• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Running from the Resurrection [W: 646]

"During this time, one subject began to appeal to Habermas more than any other. He realized that if Jesus had been raised from the dead, this would go a long way toward arguing that Christianity was true. He also studied the founders of the major religious traditions, along with some lesser-known figures, to see if there were other claims that someone had been raised from the dead. He was especially interested in whether there was any historical or other evidence for any such teachings. Thirteen hundred note cards later, he was well on the way to a lifetime of being "hooked" on the subject of Jesus' resurrection. Little did he know that his early years of study on this subject would begin his fascination with the topic that has never lessened.[1]"

What a waste of an academic life.
 
Logicman said:
There's the asinine "proof" demand yet. Apparently evidence is beyond your comprehension.
Click to expand...

That is rich coming from you who has only blind faith. Why do you keep insulting me? I thought that the bible instructed you to be nice. Are you really a Christian?
 
Quag said:
Stopped at the first one how can you prove he actually died on the cross?
.
Click to expand...

That is where blind faith and campfire stories enter the picture.
 
zyzygy said:
That is where blind faith and campfire stories enter the picture.
Click to expand...

Still can't bust the resurrection, can you? All you can do is spam and insult with multiple bs posts.

Time to place you on Ignore.

Click. Bye bye.
 
Logicman said:
Where did I ever say that as it relates to the Gospels, etc. That was directed towards the skeptics claims that God and the supernatural cannot or do not exist.
Click to expand...

Then you have a severe problem. Your belief system does not translate to evidence of proof, therefor there is no reason for others to be held to a standard you cannot yourself achieve.

The debate is over, you have lost.

Logicman said:
The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site by Mark Goodacre
Click to expand...

That is anecdotal at best and does not address that the overwhelming majority of scholars and historians put the start of the writing of the NT well beyond Jesus' death. There is no evidence that anyone who wrote any part of the Bible actually met Jesus in person or was there for the miracle of Resurrection or any other miracle during his time. What we do have is a fantastic story, one that is not unique or original from the period.

Logicman said:
Sorry, I don't see that happening. Jesus is Risen and so far nobody has been able to bust it.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to bust, your belief still does not attribute to point of fact. Just your belief, and the absurd position you have that others must use process and standard of evidence you yourself cannot do.

All you have done is design a flame thread devoid of any interest in discussion on the subject. Religion in terms of how we apply known science suggest too much disconnect. Because of the two cannot be associated as science is not a designed belief system, religion clearly is.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Then you have a severe problem. Your belief system does not translate to evidence of proof, therefor there is no reason for others to be held to a standard you cannot yourself achieve.

The debate is over, you have lost.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you haven't made a case for that by a long shot.

OrphanSlug said:
That is anecdotal at best and does not address that the overwhelming majority of scholars and historians put the start of the writing of the NT well beyond Jesus' death.
Click to expand...

Oh really, you mean they were supposed to have written about Jesus' death BEFORE he died? LOL!

OrphanSlug said:
There is no evidence that anyone who wrote any part of the Bible actually met Jesus in person or was there for the miracle of Resurrection or any other miracle during his time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there is. It's called the New Testament. And you can't casually throw that in the waste bin as is the wont of skeptics to do.

OrphanSlug said:
All you have done is design a flame thread devoid of any interest in discussion on the subject. Religion in terms of how we apply known science suggest too much disconnect. Because of the two cannot be associated as science is not a designed belief system, religion clearly is.
Click to expand...

Say good-bye then if that's what you believe.
 
Logicman said:
Still can't bust the resurrection, can you? All you can do is spam and insult with multiple bs posts.

Time to place you on Ignore.

Click. Bye bye.
Click to expand...

Still cant prove he actually died on the cross?
 
Logicman said:
You're on the wrong track. Although there is no scientific "proof" for the resurrection (nor can there be), there is a great deal of evidence for it, both historical and logical.
Click to expand...
If you have no scientific proof for the resurrection, why did your OP demand scientific arguments against it? You're entitled to make a scientific or a theological argument for the resurrection but surely the first step is to be honest about which one you're using.
 
HonestJoe said:
If you have no scientific proof for the resurrection, why did your OP demand scientific arguments against it?
Click to expand...

It addresses a cheap skeptic's argument that God and the supernatural cannot and do not exist. If folks wish to make that argument then they have to provide the scientific studies to back it up. They make that claim, they have to back it up.

I'm not making a scientific claim for the life of Christ, etc. This thread is about the resurrection of Christ as seen in the Bible / Gospels / New Testament and early extra-biblical writings. Skeptics are invited to try to falsify it, using scriptural and/or historical arguments, etc.
 
