tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post115740391570147259..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Does A Vague Appeal To "Visions" Overcome The Problems With The Hallucination Theory?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157828151484088622006-09-09T14:55:00.000-04:002006-09-09T14:55:00.000-04:00Gene, I really don't see how you've addressed the ...Gene, I really don't see how you've addressed the issue I raised and it also seems to me that you just don't understand how Bayesian inference works. Read the discussion relating to ESP that I linked to above.<BR/><BR/>As I explained before, it is perfectly reasonable for Carrier and others to offer mutually exlusive alternatives, one of which may contradict another. This can be readily shown with both examples and with math. I will give an example.<BR/><BR/>Suppose I was to tell you that I traveled to my destination today via interstellar spacecraft. I first did a loop around our galaxy, then returned to earth for a round of golf near where I live. Should you believe me?<BR/><BR/>You wouldn't believe me. You would recognize that there are several explanations for my claim, none of which require that I actually flew around in a spaceship. These explanations might even contradict one another.<BR/><BR/>For instance, you might consider that I'm delusional. Or you might consider that I'm lying. These are contradictory theories. Either of them might not be what you would <I>actually</I> believe. You might actually conclude a third alternative. Perhaps someone threatened me and required me to make this claim.<BR/><BR/>Now, let's suppos you write a book about my claim. You offer lying as a hypothesis. You offer delusion as a hypothesis. You provide evidence for each hypothesis. You might say that you don't really think I'm lying or that I'm delusional. But it is more reasonable to come to either one of those conclusions than it is to come to believe that I really travelled via interstellar spacecraft. And moreso, it's certainly more rational to believe that I was <I>either</I> lying or delusional than it is to believe that I really travelled in a spaceship.<BR/><BR/>This is what Richard Carrier is saying. You quoted him as follows:<BR/><BR/>"Not only must one show that its [the resurrection] final epistemic probability is greater than for theft (as also for each and every other alternative), which I doubt can be done, but one must also show that the sum of the final epistemic probabilities of theft and all other explanations that exclude a resurrection—is less than 50%."<BR/><BR/>So in my illustration, to get you to accept the claim that I flew in a spaceship, not only must I show that that belief that I flew in a spaceship exceeds the 50% threshold as compared to the belief that I lied (which can't be done), it has to exceed the lying explanation combined with all alternative hypothesis (delusion, threats, etc), which is an even greater hurdle.<BR/><BR/>So it is more rational to believe that I'm lying than it is to believe that I flew in a spaceship. But you may not actually believe I lied. You may conclude something else. But the lying hypothesis alone is enough to discredit my claim.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157760860909716502006-09-08T20:14:00.000-04:002006-09-08T20:14:00.000-04:00The book The Empty Tomb is not intended to show th...<I>The book The Empty Tomb is not intended to show that in fact Jesus body was stolen, or in fact hallucinations occurred, or in fact the body was moved in accordance with Jewish law. It was intended to show that it is irrational to beleive the supernatural explanation.Carrier provides evidence for the stolen body hypothesis in an effort to raise that alternative to a level necessary to overcome the initial probability of belief that a miracle occurred. </I><BR/><BR/>This is simply incompetent. <I>The Empty Tomb </I> was not written by Carrier alone. It is a multi-authored work. The gospels are <I>also </I> multi-authored works. So, we have two multi-authored works, and we're told by you that one is "irrational" because (a) the probability is low and (b) the accounts are contradictory, but you apply a different standard to another multi-authored work, offering blatantly contradictory materials. <BR/><BR/>In point of fact, Carrier, in this same volume, puts forth more than one hypothesis to explain the empty tomb, Jon. Do you not know this? The book itself does more than put forth the thesis that it is irrational; it tries to point toward alternative hypotheses. The problem is that not one of them is on epistemic parity with the Resurrection. Each one of the ignores parts of the evidence at hand, and even flatly contradicts some of the evidence at hand. It does this, while demanding evidence for the Resurrection. So, the writers want us to believe theories for which there is no evidence or that contradicts the available evidence while castigating Christians for believing the testimony with respect to the available evidence, based on probability. Uh-huh. In Christian apologetics, the disagreement is not over the underlying event, but over the best argument for the event. What we have in ET is a mélange of competing theories and contradictory theses that suffer from being placed into the same volume, each of which posits a different event. One wonders why the editors did not attempt to reign in their contributors. What is an unbeliever to do? Which is more believable: (a) Jesus rose from the dead or (b) the persons purporting to prove that He did not rise from the dead have successfully made their case while simultaneously offering mutually exclusive theories and contradicting each other in the process, while offering theories without any evidence whatsoever for them?