Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?

[Leumas]

It has little to do with logic. The burden is on the claimant to provide evidence, whether the claim is a positive or a negative one. Whether or not the claim is supernatural, strange, or ludicrous does not change that.

In most real world cases, a perfect logical proof is not needed. A lack of evidence where evidence would be expected is also evidence, and pointing out that a bodily resurrection and complete and instantaneous healing of grievous trauma runs counter to everything we know about how the body works and that such an occurrence has never been reliably documented in all of medical history should be sufficient to substantiate the claim that there was no resurrection, absent more compelling evidence for the positive claim.

By the way, I'd say it is possible to prove that leprechauns do not hide gold at the end of the rainbow: there is no end of the rainbow. It's an optical illusion, not a physical object.

This is a really good point.

In truth, I don't think the standard view of burden of proof is really that useful. It leads to pointless bickering, like we see in this thread. Instead, I look at it like this:

First, ignore the person making the claim, whether it's "positive" or "negative"... Set all of it aside.
For any given belief, is it rational or is it not?
If the belief is rational, what is its rational basis?

That's it.

I believe that Jesus did not raise from the dead. This is a rational belief because, as Porpoise said, it would be contrary to our substantial understanding of human physiology, injury, death, etc. Why do I need to concern myself with who said what?

I agree

The onus of proof is on the claimant.

If the claimant does not prove his claim then lack of belief in his claim is ENTIRELY LOGICAL and JUSTIFIED by reason and rationality and logic.

The PROOF is the claimant's inability to provide a proof for his claim.

Also in supernatural matters since they already are in violation of all epistemology based on reason and logic and rationality and PRACTICAL REASONING then any supernatural claim is already proven false unless it is proven otherwise.

Guilty/False until proven innocent/true is entirely logical and justified in the case of supernatural claims and other claims of the type that go against rational epistemology.

 

[H'ethetheth]

That is EXACTLY correct! Both are making a POSITIVE claim. Therefore, both would have to prove their case. I am not arguing about that.

If I were to say that "Jesus did NOT rise from the dead," that would be a NEGATIVE claim. I cannot prove a negative. Only positives can be proven.

Jesus not rising from the dead is not a negative claim in the same sense that, for instance, his existence is. One piece of evidence could suffice to support that he didn't rise from the dead after three days.
It's just two opposite claims about a historical event.
One side can point to the bible, which says he did. The other side can point to the bible and say it really only says his grave was empty, and the women said to have seen him didn't actually recognize him. Or they can point to the fact that other explanations for the existence of this story are much more likely than that it really happened.
Neither side can really prove or disprove this claim, only make it more or less likely, which is why I think the opposing side has a burden of proof here.

It's not even much of a burden, just like for the Leprechauns Leumas brought up. It's a ridiculously improbable proposition, but just because it's easy to demonstrate this, doesn't mean the opposite can be asserted without evidence.

 

[Leumas]

It's not even much of a burden, just like for the Leprechauns Leumas brought up. It's a ridiculously improbable proposition, but just because it's easy to demonstrate this, doesn't mean the opposite can be asserted without evidence.

And therefore you are now firmly convinced that the resurrection did not happen as much as you are convinced that there are no Leprechaun gold pots under rainbows... right?

You are sure that there are no gold hoards under rainbows... right?

You are convinced that the resurrection did not occur... right?

If not, then why not? Isn't it just as easy to disprove as gold hoards under rainbows as you claim? So why are you not convinced?

Whether I believe Jesus was resurrected or not is an entirely independent proposition. It has no bearing on whether Jesus was actually resurrected or not. ...

If as you say Jesus' resurrection is just as easily disproven and just as ridiculous a proposition as Leprechauns' gold under rainbows then don't you think that you ought to be convinced that it did not occur?

 

[Leumas]

Or they can point to the fact that other explanations for the existence of this story are much more likely than that it really happened.

Seriously??? In your book this is "one piece of evidence"???

Ok... if that is the "one piece of evidence"... you are therefore now firmly convinced that the resurrection did not happen because there are rationalizations that can explain it away... right?

You are sure that "there are explanations much more likely"... right?

And thus you are convinced that the resurrection did not occur... right?

If not, then why not? Isn't it a much less likely thing? So why are you not convinced?

Whether I believe Jesus was resurrected or not is an entirely independent proposition. It has no bearing on whether Jesus was actually resurrected or not. ...

