Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?

[H'ethetheth]

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.
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.

If someone claims Jesus came back from the dead the burden of proof is on the claimant. If someone claims the resurrection could not have happened the burden of proof is on them.
Pointing out that the supposed resurrection is impossible in light of everything we know about biology is sufficient evidence for this claim. If the other party wishes to counter this by stating that it is biologically possible after all, or that some magical exception was made, this new claim is theirs to support.
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.

Disbelieving an unevidenced claim does not shift the burden of proof. If someone claims Jesus came back to life, responding: 'I don't believe that, can you prove it?' is not a (negative) claim, it's a request for evidence. So yes, it's not up to unbelievers to disprove the resurrection, or provisionally accept it until they do. In concreto, the onus is on the believer.

If there are still people on this thread wondering what my position is : It's this.

Thanks, Porpoise.

 

[The Greater Fool]

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.

We weigh the options similarly. As you say, the faithful would not, implausible god(s) not withstanding. It is the faithful on the meddling all powerful god side, we on the side of reality. It's a stalemate, since each side is talking past the other.

Sadly, the faithful have been inoculated against logic and reason on these topics, most often from birth.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

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."

No need to yell at me. I don't even know why, since we agree.

 

[Nihilianth]

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

The op asked if the resurrection of christ can be disproven. The short end of the stick is "no."

But such a question as posited, is almost always loaded. The theist wants you to answer "no," so they can say: "see, if you cant prove he was resurrected, then it is plausibly true!" Or, if one goes about trying to prove it did not happen, the the theist can very easily mpve the goalposts: "it was a miracle! Can you prove that miracles dont happen?"

Either way, it is dishonest.

 

[The Greater Fool]

The op asked if the resurrection of christ can be disproven. The short end of the stick is "no."

But such a question as posited, is almost always loaded. The theist wants you to answer "no," so they can say: "see, if you cant prove he was resurrected, then it is plausibly true!" Or, if one goes about trying to prove it did not happen, the the theist can very easily mpve the goalposts: "it was a miracle! Can you prove that miracles dont happen?"

Either way, it is dishonest.

Agreed. It is a tactic to win the internet.

 

[Nihilianth]

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?

No.

 

[I Am The Scum]

No.

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

So does this rule apply or not?

Does it apply selectively?

If so, what is the criteria for the selection?

 

[Nihilianth]

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.


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.


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



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?

No need to yell at me. I don't even know why, since we agree.

I have a bad habit of using caps, instead pf bold, for emphasis.

Sorry, it didnt seem like the post I responded to agreed with anything that I said. Perhaps I am mistaken in this case.

 

[Nihilianth]

So does this rule apply or not?

Does it apply selectively?

If so, what is the criteria for the selection?

The criteria has been stated numerous times in this thread already. Particularly the past 5 or so pages.

 

[I Am The Scum]

The criteria has been stated numerous times in this thread already. Particularly the past 5 or so pages.

And I'm trying to pin it down and only being met with rules that are, as far as I can see, made up on the spot.

When you say something, you must give evidence...
Unless it has a "not" in it.
But if you give a "not" claim in favor of theism...
Then it is false unless it has been proven.
But if a claim in favor of atheism has not been proven...
Then you should not treat it as false...
Just because.

What am I missing here?

 

[Leumas]

The op asked if the resurrection of christ can be disproven. The short end of the stick is "no."

But such a question as posited, is almost always loaded. The theist wants you to answer "no," so they can say: "see, if you cant prove he was resurrected, then it is plausibly true!" Or, if one goes about trying to prove it did not happen, the the theist can very easily mpve the goalposts: "it was a miracle! Can you prove that miracles dont happen?"

Either way, it is dishonest.

Exactly the point... and atheists arguing for 95% of the thread against other atheists only helps enforce the following chicanery

If someone tries to prove that the resurrection did or didn't occur, the person making either claim has the burden of proof.

The fact that a proponent of a claim (eg. that the weather will be nice tomorrow or that there are mice in his field) has not proved his case doesn't mean that the inverse is true (eg. that the weather will not be nice tomorrow or that there are no mice in the field).

No, you have not provided "more proofs that the Resurrection didn't occur". That is because the burden is on someone claiming something to prove it. In your case, you have made a claim that you haven't yet proved, ie that you were there.

So it would have been nice if atheists arguing vehemently and incessantly for 95% of the thread against other atheists could have instead just responded to the OP or supported people responding to the OP.... OR JUST STAYED QUITE!

Instead they TROLLED the people trying to rebut to the OP and then after pages and pages of TROLLING they come out and say

No need to yell at me. I don't even know why, since we agree.

<snip basically almost nothing more than a paraphrasing of this post and this post.>

If there are still people on this thread wondering what my position is : It's this.

Thanks, Porpoise.

Here are the two posts which PorpoiseofLife basically paraphrased TWICE (see here) and thus he therefore agrees with my position.

And H'ethetheth NOW says is his position too after all those pages and pages of wrangling.

...
All RATIONAL thoughts require a justification in reason and logic.... unless one is an illogical person.

Reason and logic state that lack of belief is justified if the claim is not proven.

