Mr. P on the resurrection

[Bryan]

Oh, but I do. The Jesus story is obviously not true, for many reasons, including:

1. It proposes an event that is contrary to all of nature. People do not return to life after being dead for several days.

Fallacy of begging the question (again).

2. It is premised on the existence of hell, which is an absurdity. A loving God wouldn't create a hell in the first place, so there would be no reason to send his Son to save us from it. Hell is imaginary, and so is the Jesus story. For that matter, so is this idea of God.

How does the resurrection presuppose hell?

3. If the story was true, God would have made sure everyone on Earth heard it, so that everyone could be saved. We know that did not happen.

Fallacy of the questionable premise. How do you know that everyone would have to hear the story in order to be saved? Moses and the patriarchs continued to be thought of as "saved"--are you suggesting that they knew of Jesus' resurrection? On what basis?

4. You can't argue that God can't appear to people personally to tell them, because he supposedly appeared as Jesus to five hundred people, plus Thomas, who doubted him. God would appear to anyone who doubted if that is what it took to save the person. You can't explain that away, and the pathetic excuse that if God appeared to us that would rob us of our free will just shows how desperate people are to believe in a story that makes no sense.

I keep seeing this LaClairian argument over and over again. Its proponents appear to always dodge the critique.

It is partially true that a direct manifestation of God would not remove libertarian free will, but this argument tends to be broached by those who reject libertarian free will in the first place. It would still be possible for people to reject Jesus' sacrifice even knowing it as an absolute truth. On the other hand, the compatibilist approach leaves freedom deeply in doubt as to belief through such a manifestation.

The basis of the argument is that "fairness" requires a certain type of behavior from God (universal undoubtable manifestation). But it is incumbent on the arguer to provide a metaphysical basis for the applicable view of fairness. Paul LaClair repeatedly failed in his (rather pathetic) attempts. Plainly "divine command" theory works perfectly well with the system proposed by Paszkiewicz, and I see no reason why a basis for morality in the eternal nature of God would fail to work, either.

So how about addressing the critique?

Those are just four reasons that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the story is false.

With two of the four containing fallacies, what type of confidence is that supposed to inspire?

It is imaginary, just like all the other imaginary religious and quasi-religious myths you probably laugh at and think are silly.

Feel free to discuss any or all of these reasons if you can.

Feel free to reciprocate the discussion, TP. Did you want to disclose at the outset any special relationship you have with other KOTW identities?

Or, have the courage to admit that you might be wrong. That our entire culture might be wrong. That one of the reasons our culture is so sick, is that we've trained ourselves and our children to hide behind ridiculous stories instead of doing the hard work that an ethical life and a life in the spirit demands.

Is it ethical calling stories "ridiculous" based on fallacious reasoning? Or just hard work?

Or, just think about it. Maybe you'll be really thinking about this story for the first time in your life. I don't know. But I do know that the story is false. It is obvious to anyone who thinks it through. It will be obvious to you, too, if you just have the courage to step out of the box you've been trained to live in long enough to really and truly look at the story.

See if you can make the argument without committing a logical fallacy.

If you're going to challenge any of these points, have the courage to say why. And be honest. Don't just play silly little games like Bryan does. Be honest. That's the only place you're ever going to find God, whatever that means to you.

Fallacy of poisoning the well. What other identities do you use at KOTW? Are you honest enough to list them?

[Guest Guest]

Fallacy of the questionable premise. How do you know that everyone would have to hear the story in order to be saved? Moses and the patriarchs continued to be thought of as "saved"--are you suggesting that they knew of Jesus' resurrection? On what basis?

I'm sorry, corrected me if my understanding of the new testament is wrong, but did Moses appear on a mountain with jesus? So in that sense, one would assume that Moses knew about jesus and his role, and Moses was there for saved. So by your arguement god must have told Moses himself, or else Moses would not have appeared with jesus. If god told Moses, why can't he personally tell the rest of us. Some all loving father he is.

[Guest Thumper Bolt]

Fallacy of begging the question (again).