If as you say Jesus' resurrection is a much less likely thing than many other explanations then don't you think that you ought to be convinced that it did not occur?

 

[Leumas]

Neither side can really prove or disprove this claim, only make it more or less likely, which is why I think the opposing side has a burden of proof here.

Seriously??

But aren't you the one who said

... One piece of evidence could suffice to support that he didn't rise from the dead after three days.
...
It's not even much of a burden, just like for the Leprechauns Leumas brought up. It's a ridiculously improbable proposition, but just because it's easy to demonstrate this, ...

The other side can point to the bible and say it really only says his grave was empty, and the women said to have seen him didn't actually recognize him. Or they can point to the fact that other explanations for the existence of this story are much more likely than that it really happened....

But despite your own words above you STILL think that the claim that a man died and rose from the dead three days later and let people poke fingers through the wounds that caused his death and then flew up to outer space to be with God is just a mundane "historical event" that could just as easily have occurred or not and the claimants for its veracity are just as equally justified in their claim as people who reject the claim?

 

[Leumas]

Jesus not rising from the dead is not a negative claim in the same sense that, for instance, his existence is. One piece of evidence could suffice to support that he didn't rise from the dead after three days.

Pray tell... what is this one piece of evidence that would prove a man 2000 years ago did not die and then three days later got resurrected by a miracle and then let people poke fingers through the holes that caused his death and then flew to outer space to be with his sky daddy?

But aren't you the one who said

Neither side can really prove or disprove this claim, only make it more or less likely, which is why I think the opposing side has a burden of proof here.

If you have this "one piece of evidence"... are you therefore now firmly convinced that the resurrection did not happen?

If not, then why not? Isn't that one piece of evidence that you think you have convincing even to you?

Whether I believe Jesus was resurrected or not is an entirely independent proposition. It has no bearing on whether Jesus was actually resurrected or not. ...

Or is it maybe you do think the resurrection did happen and in reality no one can truly come up with that one piece of evidence?

 

[Leumas]

It's just two opposite claims about a historical event.

Seriously?? Historical Event??

A man died and then rose from the dead three days later and then flew up to heaven after having let people poke their fingers in the wounds that caused his death.

Is just a mundane historic event.

And people saying that this did not happen are just holding an opposed opinion about a mundane historic event.

But aren't you the one who said

...It's a ridiculously improbable proposition, but just because it's easy to demonstrate this, ...

So how can you still maintain that they are opposite claims about a "historical event"?

As you say one is a "ridiculously improbable proposition" which is "easy to demonstrate" to be ridiculous and as stupid as believing in Leprechauns' gold hoards under rainbows.

So they are not "opposite claims" are they? One is LAUGHING at a ridiculously stupid claim and the other is making stupid retarded claims.

 

[Leumas]

One side can point to the bible, which says he did.

Seriously??? This is evidence???

So people pointing to the "historical events" in Beowulf could use it as evidence that there are werewolves... right?

And people who say werewolves are myths have to prove that there are no werewolves by citing how Beowulf as a "historical event" can be rationalized to show how the monster was mistaken for a werewolf but it was really only a big normal wolf or bear?

But both have to equally prove their claims about this "historical event" in Beowulf?

Special pleading much???

 

[Porpoise of Life]

If as you say Jesus' resurrection is a much less likely thing than many other explanations then don't you think that you ought to be convinced that it did not occur?

But that is not what H'ethetheth said, they said that "I hold opinion X about Y" is not the same proposition as "Y is true". They didn't state their own personal opinion.
This part of the discussion is about the application of logic and argumentation, not about the veracity of any of the claims that have been made. I don't think anyone who posted on the last few pages believes in the resurrection.

 

[Leumas]

The other side can point to the bible and say it really only says his grave was empty, and the women said to have seen him didn't actually recognize him.

Anyone who knows even the slightest about the Buybull would laugh heartily at the above utter nonsense.

Apparently Christian Atheists have no idea what the Buybull actually says.

