The Resurrection is it provable?

[Sheldon]

Craigs second unjustified assumption is that life could not exist if the constants were different. How does he know that?

He doesn't it is an assumption. The best we could say is that if the physical characteristics of the universe were altered sufficiently, life as we know it would not be possible, we don't know that other kinds of life are not possible of course, but WLC loves to make unevidenced assumptions like this, and pretend it is scientifically valid.

Now one could argue that human life could not exist, but we don't know if other life forms could or could not exist with other rules. That argument is totally BS.

Agreed, WLC's apologetics are very poorly reasoned.

 

[rational experiences]

If humans quote I'm looking for my exact human beginnings only.

Then maybe you might tell the truth for once.

As forum arguing first is not identifying the organisation experiments based on just human self belief or any real thesis.

Scientists status is I'm theorising about such and such.

You're not included in the other secret sciences beliefs as humans. Their argument is not sharing what they claim is fact.

It's humans bio life as compared to his machine position and machines reaction.

The thesis.

You argue there is no comparison.

His argument is by human greed not science which you don't seem to be arguing against. He's not being scientific in fact. As he is just a human always.

Father's memories state he is arguing a human is a machine direct to have a bio link to a resource. That he invents himself. By his choices.

As machines are in thesis always with weapons of destruction by human choice. Same mind status.

His thesis is I believe bio life began by the same thesis I use to gain alchemic converting to build my machine.

Is the argument.

Hence as human biology only exists in our type of form. We're Not a dinosaurs life bio type. We are in biology exact a life on gods earth inside gods heavens after ice saviour.

Which is not a thesis when you weren't ever a dinosaur.

Therefore humans now are arguing humans used intelligence is now. Position our present moment is instant always.

To think and compare which is only a living human using humans natural observations.....doesn't matter what machine you use to identify.

It's only about the human. And a human as a theist. Humans consciousness. And his humans theory first is not the practice science.

As humans science is only I build invent a machine. Then I put any type of mass myself inside the machine and attack it.

 

[joelr]

Then again... it doesn't make it false either

Of course not. But that's why if you want to know what is most likely true you use empirical evidence. Islamic, Hindu and Christian apologetics are not supported by actual evidence.

 

[joelr]

so you have studied pretty much everyone who disagrees with my position. Like those who go to Ivy League schools, you graduate with what is placed in your heart.

First of all what is your position then? Did I not say I also study Christian apologetics and listed several of them?
Are you not familiar with apologetics?
Second on the opposite side are historians who are trained to do history as a science. That means your aim is to find out what the true version of history was. What is placed in their hearts is the desire to be a good historian which means being as accurate as possible.
When Dr Carrier began his Jesus historicity project he was familiar with hundreds of books from the field and he expected he would confirm their findings. To his surprise he found many of the facts were actually based on assumptions that did not hold up upon investigation. He is following the truth.

As believers in the words of Jesus as he said, "From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks"...

No Jesus probably never said that. We understand Matthews gospel fairly well, aside from copying Mark he used the Septuagint for the Sermon and he probably used Proverbs to create that line for Jesus.

Proverbs 15:7 -
The lips of the wise disperse knowledge: but the heart of the foolish doeth not so.

But by all means, correct me? Explain the evidence? Posting aphorisms doesn't make any points? The sayings of a copy-cat savior Greek/Persian demigod are most likely taken from another source. So that isn't much of a point.

Last I looked, you posted an unsourced article from a fundamentalist site and then required others they produce peer-reviewed works. Which is fine, I can do that when needed. I don't get information from amateur secular sites, clearly bias, unsourced crank.

Likewise, what one meditates in, grows. In your case in that which is contrary to what was written.