<BR/><BR/>Within the pages of chapter 5, Carrier offers no less than three explanations of the empty tomb, the hallucination theory and a theory of narrative origin based on comparative mythology. Later, in chapter 9, we are offered a theory that the body was stolen. We also learn that, since contributing to ET Carrier has decided Jesus did not really exist. Which is it? One truly wonders why we should take him seriously. According to my notes, he contradicts himself no less than nine times. He charts a course from Jewish diversity through Greek paganism and engages in what can only be termed free association and “parallelomania,” while offering three conflicting theories of what happened in chapter 5 alone. Lowder offers another thesis, that the body was relocated. Derrett proposes the swoon theory. This is typical, and makes ET seem incoherent. Christian apologists offer competing explanations for the same event, but hold to the same story. Here, we have these unbelieving essayists offering not only competing theories for the empty tomb, but also different events. Here's a sample what we find in TET:<BR/><BR/> 1. a. Drange: There are only isolated proof texts for the resurrection in Scripture (Ps. <BR/> 16:10).<BR/> b. Contradicted by Carrier, who documents the OT resurrection motif extensively.<BR/><BR/> 2. a. Carrier: Unwanted texts were not preserved and their adherents were “hunted down and destroyed.” This is a known fact of history.<BR/> b. Carrier: History can’t be trusted.<BR/>Question for Carrier: If history can’t be trusted, then why trust this “known fact?”<BR/><BR/> 3. a. Carrier: The authors of the Gospels wrote after 70 AD.<BR/> b. Carrier: Mark was written between 60AD and 80AD.<BR/>Which is true?<BR/><BR/> 4. a. Carrier: We should dismiss the gospels on the basis they are overtly polemical.<BR/> b. ET, the book to which Carrier contributes, is overtly polemic. Should we dismiss <BR/> it too?<BR/><BR/> 5. a. Carrier: The empty tomb is really nothing more than a mythological parallel. <BR/> (Ch.5).<BR/> b. Carrier: The body was stolen (Ch.9).<BR/><BR/> 6. a. Carrier: Belief in ghosts discredits the empty tomb.<BR/> b. Carrier denies belief in ghosts to prove the Paul was speaking of a “spiritual” body.<BR/><BR/> 7. a. Carrier: Matthew and Luke handle their sources very carefully.<BR/> b. Matthew and Luke embellish their sources cavalierly. <BR/>Question for Carrier: Which of these two options is true?<BR/><BR/> 8. Carrier: See 5 a and b.<BR/> c. Carrier: The tomb was empty; the disciples hallucinated.<BR/><BR/>9. a. Carrier objects to “pseudoscience.”<BR/> b. Carrier appeals to “subliminal motivations” – pseudoscience, according to his own<BR/> standards. Why appeal to it when it suits you?<BR/><BR/>10. a. Carrier: We should rule out Josephus’ record of portents at the seige of Jerusalem.<BR/> b. Josephus should at least corroborate the tearing of the curtain in the Temple.<BR/>Question for Carrier: Isn’t that also a portent? Why then should Josephus confirm it?<BR/><BR/>11. a. Carrier: The text is a-historical.<BR/>--To construct his hallucination theory, Carrier must assume:<BR/> b. The text is historically accurate, at least for the tomb being empty.<BR/><BR/>12. a. Kirby: The involvement of Joseph of Arimathea is implausible, because he was <BR/> said to be Sanhedrinist.<BR/> b. Kirby: “A request from some Jews for the bodies of the crucified to be taken down <BR/> before the Sabbath may be historical, as this is plausible and even to be expected<BR/> <BR/><BR/>13. a. Kirby: The young man at the tomb in Mark is an angelophany.<BR/> b. Carrier denies this. Which then is true?<BR/><BR/>14. a. Lowder offers the relocated body/tomb hypothesis.<BR/> b. Carrier: See 5 and 8 above.<BR/>Note: We now have competing theories in ET. Which one is correct?<BR/><BR/>15. a. Fales ascribes the text of the Gospels to be the construction of a myth, including <BR/> the resurrection.<BR/> b. His fellow contributors don’t deny the writers were describing a bodily <BR/> resurrection. They may disagree whether the assertion is true, but not over<BR/> the authors’ intent.<BR/><BR/>16. a. Carrier: The disciples stole the body.<BR/> b. Carrier says grave robbers would not likely be Jews, which immediately <BR/> eliminates disciples as culprits.<BR/>Note: There is no positive evidence for this theory in the New Testament or any other source, so Carrier is contradicting the evidence and some of his own assertions. He espouses one theory, only to contradict himself a few pages later.<BR/><BR/>17. a. Carrier: Matthew’s account using down parallels is drawn from Daniel’s events at <BR/> dawn.