Matthew 28

• 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
• 28:6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
• 28:7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
• 28:8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
• 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
• 28:10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
• ....
• 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
• 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
• 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
• 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
• 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Luke 24

• 24:2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
• 24:3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
• 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
• 24:5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
• 24:6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
• 24:7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
• 24:8 And they remembered his words,
• 24:9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.
• 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
• 24:11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.
• ...
• 24:15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
• 24:16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
• ...
• 24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
• 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
• 24:33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
• 24:34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
• 24:35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.
• 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
• 24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
• 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
• 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
• 24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
• 24:41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
• 24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
• 24:43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
• ...
• 24:50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
• 24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
• 24:52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:
• 24:53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

John 20

• 20:14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
• 20:15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
• 20:16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master
• 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
• 20:18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the LORD, and that he had spoken these things unto her.
• 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
• 20:20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD.
• 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
• ...
• 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
• 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
• 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
• 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
• 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
• 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
• 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
• 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

 

[Leumas]

But that is not what H'ethetheth said, they said that "I hold opinion X about Y" is not the same proposition as "Y is true". They didn't state their own personal opinion.
This part of the discussion is about the application of logic and argumentation, not about the veracity of any of the claims that have been made. I don't think anyone who posted on the last few pages believes in the resurrection.

This thread is about a Christian apologist asking atheists if they can DISPROVE the resurrection.

Atheists tell him that the burden of proof is on him to prove the "ridiculously improbable proposition" that is "easy to demonstrate" to be nothing but utter nonsense that makes a mockery of all reality and epistemology and rationality and reason and science.

A guy comes along and says that the burden of proof is not just on the OP to prove the resurrection but it also lies squarely upon the atheists to disprove it if they wish to deny the claim and that it is not sufficient to just claim that it never happened on the grounds of it being an unproven "ridiculously improbable proposition" that is "easy to demonstrate" to be nothing but utter nonsense.

When atheists tell him this is nonsense.... he calls them crazy people with problems and argues over and over again incessantly that atheists HAVE TO disprove the resurrection if they wish to hold that it did not occur.

Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?
...
With that in mind, are there still more proofs that the Resurrection didn't occur?[/B]

I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

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

Ah, so that is your problem. You are of the opnion that being unconvinced of the truth of some statement is the same thing as believing a statement is untrue.

Other than pointing out that this is incorrect, I'm not sure how to help.

... Who the hell knows what you think you saw, or what mental health problems you may have that cause you to see things?

Like I said, I'm not sure how to help with your problem.

 

[I Am The Scum]

When atheists tell him this is nonsense.... he calls them crazy people with problems and argues over and over again incessantly that atheists HAVE TO disprove the resurrection if they wish to hold that it did not occur.

I'm going to try to illustrate the disconnect to the best of my ability. Jack and Jill are having a conversation.

Jack: Can you explain the burden of proof?
Jill: When a person makes a claim, they are obligated to provide evidence in support of it. (1)
Jack: And you agree with that?
Jill: Yup, sure do.

Jack: So, what do you think about that whole resurrection thing?
Jill: Jesus definitely did not come back from the dead. (2)

Jack: Okay, so can you provide evidence for that claim?
Jill: I am under no obligation to give evidence for what I just said. (3)
Jack:

If you think 1, 2, and 3 are compatible, then I don't think there's anything I can do for you.

 

[Leumas]

... I don't think anyone who posted on the last few pages believes in the resurrection.

H'ethetheth does not believe that it is untrue.

He is only not convinced it is true... but yet he does not believe it is false.

In other words he still thinks that it is possible for the "historical event" of Jesus' resurrection to have been true despite it being "easy to demonstrate" that it is just a "ridiculously improbable proposition" much like Leprechauns' gold hoards under rainbows.

So despite it being so absurd he still does not believe it to be false... in other words he still thinks it is possible to have occurred.

And he thinks that people who think it did not happen have to disprove it and if they argue otherwise they must have mental health problems.

Ah, so that is your problem. You are of the opnion that being unconvinced of the truth of some statement is the same thing as believing a statement is untrue.

Other than pointing out that this is incorrect, I'm not sure how to help.

... Who the hell knows what you think you saw, or what mental health problems you may have that cause you to see things?

Like I said, I'm not sure how to help with your problem.

 

[Leumas]

When atheists tell him this is nonsense.... he calls them crazy people with problems and argues over and over again incessantly that atheists HAVE TO disprove the resurrection if they wish to hold that it did not occur.

I'm going to try to illustrate the disconnect to the best of my ability. Jack and Jill are having a conversation.

Jack: Can you explain the burden of proof?
Jill: When a person makes a claim, they are obligated to provide evidence in support of it. (1)
Jack: And you agree with that?
Jill: Yup, sure do.

