Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?

[Donn]

The burden of proof is on whoever makes a claim, whether it is positive or negative.
All this means is that one should be able to support one's claim. Perfect logical proof is rarely needed outside of mathematics. Pointing to a lack of evidence for a positive claim supports the corresponding negative claim.
…

Take note that this paragraph is purely about where the burden of proof rests in abstracto, when a claim is made. I am not claiming every crackpot hypothesis needs to be disproven by someone who does not believe in its validity.

I've joined many threads on this subject, some still ongoing, and it's clear that something's wrong with this calculus.

By saying "Who makes the claim, bears the burden", you say "Always wait for someone else to claim first." In a sense, it's defeatist because you must raise your shield and bide your turn to stab fairly with a spear that is always too short.

Do we not stand on some sure ground? Are the gaps between knowings so numerous that our feet cannot be planted in a stance? Can we not rely on gravity's sure winds to orient our normals against the vectors of humdrum antipathy?

"By Cthulhu's gibbering gonads no; There was no resurrection, Jesus or otherwise; ever."
"But— But… Burden. You went first! Ha. You're nicked! Burden that."

Well, it is simple. Up is up. Down is down. Magnets orient metals. Oxygen rusts your garden gate. Meat coats your bones. Molecules are consumed and mitochondria power cells that later radiate waste and eventually die. There is an arrow that mocks your desire to lay your head younger tonight than arose this morning.

Well, it is simple: dead is dead and there is no coming back. If you return it is whence death was not.

Accordingly, I claim, his paper-based provenance quite aside, that Jesus did not die and then return to life. The proof is in the krebs.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

I've joined many threads on this subject, some still ongoing, and it's clear that something's wrong with this calculus.

By saying "Who makes the claim, bears the burden", you say "Always wait for someone else to claim first." In a sense, it's defeatist because you must raise your shield and bide your turn to stab fairly with a spear that is always too short.

Do we not stand on some sure ground? Are the gaps between knowings so numerous that our feet cannot be planted in a stance? Can we not rely on gravity's sure winds to orient our normals against the vectors of humdrum antipathy?

"By Cthulhu's gibbering gonads no; There was no resurrection, Jesus or otherwise; ever."
"But— But… Burden. You went first! Ha. You're nicked! Burden that."

I don't think we really disagree.
And in a real world scenario, the positive claim of a miracle will always come first.
There is no one who is going to claim out of the blue that on may 3rd 837 Ulfbert the Smelly did not levitate a piece of goat cheese in his hut somewhere in Upper Franconia. And if they do, no one is going to bat an eye or contest that, unless someone has previously asserted that the Miracle of the Ascending Curds is an actual historical event. So when not talking about a debate in the abstract, the onus will always be on the person who claims a miracle happened.

Well, it is simple: dead is dead and there is no coming back. If you return it is whence death was not.

Accordingly, I claim, his paper-based provenance quite aside, that Jesus did not die and then return to life. The proof is in the krebs.

And you have provided evidence to support your claim.

 

[Donn]

I don't think we really disagree.
And in a real world scenario, the positive claim of a miracle will always come first.

Ah, nice point; I had not thought of that. Religion and its many assertions long pre-date our sceptical views. Even new ones, turd-bubbling from the thicktoplasm, are going to announce their miasma in a gush of armpit air — and we get to counter.

There is no one who is going to claim out of the blue that on may 3rd 837 Ulfbert the Smelly did not levitate a piece of goat cheese in his hut somewhere in Upper Franconia. And if they do, no one is going to bat an eye or contest that, unless someone has previously asserted that the Miracle of the Ascending Curds is an actual historical event.

 

[I Am The Scum]

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?

If the burden of proof does not apply to negative claims (propositions with a "not" in them), then please tell me which of the following claims require evidence:

1. Jesus did not stay dead after his death.
2. Evolution is not true.
3. It is not possible for the universe to exist without God.
4. Everyone knows there is a god, because atheists do not exist.
5. The Holocaust did not actually happen.