<BR/> b. This contradicts his thesis on the Romulus myth and Genesis 1-3—so now he has<BR/> offered 3 competing theories for the source of these texts. Which is it?<BR/><BR/>18. a. Carrier: The trial narrative is a fiction.<BR/> b. Fales: The irregularities of the trial narratives depicted in the narratives give it the <BR/> feel of authenticity.<BR/><BR/>19. a. Derrett offers the swoon theory.<BR/> b. See 5, 8, and 14 above. Which are we to believe?<BR/><BR/>20. a. Derrett: Jesus was buried by one of the richest men available, Joseph of Arimathea.<BR/> b. Tell that to Kirby and Carrier who deny he existed.<BR/><BR/>21. a. Derrett says the doctrine of resurrection is part of normative Judaism and a notion <BR/> of the Pharisees in the first century.<BR/> b. In chapter 5, Carrier denies this.<BR/><BR/>22. a. Derrett says we have no record of secret debates held over the disposal of the<BR/> body.<BR/> b. If these debates are secret and we have no record, how does Derrett know this?<BR/><BR/>23. a. Martin says Jesus tacitly approved of slavery. This assumes he is in a position, as <BR/> an atheist, to moralize.<BR/> b. His fellow contributor, Lowder, along with Edes and Cline (also atheists) has noted<BR/> Martin’s case for secular ethics is a failure.<BR/><BR/>24. a. Carrier: multiple theories as to what happened are provided in this book. (See <BR/> above)<BR/> b. Since contributing his essays, Carrier has become convinced Jesus did not exist.<BR/>Question: Why should we trust anything he says? Remember, his arguments are repeated by some of his fellow contributors!<BR/><BR/>25. a. Parsons assumes we have an accurate picture of pre-70AD Jerusalem.<BR/> b. Parsons cited scholarship dates the Gospels after 70AD. How can “a” be true?<BR/><BR/> If we should not believe in the Resurrection narratives because they are allegedly contradictory, then, I would wonder, what should we make of The Empty Tomb? If we applied the same logic as these critics to their own writing that they have in their book, then logic dictates I believe in the Resurrection. I thank them for having made that clear for me. <BR/><BR/>With respect to the probability of the event having happened, which is more reliable, the probability of the event or the testimony that the event happened? Yes, it might be one in a million, but all it takes is one such event, even if the odds are greatly against it, in order to negate the odds against it. All it takes to validate the event is reasonably historically accurate testimony to that particular event. So, all invoking probability does is beg the question with respect to naturalism. Probability is only relevant when we have no knowledge of concrete particulars. The Resurrection is not an ordinary event happening to an ordinary person. It is an extraordinary event happening to an extraordinary person. <BR/><BR/> You also need a baseline to calculate probability for an event. What, pray tell, is the baseline for calculating the Resurrection of Christ? You can't probilify from a general class to a specific class or vice versa. That's a level-confusion. <BR/><BR/> What, pray tell, is the probability of a alternate theory about what happened to the body of Christ that runs completely contrary to the evidence at hand or discounts part of it? When you assert these contrary theories in order to call belief in the Resurrection "irrational" you only draw attention to the Resurrection itself and lard your own theories down with probability problems worse than the thesis you are trying to refute. To quote Steve from TJE: <BR/><BR/>The contributors to the ET would not be going to such fanciful lengths to concoct an alterative theory of events unless they recognized the absolute need to come up with an alternative explanation. You see, even if you don’t believe in the Resurrection, it is not enough to merely deny it. You must still account for the account itself. You must explain how a nonevent generated the record of an event.<BR/>The contributors constantly remind us of how far-fetched the Resurrection is. That’s the bedrock of their unbelief. But it doesn’t occur to them that the more far-fetched the event in question, the harder it is for them to explain why anyone would believe it in the first place. The more they willfully accentuate the improbability of the Easter fact, they more they unwittingly accentuate the improbability of the Easter faith. They are putting the burden of proof on their very own back, and loading it down with cinder blocks and boulders.