There are two sets of evidence that Christians appeal to argue that Christianity is divine rather than human in origin. First, there was the evidence of the empty tomb. The tomb, apparently, was found empty. At least, that is what the early Christians proclaimed, and it was not refuted by those people who would have wanted to see the movement quashed. The second is the fact that various people claim at least to have seen appearances of Jesus following his death. Skeptics typically respond by saying that we have reasons to have doubts about the claim that Jesus was buried in a known tomb. Executed criminals typically had their bodies dumped rather than buried. Second, skeptics typically argue that the disciples hallucinated the risen Jesus. Perhaps there weren't as many people who saw the appearances as the Bible claims. But people tend to hallucinate when they are very depressed, and are experiencing great cognitive dissonance, as must have happened to the disciples when their leader was executed on the cross. So, some people had visions, and the early Christians concluded that he must have been resurrected.
This, I think, is the best response that skeptics have to the historical case for the Resurrection. While I don't buy the hallucination story, I do think it's the strongest skeptical response.
This is still, I think the best resurrection debate, between William Lane Craig and Keith Parsons.
212 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 212 of 212Thanks again for being more honest Ilion, and good to see you at least tried to provide the additional requisite argument to refute the Platonic atheist, separate from your attempt to refute the vulgar materialist.
As I said, I know my position is consistent (you have yet to actually ask me about my position, but somehow have attacked it anyway LMAO, way to go, shooter), but I admit my position could be wrong.
You are a monkey throwing feces at atheism, not knowing what you do, not understanding what you throw at. You are the straw man we like to play with when bored or tired. When we want to have mindless fun we can go to Ilion/Troy and kick him around a bit and watch him play in his own filth. When it is time to have a real discussion, we move on to the big boys like Victor or BenYachov or Crude.
Other adults here include Bob, probably the most mature thinker here, the one I would be converted to Catholicism by. :)
"I haven't seen anthing from Ilion or BenJackoff but anger at this view ..."
Oddly enough, all anyone has seen from Parbouj is intellectual dishonesy.
"Ilion if you want to know how I see mind ..."
What I want to see from that fellow is intellectual honesty, and logical reasoning. I'm not holding my breath.
@parbouj
>You are a monkey throwing feces at atheism,
Son, you did call me a Jackoff didn't you?
Now I honestly don't care about that & I don't think much of Ilion as a person but don't you think it makes you look like a bit of a hypocrite?
Ilion throws shit & you throw elephant shit.
Are you here to discuss ideas and argue rationally or are you here just to get into a troll shit fight?
Let me know I can accommodate you either way.
Ben yes I throw silly punches sometimes, but I also argue. Ilion never does. Like the fecophiliac monkey, he has no rational faculties.
You do, even if you do not understand atheistic Platonism
It is strange that so many people here have a block, conflating abstracta and God. I believe in abstracta, but not God. Why is that so hard for people here to understand?
Start with Frege.
>You do, even if you do not understand atheistic Platonism.
The question is do you understand the difference between Classic Theism vs Theistic Personalism.
Because after reading that essay I linked too I am convinced neither the author or you understand that difference.
Ben you make a good point: I do think the difference between me and a classical theist is smaller than I might have appreciated before you pointed it out.
But for me abstracta are nothing to worship. They don't sustain the world the way you think God sustains all existence from moment to moment.
I am a property dualist about mind, so not much very theistic about that, personal or classical.
parbouj
I have had some good news and tragedy in my family these past few days. My youngest brother & his wife had just had their first child a boy. He is the third grandson of the third son & he is the 7th grandchild.
OTOH my wife's Aunt just died today just 9 months after losing her mother. Thought she had cancer so it wasn't as unexpected when we found mom that horrible day.
So a few brief comments and if I feel like it maybe later I will supply more detail.
>Ben you make a good point: I do think the difference between me and a classical theist is smaller than I might have appreciated before you pointed it out.
Glad I could help.
>But for me abstracta are nothing to worship. They don't sustain the world the way you think God sustains all existence from moment to moment.
I am very very skeptical you can
combine Frege with Plato. From where I am sitting Frege seems more of a conceptionalist where as Plato is a strong realist.
I don't see how they are compatible? The Laws that govern the universe are either real or they are just concepts in our mind.
Thought I suppose the Laws only direct the universe toward final causes not cause the universe as the Absolute does in Aristotle.
>I am a property dualist about mind, so not much very theistic about that, personal or classical.
I'm a Hylomorphism dualist thought I submit that doesn't really have anything to do with personalist vs Classic.
It has to do with comparing God to creatures in either an unequivocal manner or an analogous manner. The Personalist see's God has having a mind unequivocally compared to a human one. The same kind of mind we have only more uber a difference in degree. A Mormon deity 2.0 with the body abstracted away plus preternatural powers.
That isn't the classic view by a long shot. God is not anthropomorphic. He has intelligent & will but it is an intelligence different in kind and unknowable from & too us.
More more info consult AN INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. by Brian Davies see the chapter on God concepts.
If you have any book to recommend on your views I would be interested.
Cheers!
PS be a Platonic Atheist but for God's/Law's sake don't be a Gnu. They are just fundies without godbelief and twice as tedious.
Cheers again.
Frege was a neoPlatonist.
BenYachov:
Modern Platonism and the indispensability of mathematics, and Platonism in mathematics.
They actually do a good job of expressing the neoPlatonist line, especially starting with Frege, going through Godel, up to the present.
The biggest problem with my view is how mind "sees" these abstracta, but since I think the mind is nonphysical, I have more wiggle room than the vulgar materialist. Or, as they would say, I have more freedom to bs.
PS Sorry to hear about the loss in your family, BenYachov.
Incidentally, my interpretation of Rosenberg, that Ben for some reason felt a need to mock, was obviously right, as Feser said in a more recent post:
"atheism is just one implication among others of his scientism, and the aim of the book is to spell out what else follows from scientism, rather than to say much in defense of atheism."
Feser gets a point for correctly seeing this (though I am not endorsing anything else Feser has ever said about Rosenberg, only this).
Post a Comment