Debate: Did Jesus rise from the dead?

[Geckonidae]

What would you accept as proof that he actually existed?
...
Obviously, my comment was in response to the previous comment which denied his existence. If we can't even agree that he existed in the first place this discussion is a waste of time in my opinion.

And that's why I didn't bother to reply...because it wasn't worth my time. We could go back and forth for hours, and you would have absolutely no way of proving that Jesus actually existed. In the end you could just proclaim that you know he existed because you have a personal relationship with him.

And if I pointed to the writings of a first century secular historian like Josephus for instance, you'd probably say that was a fraud too.

Do you actually consider Josephus to be a completely reliable source of information? Josephus has provided modern historians with some of the best written history of events that he actually experienced first hand. However it's also obvious that he exaggerated his accounts of these events for dramatic effect, so even his most reliable writings have to be taken with a grain of salt. In addition to what he wrote about events that happened during his lifetime, he also wrote about witches and necromancy based on nothing but hearsay. So if he did actually write anything about the resurrection of Jesus, how do you separate that from his other accounts of supernatural events for which there is absolutely no evidence? Do you also believe that the witch of Endor was able to channel the spirits of the dead? Most historians also point out that the account of the resurrection as attributed to Josephus does not actually fit with his style of writing. We don't have his original manuscript, so you're relying on something that was passed around, copied and edited for about 9 centuries after it was written. Generations of scribes and historians had plenty of opportunity to add whatever the hell they wanted to his writings. And the only sources of these writings come from Christian sources. Not like they would have had any motive for adding a few paragraphs to support their claims. Oh wait...

People believe things for which they have no proof all the time. So many people who claim to only trust science couldn't pass a 12th grade math or physics exam to save their lives. For them , there is in effect no proof of many of the things they buy into because they cannot claim to actually understand the "proof". They just prefer to be on that side of the debate because they think it makes them look smart.

It seems to me like the majority of people who reject the Bible and embrace science have never studied either and that's absolutely fine but why they often have such strong opinions on the subject is a question I often ask myself.

You're making a sweeping generalization there based on a feeling. I'm not saying people like that don't exist, they absolutely do. In my experience though, most people who are willing to accept things blindly without requiring any evidence or making any attempt to understand them are religious. And there are plenty of religious people who embrace the bible and and reject science without ever studying either. Those are usually the people who complain about rainbow crosswalks or protest abortions with stupid signs.

You're basically just spewing a couple of really tired old arguments typical of Christians apologists. There's the variation of "you only hate God because you think it makes you cool", or in your case "it makes them look smart". To me that speaks more about your own insecurities. And of course you try to draw that false equivalence between blind religious faith, and trusting the scientific method. So let me take you through my thought process.

I start by searching for something I don't know anything about. How about planetary movement. I will freely admit that my daughter who is in elementary school knows more about astrophysics than I do. (She loves science podcasts.) So I go down the Wikipedia rabbit hole, starting with an article on planetary movement, which leads me to articles on "orbital resonance" and "celestial mechanics" and a bunch of really complicated equations. I'm reading things that seem plausible...but what the hell do I know...can I just trust that all these scientists really understand why planets move the way they do? These equations could be complete gibberish for all I know. I see familiar names like Newton and Kepler, but grade 12 physics was a long time ago, and how do I know anything I learned in grade 12 physics was true? And then I see another name I recognize...Laplace.

Oh, that name takes me back about 20 years; learning about Laplace Transforms, Smith charts, signal to noise ratio, signal analysis, and other topics. http://www.cs.umb.edu/~bobw/CS445/Lecture09.pdf It turns out that Pierre-Simon Laplace, who came up with lots of that complicated looking math relating to celestial mechanics, also came up with all of the complicated looking math on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace_transform Now I won't claim that I can still do that math...but I could at one time. And I was able to see how that math could be put into practical application. We did things in the lab that were made possible by ideas some guy came up with prior to 1827. I know that I can trust his math and his theories because I studied them, I built circuits that wouldn't have worked if his theories were wrong. I know that his theories were right because our global communications systems actually work, and radar systems work, and when I use a piece of equipment that uses time domain reflectometry to measure reflected signals on a transmission line...it works.