It would be a good backhanded insult at my position except it just ends up being sad irony on your part. Because like I mentioned, I look at both sides. When a claim is made I look to see if there is actual evidence to warrant belief in that claim, or is it just a bunch of people repeating the same thing and insisting it's true?
What I meditate in, as does anyone who actually cares about what is actually true rather than what they want to be true, is truth, critical thinking, empiricism, rational and skeptical thinking.
It's by far shown to be a better path to truth.
Of course billions of Christians disagree. But so do billions in Islam and billions in Hinduism. In fact Christianity is only 1/3 of all religious believers. So 2/3 believe something else.

So we have empirical evidence (from a Christian point of view) that 2/3 of all religious believers are actually believing something completely wrong. Literally Fiction. Yet their apologetics and personal experience tells them they are in the true religion. Clear evidence that an organized religion with billions of followers can be completely untrue.

When one meditates in apologetics and stories that are not supported by evidence then false beliefs grow.

 

[joelr]

So, we have a opinion... Did you notice the words "probably" et al? And after all the "probables" he then acted as if it was true?

Nice story. At the expense of all the historical writings that would be contrary to how he views it.

First of all the naming scheme is not "probably" but definitely means "according to". At that time "according to" was a common way to cite a source.
It is an unusual way to start a Gospel so he says this "probably" shows one person named these books. It's funny that you are putting down a reasonable inductive argument yet you believe a religion is true because it says it is?

The next "probably" is mid 2nd century when they were dated. This goes into vast Christian scholarship and reasons why they believe they were named mid 2nd century. These are the most likely based on the available evidence. So you can say "probably".

This is how history is spoken about sometimes because even though it's a best guess based on lines of evidence we were not there. Very strange that you would listen to a Biblical historian giving some history about your religion and you hand wave it off as a "story" because he says "probably". Without even knowing the extent of why they think that. It shows you are not interested in anything that doesn't back up what you want to be true. This is the quickest way to believe false things. Islamic fundamentalists also have no regard for history and find every excuse why it's wrong and Muhammad actually did get revelations about an updated Christianity.
Islamic apologetics are also debunked in the same way, with "probably". Is the Quran a miracle from God because of the science it contains? Or did the Arab scholars who helped compose it "probably" take Greek science from Christian storage and preservation librarys?
Is the Quran a miracle from God because one could never reproduce it's style? Or is it that "probably" most scriptures would be hard to duplicate because all have unique styles?

 

[joelr]

So in summery

1 I presented an article that concludes that sometimes crucified people where buried

2 2 examples of tombs form crucified people

3 most scholars accept the burial of Jesus

And none accept any supernatural events. All accept this is shared religious mythology.

4 we have at least 2 indepednent testimonies (Paul Mark) confirming that Jesus was buried

We have several papers and hundreds of examples of Mark sourcing Paul. Besides the araticle from Carrier you ignored:
The principal works to consult on this (all of which from peer reviewed academic presses) are:

• Michael Bird & Joel Willitts, Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (T&T Clark 2011)
• David Oliver Smith, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul: The Influence of the Epistles on the Synoptic Gospels (Resource 2011)
• Tom Dykstra, Mark: Canonizer of Paul (OCABS 2012)
• Oda Wischmeyer & David Sim, eds., Paul and Mark: Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (de Gruyter 2014)
• Eve-Marie Becker et al., Mark and Paul: For and Against Pauline Influence on Mark (de Gruyter 2014)
• Thomas Nelligan, The Quest for Mark’s Sources: An Exploration of the Case for Mark’s Use of First Corinthians (Pickwick 2015)

5 the burial of jesus had no theological meaning (so why would paul and marl lie)

They didn't lie, there are myths. Romulus died and was buried then ascended to the Gods.
In Philo and Josephus Moses is as well.

This sets up Jesus for his ascension/resurrection.

"Why would they lie" is an argument you make often. Yet we know there are forged Epistles. We know there are 38 other Gospels and we know there are over 50% Gnostic gospels with completely different theology. Some including a demiorge and Jesus and Yahweh being different Gods. There are "lies" everywhere in the religion? Even by the logic of a believer? Yet you still think people won't lie?

