The strange afterlife of Pontius Pilate

[Dicky Underpants]

You seem to have faith that what you see and hear on tv is straight up.
How can we know that.

That in itself is quite a good point. However, I note that Donald Trump's team has immediately started to work on the principle. The greatest ever attendance at a presidential inauguration ever (and of course, there were also a multitude of witnesses to the Resurrection, and that was written down on parchment, so has a far greater degree of credibility).

[jeremyp]

So even if you stood there and watched it (apparently) happening you wouldn't believe it?

If I stood there and watched it happen, I probably would believe, but even the official accounts do not claim anybody watched it happen.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Well that's weird. Are you suggesting that Derren Brown performs bona fide miracles only he pretends that he doesn't?

Seriously?

And now weirder still. DB uses various techniques to facilitate his audience's willing suspension

Hillside..........its entertainment.

[Spud]

Alien,

Here’s a better explanation for you.

1. You’re attempting a negative proof fallacy. It’s for the claimant to show beyond reasonable doubt that the record is accurate, not for others to prove that it's not.

2. There is no eye-witness evidence. Such records as there are were written decades later, and so merely reported what eye-witnesses allegedly said.

3. There aren’t records from lots of eye-witnesses. What there actually is is effectively one record that says, “Fred and all his mates saw a resurrection”. In a court of law various witnesses would be given more credence than just one, but there wouldn’t be more credence given to just one because he said his mates saw it too.

4. In a court the witnesses wouldn’t be allowed to collude.

5. In a court there’d be the opportunity to cross examine in order to help eliminate the risk of bias, mistake, dishonesty etc. None of these things can be tested from the limited account we have.

6. In a court of law there’d be the opportunity to ask what else the witness thought to be true. If he also thought ten other superstitious beliefs to be true then his credulity would be taken into account.

7. In a court expert witnesses could be produced to present evidence about, say, drug-induced coma that would provide alternative explanations for the events that were supposedly witnessed.

And so on. 

Are you beginning to see the problem here?

Oh, and we didn’t go round and round before as you suggest. If someone asserts that 2+2=5 and is shown to be wrong, just repeating it doesn’t provide an alternative fact worth considering. The trick would be instead to attempt an argument that isn’t shown to be logically false.

And yet you believe the accounts of the existence and deeds of other people about whom there is less testimony than about Jesus. Isn't the problem that because the claim is that the impossible happened, then no evidence, first-hand, hearsay or even seeing it with ones own eyes (in the case of Floo but possibly not jeremyp), is acceptable because it's more likely there are mistakes or it's made up.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremyp,

If I stood there and watched it happen, I probably would believe, but even the official accounts do not claim anybody watched it happen.

But why? If you stand there and watch a woman sawn in half and then re-joined on stage your don't think, "There's a woman sawn in half and re-joined then". Eye-witness accounts even when we do have them can be highly unreliable guides to what's actually happening.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

And yet you believe the accounts of the existence and deeds of other people about whom there is less testimony than about Jesus. Isn't the problem that because the claim is that the impossible happened, then no evidence, first-hand, hearsay or even seeing it with ones own eyes (in the case of Floo but possibly not jeremyp), is acceptable because it's more likely there are mistakes or it's made up.

It's hard to think of accepted historical records about which there's actually less "testimony" than there is about the resurrection, but why is it a problem when experience tells us that natural explanations are more likely than supernatural ones? If you really want to accept the latter, then you need some robust reasons for rejecting the former. And such records as we have from the Bible don't come even close to doing that.   

[floo]

And yet you believe the accounts of the existence and deeds of other people about whom there is less testimony than about Jesus. Isn't the problem that because the claim is that the impossible happened, then no evidence, first-hand, hearsay or even seeing it with ones own eyes (in the case of Floo but possibly not jeremyp), is acceptable because it's more likely there are mistakes or it's made up.

Claims that something impossible happened like the resurrection, it has to be challenged, especially when it was written down years after Jesus died, and there is no supporting evidence. If Jesus hadn't disappeared up to heaven very conveniently, but stuck around until today then it would be much more believable.

[Shaker]

And yet you believe the accounts of the existence and deeds of other people about whom there is less testimony than about Jesus. Isn't the problem that because the claim is that the impossible happened, then no evidence, first-hand, hearsay or even seeing it with ones own eyes (in the case of Floo but possibly not jeremyp), is acceptable because it's more likely there are mistakes or it's made up.

Of course deception/error/bias are vastly more probable - that's certainly no problem to me

[Spud]

Spud,

It's hard to think of accepted historical records about which there's actually less "testimony" than there is about the resurrection, but why is it a problem when experience tells us that natural explanations are more likely than supernatural ones? If you really want to accept the latter, then you need some robust reasons for rejecting the former. And such records as we have from the Bible don't come even close to doing that.   

It's a problem for Christians who think of the New Testament as incontrovertible evidence. Actually John knew this and says he has written about it so that you may believe. He doesn't say you have to believe. I suppose he guessed that people would be reading it many years later.
Actually, if someone I had worked with for three years died while I watched, then appeared three days later, the same person with the same characteristics, then I would have to accept this as evidence.

[Shaker]

It's a problem for Christians who think of the New Testament as incontrovertible evidence.

Ah well - as I say, no problem to me 

Actually, if someone I had worked with for three years died while I watched, then appeared three days later, the same person with the same characteristics, then I would have to accept this as evidence.