How does the resurrection presuppose hell?

Fallacy of the questionable premise. How do you know that everyone would have to hear the story in order to be saved? Moses and the patriarchs continued to be thought of as "saved"--are you suggesting that they knew of Jesus' resurrection? On what basis?

I keep seeing this LaClairian argument over and over again. Its proponents appear to always dodge the critique.

It is partially true that a direct manifestation of God would not remove libertarian free will, but this argument tends to be broached by those who reject libertarian free will in the first place. It would still be possible for people to reject Jesus' sacrifice even knowing it as an absolute truth. On the other hand, the compatibilist approach leaves freedom deeply in doubt as to belief through such a manifestation.

The basis of the argument is that "fairness" requires a certain type of behavior from God (universal undoubtable manifestation). But it is incumbent on the arguer to provide a metaphysical basis for the applicable view of fairness. Paul LaClair repeatedly failed in his (rather pathetic) attempts. Plainly "divine command" theory works perfectly well with the system proposed by Paszkiewicz, and I see no reason why a basis for morality in the eternal nature of God would fail to work, either.

So how about addressing the critique?

Doctors and biologists would not agree with you that “People do not return to life after being dead for several days” begs any questions. They call this a fact. However, it’s based on empirical data – you know, what actually happens - so I can understand why it doesn’t mean anything to you.

According to Christian theology, the resurrection presupposes the existence of hell because salvation from hell was the only reason Jesus came to live among us and was crucified. No hell, no reason for him to be here, and no crucifixion.

David Paszkiewicz’s position, which he has stated explicitly, is that one must accept Jesus to be saved. Since it was his article that began this discussion, that’s the premise I’m using. A different argument might call for a different critique.

Your critique on point four is irrelevant. The argument follows from the contradictory premises in the Christian argument. Read it again.

[Guest Christian Right]

Oh, but I do. The Jesus story is obviously not true, for many reasons, including:

1. It proposes an event that is contrary to all of nature. People do not return to life after being dead for several days.

2. It is premised on the existence of hell, which is an absurdity. A loving God wouldn't create a hell in the first place, so there would be no reason to send his Son to save us from it. Hell is imaginary, and so is the Jesus story. For that matter, so is this idea of God.

3. If the story was true, God would have made sure everyone on Earth heard it, so that everyone could be saved. We know that did not happen.

4. You can't argue that God can't appear to people personally to tell them, because he supposedly appeared as Jesus to five hundred people, plus Thomas, who doubted him. God would appear to anyone who doubted if that is what it took to save the person. You can't explain that away, and the pathetic excuse that if God appeared to us that would rob us of our free will just shows how desperate people are to believe in a story that makes no sense.

Those are just four reasons that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the story is false. It is imaginary, just like all the other imaginary religious and quasi-religious myths you probably laugh at and think are silly.

Feel free to discuss any or all of these reasons if you can.

Or, have the courage to admit that you might be wrong. That our entire culture might be wrong. That one of the reasons our culture is so sick, is that we've trained ourselves and our children to hide behind ridiculous stories instead of doing the hard work that an ethical life and a life in the spirit demands.

Or, just think about it. Maybe you'll be really thinking about this story for the first time in your life. I don't know. But I do know that the story is false. It is obvious to anyone who thinks it through. It will be obvious to you, too, if you just have the courage to step out of the box you've been trained to live in long enough to really and truly look at the story.

If you're going to challenge any of these points, have the courage to say why. And be honest. Don't just play silly little games like Bryan does. Be honest. That's the only place you're ever going to find God, whatever that means to you.

#1 - God, who created the universe can't raise someone from the dead?? Such elementary arguments.

[Bryan]

Doctors and biologists would not agree with you that “People do not return to life after being dead for several days” begs any questions.

They would if they had any clue about logic.

They call this a fact.

That depends on how doctrinaire they happen to be. Regardless, you can't appeal to doctors and biologists as expert sources to get rid of a fallacy of begging the question. It's a fallacious appeal to authority (since the doctors and biologists are not experts in logic; nor can they rule out one coming to life days after being dead without likewise committing the fallacy of begging the question).