<BR/><BR/>The purpose of ET was not simply to label belief in the Resurrection "irrational." Rather, "Not only must one show that its [the resurrection] final epistemic probability is greater than for theft (as also for each and every other alternative), which I doubt can be done, but one must also show that the sum of the final epistemic probabilities of theft and all other explanations that exclude a resurrection—is less than 50%." Those aren't my words, those are Carrier's own words. <BR/><BR/>The Resurrection is not just one explanation among many. It is the only explanation with any evidence. The Resurrection is not a theory of the events. The Resurrection is what the NT actually and directly attests. Why not examine the probabilities for these other explanations, and specifically of theories that run contrary to evidence at hand? Carrier has absolutely no positive evidence that a disciple stole the body. There’s no NT evidence to that effect. There’s no evidence outside the NT to that effect. His theory goes against all of the available evidence. It even goes against some of his own admissions. So, why should I believe this hypothesis in view of his stated purpose? What is the probability that is true, according to the groundrules set regarding at least having evidence? Likewise in arguing the body was moved to a second tomb or they went to the wrong tomb, where is the evidence for this? We have no evidence of a second tomb. and the evidence we have rules out a second tomb. The contributors regularly talk about literary dependence and higher critical theory? Where, pray tell, is the evidence for any other theories of authorship of the gospels than the traditionally ascribed titles give? That's called an argument from silence.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157757230024441252006-09-08T19:13:00.000-04:002006-09-08T19:13:00.000-04:00Jon, I discussed these issues with you at length o...Jon, I discussed these issues with you at length on Greg Krehbiel's message board last year, and you left the discussion with a lot of my comments unanswered. Steve Hays discusses the subject at some length in his recent book as well.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157567018211195922006-09-06T14:23:00.000-04:002006-09-06T14:23:00.000-04:00Wow, you guys can write a lot of text. How do you...Wow, you guys can write a lot of text. How do you find the time?<BR/><BR/>I've read much of what you've posted Jason and of course I run across several things I'd like to comment on, but in my repeated efforts with you to focus our discussion on one issue rather than covering dozens of issues at once, I'll make a comment about one subject.<BR/><BR/>Matthew sometimes talks about certain theories he suspects may be true, but which he hasn't studied a whole lot. Jason, you respond to him somewhat rudely, similar to the way you'd talk about how I'm "lazy" and how I need to study before I engage in discussion, as if I am not well studied on Christian claims and arguments. For instance, with regards to his speculation that the gospels may not be of the historical genre, you say:<BR/><BR/>"How much shorter would Matthew's articles be if he stopped including his own unjustifiable speculations and the theories of other people and started limiting himself to assertions he's willing to defend?"<BR/><BR/>But in fact the points he is making are points that should be made, regardless of whether or not he's studied the veracity of them. The reason is because his overall belief does not require a supernatural explanation. Yours does. Since you present yourself as a Bayesian you should recognize that supernatural beliefs have an extremely high presumption against them. If an alternative theory (such as belief that the gospels are not of historical genre) is even remotely plausible, it renders belief in the supernatural explanation of the resurrection irrational.<BR/><BR/>This point is made very well by my brother <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/08/bayes-theorem-part-1-belief-in-esp.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. You may have no good evidence at all for an alternative explanation for Mrs. Stewart's performance, but the mere possibility of alternative theories is enough to convince a rational person to disbelieve that Mrs. Stewart has ESP.<BR/><BR/>This point applies to Gene's comments regarding Richard Carrier. The book <I>The Empty Tomb</I> is not intended to show that in fact Jesus body was stolen, or in fact hallucinations occurred, or in fact the body was moved in accordance with Jewish law. It was intended to show that it is irrational to beleive the supernatural explanation. The authors don't have to agree on what actually did happen with regards to Jesus. They simply agree that a miracle did not occur. Carrier provides evidence for the stolen body hypothesis in an effort to raise that alternative to a level necessary to overcome the initial probability of belief that a miracle occurred. Since belief that a miracle occurred has such a low initial probability Carrier burden is very low. If there's even a one in a million shot, this makes Christianity irrational. So he doesn't raise this theory to a level of actual believability, but only to a very low possibility. So it makes perfect sense for him to on the one hand argue for theft as a very low possibility, but on the other hand actually believe that Jesus did not exist.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157439612530591772006-09-05T03:00:00.000-04:002006-09-05T03:00:00.000-04:00Gene makes a good point about potential sources av...Gene makes a good point about potential sources available to people living in the first century. We know that people had far more sources than we have today in our extant historical record. That's why Luke can refer to "many" accounts before his (Luke 1:1). And we know that ancient Jewish society put a lot of emphasis on committing things to memory and on the concept of <I>historical</I> revelation. The modern skeptical suggestion that it would have been easy for first century sources to radically redefine who Jesus was, and to gain such widespread acceptance of that revision, is dubious.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157434731858844632006-09-05T01:38:00.000-04:002006-09-05T01:38:00.000-04:00They weren't writing about events of the distant p...<I>They weren't writing about events of the distant past. And it was understood that historical accounts, such as Greco-Roman biographies, would require the consultation of sources, unless the author himself was an eyewitness.</I><BR/><BR/>I would further add that i this genre of literature can name its sources on its pages, in part, through the art of name dropping, or by giving unique, personal details that only an eyewitness could give. It's a way of naming sources without producing a laundry list bibliographical material or footnotes, like we do today.<BR/><BR/> Let's take Luke. Luke traveled with Paul. Paul spent time in Ephesus. Luke traveled with him off and on. In addition, Paul mentions one who is famous with respect to the things of the gospel, and that his reputation has spread throughout all the churches, in 2 Corinthians 8. The most widely held view of the date of 1 Corinthians is 57 ad, with 2 Corinthians following no more than a year later. <BR/><BR/> Mark was with Barnabas at this time and is associated with Alexandria. No tradition involving John has him being strongly associated with Paul but they did meet. Matthew's gospel is associated with Palestine and Alexandria. When Paul quotes a gospel, he quotes from Luke. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude he is talking about Luke. The date is a factor here too, because Paul was @ Ephesus around this same time. When Acts mentions Luke the first time, he is already known by Paul. So, in 2 Corinthians, this is likely Luke, and he has either already written his gospel, or he had composed enough of it and/or collected enough information for it that news of it had spread.<BR/><BR/> So, what's the connection? The connection is Ephesus and John or Jerusalem and James John, by tradition, has been associated with Ephesus. Luke would have met Mary in Ephesus, because Mary was with John, if she was still living. If not, he still would have met John. If not John, then he certainly met James in Jerusalem (Acts 21).<BR/><BR/>So, the birth narrative, for example, most likely comes from Mary, John, or James. It is most likely Mary, because it gives family details that only she would know. The other alternative is that he may have obtained it from James the Just who was still living, or to another place where he could obtain this information. The language and style are distinctive, and bear the marks of a translation from a Hebrew source. If so, that strengthens the liklihood Mary or James, Jude, or Simeon wrote it down, and John either gave it to Luke if Mary was dead, or Luke obtained it from her directly or from James, Simeon, or Jude. Some may dispute this on the grounds that it includes songs in LXX form, to which I would reply that Jesus and his family were educated and highly literate. We know this, because James led the Jerusalem church and wrote James (the epistle). His cousin or brother, Simeon led that church to Pella, and Jude is also believed to be Jesus' other brother. They all knew the Scriptures well and could write. Thus, it would not be strange to find a record written in such a form, even by Mary. Luke himself may have chosen that form as well if he was well acquainted with the style, in order to emphasize, perhaps that his source was, at a minimum, Hebrew and had a close connection to and knowledge of the events described. Since Luke focuses on women, it is likely it was Mary herself who made this contribution either directly to Luke prior to her death, or through her diary, passed to Luke from John or James. <BR/><BR/> Some gospels name people that others do not. It is likely that when you see those names, those are the sources of their material, if not their own memories, in the cases of Matthew and John in particular. Likewise, Luke travelled, so it is likely he met many who had known Jesus and had been eyewitnesses of these events. Zaccheus' story is in the L material, the fact that it names him and is given the cast of a personal recollection tells us that, very likely, Zaccheus was still living and told Luke of this account. The Emmaeus walkers are also persons that Luke would have used as sources. Luke tells us about the commission of the 70. Who might have supplied that material? Perhaps one of the seventy. He tells us unique information about Mary and Martha in chapter 10. What's his source for that? Well, if Luke knew Mary, the mother of Jesus, which is quite likely, then he knew John too. John contains even more material about Mary and Martha. So, the most likely source is John, since it appears he may have known them well. John is also a very likely source for the material on the triple trial in chapters 22 and 23. <BR/><BR/>There are other "L" materials too, and the sources aren't as clear for them as these, but the point here is that we can