Jack: So, what do you think about that whole resurrection thing?
Jill: Jesus definitely did not come back from the dead. (2)

Jack: Okay, so can you provide evidence for that claim?
Jill: I am under no obligation to give evidence for what I just said. (3)
Jack:

If you think 1, 2, and 3 are compatible, then I don't think there's anything I can do for you.

So now you think that people who maintain that Jesus' resurrection is false and never happened have mental health problems because they think the claim is already proven to be false by SANITY and RATIONALITY and LOGIC and SCIENCE which is a sufficient disproof?

Oh well, "I don't think there's anything I can do for you"?

 

[abaddon]

It's all navel gazing rot unless and until someone can rock in with proof of the affirmative claim for any resurrection ever occurring. Wake me up when that happens.

 

[I Am The Scum]

So now you think that people who maintain that Jesus' resurrection is false and never happened have mental health problems because they think the claim is already proven to be false by SANITY and RATIONALITY and LOGIC and SCIENCE which is a sufficient disproof?

Oh well, "I don't think there's anything I can do for you"?

I didn't actually post anything about "mental health problems" and you know it. Congratulations. You have constructed the biggest strawman I have ever seen.

If you want to have a conversation about the burden of proof, then have at it. Address what I actually said. If you're not interested, then just say so. There's no need to make stuff up.

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry, no evidence of the resurrection, the null hypothesis is that there is no resurrection.
Pending the evidence, the burden of proof would be on those claiming resurrection happened.


It is like asking did Odin Allfather hang upon the tree, Inanna upon the hooks and come back to live?

 

[Dancing David]

That may be but the burden of proof rests on the positive claim, the null is that there is no resurrection.

My take would be that the teachings does not need the resurrection to be meaningful. As a path to whatever...

I mean the alleged historic buddha died from food poisoning, I doubt he was born from his mother's white elephant dream in any way, yet the teachings of the AHB can be meaningful to some....

 

[Nihilianth]

Jesus not rising from the dead is not a negative claim in the same sense that, for instance, his existence is. One piece of evidence could suffice to support that he didn't rise from the dead after three days.
It's just two opposite claims about a historical event.
One side can point to the bible, which says he did. The other side can point to the bible and say it really only says his grave was empty, and the women said to have seen him didn't actually recognize him. Or they can point to the fact that other explanations for the existence of this story are much more likely than that it really happened.
Neither side can really prove or disprove this claim, only make it more or less likely, which is why I think the opposing side has a burden of proof here.

It's not even much of a burden, just like for the Leprechauns Leumas brought up. It's a ridiculously improbable proposition, but just because it's easy to demonstrate this, doesn't mean the opposite can be asserted without evidence.

Dude, it's a negative claim! The word "not" is a negative word! "Jesus did NOT rise from the dead."

I don't have to prove anything when I state that.

"Jesus did rise from the dead."

You have to prove it when you state that!

"The Spaghetti Monster. He exists."

"The Spaghetti Monster. He is not real."

One is a positive claim. The other is not. One can be proven. The other cannot. Why is this the case?

Because a person can always say: "Magic fairy tales! Therefore, the Spaghetti Monster can be real!" and "He's hiding behind that asteroid over there, quick look!" *Points telescope at asteroid. Not there.* "That's because he moved somewhere else! You weren't quick enough!"

Goalposts can easily be manipulated on a person attempting to prove a negative.

Here's the scientific method:

You make a claim. You prove it. Scientists who do not believe your claim or say that your claim is not true, do not have to prove anything. You want your POSITIVE claim to be accepted, it's up to YOU to prove.

 

[Nihilianth]

I'm going to try to illustrate the disconnect to the best of my ability. Jack and Jill are having a conversation.

Jack: Can you explain the burden of proof?
Jill: When a person makes a [POSITIVE] claim, they are obligated to provide evidence in support of it. (1)
Jack: And you agree with that?
Jill: Yup, sure do.

Jack: So, what do you think about that whole resurrection thing?
Jill: Jesus definitely did not come back from the dead. (2)

Jack: Okay, so can you provide evidence for that claim?
Jill: I am under no obligation to give evidence for what I just said. (3)
Jack: confused smiley [Makes Sense]

If you think 1, 2, and 3 are compatible, [if you do not believe that,] then I don't think there's anything I can do for you.

*FACEPALM!*

Fixed it for you.

It's all navel gazing rot unless and until someone can rock in with proof of the affirmative claim for any resurrection ever occurring. Wake me up when that happens.

Uuummm....You'll never be woken up....