 

[joelr]

Again the abstract is clear, it is talking about roman crucifixions,

I said what I had to say, I am just sharing the evidence that convinced me that the event is historical.

Awaiting for your “evidence” that the example that I gave of a tomb with a crucified man has been refuted.

Yeah I've been giving evidence refuting many of your claims, such as Paul and Mark being independent and you are fine ignoring it.

 

[joelr]

A

1 Richar Career claims that James was not the biological brother of Jesus but rather sort of “spiritual brother”

2
I think his is wrong, multiple sources (Paul, Gospels, Josephus, Clement etc. ) refer to James as the biological brother of Jesus

No he claims the evidence points to spiritual brother.
And he proves it with evidence

Carriers original point on James being a spiritual brother has not been debunked by any scholar-
Link Not Found • Richard Carrier

Scholarship on Josephus since 2014 on both passages demonstrate both are not authentic -
Josephus on Jesus? Why You Can't Cite Opinions Before 2014 • Richard Carrier


Once again, you are just dismissing evidence to form a make-believe narrative.

This has all been discussed with you. Apparently since time has gone by you thought it would just go away.
You are clearly not interested in any actual debate unless it's jury-rigged to ignore scholarship.


You "think" he is wrong? You "think"?????
He deals with Paul in the first article and shows why we cannot say what he means.
The Gospels are copying Mark which sources Paul
Josephus is dealt with by multiple scholars above
Clement was writing in 180 AD? Using the Gospels.

 

[joelr]

Agree, I don’t know “for sure” that Jesus was buried, all I am saying is that this event is likely to be true.

Mark can be shown to be writing fiction in several different ways. Literary, literary devices, sources, verbatim OT, sourcing and transforming OT stories to fit Jesus.........Nothing in the Gospels is likely to be true.

Granted, the empty tomb by itself is not strong evidence .it’s part of a cumulative case. … but it is still a correct prediction and it is still evidence in the sense that given the empty tomb the resurrection becomes more likely than without the empty tomb.

Yes part of a cumulative case where Jewish people were occupied by people who already believed in everything in the NT. Then mysteriously, as other nations are getting their religion transformed by these myths so does Judaism. For 100 years sects cannot decide between radical Gnostic versions or orthadox and it's settles in 3AD. If something real happened people might actually agree?

I am not sure If I understood the question, but I would say that they saw a real physical body of the resurrected Jesus

Then you don't understand the mythology. Jesus does not resurrect in a physical body. Paul calls people fools who think that.
(1 Cor 15:4, 12–17, 20) to mean that Jesus has been taken up into heaven in a celestial form or body discontinuous with his earthly, flesh and bones body.
“We no longer know Jesus according to the flesh…” (2 Corinthians 5:16).

Well let’s say that you saw you’re friend who just died 3 days ago and you whant to determine if it was an illusion or a real experience (he really appeared physically)

If it was an illusion and you go to his grave, you would expect to find his body, if the experience was real you would expect to find the tomb empty….. so in this sense the emty tomb counst as a correct prediction .[/QUOTE]


Yes a correct prediction that this is another resurrecting savior myth


Plutarch goes on to explicitly state that this resurrection on earth (set in actual earth history) in the same body he died in (reassembled and restored to life) was the popular belief, promoted in allegorical tales by the priesthood—as was also the god’s later descent to rule Hades. But the secret “true” belief taught among the initiated priesthood was that Osiris becomes incarnate, dies, and rises back to life every year in a secret cosmic battle in the sublunar heavens. So in fact, contrary to Ehrman (who evidently never actually read any of the sources on this point), Plutarch says the belief that Osiris went to Hades was false (On Isis and Osiris 78); and yet even in that “public” tale, Osiris rules in Hades in his old body of flesh, restored to life. Hence still plainly resurrected. But as Plutarch explains (On Isis and Osiris 25-27 & 54 and 58), the esoteric truth was that the god’s death and resurrection occurs in sublunar space, after each year descending and taking on a mortal body to die in; and that event definitely involved coming back to life in a new superior body, in which Osiris ascends to a higher realm to rule from above, all exactly as was said of the risen Jesus (who no more remained on earth than Osiris did). The only difference is that when importing this into Judaism, which had not a cyclical-eternal but a linear-apocalyptic conception of theological history, they converted the god’s dying-and-rising to a singular apocalyptic event.