 

[Donn]

If the burden of proof does not apply to negative claims (propositions with a "not" in them), then please tell me which of the following claims require evidence:

1. Jesus did not stay dead after his death.
2. Evolution is not true.
3. It is not possible for the universe to exist without God.
4. Everyone knows there is a god, because atheists do not exist.
5. The Holocaust did not actually happen.

These all sound like restated assumptions:

1. Jesus rose.
2. God did it.
3. God made the universe.
4. God is there.
5. Something pro Nazi.

 

[I Am The Scum]

These all sound like restated assumptions:

1. Jesus rose.
2. God did it.
3. God made the universe.
4. God is there.
5. Something pro Nazi.

It's almost like the difference between a "positive" and "negative" claim involves nothing more than syntax!

 

[Donn]

It's almost like the difference between a "positive" and "negative" claim involves nothing more than syntax!

Well, no. If the question, stated positively, is the default incumbent position then it gets the burden.

Disguising it by a flop simply delays clarity.

 

[Leumas]

Well, no. If the question, stated positively, is the default incumbent position then it gets the burden.

Disguising it by a flop simply delays clarity.

Semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen. The bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from attempts at shoving Jesus through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Well, no. If the question, stated positively, is the default incumbent position then it gets the burden.

Disguising it by a flop simply delays clarity.

I agree that phrasing a claim in one way or another does not have any effect on whether or not it is justified. So that leaves us with this question: By what rational means do we decide which position is the "default" one.

 

[Leumas]

I agree that phrasing a claim in one way or another does not have any effect on whether or not it is justified. So that leaves us with this question: By what rational means do we decide which position is the "default" one.

The answer is in the post below already.

Have you ever heard of the Scientific Method?

Have you ever heard of Burden of Proof

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.

 

[Donn]

I agree that phrasing a claim in one way or another does not have any effect on whether or not it is justified. So that leaves us with this question: By what rational means do we decide which position is the "default" one.

I was thinking idly about that too. At the moment, I think it's a per-position affair. It comes into view, a claim attached. If there is due process — evidence, some effort to constrain the questions to the matter and maybe some history of refinement — then we'll have a better time of hearing its burden explained.

Without this ship heaving into view with its cargo of curiosity, there's no need to declaim about anything.

If the observation originates with us and runs negative, perhaps that there is no ice-cream in the genome, then we may have posed the statement badly. Better to declare what is, than what is not.

Or am I off?

 

[Nihilianth]

You're ranting again. There's no need to yell, or to try and insult other posters (though I don't think anyone left in this thread is a Christian, you're... let's say 'preaching to the choir'), or to bring up religious arguments unrelated to this thread. I'll summarize my position again, and hope you won't resort to yet more conspiratorial accusations.

The burden of proof is on whoever makes a claim, whether it is positive or negative.

You are absolutely beyond help. I have provided plenty of reasons and examples, all based on formal logic, and not one post of mine have you responded to.

Hell, I even posted the SCIENTIFIC FRIGGIN METHOD!

When it comes to the scientific method, the way it works, is a scientist makes a POSITIVE claim about something; called a "hypothesis." Other scientists can certainly say: "That is not true." They don't have to do anything to prove it isn't true.

The scientist making the POSITIVE claim, then sets about making an experiment to test their hypothesis. If it works, they announce their discovery.

Once said discovery is announced, then other scientists will set about doing said experiment, in order to see for themselves that it works! If it does not work, then the hypothesis dies a quick death. If it does work, after many many experiments, it may eventually become a theory.

The bolded portion is the part where they "prove a negative." But do notice how far down the scientific method that is. The onus of proving a claim, rests solely on the one making a POSITIVE CLAIM FIRST.

Here's how it works with a resurrection:

1. YOU make the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.
2. YOU make the experiment to prove that it was true.
3. If you prove that a dead person may come back from the dead after rotting inside a tomb for three days, you will have to make the announcement that your experiment worked.
4. Then other scientists will set about attempting to prove your POSITIVE claim, using the exact same experiment!
5. If it works, it gets tested some more.
6. If it ALWAYS works, and works CONSISTENTLY, then it becomes theory, making Jesus' resurrection plausible.
7 If it fails to work for other scientists, then your theory dies a quick death. We can continue to conclusively say: "Jesus did not rise from the dead."

