Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?

[The Big Dog]

So the mods are not smart enough to recognize the big words?

Looks at your post, looks at my sig, chuckles....

 

[Slowvehicle]

Looks at your post, looks at my sig, chuckles....

It is good that your inability to understand your own words amuses you.

Mought want to scry what a "straw person argument" truly is...

(Hint: it isn't what tsig did. Carry on.)

 

[The Big Dog]

It is good that your inability to understand your own words amuses you.

Mought want to scry what a "straw person argument" truly is...

(Hint: it isn't what tsig did. Carry on.)

mought and scry.



Carries on chuckling much harder....

 

[Loss Leader]

I pray, now that we've finished measuring the size of our respective lexicons, we may return to the topic anon.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[Nihilianth]

Awwww, they moved some posts to AAH, then closed that split thread. They were important to me...

Anyway, seems to me that this thread technically could have been snipped going back to Donn's post from yesterday at 9:34 AM. Which is post number I dunno which without having to finish this post, then coming back to re-edit.

Anyway, Sorry! Off topic again! My bad! To be fair, this thread is terribly difficult to take seriously!

ETA: I do like the message LL left as admin. That was great.

 

[IanS]

Tom: I assert X (something outside rationality and reality and logic).

John: Prove it!

"Prove it" is not the opposite claim of X.

Why does it need to be the "opposite"? What has the "opposite" got to do with it.

The primary claim (made in biblical times) was that Jesus had actually been dead for 3 days.

If anyone today says that claim is true, or just says they believe it to be literally true, then the "burden of proof" lies entirely with them to support their claim.

There is no obligation on anyone else to "prove" anything.

In biblical times when that claim was originally made, no doubt the "proof", or actually it would only be an explanation, would have been that it was said to be a miracle granted by God. And at the time everyone would probably have accepted that as undoubtedly true - God granted miracles, especially for his own supernatural son.

But we are not in the first century any more. And science has now convinced all educated people that such supernatural miracles are impossible. So on that basis alone, i.e. the vast mass of evidence from modern science, the question is certainly fully justified - can you support the claim of resurrection with a credible rational explanation? ... There is absolutely no burden of proof upon anyone why asks that question. .... unless of course you seriously want to argue that science has not shown that people don’t miraculously rise from the dead in a supernatural act from God?

 

[H'ethetheth]

The primary claim (made in biblical times) was that Jesus had actually been dead for 3 days.

If anyone today says that claim is true, or just says they believe it to be literally true, then the "burden of proof" lies entirely with them to support their claim.

There is no obligation on anyone else to "prove" anything.

In biblical times when that claim was originally made, no doubt the "proof", or actually it would only be an explanation, would have been that it was said to be a miracle granted by God. And at the time everyone would probably have accepted that as undoubtedly true - God granted miracles, especially for his own supernatural son.

But we are not in the first century any more. And science has now convinced all educated people that such supernatural miracles are impossible. So on that basis alone, i.e. the vast mass of evidence from modern science, the question is certainly fully justified - can you support the claim of resurrection with a credible rational explanation? ... There is absolutely no burden of proof upon anyone why asks that question. .... unless of course you seriously want to argue that science has not shown that people don’t miraculously rise from the dead in a supernatural act from God?

Yes.

Why does it need to be the "opposite"? What has the "opposite" got to do with it.

It doesn't. All this goes back to Brian M pointing out to Leumas that if the opposite claim is made, there is a burden of proof for that claim. I don't see why this is controversial or "ridiculous."

 

[tsig]

Yes.


It doesn't. All this goes back to Brian M pointing out to Leumas that if the opposite claim is made, there is a burden of proof for that claim. I don't see why this is controversial or "ridiculous."

I claim you owe me a million.

Unless you can prove different start writing a check.

 

[Leumas]

I claim you owe me a million.

Unless you can prove different start writing a check.

You too??? I too... he, for a long time now, owed me 17.34 million Francs and he never paid up neither in Francs nor in Euros or Dollars or anything... I am still waiting for my money.

Now let's see if he can disprove that too.... I can prove my claim since I have papers as evidence... if anyone ever tries to claim that they are fake and therefore do no constitute evidence then I am going to cite other members on this forum that evidence is still evidence even if it is fake.

So even if I am proven wrong he still has not proven that he does not owe me... so until then I want proof that he does no owe us millions or else he is lying to get out of his obligations to pay his debts.

 

[Leumas]

Why does it need to be the "opposite"? What has the "opposite" got to do with it.

The primary claim (made in biblical times) was that Jesus had actually been dead for 3 days.

If anyone today says that claim is true, or just says they believe it to be literally true, then the "burden of proof" lies entirely with them to support their claim.

There is no obligation on anyone else to "prove" anything.

In biblical times when that claim was originally made, no doubt the "proof", or actually it would only be an explanation, would have been that it was said to be a miracle granted by God. And at the time everyone would probably have accepted that as undoubtedly true - God granted miracles, especially for his own supernatural son.

But we are not in the first century any more. And science has now convinced all educated people that such supernatural miracles are impossible. So on that basis alone, i.e. the vast mass of evidence from modern science, the question is certainly fully justified - can you support the claim of resurrection with a credible rational explanation? ... There is absolutely no burden of proof upon anyone why asks that question. .... unless of course you seriously want to argue that science has not shown that people don’t miraculously rise from the dead in a supernatural act from God?

Therein lies the ENTIRE problem!

 

[Leumas]

Yes.


It doesn't. All this goes back to Brian M pointing out to Leumas that if the opposite claim is made, there is a burden of proof for that claim. I don't see why this is controversial or "ridiculous."

Therein lies the crux of the problem!

 

[Leumas]

Looks at your post, looks at my sig, chuckles....

Yes... make up one's own imbecilic rules and then start chuckling at them... that is a very good way of self-gratification... carry on!

 

[Leumas]

I don't think she existed either.

Good!

In a show on TV called Hell on Wheels the hero had the opportunity to kill the dastardly villain and did not and later the brigand turns around and runs away and causes more mayhem.

My wife got angry and said "why the hell did the hero not kill him when he could".... I told her because the writer of the script and the director of the filming told him not to do it.

The writers of the NT did not make a mistake when they called Mary a virgin... they were deliberately doing it to make the story more in line with the myriad other demi-gods of the era who were born of virgins impregnated by gods and went through tribulations and trials and then were resurrected after some kind of death.

It was not a mistranslation or a misuse of a mistranslation... it was a deliberate story plot designed to serve the purposes of the fabricated narrative and to conduce the author's desired effects on the targeted audience.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes... make up your own imbecilic rules and then start chuckling at them... that is a very good way to self-ratify yourself... carry on!

Don't get angry, I did not make it up.

 

[Leumas]

… Never, ever, ever allow kids to subscribe to anything but empirical certainty.

<snip an impressive list of fairy tales>

From the moment they can blabber they should have mathematics and physics hammered incessantly into their tiny brains and not a damn thing else.

Other than the straw manning and slippery sloping... are you claiming that Adult theists are the equivalent of BLABBERING CHILDREN WITH TINY BRAINS?

I think you are onto something there!

<snip lots of imbecilic stuff about math and fairy tales being equal because they both are the product of human brains>

Keep telling yourself that!!

But people who know how to use math to create the products that make it possible for you to write the above imbecilic nonsense and disseminate it on a world wide medium of communication between billions of people prove that mathematics is not the equivalent of religious mythical fairy tales and fables fabricated to defraud infantile tiny brains of credulous theistic adults blabbering about their gods.

<snip more nonsensical arguments from incredulity> … it’s all FAITH!!!!!!

Yes... I am sure you have faith that it is all faith because otherwise you might have to actually go out and exert an effort in learning about things and find out that your faith was wrong!

And that is why you tell yourself to

…relax… nobody has a clue what this universe actually is, where any of it comes from…or how.

And therefore you can carry on with your faith that your faith is the right "clue"!!

It’s all fairy tales. So…along with dear old Santa, I guess we’ll just have to toss ….everything!

More slippery slopes and more straw men and more wishful thinking!

 

[Leumas]

Don't get angry, I did not make it up.

Yes you did... if not then prove it!

 

[Leumas]

…just curious…but did you accomplish all this before or after breakfast?

Some people are under the delusion that they can accomplish a number of impossible things before breakfast.... I am not so deluded and whether before or after breakfast I am usually trying to catch up with my learning about REAL STUFF in the world so that I can keep up to date with REALITY.

Besides the things you highlighted in my post are not my achievements nor impossible .... they are the all too frequent and ubiquitous skullduggery being peddled off as debating points by some people on this forum... all in the defense of their FAITH... or faith that it is all faith... or their faith in faith.

 

[Leumas]

...for that claim, yes.
If someone else claims the opposite of the original claim, they have the burden of proof of the opposite claim.

Ridiculous.

Indeed!!

 

[Nihilianth]

You too??? I too... he, for a long time now, owed me 17.34 million Francs and he never paid up neither in Francs nor in Euros or Dollars or anything... I am still waiting for my money.

Now let's see if he can disprove that too.... I can prove my claim since I have papers as evidence... if anyone ever tries to claim that they are fake and therefore do no constitute evidence then I am going to cite other members on this forum that evidence is still evidence even if it is fake.

So even if I am proven wrong he still has not proven that he does not owe me... so until then I want proof that he does no owe us millions or else he is lying to get out of his obligations to pay his debts.

Here here! He owes me as well!

See, I just wrote down on a piece of paper:

"one H'ethetheth of International Skeptics Forum fame, owes one Nihilianth $13.75 million."

I got proof, because I have a piece of paper that says that! If you are going to say that is fake, I am STILL going to site that piece of paper as proof, proving that piece of paper true!

 

[Leumas]

Here here! He owes me as well!

See, I just wrote down on a piece of paper:

"one H'ethetheth of International Skeptics Forum fame, owes one Nihilianth $13.75 million."

I got proof, because I have a piece of paper that says that! If you are going to say that is fake, I am STILL going to site that piece of paper as proof, proving that piece of paper true!

And even if they prove your evidence is false... I have evidence that he owes you. I can give you that evidence if you like.

I know for sure he owes you at least Au$753,254.65 because I met you both when I was in Australia 9 years ago and I witnessed the contract which he signed stating that he owed you that much.

So if you need my EYEWITNESS testimony I will gladly give it.

If anyone tries to prove that I was in the USA and not in Auz 9 years ago then I am going to cite the true facts some of the members on this forum advocate with full sanity and conviction that the laws of physics had temporarily allowed for my being in two places at once 9 years ago as a never to be replicated phenomenon at that time and place.

THERE...let's see if anyone can disprove that!!!