However, it’s based on empirical data – you know, what actually happens - so I can understand why it doesn’t mean anything to you.

Riiiiight. People don't come back to life after being dead for days because people don't come back to life after being dead for days.

That's not begging the question.

Did you know that the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true?

According to Christian theology, the resurrection presupposes the existence of hell because salvation from hell was the only reason Jesus came to live among us and was crucified. No hell, no reason for him to be here, and no crucifixion.

Utterly irrelevant to the historical issue. But you're the expert on irrelevancy, so I shouldn't be surprised.

David Paszkiewicz’s position, which he has stated explicitly, is that one must accept Jesus to be saved. Since it was his article that began this discussion, that’s the premise I’m using. A different argument might call for a different critique.

In other words, he didn't make the argument you're claiming but you'll claim that sometime in the past he said something that justifies you grafting whatever else was said onto this argument so that you can save face.

Whatever.

Your critique on point four is irrelevant. The argument follows from the contradictory premises in the Christian argument. Read it again.

Ever the windbag, aren't you? Here is the whole of your point four:

4. You can't argue that God can't appear to people personally to tell them, because he supposedly appeared as Jesus to five hundred people, plus Thomas, who doubted him. God would appear to anyone who doubted if that is what it took to save the person. You can't explain that away, and the pathetic excuse that if God appeared to us that would rob us of our free will just shows how desperate people are to believe in a story that makes no sense.

You don't have any premises of a Christian argument here at all. It's merely the bald assertion that God would appear to anyone who doubted if that is what it took to save that person. That is a moral principle, and it is incumbent on you to justify that morality on some metaphysical foundation, even if is claimed that you are using the "Christian" one. I've already pointed out that "divine command" theory does not appear to support your assertion so you must have something else in mind. Spill, coward.

[Guest Guest]

Well, maybe if you share your religion, Melanie, we can do a side-by-side comparison.

Irrelevant. Your religion stands or falls on its own merits, or lack thereof.

[Guest Guest]

Your argument doesn't make any sense. You either account for the historical Jesus (overwhelmingly accepted by historians) or you sign on with the non-serious fringe who claim that Jesus was a non-historical myth. If you accept the general historical details then you need a better alternative explantion than "it never happened" where you can't even seem to pin down what "it" is.

But it was pinned down. The argument was specific and crystal clear: people do not come back to life after being dead for several days. Whether the "historical Jesus" lived is irrelevant to the identified problems, which are:

1. People to not return to life after being dead for several days.

2. A loving God would not have a hell to save us from.

3. If God wanted us to know about him, he would have told everyone.

4. He could have appeared to each of us personally to do that, because he appeared to Thomas and more than five hundred others.

Those are very specific arguments, entirely clear, and they make perfect sense. You're trying very hard to avoid them, but there they are.

[Guest Guest]

Mr. P. did not mention hell at all in his pondering from what I can tell. Perhaps the Truth Squid is assuming that Mr. P's argument is assumed?

I'm going to explain something to you, Bryan, not that you'll pay any attention. When a man's beliefs are publicly known, the beliefs he expresses today can be evaluated in light of the beliefs he expressed in the past. Mr. P has made it clear that he believes in hell as a place of eternal torment. Remember: "Please accept me, believe. If you reject that, you belong in hell." He said it, so he's stuck with it, unless he changes his mind and renounces it - and if you're going to try to defend him, so are you.

Grow up, Bryan. Other people are not going to form their opinions around your skewed view of things.

[Guest Christian Right]

Oh, but I do. The Jesus story is obviously not true, for many reasons, including:

1. It proposes an event that is contrary to all of nature. People do not return to life after being dead for several days.

2. It is premised on the existence of hell, which is an absurdity. A loving God wouldn't create a hell in the first place, so there would be no reason to send his Son to save us from it. Hell is imaginary, and so is the Jesus story. For that matter, so is this idea of God.

