at the end of this post)

No there aren't.

You don't have multiple independent sources, the gospel authorships are unknown, and the earliest examples we have date well after the event, thus by definition they are third hand hearsay. Paul's writings likewise are not contemporary, dating to decades after the fact, thus again they are by definition hearsay.

Irrelevant

No it's not.

we still have 6 independent sources

No you don't. Though losing two from your hyperbole is progress of a sort I suppose.

(multiple independent sources disprove the hearsay hypothesis)

No they don't. You can't add hearsay accounts together and pretend this means they're not hearsay.

So any text that is not contemposary is hearsay by definition?

Oh ffs... You've had all the definitions of hearsay I'm prepared to give, learn what it means or don't, but your relentless misrepresentation is tedious.

You don't have multiple independent sources, the gospel authorships are unknown, and the earliest examples we have date well after the event, thus by definition they are third hand hearsay. Paul's writings likewise are not contemporary, dating to decades after the fact, thus again they are by definition hearsay. If you think hearsay from different authors means it ceases to be hearsay, then again, this failure in reasoning is something you will have to come to understand yourself, or not of course, as I see little honest motive on your part to examine these claims and beliefs critically.

Since you are just playing semantic games with the term hearsay your comment is meaningless //

I disagree, though I shan't even feign surprise you evaded the point.

but multiple independent sources disprove that the event is an “unsupported rumor”

There are not multiple sources, and beyond the claim for an historical Jesus and the crucifixion they are not supported outside of the bible. The bible accounts are hearsay, written long after the event.

 

[Valjean]

The why aren't you dealing with the evidence that has been provided multiole times ? Rather that repeating Hearsay Hearsay without any justification?

For example the emty tomb is supported by the fact that multiple independent sources talk about it ...... making the "hearsay hypothesis " unlikely because it is unlikely for multiple independent sources to invent the same rumor

The empty tomb is at least four DIFFERENT stories, and they remain stories, by unknown authors with an agenda, and no outside, supporting evidence.
Moreover, an empty tomb story, even if true, is not evidence for Christ's resurrection, miracles or divinity.

 

[Valjean]

Its not a strawman / you are clearly saying that explanations that are known to be possible are "ipso facto" more probably true than explanations that are not know to be possible.

What explanations? "Goddidit" is not an explanation.

Yes and I still hold that view, the resurection is the best explanation / feel free to provide your favorite explanation / elaborate your hypothesis and explain why is it a better explanation.

Explanation for what, for a story, a legend?

Then it shouldn't be hard to provide a better hypothesis

For what, an unevidenced legend? You need to establish the fact before you attempt to 'explain' it.

Why support your claim / again elephants are not ipso facto a more probable explanation than inflation for the flatness of the universe despite the fact we know that elephants are possible.

The elephants were never an explanation of mechanism, nor was there ever evidence for them. There is no equivalence here.

The point of the analogy is that something that is known to be possible is not necessarily a better explanation than something that we don't know if its possible.

But it is. Not known to be possible is logically and automatically dismissed till evidence of, at least, possibility is produced. It's not an analogy.

 

[Valjean]

there are 8 independent sources that you keep ignoring (sources at the end of this post)

Unevidenced sources. You're supporting hearsay with more hearsay, from sources with an agenda.

Irrelevant we still have 6 independent sources (multiple independent sources disprove the hearsay hypothesis)

You don't understand hearsay. Hearsay remains hearsay even if a thousand independent, disinterested eyewitnesses are produced, with photos, video, audio, fingerprints, DNA and a smoking gun. Hearsay doesn't equal false. Hearsay remains hearsay even if it's a report of an actual, true event.

Since you are just playing semantic games with the term hearsay your comment is meaningless // but multiple independent sources disprove that the event is an “unsupported rumor” (which was your original definition of hearsay)

The story remains very poorly evidenced -- and irrelevant. You can find multiple sources attesting to miraculous events from a hundred different religious myths.
An empty tomb is not evidence of anything but a tomb with nobody in it.

 

[leroy]

Don't be idiotic, please quote anyone claiming an elephant caused the expansion of the universe? They did not, ipso facto it was a straw man you created, to create a false equivalence fallacy.

and elephants are not an explanation,

( @Valjean made a similar point)

Ok one would wonder what you mean by "explanation " but ok ill change elephants for something more realistic.

Based on your reasoning "chance" is a better explanation for the flatness of the universe than inflation.

1 we know chance is possible, perhaps simply by chance the universe happened to have the correct amout of matter. (This is known to be possible)

2 we don't know if inflation is possible, we dont know any mechanism that could cause inflation.

So by your logic chance should be prefered over inflation. (And most scientistswiuld disagree with you)..... now honestly cant you see the flaws of this reasoning ?

1. The whole thing is made up.
2. The body was never in the tomb.
3. There was no empty tomb.
b.

And would you claim that any of these hypothesis is more likely to be true than "the tomb was empty " ?

,

is demonstrably false, not least because it has no explanatory powers at all, since all miracles and claims for supernatural events are appeals to mystery. .

You dont have to accept any supernatural stuff , you can accept the emty tomb and the other 4 facts without concluding "miracles "

But Ofcourse its much more convenient to keep your view vague and ambiguous and avoid rejecting or accepting explicitly these facts

 

[leroy]

No they don't. You can't add hearsay accounts together and pretend this means they're not hearsay.

@Valjean made a similar point.

If multiple independent accounts report the same event, then its not hearsay that is the point. Multiple independent sources are unlikely to invent the same rumor.

 

[leroy]

The empty tomb is at least four DIFFERENT stories,

In fact there are 6 different" stories " isen't this amazing you have 6 independent sources reporting the same event

and they remain stories, by unknown authors with an agenda

,

What was their agenda?

and no outside, supporting evidence.

Outside from where? ....... you have 6 independent sources written within 1 generation reporting the same event (emty tomb) what do you mean by "outside " ?