 

[joelr]

Paul knew James the brother of Jesus, and some of the apostoles (atleast Peter and John)

The word Paul used for brother is the same word he used in other text as brother in the Lord. He did not use the word for biological brother.

The question is, why would Mark and Paul lie about the burial? Even if he would have been buried in a common grave the meaning and significance of the resurrection would have been the same. ...

It's a myth. Why would the Church fathers create fake Epistles? Why was the Quran written? Why were all the Hindu scriptures written? Why were the gospels of Hercules written?
Why was every holy book in the Canaanite, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Assyrian, Thracian, and other written??????????????
They are ALL WRITTEN TO BE TRUE?


Why did Joe Smith write the Mormon revelations?

It´s nothing personal, sometimes it´s hard to keep up with a conversation, sometimes I simply forget about previous posts.

Yes I said that it can be established as a highly probable fact that people saw something that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus.

And I would suggest that the experience was real, they really saw Jesus (it was not an illusion, nor a fraud, nor a mistake)……….did I answer your question?

Then Muhammad actually saw the Angel Gabrielle and got updates on Christianity.


But Paul only saw visions.
The Gospel stories, Mark, is fiction. All he does is source and re-write fiction and place events in ring structure, triadic cycles, chisamus, events nestled in events, this is only how fiction is written.

But if you want to believe random supernatural events with zero evidence then you might want to pay attention to the Angel Gabrielle. She has important news about Christianity and a painful doom for all Christians. I mean, why would they lie?

 

[Kenny]

First of all the naming scheme is not "probably" but definitely means "according to". At that time "according to" was a common way to cite a source.

Then you had ears but didn't listen.

 

[rational experiences]

Would you trust a fallen Angel?

Cloud protection between heated light gas vacuum void is clouds.

When I was being hurt I saw a huge amount of alight visions.

In lots of different places on earth. On land. In water.

I never ever believed I was related to an angel. Yet a lot of humanity wanted to believe.

Simple human thought. The Natural sky alight is blue. It changes gaining clouds. Clouds disappear blue light sky continues.

At night not alight it's clear. So you can see into dark space.

So how am I a cloud when it goes away?

I know I'm not a cloud.

Clouds caused by reactive causes.

Notice reactive cause equals the clouds presence.

Heavens only.

So what condition first as an expanse of gases then stretched water oxygenated have to do with egotistical human theories?

It doesn't. Other than you are aware of it.

You personally human. The awareness.

So you know who you are. Where you live. You walk upon rock with dirt Dusts or sand.

Not water. Rock beneath you owns water in its seals.

A dead human body was once buried in human dug tombs. Or natural caves.

You become with stone. As bones but not wrapped entombed is another saying.

Yet to know bones you see the human is dead. Owns no blood or cells.

You are always a natural humans consciousness first. Before thesis. Hence its always talking to you in natural terms.

So any theist not just using data. Then earth mass itself in Alchemy. Seems to contrive fake thesis.

You see you have.

Science today says don't theory if you don't know what you're discussing. Talking to their own selves first. As you own human mind body presence first.

You say it. I don't.

 

[joelr]

Then you had ears but didn't listen.

Here Matthew uses
Isaiah 42:20
You have seen many things, but you do not observe them;
Your ears are open, but none hears.


Or, you could say what you mean instead of vague nonsense?? The Greek in the intro means "according to".
It's a common way for ancient literature to source. Kata.
It's uncommon for Gospels. Only these 4 have it so it looks like during the 2nd century someone came along and added this and the names.
What is vague is what they mean by "according to".