If the claim is proven then lack of belief is not only unjustified it is also STUPID.

So as you see lack of belief DOES require justification... it cannot be a gastrointestinal movement that goes up to the brain.... well it can if the person doing that is an illogical person... but if one wants to be a logical rational person then BELIEF AND LACK OF BELIEF REQUIRE JUSTIFICATION.

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.

 

[Leumas]

Yes... Christianity was devised right from the start as a Pyramid Scheme or a Multi Level Marketing Scam.

Yes a very convenient dodge... you are not faithful enough succeeding in this MLM Scam because you just are not working hard at bamboozling enough people below you in the Pyramid Fraud.

But even the Buybull admits that it is God who is actually delibrately blinding people.

• Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
  _
  
• 2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
  _
  
• 1 Corinthians 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent._
  
• 1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;

Romans 9:8-23

• 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
• ...
• 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )
• ...
• 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
• 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
• 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
• ...
• 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
• 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
• 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

I guess that you are right about Judaism and Christianity's method of passing knowledge to the extent that one group had some knowledge that others didn't - like Zechariah would have known the meaning behind his own poems.
However, the quotes you showed and the idea of one group having the true knowledge and the outsiders being led astray or being close minded is not really such a bad way of putting things and can be a good way of putting reality.

No, leading people astray is not a nice thing to do... especially when the person leading people astray is a religious huckster trying to bamboozle people and peddle to them his religion.

It is even worse when it is supposedly God that is doing the "closing of the minds" and the "hardening of the hearts" to GLORIFY himself... that sounds more like THE DEVIL not a god worthy of worship.

Take for example Galileo and Copernicus who proposed that the earth was round and that the earth went around the sun. They shared this knowledge with their students and cothinkers, along with even deeper knowledge about the stars. But people who society treated as wise didn't "get it". They were kept from understanding by their ignorance, by institutions, personal failings, etc.

Galileo and Copernicus wrote their scientific findings down for all to see and study and learn without any attempts at CONCEALING A MYSTERY nor with any intentions other than to let the world know and have a NEW SCIENCE.

Science rests on something called REPEATABILITY... that means that any person wishing to verify the science can just do it and try it for himself and verify for himself the facts of it... no MYSTERY being peddled by hucksters for a group of tyros while the PYRAMID SCHEME and MLM MASTERS fleece everyone under them in the rungs of the MYSTERY CULTS.

It's like a moral teaching combined with some miracle- People picked on John, beat him up intensely, but then he surprised everyone by healing over night. But they wouldn't believe it or that he was right in what he was telling people because of their ignorance or other failings.

Miracles do not happen (let's see how many atheists are going to now wrangle with me for another 20 pages about burden of proof)... so the above example of a miracle and trying to compare it to Galileo and Copernicus is an underhanded way of saying that Science and Scientists are just the same as faith and miracle workers.

Religions are SCAMS and SHAMS and fraudulent claims by huckstering poltroons to pull the wool over people's minds and eyes and psyche for the purposes of corralling them like cattle and sheep.

Whether Jesus or Paul or the people who wrote the fake Fairy Tales in which the protagonists are called Jesus and Paul, they were not in any way different from the THOUSANDS of vile mountebanks that we have TODAY let alone throughout the history of humanity (see the list in the post quoted below)... not different AT ALL.

And that is the CRUX of the whole affair.

Right from the onset it has been nothing but a CULT built upon chicanery and hoodwinking and bamboozlement by hucksters and mountebanks. Like any of the thousands of cults that we have today let alone throughout history created and started by all sorts of vile liars and cheaters.

If any Pauls or Jesuses did ever exist they were never any different from the list of the people below.

Imagine if anyone of the people in the list below had managed to get enough IMPERIAL might and power behind him and armies so as to wipe out any opposition or critique or analysis of his fakery?

Now imagine being able to wipe out all literature and history proving his fakery.

Now imagine being able to fabricate literature and forge history saying his fakery is truths.

Now imagine doing all the above for centuries upon centuries with total impunity and with any raised objections burnt right out of existence.

What would be the state of those places and regions under the influence of such long established fakery being thought to be God sent truths? Can you imagine such places or cultures? Can you?


Basically we have God of the gaps and Jesus of the crevices and nooks and crannies whichever nether regions they can manage to devise by any machinations with which to crack open any slit no matter how tightly shut so as to let in their Jesus no matter whether the god or just any pathetic pointless nothing of a moron so long as they can shove Jesus somewhere.


It is an old and long cherished Christian Tradition to lie for Jesus' sake

Paul dissimulated and huckstered for Jesus's sake

• 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

Eusebius, Emperor Constantine's bishop, legalized deception for Jesus' sake

• How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived.

And Martin Luther the founder of Protestantism sanctified lying for Jesus' sake

• What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.