construct a reasonable and likely hypothesis if we know some basic details about who Luke knew, his style of writing, and the associations he very likely would have had without resorting to all sorts of gymnastics. What's more a later date could actually strengthen the argument for these sources, because John took over the oversight of the churches in Asia Minor after Paul was imprisoned and executed. If we go with a later date, and not an earlier one then John and the Ephesus connection stand out even more, because a person "famous" with the things of the gospel would be likely to go to John to get his information, since John was the most prominent leader. What if John's residence in Ephesus is spurious? Well, John's gospel has also been connected to Antioch, and, we are reasonably certain that John was in Asia Minor, so that is not a defeater for this hypothesis. Luke could still have likely had contact with him. The personal nature of the Marian narrative in Luke points most likely to her, and she would have been with John, who was charged with caring for her. The point is, however, to answer Mr. Green, we can construct a reasonable hypothesis about the sources themselves through information in the gospels and the NT themselves as well as the external testimony about a handful of other facts. <BR/><BR/><I>"These are all explicit contradictions in the text that are impossible to resolve adequately without far-fetched plausibility scenarios, none of which are logical or remotely likely....This discussion of discrepancies should prove to any rational person that the Bible is indeed errant and highly discrepant."</I> Then why, Mr. Green, do you follow after Richard Carrier and others? Mr. Carrier in the book <I>The Empty Tomb</I> offers no less than 3 mutually exclusive theories for the Resurrection. Then, since that writing, he has concluded that Jesus did not exist. So, based on your own yardstick for reliablity, we should dismiss Richard Carrier. In fact, the other contributors to that volume contradict each other repeatedly. What's more this was supposed to be an edited book putting forth a unified thesis. It's one thing to argue that an event happened and try to harmonize the accounts, but it is quite another to argue that an event did not happen, then offer multiple, conflicting hypotheses as an alternative, many of which do not account for all the evidence or speculate without any evidence at all. So, by your own yardstick, we can dismiss <I>The Empty Tomb</I> and the contributors within it that contradict themselves and each other, some of which are persons you cite approvingly.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157419315578639462006-09-04T21:21:00.000-04:002006-09-04T21:21:00.000-04:00Saladin said: "Because I in fact do want Jesus' r...Saladin said: <BR/><BR/><I> "Because I in fact do want Jesus' resurrection to be true. I'm just not impressed with Jason's attempt to defend it. Plus, I don't think wanting it to be true makes it true. I'm looking for something more substantial to hang my hat on, and still haven't found it. I certainly haven't found it here.<BR/><BR/>Got any more cutesiness?"</I><BR/><BR/>Stating that you’re “not impressed” is entirely unimpressive. You offer no reasons for your conclusion. At least attempt to printout the deficiencies in Jason’s argument that are unimpressive. Such sweeping statements are hollow when there is no stated criterion of “impressiveness.” What part of the evidence argument is weak or faulty? What type of evidence will suffice as impressive? <BR/><BR/>Got any more substance?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157411518593651262006-09-04T19:11:00.000-04:002006-09-04T19:11:00.000-04:00Beef said:Not impressed, Saladin. Why not just say...Beef said:<BR/><BR/><I>Not impressed, Saladin. Why not just say what is really behind this failure to interact with the arguments given: "it's not true that Jesus rose because I don’t want it to be true"?</I><BR/><BR/>Because I in fact do want Jesus' resurrection to be true. I'm just not impressed with Jason's attempt to defend it. Plus, I don't think wanting it to be true makes it true. I'm looking for something more substantial to hang my hat on, and still haven't found it. I certainly haven't found it here.<BR/><BR/>Got any more cutesiness?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157406783354750742006-09-04T17:53:00.000-04:002006-09-04T17:53:00.000-04:00Saladin said: “Not impressed, Jason. Why not just...Saladin said: <BR/><BR/><I> “Not impressed, Jason. Why not just say what is really behind this volume of words: "it's true that Jesus rose because I want it to be true"?”</I><BR/><BR/>Not impressed, Saladin. Why not just say what is really behind this failure to interact with the arguments given: "it's not true that Jesus rose because I don’t want it to be true"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1157404522616564712006-09-04T17:15:00.000-04:002006-09-04T17:15:00.000-04:00Not impressed, Jason. Why not just say what is rea...Not impressed, Jason. Why not just say what is really behind this volume of words: "it's true that Jesus rose because I want it to be true"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com