It wasn't the first canon. The Marcionite canon was first and is unknown.

You would think a NT historian would be interesting to you? You seem more worried about what is probable vs what is known fact rather than follow some interesting scholarship. Oh, is it because the fundamentalists have the only truth (which has no evidence)and somehow know more than historical scholars on historical issues? or one of the other apologisms:
Carrier is a "skeptic" (that means he works with facts and probabilities in real life)
Carrier is uber-liberal (means just a historian)
Carrier is possesed by Satan (Justin Martyr would be proud)

 

[1213]

No you wouldn't at all, if you understood what they were for, and how easily their presence can be objectively tested. Powerful lasers can be fired at the mirrors, and used to more accurately measure the distance between the moon and the earth. If they weren't there this could be falsified easily and irrefutably.

And the lasers would do the job even without the mirrors. But, do you know how the "lasers are aimed to the mirrors"?

They're there, they were put there by NASA during the moon landings.

Sorry, I don't believe humans were there for example because of the Van Allen belt.

 

[leroy]

So

Yes, just as they jump on the word "code" or "information".

But moving on. Craigs second unjustified assumption is that life could not exist if the constants were different. How does he know that? Now one could argue that human life could not exist, but we don't know if other life forms could or could not exist with other rules. That argument is totally BS. Do you agree @leroy ?

Fisrt of all there is a Biiiiiiiiiig difference between

1 Creig is dishonest he makes false claims has been corrected and knowingly repeats those false claims, (which was your original accusation)

And

2 He is making an assumption that has not been proven with 100% certainty.(which is your current accusation)

So which one is it?

If gravity would have been 1% stronger the universe would have collapse in a black hole a few moments after the big bang // the assumption is that life could have not exist in such universe. To me it sounds like a valid assumption.




All scientific models and even strong and uncontroversial theories make assumptions, it´s not a big of a deal.



btw
I watched the video /// then what?

 

[leroy]

No, WLC always pretends to be far surer than the evidence merits. .

Ok so that’s you point?

You accuse WLC for being a liar who knowingly promotes false information just because in some debates with limited time he sounds “more sure” than what the evidence allows?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

please do point to the problem

Craig has argued that since the universe had a beginning it has a cause. Both of those ideas can be challenged, but that's a different point. Let's stipulate to those - the universe had a beginning and therefore it needs a cause. Craig assumes that that cause must be a God and he goes further to describe what that deity must be like. That's two unjustified assumptions. He is apparently unaware of the other candidate explanations for why the universe is here, including the multiverse hypothesis.

You are taking his comments out of context………..what he said is that many people (including him) believe in God mainly because they had a personal experience……… then he claims that it is perfectly rational to trust your experiences and assume they are real until evidence to the contrary is presented. …

What he said is that you cannot present evidence to the contrary to him, because if it contradicts what he believes by faith, he will always assume that he has misunderstood the evidence. I didn't read him saying that a god belief is rational in that statement, but I would disagree with that. Valid reason applied to evidence is the only path to sound conclusions about that evidence, and there is no sound argument that ends, "therefore god." The only way to get to that idea is by faith, which is the antithesis to that process.

1 Jesus Died
2 was buried
3 the tomb was found empty
4 people saw something that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus
5 these people where willing to die for the truth of Christianity
6 the existence of God (and therefore miracles) is possible (there is no conclusive evidence against the existence of God)

given these 6 points the resurrection becomes the most probable explanation, or at least that is what I would argue

Yes, you already said that that's what you believe. As I've already told you, I'd call resurrection the least possible explanation for finding an unexpectedly empty tomb and reports of resurrection from people willing to die for their belief.