Logicman said:
It addresses a cheap skeptic's argument that God and the supernatural cannot and do not exist. If folks wish to make that argument then they have to provide the scientific studies to back it up. They make that claim, they have to back it up.

I'm not making a scientific claim for the life of Christ, etc. This thread is about the resurrection of Christ as seen in the Bible / Gospels / New Testament and early extra-biblical writings. Skeptics are invited to try to falsify it, using scriptural and/or historical arguments, etc.
Click to expand...

You claim the ressurection happened therefore it is up to you to prove it.
Still waiting for proof He died on the cross..........
 
Logicman said:
Bull.

You can find all that in the thread "Evidence for the Bible / God."
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the "all these people who wrote the bible said it happened, so it must have." argument. Just about every religion has eyewitness accounts of people talking to god, and they all say very different things. You don't accept their testimonies because you don't want to, and yet you expect us to believe only christian testimonies and ignore everyone else.

"He said, she said" is not evidence, especially when everyone has it.

When you're ready to provide evidence that the resurrection happened, let us know. Until then it'll be filed under the same category as Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, and Puff the Magic Dragon.

Logicman said:
Still can't bust the resurrection, can you? All you can do is spam and insult with multiple bs posts.

Time to place you on Ignore.

Click. Bye bye.
Click to expand...

Can you disprove any religion on earth? Until you do, they're all just as valid as yours apparently.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I went back in time to observe the life of Jesus. It turns out that a lot of the things attributed to him in the bible were really stories about three or four various wandering preachers. The guy with the walking on water trick (which he taught me how to do) and the guy who said roughly what is recorded as the Sermon on the Mount were different guys. One of them, named Joshua, was in fact crucified. He wasn't buried in a tomb, though. He was just tossed into a pit. I hung around for a while, though, and nobody got back out of the pit.

This is all true, and no one can prove it didn't happen.
 
Paschendale said:
Okay, I went back in time to observe the life of Jesus. It turns out that a lot of the things attributed to him in the bible were really stories about three or four various wandering preachers. The guy with the walking on water trick (which he taught me how to do) and the guy who said roughly what is recorded as the Sermon on the Mount were different guys. One of them, named Joshua, was in fact crucified. He wasn't buried in a tomb, though. He was just tossed into a pit. I hung around for a while, though, and nobody got back out of the pit.

This is all true, and no one can prove it didn't happen.
Click to expand...

I went back in time to watch you observing events and I can corroborate your story.
So not only can no one disprove it we now have 2 sources.
 
Logicman said:
It addresses a cheap skeptic's argument that God and the supernatural cannot and do not exist.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. Your OP stated that; "If anyone presents an argument that a (the) resurrection violates the laws of nature / physics, then they must present replicated and peer-approved scientific studies demonstrating that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist."

That is false. To scientifically assert the resurrection of Jesus is untrue, the resurrection would first need to be presented in a scientific context and then that could specifically be challenged and addressed. It'd be perfectly possible that challenge wouldn't require any general proof of the non-existence or either God or the supernatural in general (though that could be a route too). You can't demand scientific responses to an unscientific proposal though.

Claims that God (specifically or generally) and the supernatural (by its various definitions) can't exist are somewhat separate.

FWIW, I personally don't claim the former. I only assert that the existence of any gods remain unproven. I only claim the latter on the basis that anything which actually exists is natural by definition. If something is proposed that breaks the laws of physics as we currently understand them (such as something "supernatural") and it is found to be true, it is our understanding of the laws of physicals that is flawed and thus our identification of the thing as supernatural in the first place. It would have really been natural all along, we just didn't realise it. It's already happened, with lightning for example.
 
HonestJoe said:
No it doesn't. Your OP stated that; "If anyone presents an argument that a (the) resurrection violates the laws of nature / physics, then they must present replicated and peer-approved scientific studies demonstrating that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist."

That is false. To scientifically assert the resurrection of Jesus is untrue, the resurrection would first need to be presented in a scientific context and then that could specifically be challenged and addressed. It'd be perfectly possible that challenge wouldn't require any general proof of the non-existence or either God or the supernatural in general (though that could be a route too). You can't demand scientific responses to an unscientific proposal though.

Claims that God (specifically or generally) and the supernatural (by its various definitions) can't exist are somewhat separate.

FWIW, I personally don't claim the former. I only assert that the existence of any gods remain unproven. I only claim the latter on the basis that anything which actually exists is natural by definition. If something is proposed that breaks the laws of physics as we currently understand them (such as something "supernatural") and it is found to be true, it is our understanding of the laws of physicals that is flawed and thus our identification of the thing as supernatural in the first place. It would have really been natural all along, we just didn't realise it. It's already happened, with lightning for example.
Click to expand...