Would the thought "Medically untrained as I am, it's vastly more probable that they only seemed to be dead rather than actually dead" not cross your mind? Given that there are plenty of well-documented cases of the phenomenon, I mean.

[Spud]

If Jesus hadn't disappeared up to heaven very conveniently, but stuck around until today then it would be much more believable.

True - he'd have to not age at all over the lifetime of the average person. Maybe there's some important reason why we are invited to accept it by faith?

[Shaker]

True - he'd have to not age at all over the lifetime of the average person. Maybe there's some important reason why we are invited to accept it by faith?

What would be an important reason - a real reason, I mean, not an after-the-fact, question-begging reason - to accept anything by faith?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

It's a problem for Christians who think of the New Testament as incontrovertible evidence. Actually John knew this and says he has written about it so that you may believe. He doesn't say you have to believe. I suppose he guessed that people would be reading it many years later.

And that's called "faith", which is fine for those who find it helpful. The problem with it though is that it offers nothing whatever to suggest to other people that they're right - especially given the bewildering (and often mutually contradictory) array of faith beliefs on offer.

Actually, if someone I had worked with for three years died while I watched, then appeared three days later, the same person with the same characteristics, then I would have to accept this as evidence.

So would I. What tests though would be available to me to verify that he actually was dead, that the same he was alive again a bit later, that there hadn't been a switcheroo of the bodies etc?

A brain scan? DNA samples? What?

[Gordon]

It's a problem for Christians who think of the New Testament as incontrovertible evidence.

Then they think wrongly since we've yet to see a means of distinguishing the supernatural NT claims from fiction.

Actually, if someone I had worked with for three years died while I watched, then appeared three days later, the same person with the same characteristics, then I would have to accept this as evidence.

Then you'd be credulous, especially in this day and age when confirmation of clinical death is rather more precise than in the middle east of antiquity and since there re now means of verifying that the resurrected person was the same person who was certified as dead.

Much harder to claim 'resurrection' these days!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

True - he'd have to not age at all over the lifetime of the average person. Maybe there's some important reason why we are invited to accept it by faith?

The most obvious of which being that it wasn't true in the first place.

[Gordon]

Maybe there's some important reason why we are invited to accept it by faith?

There sure is: 'faith' in this sense is the avoidance of critical thinking, thereby allowing unfaslifiable and ridiculous claims to persist in the minds of the credulous.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#52

The truly, actually and genuinely dead don't return from such a state of deadness or deaditude. I have no seen no evidence - not a single and solitary scrap, anywhere, ever - that such a thing is the case or has ever occurred anywhere, any time, ever

So because of your confirmation bias

The truly, actually and genuinely dead don't return from such a state of deadness or deaditude

you can never see anything as evidence for any resurrection claims. Yet you use lack of evidence

I have no seen no evidence - not a single and solitary scrap, anywhere, ever - that such a thing is the case or has ever occurred anywhere, any time, ever.

for not believing any resurrection claims, something you reiterate in #63

We have abundant evidence that people lie. We have abundant evidence that people can be genuinely mistaken. We have abundant evidence that people can be biased. We have no evidence that any dead human being has ever come back to life. Therefore, in evaluating an alleged resurrection, we have to say that deliberate deception, sincere error and bias are orders of magnitude more probable than a reanimated corpse

It’s a classic circularity and is a problem here for some non-theists here, in particular you and bluehillside. Until you accept that your position is a tautology, you will be prevented you from getting the answers to the questions you are asking. As Alien said in #54:

This is why I've not been around for about a year. The same conversation as I used to have year after year.

Hardly surprising that arguments based on circular reasoning go round in ... erm ... circles!

[Shaker]

So because of your confirmation bias

No. Because of the lack of evidence. 

you can never see anything as evidence for any resurrection claims.

On the contrary, I can think of several scenarios that would be supporting evidence. Some have been mentioned on this thread, in fact. None of these scenarios exist in actuality, however.

Yet you use lack of evidence for not believing

Indeed. Lack of evidence is my most favouritest reason for not believing something.

It’s a classic circularity and is a problem here for some non-theists here, in particular you and bluehillside. Until you accept that your position is a tautology, you will be prevented you from getting the answers to the questions you are asking.

Hardly surprising that arguments based on circular reasoning go round in ... erm ... circles!

Actually it isn't circular reasoning at all but straightforward evidentialism, which I can only assume you don't understand. Listen to claim X, look for evidence which supports X. If none is found, disbelieve claim X.

It's not difficult.

[Spud]

What would be an important reason - a real reason, I mean, not an after-the-fact, question-begging reason - to accept anything by faith?

If you were convinced that the world was made by chance without any supernatural input then you would have no reason to accept the Bible by faith. But since most people would not claim they were 100% certain, then they have a reason to accept the Bible by faith

[Shaker]

If you were convinced that the world was made by chance without any supernatural input then you would have no reason to accept the Bible by faith. But since most people would not claim they were 100% certain, then they have a reason to accept the Bible by faith

Non sequitur. Why the Bible?

[Spud]

Non sequitur. Why the Bible?

Because, as Mark says, it contains good news!

[floo]

Because, as Mark says, it contains good news!

Does it?

[Shaker]

Because, as Mark says, it contains good news!

Where?

[Stranger]

Because, as Mark says, it contains good news!

Even if it did appear to contain good news (and it wasn't the inconsistent, contradictory mess that it actually is), that would not be a reason to accept it by faith.