You've ignored my comment about hearing the same story about Muhammed, which I believe you would reject as evidence that he was resurrected. We'll make more progress if you address all of the points made to you. They're there for a reason, and the reason for that comment was so that we wouldn't be repeating this part of the discussion again. You would already have either said that such a story in the Qur'an was or was not enough to convince you, and I would be using that answer now to move forward. But you didn't, and here we still are. So, all I can tell you is that you already have my answer to that. Those six points don't convince me that a resurrection occurred, and I believe it only convinces you because you choose to let it do so while rejecting the same account if it had come from a competing religion. We can move on now. You said you believe it, I said don't and gave a counterargument, you didn't address the counterargument but did say you still believe it, I said I still don't, and now recommended moving on rather that doing that again.

You're not alone. This is my bugbear in these discussions - the other guy not addressing the points made to him and answering the questions asked of him. Dialectic isn't possible without that. This is what happens. The sub-thread ends exactly when that happens, as this one has ended. Why? Why did you ignore that salient point? You seem like a nice fellow who is sincerely trying to engage in discussion to be understood and to understand others, yet, this happens anyway. I offer this criticism constructively. You read the words, and decided they didn't merit a response. How is that even possible? It might have been the most critical part of this discussion. It would have been the point where you were forced to say either, "You're right. I wouldn't accept that argument if it were about Mohammed being resurrected, but I do for Jesus. Maybe I need to explain to myself why" or whatever else it is that would cross your mind after considering that comment.

The gospels describe events where the disciples talked to Jesus , ate with him, touched him etc…. so the authors are clear on that they are proclaiming a fiscal resurrection (not sure if this answers your question)

How could that answer my any of my questions? Here they are again: "OK. Why do you think they saw that? Why isn't this sighting reported in scripture? If they reported NOT seeing Him in the tomb, wouldn't you expect them to also have reported that they saw Him and that they knew in advance that the tomb must be empty? And if they saw Jesus, did they just stand there or try to speak to Him? What did they say to Him and what did He say in return? Why do we have none of this expected evidence if Jesus was actually seen? And what would make them think he went to heaven rather than back to preaching? If you had any of this, this would be your best evidence, and still not enough to declare that a miracle had occurred."

The answer to the first question would look like [sample answers in brackets], "The reason I think that they saw a figure that they considered the risen Jesus is [nobody would die for such a belief based merely on the word of others]," not that people talked to and ate with Jesus. The answer to the second question would look like, "The reason I think that sighting didn't get mentioned along with the sighting of the empty tomb is [that wasn't important enough to mention or write down]." And, "The reason I believe that these people saw the risen Jesus but didn't report any verbal interchange is [Jesus was hoarse in the throat from the crucifixion]." Can you see how those would be answers to my questions, but not what you provided?

Sorry to be so critical, but I think you can do much better if you're aware of all of this, and would want to if you could.

In the context of the Debate what Carol means is that we that we are not 100% sure that there is a FT problem, which is obviously true and WLC doesn’t deny it…………. That doesn’t mean that there is no evidence for FT, Carol even writes papers where he proposes solutions to those problems.

The response I offer to the fine tuning problem is to ask why a god that creates the laws of nature is confined to certain constants to create a universe of life and mind. What has such a god actually created if it is forced to discover preexisting laws and follow them, and where do those laws come from?

This would be an excellent opportunity for you to address that point rather than not. In my opinion, this is an excellent argument, one deserving of a considered response, a response that either agrees with this point and acknowledges that it is an impassable stumbling block in tri-omni creationist apologetics until resolved, or explains why it cannot be correct with a contradictory counterargument that restores omnipotence to the deity if sound.

The claim that the universe is FT (the way WLC defines this term) is largely uncontroversial in the scientific community and Sean Carol Agrees.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fisrt of all there is a Biiiiiiiiiig difference between

1 Creig is dishonest he makes false claims has been corrected and knowingly repeats those false claims, (which was your original accusation)

And

2 He is making an assumption that has not been proven with 100% certainty.(which is your current accusation)

So which one is it?

If gravity would have been 1% stronger the universe would have collapse in a black hole a few moments after the big bang // the assumption is that life could have not exist in such universe. To me it sounds like a valid assumption.