 

[Nihilianth]

If the burden of proof does not apply to negative claims (propositions with a "not" in them), then please tell me which of the following claims require evidence:

1. Jesus did not stay dead after his death.

Has yet to be proven true, therefore, we can safely say "NOT" true. I don;t have to prove it.

2. Evolution is not true.

Evolution has proven to be true through scientific experimentation, and paleontology. There is no logical reason to "NOT" true.

3. It is not possible for the universe to exist without God.

Has yet to be proven true, therefore, we can safely say "NOT" true. I don't have to prove it. In any case, there are already plausible explanations given by science and mathematics showing how the universe came about.

4. Everyone knows there is a god, because atheists do not exist.

I do not like black licorice. You can neither confirm, nor deny a personal opinion. I am an atheist. There, I said it. You can neither confirm nor deny this. When it comes to personal opinions or self-descriptions, it is the responsibility of other people to just accept it. You don't want to, that is your problem.

5. The Holocaust did not actually happen.

Except the evidence that it DID happen is quite overwhelming. You cannot seriously say that it did not happen, without someone immediately putting the label of "CT nutbag" on you.

So tell me. What was the point of this little exercise of yours?

 

[The Greater Fool]

You are absolutely beyond help. I have provided plenty of reasons and examples, all based on formal logic, and not one post of mine have you responded to.

Hell, I even posted the SCIENTIFIC FRIGGIN METHOD!

When it comes to the scientific method, the way it works, is a scientist makes a POSITIVE claim about something; called a "hypothesis." Other scientists can certainly say: "That is not true." They don't have to do anything to prove it isn't true.

The scientist making the POSITIVE claim, then sets about making an experiment to test their hypothesis. If it works, they announce their discovery.

Once said discovery is announced, then other scientists will set about doing said experiment, in order to see for themselves that it works! If it does not work, then the hypothesis dies a quick death. If it does work, after many many experiments, it may eventually become a theory.

The bolded portion is the part where they "prove a negative." But do notice how far down the scientific method that is. The onus of proving a claim, rests solely on the one making a POSITIVE CLAIM FIRST.

Here's how it works with a resurrection:

1. YOU make the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.
2. YOU make the experiment to prove that it was true.
3. If you prove that a dead person may come back from the dead after rotting inside a tomb for three days, you will have to make the announcement that your experiment worked.
4. Then other scientists will set about attempting to prove your POSITIVE claim, using the exact same experiment!
5. If it works, it gets tested some more.
6. If it ALWAYS works, and works CONSISTENTLY, then it becomes theory, making Jesus' resurrection plausible.
7 If it fails to work for other scientists, then your theory dies a quick death. We can continue to conclusively say: "Jesus did not rise from the dead."

I don't disagree with the above, or really most of the arguments either way. I understand how each view was reached. I'm a science fan, not a practitioner.

The resurrection is not a scientific claim or issue. Under normal circumstances, not even Christians claim resurrection is possible. The resurrection of Jesus is a miracle, and by definition miracles are outside the normal. So this is actually a sub argument of the existence of a meddling god.

Being a religious claim about a miracle performed by a meddling god, it is outside of science, and the rules of science. In fact, it's a rather useless argument either way. If you believe in meddling god(s), you don't need scientific proof, by definition. If you don't believe in god(s), you don't need scientific proof, by definition.

Of course, as atheists, we believe (please, quibble not) there are no god(s), which makes the resurrection (and the whole of holy texts) fictional stories that don't need disproving, any more than any work of fiction needs to be disproved.

ETA: Apologies for being on-topic. I try to watch that in the future

 

[Pup]

I think the old cliche, extraordinay claims require extraordinary evidence, applies here. It's not so much whether someone is making a positive or negative claim, but whether it's a claim that goes against a pile of already-known evidence.

Dead people don't come back to life. Some people are atheists. Evolution is true. We know that based on already existing evidence. The universe might or might not be able to exist without a god, so claiming to know the answer is extraordinary.