So Pierre-Simon Laplace is a trustworthy source of information, unlike Josephus. Because I consider him to be a trustworthy source of information, I have reason to accept that his theories and equations relating to celestial mechanics are also probably true. So I can read an article about how Jupiter's moons exert a gravitational force on one another, and even though I don't understand the math and I can't do an experiment myself to prove the math works, I can accept that Laplace Resonance is most likely true. It doesn't hurt that countless physicists have tested his theories and his math. Peer review and the scientific method...that's how we establish that information is trustworthy when we don't have any firsthand knowledge or experience.

I trust the science because I've seen the evidence. I've always liked the statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", but Laplace said it better:

"The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."

And that's how I feel about strange claims that some magical son of a god resurrected from the dead. Josephus was a fascinating historical figure, but he provides us with no evidence.

[OREZ]

I get what you're saying and my thought process is similar when researching things that I'm interested in.

I agree with you that many religious people have never studied either the Bible or science and I think many of them are mostly led by others instead of doing their own thinking and study and that is not a good thing. I hope you get my point about people who claim to buy into science which they never even tried to understand being not much different in that sense.

The reference to Josephus was merely to show that since he mentioned Jesus and his followers that it's reasonable to me to conclude they actually did exist at that time and are not just some dudes people made up hundreds of years later as some people claim. I did not say that it provided evidence of Christ's resurection although I understand that the resurection is the topic of the thread. It was simply in response to questioning of the existence of Jesus. There have been other archaeological discoveries of frescos and mosaics from the 1st and 2nd century which are believed by archeologists to depict Christ and Christian themes that predate Constantine's so-called conversion to Christianity and the beginning of the official Christian religion by many years. And yet there are many who claim that Jesus was a completely fictional character who was invented hundreds of years later. To me that seems very unlikely.

[Hmmm]

There's tons of proof Jesus was a real person, however arguing with Atheists online won't do anything except frustrate you. Many people prefer to get their facts from Hollywood. News flash, Russell Crowe looks nothing like Noah. I'm joking of course, but for every thing a non believer will say or show you there is another thing, equally as plausible that a believer can show.

When God has been there for you throughout your life, in ways for to numerous to mention, that's all the proof I need. When I go to zoos and look at Orangutans, I see cute creatures, not my ancestors, maybe you see your Uncle, I don't.

[Geckonidae]

There's tons of proof Jesus was a real person, however arguing with Atheists online won't do anything except frustrate you. Many people prefer to get their facts from Hollywood. News flash, Russell Crowe looks nothing like Noah. I'm joking of course, but for every thing a non believer will say or show you there is another thing, equally as plausible that a believer can show.

When God has been there for you throughout your life, in ways for to numerous to mention, that's all the proof I need. When I go to zoos and look at Orangutans, I see cute creatures, not my ancestors, maybe you see your Uncle, I don't.

And there's the hand waving I was talking about. You have no proof because there is no proof. But oh boy, you have some feelings, so it must be true. We all know that feelings developed the polio vaccine and took humanity into space. Oh wait...that was science.

[I Think]

Hmmm;

but for every thing a non believer will say or show you there is another thing, equally as plausible that a believer can show.

OK show me proof that any god exists.

[Hmmm]

I would love to engage you on this, but this forum is such a bad place to do it. I don't want to throw chum in the water and yell shark. I have other things to do besides endless, go nowhere anonymous debates online about whether God exists or not. I'm more then willing to do it in person though. Not endless debates of course, but at least discussing it and presenting what I feel is convincing evidence.

I only commented on this thread in the first place, to at least let others know that some here do believe in God and feel there's more then enough evidence to back up their beliefs.

[OREZ]

Indeed. To try and prove or disprove that God exists is utterly pointless and anyone even remotely interested in philosophy or theology would already know that.

[janalta]

Anyone who understands how evolution actually unfolded would scoff at your comment. Indeed, no one looks at an orangutan and sees an ancestor, cousin or uncle; because, of course, we did not evolve from orangutans.
But, when we share more than 95% of our genetic make up with great apes, one would be a fool to dismiss a common link.