3. If the story was true, God would have made sure everyone on Earth heard it, so that everyone could be saved. We know that did not happen.

4. You can't argue that God can't appear to people personally to tell them, because he supposedly appeared as Jesus to five hundred people, plus Thomas, who doubted him. God would appear to anyone who doubted if that is what it took to save the person. You can't explain that away, and the pathetic excuse that if God appeared to us that would rob us of our free will just shows how desperate people are to believe in a story that makes no sense.

Those are just four reasons that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the story is false. It is imaginary, just like all the other imaginary religious and quasi-religious myths you probably laugh at and think are silly.

Feel free to discuss any or all of these reasons if you can.

Or, have the courage to admit that you might be wrong. That our entire culture might be wrong. That one of the reasons our culture is so sick, is that we've trained ourselves and our children to hide behind ridiculous stories instead of doing the hard work that an ethical life and a life in the spirit demands.

Or, just think about it. Maybe you'll be really thinking about this story for the first time in your life. I don't know. But I do know that the story is false. It is obvious to anyone who thinks it through. It will be obvious to you, too, if you just have the courage to step out of the box you've been trained to live in long enough to really and truly look at the story.

If you're going to challenge any of these points, have the courage to say why. And be honest. Don't just play silly little games like Bryan does. Be honest. That's the only place you're ever going to find God, whatever that means to you.

You'll never get out of 10th grade if you keep posting your stupid remarks here instead of doing your homework.

[Guest Keith]

You'll never get out of 10th grade if you keep posting your stupid remarks here instead of doing your homework.

Sounds luck someone struck a nerve. It's sad actually that here in 2008, this world is still ruled by a couple of ancient writings, written when the world was still flat and not a provable fact among them. I'm sure that some of the principal players may have been real humans, other than that............

[Guest Guest]

#1 - God, who created the universe can't raise someone from the dead?? Such elementary arguments.

Human beings, who have made up thousands of stories about gods and magical events, couldn't have made up another one? Such an elementary argument.

What about the other three points? Those go the moral character of what you call God. Do you have the courage to face them?

[Guest Guest]

You'll never get out of 10th grade if you keep posting your stupid remarks here instead of doing your homework.

If they're that stupid, then why are you reading them? And responding to them? And do you really think a remark like that elevates the discussion? Do you think that is what Jesus would say? You say you believe in something, but you don't act like it.

If you're a Christian, your duty is to try to save us. If the arguments are so stupid, tell us why. By doing the above, you're corrobating the fact that we're right, because you don't have an answer. As was said to Bryan, you can't even think of a stupid response to what was actually said, but you won't change your mind or even think about it, so you act like an immature child.

I'm not exaggerating here. Those are facts. Look at what has been said. Then look at yourself honestly, maybe for the first time in your life.

Do you have the courage to do that? So far, no, you don't.

[Guest The Reincarnated One]

That depends on how doctrinaire they happen to be. Regardless, you can't appeal to doctors and biologists as expert sources to get rid of a fallacy of begging the question. It's a fallacious appeal to authority (since the doctors and biologists are not experts in logic; nor can they rule out one coming to life days after being dead without likewise committing the fallacy of begging the question).

Riiiiight. People don't come back to life after being dead for days because people don't come back to life after being dead for days.

That's not begging the question.

And what do you claim to be an expert in, Bryan?

As usual, you're missing the point you do not wish to see. We listen to doctors and biologists on questions involving biological life and death because they have training that qualifies them as experts. In other words, Bryan, they know more than you do. I know that's a hard one for you to swallow, but it is a fact.

You'd be right to argue that one need not be a doctor or a biologist to know that dead people do not return to life after being dead for several days, but that's not what you're saying. In fact, to my amazement, you're denying it.

You're also missing two other obvious points. We know that people do not return to life after having been dead for several days, because we have witnessed the death of billions of people. There is not one reliably documented case of anyone returning to life after being dead for days. It's not a circular argument. It's based on observation and science.