All scientific models and even strong and uncontroversial theories make assumptions, it´s not a big of a deal.



btw
I watched the video /// then what?

LOL! Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of the sciences.

Sorry, Craig was shown to be wrong. You lost already.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so that’s you point?

You accuse WLC for being a liar who knowingly promotes false information just because in some debates with limited time he sounds “more sure” than what the evidence allows?

He is still using the same bogus arguments after shown that they do not fly. When on tires to claim that one's beliefs are rational, and not only rational when they have shown not to be one is not being honest.

But then he is an admitted apologist. One has to lie to be an apologist.

 

[leroy]

Craig has argued that since the universe had a beginning it has a cause. Both of those ideas can be challenged, but that's a different point. Let's stipulate to those - the universe had a beginning and therefore it needs a cause. Craig assumes that that cause must be a God and he goes further to describe what that deity must be like. That's two unjustified assumptions. He is apparently unaware of the other candidate explanations for why the universe is here, including the multiverse hypothesis.

Well if all you did was watch a 5 minute youtube video of WLC making the argument I understand why you have that impression…….. but in his published work (and even in longer videos and blogs) he doesn’t simply assume that the cause of the universe is a “God-like” being he provides reasons for why it must be the case.

Besides., this is not WLCs stuff for centuries philosophers have been working on this and have concluded that a cause of the universe by definition should be a God-like being…………. Obviously you can disagree with the arguments that are provided, but accusing WLC for simply concluding without justification that the cause must be God because he says so is a false accusation

What he said is that you cannot present evidence to the contrary to him, because if it contradicts what he believes by faith, he will always assume that he has misunderstood the evidence.

Sure, as an analogy If someone accuses me for killing Michael Jackson I would know that I am innocent, because based on my personal experience I know that I am not guilty of such a crime, even if there is evidence (witness, fingerprints, me recorded saying that I hate Michael etc) I would assume that the evidence is wrong………. you would have to provide strong conclusive and undeniable evidence that I am guilty of such a crime in order to convince me.

So if you had a personal experience that seemed genuine, you are rationally justified in to believing that the experience was genuine until conclusive evidence to the contrary is given

You may or may not disagree, but this is just WLCs opinion one cant be accused for being dishonest just because he doesn’t have the same opinion than you

Yes, you already said that that's what you believe. As I've already told you, I'd call resurrection the least possible explanation for finding an unexpectedly empty tomb and reports of resurrection from people willing to die for their belief.

Well feel free to provide an alternative explanation

You've ignored my comment about hearing the same story about Muhammed...

Granted if you build an analogous case around a miracle that Mohamed made I would be intellectually obligated to say that there is good evidence for such a miracle

How could that answer my any of my questions? Here they are again: "OK. Why do you think they saw that? Why isn't this sighting reported in scripture? If they reported NOT seeing Him in the tomb, wouldn't you expect them to also have reported that they saw Him and that they knew in advance that the tomb must be empty? And if they saw Jesus, did they just stand there or try to speak to Him? What did they say to Him and what did He say in return? Why do we have none of this expected evidence if Jesus was actually seen? And what would make them think he went to heaven rather than back to preaching? If you had any of this, this would be your best evidence, and still not enough to declare that a miracle had occurred."

I am not sure if I am following but yes we do have the resurrected Jesus on record and the authors of the gospels tells us what he did after being resurrected, he talked to hi disciples, ate with them, preached, etc.

The response I offer to the fine tuning problem is to ask why a god that creates the laws of nature is confined to certain constants to create a universe of life and mind. What has such a god actually created if it is forced to discover preexisting laws and follow them, and where do those laws come from?

The assumption is false, God is not claimed to be constrained by the laws, he could have created a different universe, with different laws. …. I honestly don’t see your point.


the argument is
1 God could have created any type of universe (Fine Tuned or not)

2 nature could only have created a non FT universe

3 the universe is FT

4 therefore it was created by God.