It doesn't matter whether one has studied philosophy, theology or nuclear science. Personal experiences are just that - personal experiences. Feelings. Emotions. Elevation.
I know god exists because I have felt his presence. I know in my heart it is true. I feel the spirit of the holy ghost in my bosom. He speaks to me, answers my prayers, guides me.
Feelings are not proof. Feelings, human emotions, the need to believe, answered 'prayers'...are not proof of anything but the power of the human mind. It's all a matter of interpretation , what you want those 'feelings of the spirit' to mean, what you've been taught that they mean.

If people want to believe that they have a personal relationship with god through human feelings and emotions - if they need to believe, then go ahead and believe anything you want.
But it is not 'proof' and never will be, in any sense of the word.

[Geckonidae]

I would love to engage you on this, but this forum is such a bad place to do it. I don't want to throw chum in the water and yell shark. I have other things to do besides endless, go nowhere anonymous debates online about whether God exists or not. I'm more then willing to do it in person though. Not endless debates of course, but at least discussing it and presenting what I feel is convincing evidence.

I only commented on this thread in the first place, to at least let others know that some here do believe in God and feel there's more then enough evidence to back up their beliefs.

I'm sure you mentioned in another thread how you have personal experiences that you feel are proof enough for you. And that's fine...you can believe whatever you want, but don't pretend for a moment that your beliefs are founded on anything that remotely resembles real evidence. If you were to explain your reasons to me in person, would it sound any different from someone who claims that a faith healer took away their cancer, or someone explaining in detail how they were abducted by aliens? What if someone said exactly the same things as you, but substituted Thor for Jesus, why would their claims be any less credible than yours?

[cliffy1]

Why are all these discussions on here always between the god botherers and the god deniers? Isn't there anybody of other faiths and spiritual paths around to bring in a different perspective?

I have approached this topic, in the past, with hundreds of people of many different religions and spiritual paths with the intention of finding the common denominators. I find the human experience fascinating and religion plays a big role in how many people experience life. What I discovered is that most people are basically saying the same things, just using different semantics. I tried, unsuccessfully to get people to see that so we could past all the "my god's better than your god" nonsense and realize that we are, at our very core, all brothers and sisters of the same mother and father. So I gave up.

It seems so silly to me that people are willing to defend to the death their beliefs and have no desire to see their neighbour as having a right to their own beliefs. Looks like humming being are doomed to self destruct in wars over semantics, but there you are.

[Geckonidae]

*removed*

[Glacier]

Indeed. To try and prove or disprove that God exists is utterly pointless and anyone even remotely interested in philosophy or theology would already know that.

The ironic part about skeptics who poo-poo the idea of the supernatural because there's no evidence are the same people who get really upset when anyone questions their sacred theories of which there is also no evidence.

[janalta]

The ironic party about skeptics who poo-poo the idea of the supernatural because there's no evidence are the same people who get really upset when anyone questions their sacred theories of which there is also no evidence.

Our sacred theories ?
I actually don't know of anyone, and have never heard of anyone who 'worships' Darwin, kneels and prays to him for answers, or claims to have received personal recognition or knowledge directly from him. I've never seen large temples built in his honor.

There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that life on earth evolved.
But, I have never heard anyone state that they...or anyone else, has ALL of the answers.
That's the beauty of science...it is ever changing, ever expanding and always looking for more precise answers instead of depending on a book written on second hand accounts several thousands of years ago.

[Glacier]

Our sacred theories ?
I actually don't know of anyone, and have never heard of anyone who 'worships' Darwin, kneels and prays to him for answers, or claims to have received personal recognition or knowledge directly from him. I've never seen large temples built in his honor.

There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that life on earth evolved.
But, I have never heard anyone state that they...or anyone else, has ALL of the answers.
That's the beauty of science...it is ever changing, ever expanding and always looking for more precise answers instead of depending on a book written on second hand accounts several thousands of years ago.

A lot of people worship scientists though, and lap up every word they say even when the actual science does not support the theory. Then they get really upset when someone questions one of their holy theories.

[janalta]

A lot of people worship scientists though, and lap up every word they say even when the actual science does not support the theory. Then they get really upset when someone questions one of their holy theories.

Your attempt to compare people who may have respect for the work and research scientists do to religious worshippers is somewhat ridiculous.
As is calling scientific studies and theories sacred and holy.

Nice try though.