By contrast, the Bible is not based on reliable information. In some cases, it contradicts what we know. In some cases, its clear meaning has been denied as science disproved the assumptions of the people who wrote it: stars set in a dome, never changing position, for example. We know that's not true, yet that's what the Bible says. In addition, the Bible is at the center of political and religious controversies, which render its claims suspect at best. So your comparison is not well-taken.

See how to write a cogent argument?

[Guest Bryan's thought master]

Here is the whole of your point four:

4. You can't argue that God can't appear to people personally to tell them, because he supposedly appeared as Jesus to five hundred people, plus Thomas, who doubted him. God would appear to anyone who doubted if that is what it took to save the person. You can't explain that away, and the pathetic excuse that if God appeared to us that would rob us of our free will just shows how desperate people are to believe in a story that makes no sense.

You don't have any premises of a Christian argument here at all. It's merely the bald assertion that God would appear to anyone who doubted if that is what it took to save that person. That is a moral principle, and it is incumbent on you to justify that morality on some metaphysical foundation, even if is claimed that you are using the "Christian" one. I've already pointed out that "divine command" theory does not appear to support your assertion so you must have something else in mind. Spill, coward.

Tell you what, Bryan. You can believe in a god who doesn't do all he can to save us if you want to. You can even believe that there is a god who (1) created a hell, (2) sent his only Son to save us from the hell he created himself and yet (3) won't even show himself to us to prove that he exists, as he showed himself to Thomas and more than five hundred others.

I'm not much for long-winded arguments reduced to phrases like "'divine command' theory." What I do know is enough about Love and compassion to know that if the God you claim exists, really existed, he would surely prefer to reveal himself in the flesh than to allow me, one of his precious children to suffer forever.

And if the choice between believing that God is what you describe, versus believing that you don't know what you're talking about - well, now, do I really have to finish the sentence?

You can deny that if you want to. But that's the point that's being made.

[Guest Guest]

You'll never get out of 10th grade if you keep posting your stupid remarks here instead of doing your homework.

Got no answer, huh? Thought so.

[Bryan]

I'm sorry, corrected me if my understanding of the new testament is wrong, but did Moses appear on a mountain with jesus?

Yes, indeed. You get a gold star.

So in that sense, one would assume that Moses knew about jesus and his role, and Moses was there for saved.

Why would one assume that?

So by your arguement god must have told Moses himself, or else Moses would not have appeared with jesus.

Uh ... what part of my argument? All I did was point out a fallacy.

If god told Moses, why can't he personally tell the rest of us. Some all loving father he is.

So the point is you want to pretend that the fallacy didn't happen or something?

Your post doesn't get you there.

[Bryan]

But it was pinned down. The argument was specific and crystal clear: people do not come back to life after being dead for several days.

That's an unsupported assertion that fallaciously begs the question. Obviously. What accounts for your difficulty in understanding that?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/b...e-question.html

Whether the "historical Jesus" lived is irrelevant to the identified problems, which are:

1. People to not return to life after being dead for several days.

2. A loving God would not have a hell to save us from.

3. If God wanted us to know about him, he would have told everyone.

4. He could have appeared to each of us personally to do that, because he appeared to Thomas and more than five hundred others.

Those are very specific arguments, entirely clear, and they make perfect sense. You're trying very hard to avoid them, but there they are.

Those are four very specific assertions unsupported with argumentation. Once you (or somebody else) tries it, I'll show you where you've committed a logical fallacy. Though there's no guarantee that you're smart enough to understand it based on your current post.

[Bryan]

And what do you claim to be an expert in, Bryan?

Minor vacuum cleaner repairs. You?

As usual, you're missing the point you do not wish to see. We listen to doctors and biologists on questions involving biological life and death because they have training that qualifies them as experts. In other words, Bryan, they know more than you do. I know that's a hard one for you to swallow, but it is a fact.

Any biologist or doctor who tries to make a scientific claim that people do not come back to life after three days quite simply doesn't understand science. You probably don't realize that because you don't understand science.

You'd be right to argue that one need not be a doctor or a biologist to know that dead people do not return to life after being dead for several days, but that's not what you're saying. In fact, to my amazement, you're denying it.

It shouldn't amaze you that I point out that the assertion begs the question unless you understand neither science nor logic. And I can explain it to you even if I can't guarantee that you'll understand it.

You're also missing two other obvious points. We know that people do not return to life after having been dead for several days, because we have witnessed the death of billions of people.

If you understood either logic or science you would probably realize that you're describing a probabilistic argument (0/10^14 people dying without coming back to life simply makes it unlikely that the next one will come back to life--not impossible).

There is not one reliably documented case of anyone returning to life after being dead for days. It's not a circular argument. It's based on observation and science.

You wish. You're peddling a absolute truth based on probabilistic reasoning. It doesn't work that way. You're committing a fallacy and (sadly) you're too ignorant to realize it. But if you idolize Paul LaClair take heart: You argue the same stupid way he does.

By contrast, the Bible is not based on reliable information. In some cases, it contradicts what we know. In some cases, its clear meaning has been denied as science disproved the assumptions of the people who wrote it: stars set in a dome, never changing position, for example. We know that's not true, yet that's what the Bible says. In addition, the Bible is at the center of political and religious controversies, which render its claims suspect at best. So your comparison is not well-taken.

Oh! Another LaClairism. How does it feel slinking around anonymously? Did your law firm encourage you to adopt a lower profile or something?

See how to write a cogent argument?

Was that supposed to be an example?

Here's how to write a cogent argument:

10^16 people have died and not one has come back to life

0/10^16 test cases indicates a low probability (that is, unlikely)

Therefore, coming back to life from the dead is unlikely

Of course, none of that would be news to the people of Jesus' time. They thought it unusual that somebody would come back to life.

As soon as you replace the conclusion with "coming back to life from the dead is impossible" from premises corresponding to those I've listed, you're guilty of a logical fallacy. That's the type of fallacy that beginners make--and you've made enough attempts that you shouldn't be considered a beginner at this point.

If Matthew is even a below-average skeptic he probably cries himself to sleep at night over the fact that daddy makes such pathetic arguments.

[Bryan]

Tell you what, Bryan. You can believe in a god who doesn't do all he can to save us if you want to. You can even believe that there is a god who (1) created a hell, (2) sent his only Son to save us from the hell he created himself and yet (3) won't even show himself to us to prove that he exists, as he showed himself to Thomas and more than five hundred others.

I'm not much for long-winded arguments reduced to phrases like "'divine command' theory." What I do know is enough about Love and compassion to know that if the God you claim exists, really existed, he would surely prefer to reveal himself in the flesh than to allow me, one of his precious children to suffer forever.

And if the choice between believing that God is what you describe, versus believing that you don't know what you're talking about - well, now, do I really have to finish the sentence?

You can deny that if you want to. But that's the point that's being made.

It's understandable that having failed to produce an argument against the resurrection that avoids logical fallacies that you'd come up with a substitute argument that relies on a fallacious appeal to outrage.

Sometimes philosophers try to take the general arguments you've mentioned and present them formally. You're not really much for that sort of thing, are you? Bluster and blubbering are more your speed.

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE (Guest @ Mar 23 2008, 07:07 AM)

. . . people do not come back to life after being dead for several days.

That's an unsupported assertion that fallaciously begs the question.

[Guest Guest]

Any biologist or doctor who tries to make a scientific claim that people do not come back to life after three days quite simply doesn't understand science. You probably don't realize that because you don't understand science.

It shouldn't amaze you that I point out that the assertion begs the question unless you understand neither science nor logic. And I can explain it to you even if I can't guarantee that you'll understand it.

If you understood either logic or science you would probably realize that you're describing a probabilistic argument (0/10^14 people dying without coming back to life simply makes it unlikely that the next one will come back to life--not impossible).

You wish. You're peddling a absolute truth based on probabilistic reasoning. It doesn't work that way. You're committing a fallacy and (sadly) you're too ignorant to realize it. But if you idolize Paul LaClair take heart: You argue the same stupid way he does.

. . . .

10^16 people have died and not one has come back to life

0/10^16 test cases indicates a low probability (that is, unlikely)

Therefore, coming back to life from the dead is unlikely

Of course, none of that would be news to the people of Jesus' time. They thought it unusual that somebody would come back to life.

As soon as you replace the conclusion with "coming back to life from the dead is impossible" from premises corresponding to those I've listed, you're guilty of a logical fallacy. The type of fallacy that beginner's make--and you've made enough attempts that you shouldn't be considered a beginner at this point.

That's your argument? No one can live that way. When a person says "this doesn't happen," 10^16 is more than good enough.

We have to choose what to believe and how to conduct ourselves. In science, all truths are provisional. In life there are no guarantees.

Any sane person takes 10^16 (ten quadrillion) 24/7 - about anything.

[Guest Guest]

It's understandable that having failed to produce an argument against the resurrection that avoids logical fallacies that you'd come up with a substitute argument that relies on a fallacious appeal to outrage.

Sometimes philosophers try to take the general arguments you've mentioned and present them formally. You're not really much for that sort of thing, are you? Bluster and blubbering are more your speed.

I don't think any of us is much for the kind of "philosophy" you seem to enamored of. You want absolute guarantees. There are no such things. It's all in your mind.

10,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 is not good enough for you, at least not if it's something you do not wish to believe. If you want to believe it - weeeeellllll, that's another matter.

Declining to believe in a god who does not love us is not an appeal to outrage. It's a recognition that such a belief (1) is unsupported, (2) serves no purpose and (3) is harmful to the person who believes it and others.

[Guest Guest]

Any biologist or doctor who tries to make a scientific claim that people do not come back to life after three days quite simply doesn't understand science. You probably don't realize that because you don't understand science.

If you understood either logic or science you would probably realize that you're describing a probabilistic argument (0/10^14 people dying without coming back to life simply makes it unlikely that the next one will come back to life--not impossible).

You wish. You're peddling a absolute truth based on probabilistic reasoning. It doesn't work that way. You're committing a fallacy and (sadly) you're too ignorant to realize it. But if you idolize Paul LaClair take heart: You argue the same stupid way he does.

10^16 people have died and not one has come back to life

0/10^16 test cases indicates a low probability (that is, unlikely)

Therefore, coming back to life from the dead is unlikely.

That is incorrect. The odds of winning the Mega lottery are probabilistic. The observation that dead people do not return to life after being dead for several days is scientific (living tissues undergo several processes over the course of several days, certainly in a climate like the Middle East in springtime, that are incompatible with life) and empirical (it hasn't been observed even once). It makes no sense to argue for 1/10^16 for something that has never been observed.

Maybe he finally became embarrassed being backed into so many corners. However it happened, Bryan’s argument is finally clear. Nearly everything he has written since he joined here can be understood as follows.

If he wants to believe something, a one in ten quadrillion possibility of its occurrence is sufficient. If he does not want to believe in something, a ten quadrillion to one certainty of its occurrence is not sufficient.

Since there is a greater likelihood of misperception than that (about anything!), in practical terms, Bryan’s world is reduced to whatever he has chosen to believe. He calls this “philosophy.”

[Guest Keith]

It's understandable that having failed to produce an argument against the resurrection that avoids logical fallacies that you'd come up with a substitute argument that relies on a fallacious appeal to outrage.

Sometimes philosophers try to take the general arguments you've mentioned and present them formally. You're not really much for that sort of thing, are you? Bluster and blubbering are more your speed.

So I guess the question would be: Can you produce and argument for the resurrection while avoiding logical fallacies?

[Guest Guest]

It's understandable that having failed to produce an argument against the resurrection that avoids logical fallacies

lol.

The resurrection is only found in a myth, and it defies physics to survive death in a conscious form. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there is zero evidence that this is anymore than just a story.

Occam's razor says it's BS, whether you like it or not.