• Muhammad
• Joseph Smith
• Brigham Young
• Charles Taze Russell
• Harold Camping
• Margaret Rowen
• L. Ron Hubbard
• Bahá'u'lláh
• Baba Buta Singh
• Swami Vivekananda
• David Koresh
• Joseph Hibbert
• Jim Jones
• Charles Manson
• Sathya Sai Baba
• Gerald Gardner
• Claude Vorilhon
• Pat Robertson
• Kenneth Copeland
• Joel Osteen
• Paula White
• Robert Tilton
• Benny Hinn
• William M. Branham
• Louis Farrakhan
• David Berg
• Chen Tao
• Jerry Falwell
• David Horowitz
• etc.
• etc.
• etc.

 

[Leumas]

By the way... here are the rebuttals for the chicanery quoted two posts up.

Yes.
If someone tries to prove that the resurrection did or didn't occur, the person making either claim has the burden of proof.

The fact that a proponent of a claim (eg. that the weather will be nice tomorrow or that there are mice in his field) has not proved his case doesn't mean that the inverse is true (eg. that the weather will not be nice tomorrow or that there are no mice in the field).

So now Jesus' resurrection is something as mundane and ordinary as the weather and mice?

Are you contradicting yourself a bit?

...
However, Jesus' resurrection was depicted as him having a miraculous new body that could show up places before his bodily ascension. That is, this wasn't depicted as a run of the mill resuscitation.

No, you have not provided "more proofs that the Resurrection didn't occur". That is because the burden is on someone claiming something to prove it. In your case, you have made a claim that you haven't yet proved, ie that you were there.

The charlatans and mountebanks who artfully fabricated your religion never intended for anyone to actually understand anything, proof or otherwise... only to have faith and PAY OUT and follow blindly.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4

• 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
• 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

1Corinthians 2:7,14

• 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
• 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1Corinthians 4:1,14-16

• 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
• 4:14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
• 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
• 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

• 2 Corinthians 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight)

• Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
• 1 Corinthians 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
• 1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
• 1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;

 

[Leumas]

... It's a stalemate, since each side is talking past the other....

It is not a stalemate... many theists have become educated and realized the EMPTINESS of their irrational religions because of reading books and participating in discussions on the internet and observing the arguments based on reason and rationality and logic and science against the insults to sanity in their religions. (see this video)

Thus it is not a stalemate... CASUISTS and APOLOGISTS would like to make it appear to be so in an attempt to STIFLE and FIZZLE OUT any such things as the books and internet discussions that might help lift the pall off of some reasonable theists who could be educated if only they are ALLOWED TO SEE the arguments and books and logic in the first place.

So now the war being waged by casuists and apologists is to go around anywhere this dissemination of reason and rationality and logic and science might occur and try by hook or by crook to obfuscate and malign and disparage and stifle any information.

But as the below post says in words of gold... the scale is indeed tipping on the side of science and sanity.

As atheists we need to keep disseminating logic and reason and science despite all the vitriol and wrangling of apologists and casuists trying to stink out the whole place with their fetid red herrings and ad hominems.

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.

 

[Nihilianth]

And I'm trying to pin it down and only being met with rules that are, as far as I can see, made up on the spot.

When you say something, you must give evidence...
Unless it has a "not" in it.
But if you give a "not" claim in favor of theism...
Then it is false unless it has been proven.
But if a claim in favor of atheism has not been proven...
Then you should not treat it as false...
Just because.

What am I missing here?

Again, the answers are previously written in this thread. The rules are NOT "made up on the spot."

The bold should suffice.

 

[Nihilianth]

Exactly the point... and atheists arguing for 95% of the thread against other atheists only helps enforce the following chicanery






So it would have been nice if atheists arguing vehemently and incessantly for 95% of the thread against other atheists could have instead just responded to the OP or supported people responding to the OP.... OR JUST STAYED QUITE!

Instead they TROLLED the people trying to rebut to the OP and then after pages and pages of TROLLING they come out and say






Here are the two posts which PorpoiseofLife basically paraphrased TWICE (see here) and thus he therefore agrees with my position.

And H'ethetheth NOW says is his position too after all those pages and pages of wrangling.

Yeah, when Porpoise of Life wrote that he agreed with me, I was quite....perplexed. Because he really seemed to be arguing AGAINST what you and I have been saying all along until the few posts of his that you pointed out earlier, showing that he agrees with you.

 

[Leumas]

Yeah, when Porpoise of Life wrote that he agreed with me, I was quite....perplexed. Because he really seemed to be arguing AGAINST what you and I have been saying all along until the few posts of his that you pointed out earlier, showing that he agrees with you.

He at least admitted to you that he agrees with you despite all the initial wrangling.

Not that I give a whit of a spec of a hoot, but he never admitted that to me... despite posting two posts directed at me which were nothing but a paraphrasing of my previous posts pretending as if he was telling me something I did not know.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Again, the answers are previously written in this thread. The rules are NOT "made up on the spot."

The bold should suffice.

So, to be absolutely clear, anyone saying any of the 5 things in Post #581 is under no obligation to provide evidence, right?

 

[RoboTimbo]

When one makes a claim, the person making the claim has a burden of proof.
...
With that in mind, are there still more proofs that the Resurrection didn't occur?

Was there a claim made that a resurrection did occur?

 

[Donn]

So, to be absolutely clear, anyone saying any of the 5 things in Post #581 is under no obligation to provide evidence, right?

Didn't we already tread this ground?