There you go again, bringing logic into religion. The two do not mix.
 
Paschendale said:
Okay, I went back in time to observe the life of Jesus. It turns out that a lot of the things attributed to him in the bible were really stories about three or four various wandering preachers. The guy with the walking on water trick (which he taught me how to do) and the guy who said roughly what is recorded as the Sermon on the Mount were different guys. One of them, named Joshua, was in fact crucified. He wasn't buried in a tomb, though. He was just tossed into a pit. I hung around for a while, though, and nobody got back out of the pit.

This is all true, and no one can prove it didn't happen.
Click to expand...

Well there we have it, gents. Undeniable evidence that christianity is bull****. We have an eyewitness testimony right here.
 
zyzygy said:
There you go again, bringing logic into religion. The two do not mix.
Click to expand...
Logic is my religion and I demand my constitutional right to practice it whenever and wherever I like! :lol:
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Ah yes, the "all these people who wrote the bible said it happened, so it must have." argument. Just about every religion has eyewitness accounts of people talking to god, and they all say very different things. You don't accept their testimonies because you don't want to, and yet you expect us to believe only christian testimonies and ignore everyone else.

"He said, she said" is not evidence, especially when everyone has it.

When you're ready to provide evidence that the resurrection happened, let us know. Until then it'll be filed under the same category as Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, and Puff the Magic Dragon.

Can you disprove any religion on earth? Until you do, they're all just as valid as yours apparently.
Click to expand...

So, you have nothing. And still running from the resurrection.

With all the evidences for the legitimacy and historicity of the Gospels and NT previously provided in the thread - "Evidence for God / the Bible" - and with logical arguments previously provided in the Gary Habermas link, you still come up with that nonsense?

Why don't you just admit there will never be enough evidence for you? It's obvious to me.
 
HonestJoe said:
Logic is my religion and I demand my constitutional right to practice it whenever and wherever I like! :lol:
Click to expand...

Congratulations! You have founded the only religion based on logic. I am now a follower. Let us spread the good news! :comp:
 
Logicman said:
So, you have nothing. And still running from the resurrection.

.
Click to expand...

No. Neither are we running from Gandalf re-emerging after his battle with the Balrog.
 
Logicman said:
So, you have nothing. And still running from the resurrection.
Click to expand...
The only person running from the ressurection is you.
Still waiting for proof he died on the cross....

With all the evidences for the legitimacy and historicity of the Gospels and NT previously provided in the thread - "Evidence for God / the Bible" - and with logical arguments previously provided in the Gary Habermas link, you still come up with that nonsense?
Click to expand...
Nothiogn has been proven. Using religious texts to prove religious texts doesnt work. There has never been any logical arguments presented. ALL of them are based on logicl fallacies though. The most common being confirmation bias.

Why don't you just admit there will never be enough evidence for you? It's obvious to me.
Click to expand...

Why wont you admit you dont actually have any evidence? It`s obvious to everyone on this forum.
 
zyzygy said:
No. Neither are we running from Gandalf re-emerging after his battle with the Balrog.
Click to expand...

Actually the Balrog is pretty darn scary you`d be a fool not to run.
 
HonestJoe said:
No it doesn't. Your OP stated that; "If anyone presents an argument that a (the) resurrection violates the laws of nature / physics, then they must present replicated and peer-approved scientific studies demonstrating that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist."

That is false.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. They want to make the claim, they have to back it up.

HonestJoe said:
To scientifically assert the resurrection of Jesus is untrue, the resurrection would first need to be presented in a scientific context and then that could specifically be challenged and addressed.
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm not making scientific claims for the resurrection / life of Jesus. So if skeptics want to make the claim noted above, they have to back it up.

So everyone, forget about asking for scientific proof of the resurrection. It doesn't exist, nor is there scientific proof that God and the supernatural do not or cannot exist. And if you do make claim that, THEN BACK IT UP.

Deal with the historical evidence.
 
I think we'll have about much say going into the next life, as we had about coming into this one. ;)
 
Logicman said:
No, it's not. They want to make the claim, they have to back it up.



Nope. I'm not making scientific claims for the resurrection / life of Jesus. So if skeptics want to make the claim noted above, they have to back it up.

So everyone, forget about asking for scientific proof of the resurrection. It doesn't exist, nor is there scientific proof that God and the supernatural do not or cannot exist. And if you do claim that, THEN BACK IT UP.

Deal with the historical evidence.
Click to expand...

Ahh the good old reverse burden of proof.

You get a gold star for most ironic username.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom