Is Jesus' Resurrection Plausible?

[Freethinker]

I don't think it is reaonable to claim Christianity or theism is irrational.

And as soon as you can prove the biblical Christ, then we can see if it is irrational or not. Your continued failure to do so shows it IS irrational.

[Queso]

BTW, where exactly is the tomb? Are there any photographs of it on the web?

 

yeah hey good idea. i want to see the ruins of this place. does it even still exist?

[Freethinker]

what do you mean by - she is suggesting ?

if you for example believe that the bible is the real thing, those are God's words

then why would you say some parts are actually true and some parts are made up ?

Because they know so much of it is outright absurd and are still so desperate to believe they will grasp at whatever nonsense they can succesfully spew.

 

Remember this discussion is about what happened to a body that never existed. Where is there ANY rationality in that?

[C1ay]

i want to see the ruins of this place. does it even still exist?

 

Surely it must, if the events of the tomb are so thoroughly documented it's location must be as well.

[Freethinker]

But I don't hold their point of view against thoughtful theists, e.g., Einstein.

Einstein a Theist? You really don't have a clue do you?

 

From a correspondence between Ensign Guy H. Raner and Albert Einstein in 1945 and 1949. Einstein responds to the accusation that he was converted by a Jesuit priest:

 

"I have never talked to a Jesuit prest in my life. I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."

 

Einstein in fact was sick of the lies from Christians such as the one you posted. He said so in so many words:

 

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [From a letter Einstein wrote dated 24 March 1954.]

 

Yes LIE. That is flatly what he called all of you Christians trying to claim he sucked for the theistic nonsense. While in fact he stated that a person had to be feeble to accept such foolishness.

 

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."

[Freethinker]

Surely it must, if the events of the tomb are so thoroughly documented it's location must be as well.

Ya let's place another request for proof in the cue. Might as well stack them up. See how high of a pile it is next to the pile of other stuff.

[Queso]

whoa thanks for clearing that up with einstein, free thinker.

i posted a thread exactly two months ago about how i had HEARD einstein smoked weed, and i just wanted to see if that was true or not.

 

tormod said "I wouldn't know but somehow I doubt it. Not sure why - maybe his religious views stopped him from doing it."

 

so that pretty much gave me the answer right there. but now i'm wondering otherwise, do you know anything about this, freethinker?

[Fishteacher73]

Here are two of the possible tombs.

[lindagarrette]

Here are two of the possible tombs.

If you visit the "holy land" you will get to see Joseph's carpentry shop in Nazareth (a place that did not exist at that time), and then in Bethlehem, there is a site for the manger. If you climb Mt. Ararat, you can see remnents of Noah's Arc.

[Biochemist]

In the first place, there is no evidence of a resurection, only Bible stories.

I admit to being a little confused. There is substantial evidence. I provided links above (in post #17) to some of that evidence and some of the leading refutations. You can choose to balance that evidence against refutations. To suggest there is no evidence is an abuse of english.

In the second place, someone who is actually dead and whose brain is deteriorating cannot possibly be revived.

This is a straight forward fallacious argument. The resurrection, if it occurred, is miraculous. The argument I posited is that the historical evidence in support of the event is real. You cannot rule out historical evidence because the implications loom large. By your model, you could have personally witnessed the crucifixion, carried Jesus to the tomb, taken an EKG after death, videotaped the exit from the tomb, talked to Him personally afterwards and still claim it never happened. I suggest this is an invalid analytical approach.

Third, even according to the Bible books, the resurection could not have been a physical event.

That is an uncommon interpretation among Christians. I don't know how commonly held it is among Christian critics. It is not legitimate to propose a mnority opinion as fact, although you are certainly welcome to hold that opinion.

Lastly, what would be the point of having a resurection in the first place unless there was some truth to the Adam and Eve story? again with the only evidence being ithe Bible.

Again, there are many issues related to the meaning of the resurrection. I personally think there are issues related to the meaning of the Big Bang, but that does not stop me from evaluating the argument for it on its merits alone.

Are you suggesting that the resurrection could be partially true and partially faith?

For the life of me, I don't understand how you could have gotten that from my post. The issue here is plausibility until refutation. Punctuated equilbrium is plausible until refuted as well.

Why is it necessary to have any reference to scientific theory or evidence when the entire notion is faith based?

Because I don't agree it is entirely faith-based.

Once you start to prove a supernatural event, you completely contradict the scientific method.

Only if one were to assume that miraculous events occur with enough frequency that they obviate measurement. I don't think anyone has suggested that here or in the links that I provided.

Science could not survive with an intervening god or with miracles. There is no in between.

This is a minority opinion in history. Many great scientific thinkers were theists, and had no dificulty relying on the scientific method.

[Biochemist]

Einstein a Theist? You really don't have a clue do you?...Einstein responds to the accusation that he was converted by a Jesuit priest.....Einstein in fact was sick of the lies from Christians such as the one you posted..."I cannot imagine a God who...Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."

Gee, FrT- It is a bit of a stretch to accuse anyone of outright lies when a) you are not paying much attention to the source posts, and :o the items you post do not contradict the original posting.

 

I don't think I saw anyone suggested that Einstein was a Christian. I certianly did not.. I said he was a theist, which he certainly was. He was probably closest to being characterized as a Deist. And I suspect that you know it, since his quotes on the subject are broadly circulated. If you do know it, and still generated this overt misrepresentaion, we can all note exactly who is telling the truth and who is not.

[Biochemist]

whoa thanks for clearing that up with einstein, free thinker.

I don't think that Frt cleared it up much. Einstein was a theist in the Deist mold, not a Christian. Examples:

My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God.

And:

I do not believe that the basic ideas of the theory of relativity can lay claim to a relationship with the religious sphere that is different from that of scientific knowledge in general. I see this connection in the fact that profound interrelationships in the objective world can be comprehended through simple logical concepts. To be sure, in the theory of relativity this is the case in particularly full measure. The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere.

I think there are dozens more quotes like this. Einstein believed in an impersonal god that established the structure of the universe such that we could understand it. This is pretty standard for someone of a Deist flavor.

[paultrr]

It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being.

 

I think few scientists would actually take exception that much with Einstein's general stance. If one thinks of nature itself as our creator or source then in essence there is no need of fashioning a god-like being in our own image embodied with personage or will. As products of natural processes the only personal expression would be through nature itself in such higher forms of life where such can be construed to exist. While this does not eliminate the concept of say a first cause of creation it does set bounds upon that first cause being itself a product of nature.

 

As to the resurrection, while one can certainly argue backwards and forwards when it comes to liberal secular account for the origin of the resurrection, and debate the in's & out's of the texts themselves when one boils it all down it still involves an act of faith to accept the resurrection even if there does exist evidence in its favor. For those of us who do not believe in any personal god whatever the evidence for or against the resurrection we still not take such in the same context as say a christian would.

 

One has to wonder what the purpose in all these dialogs of debate about god, about the resurrection, etc? I do believe that the context of this site is basically that of science. Last I knew religion and faith where rather outside of the purview of actual scientific investigation with the exception of the historical studies. Granted religion at times comes under the subject of philosophy and has its own varying philosophic points of view. But in general I might suggest that if you're purpose is to try and evangelize others that there are far more open forums upon which to discuss such than this one.

[C1ay]

Here are two of the possible tombs.

 

Possible tombs? Uhh, does that mean no one knows for sure where the tomb is? I also had another thought as well. Did they build an elaborate tomb for everyone in those days? Where are the tombs for the other people that were crucified?

[lindagarrette]

 

One has to wonder what the purpose in all these dialogs of debate about god, about the resurrection, etc? I do believe that the context of this site is basically that of science. Last I knew religion and faith where rather outside of the purview of actual scientific investigation with the exception of the historical studies. Granted religion at times comes under the subject of philosophy and has its own varying philosophic points of view. But in general I might suggest that if you're purpose is to try and evangelize others that there are far more open forums upon which to discuss such than this one.

I agree emphatically!

[Biochemist]

As to the resurrection, while one can certainly argue backwards and forwards...and debate the in's & out's of the texts themselves when one boils it all down it still involves an act of faith to accept the resurrection even if there does exist evidence in its favor....

One has to wonder what the purpose in all these dialogs of debate about god, about the resurrection, etc?

Paultrr- My purpose in launching this thread was quite narrow (see post #1). It was certainly NOT to prove the existence of God, or even to prove the resurrection. And it was explicitly not to evangelize. It was only to suggest that the resurrection is plausible. I surfaced the notion because I noted a number of folks on this site that routinely characterize theism as irrational. My suggestion is that it is not. It mat be perfectly reasonable for some to reject the evidence of theistic influence. My suggestion is that to label theists as irrational is both unreasonable and biased. Controlling for bias is one of the key tenets of the scientific method.

 

Theism is at least as rational as atheism is.

[infamous]

Paultrr- My purpose in launching this thread was quite narrow (see post #1). It was certainly NOT to prove the existence of God, or even to prove the resurrection. And it was explicitly not to evangelize. It was only to suggest that the resurrection is plausible. I surfaced the notion because I noted a number of folks on this site that routinely characterize theism as irrational. My suggestion is that it is not. It mat be perfectly reasonable for some to reject the evidence of theistic influence. My suggestion is that to label theists as irrational is both unreasonable and biased. Controlling for bias is one of the key tenets of the scientific method.

 

Theism is at least as rational as atheism is.

 

Biochemist; Even though I'm on your side, I need to point out that all these folks are trying to say is; there is no proof that Christ was resurrected from the dead. I believe by faith that he was as you also do, but without proof no one will be convinced. I think it would be more constructive to find positions of similar agreement upon which to build our discussions. I'm not saying that we should never disagree, but it would be more profitable to base our discussions on varifiable evidence. This is after all a Science Forum, and sceince is about finding evidence to support our understanding.