The problem comes when people are brainwashed by their culture into thinking something extraordinary is ordinary. They'll want extraordinary evidence--maybe impossible evidence--to convince them that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, evolution is true, etc.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I want to say, for the sake of clarity, that, to the best of my knowledge, this whole Fig tree = Jewish nation interpretation is a new one for me. It is possible that I heard it before and dismissed it. In any case, it sounds like a very strange interpretation, and those are a dime a dozen. I am under no obligation to address every strange view of scripture that I might come across.

I was thinking idly about that too. At the moment, I think it's a per-position affair. It comes into view, a claim attached. If there is due process — evidence, some effort to constrain the questions to the matter and maybe some history of refinement — then we'll have a better time of hearing its burden explained.

That's what I'm saying, though. We need to have some kind of base-line rule, otherwise we approach every claim blind. We don't re-invent arithmetic every time we need to combine quantities.

So, again. We consider the claim, and consider the evidence for, or against. All this stuff about "default position" and "who said what" just doesn't need to enter into the equation.

The answer is in the post below already.

Have you ever heard of the Scientific Method?

Have you ever heard of Burden of Proof

Neither one of your posts contains the phrase, "default position."

Has yet to be proven true, therefore, we can safely say "NOT" true. I don't have to prove it.

Well, hold on there. If a theist says "You cannot prove that God is not real, therefore I can say that he is real," is that rational?

 

[Donn]

Being a religious claim about a miracle performed by a meddling god, it is outside of science, and the rules of science. In fact, it's a rather useless argument either way. If you believe in meddling god(s), you don't need scientific proof, by definition. If you don't believe in god(s), you don't need scientific proof, by definition.

To play with it. If we say death and threesome days of putrefaction renders a brain beyond repair, then we must state that this particular miracle is not beyond science. It is de facto impossible.

For it to be otherwise could only come from quibbling death's degrees. Sufficient advanced technology could nano pentaquark charm spin-scan the wobbly bits and four-dee print a new mind via glue stick; one supposes. There would be a cut-off moment, after which even this Star Trekium could no longer function.

Quibbling aside, I moot dead is dead by definition. Miraculous undeath is not possible.

 

[Donn]

So, again. We consider the claim, and consider the evidence for, or against. All this stuff about "default position" and "who said what" just doesn't need to enter into the equation.

Default position is my wording, it may be off the mark. I mean it to help remove all the notting going on.

Only a Christian would claim Jesus resurrected. To state he did not — is not really a claim, it only sounds like one. It is a challenge to the incumbent claim: that Jesus existed, died and returned to life.

 

[The Greater Fool]

To play with it. If we say death and threesome days of putrefaction renders a brain beyond repair, then we must state that this particular miracle is not beyond science. It is de facto impossible.

For it to be otherwise could only come from quibbling death's degrees. Sufficient advanced technology could nano pentaquark charm spin-scan the wobbly bits and four-dee print a new mind via glue stick; one supposes. There would be a cut-off moment, after which even this Star Trekium could no longer function.

Quibbling aside, I moot dead is dead by definition. Miraculous undeath is not possible.

You claim that a meddling god (for whom nothing is impossible as part of the definition, which Christians believe) could not resurrect a person, because science says it's not possible?

A meddling god, for which nothing is impossible, can do anything science or no. This is precisely why any argument about miracles are useless. Goddidit overrides any logical, science based argument.

With no god(s), there are no miracles, no resurrection. AKA: Reality.

 

[Donn]

You claim that a meddling god (for whom nothing is impossible as part of the definition, which Christians believe) could not resurrect a person, because science says it's not possible?

A meddling god, for which nothing is impossible, can do anything science or no. This is precisely why any argument about miracles are useless. Goddidit overrides any logical, science based argument.

With no god(s), there are no miracles, no resurrection. AKA: Reality.

Since this meddling god that can do anything is merely an accretion of words in a line, I can place my science against it.

What is more real? Science defying resurrection or fiction postulating it?

I know you're saying that's what the faithful would say; but even logically it doesn't parse because on one side is an impossible thing (do-anything-god) and on the other is a very probable thing.

There's no weighing required; the scale simply falls to science.

So I think, wrongness ever my shade.