The Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a real event
Debate Rounds (4)
Second round: Facts/Argument
Third round: Facts/Argument
Fourth round: Closing statements
I look forward to my opponents debate. Good luck.
jp_porwisz10 forfeited this round.
Imagine if I were going to have dinner with you at 7:30 pm, but I didn't show up until 8:30 pm. If you ask me what kept me so long and I told you I had a flat tire on my way over, you would probably have no trouble believing me, and it would be reasonable for you to do so. But suppose I said I stopped at the store to pick up some drinks on my way over, and I ran into Kate Beckinsale. We hit it off, and she decided she wanted to make out in the car, so we spent a good amount of time just smooching. In that case, my word would be good enough. You'd need more evidence than just my word before you'd be justified in believing me. And that would be reasonable.
So some claims just require more evidence than other claims before it's reasonable to believe them. The claim that a man who had been dead for three days came back to life is quite a bit more far fetched than most other claims we hear. It's certainly more far fetched than the claim that a man lied about his identity, or a woman lied about her whereabouts. So we ought to have more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than we would require from most other claims before it's reasonable for us to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead.
But there is no such evidence. Given the evidence we have, there are a number of possible scenarios that would explain the origin of Christianity without having to resort to a resurrection. For example, maybe the disciples stole the body. Maybe they hallucinated. Maybe only Peter saw Jesus, and he convinced everybody else who also claimed to see Jesus just for the sake of status. The imagination reels at all the possibilities.
The arguments against the alternative explanations all fail because when you weigh the probability of the alternative to the probability that a dead man came back to life, however low the probability of the atlernative explanation is, the probability of the resurrection is always lower.
For example, there's the die for a lie argument. It is argued that since nobody in their right mind would die for something they knew wasn't true, then obviously the disciples didn't steal the body because if they had, then they would've known that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.
We can grant that it would be quite unusual for a person to willingly die for something they knew wasn't true, but people do crazy things all the time that don't make sense, and it's still more likely that some nut would die for a lie than it is that a dead man would come back to life.
Almost any scenario is more likely than a resurrection.
Adding God to the picture doesn't change things much either. We can grant the possible existence of God and his powers to raise the dead, and resurrection would still be improbable. After all, there have been billions of people who have lived over thousands of years, but how often is it that somebody rises from the dead? Even if you grant that all the claimed resurrections were true, the probability that any particular person will rise from the dead is extremely remote. So the probability that Jesus rose from the dead is also remote.
There are some other reasons to doubt the resurrection of Jesus, but I'll wait until the next round to bring them up. Or, if my opponent forfeits again, I guess it won't be necessary.
Pro claims there are Roman accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, but he doesn't tell us anything about them. Are these claims that some Roman actually saw Jesus rise from the dead? Or are these claims that some Roman reported that Christians claimed that Jesus rose from the dead? Or are these claims from Roman doctors who examined Jesus and determined that he rose from the dead? Are these credible Roman sources? Are they satires? Are they news reports? Are they historical novels? Pro just doesn't give us anything to go on.
Pro also said, "Con is making no evidence to support that the Resurrection never happened, only making rebuttals." I have two things to say about that:
1. The burden of proof is on Pro in this debate, so all I had to offer was rebuttals. Since I don't have the burden of proof, I didn't have to argue that the resurrection never happened.
2. I did, in fact, argue that the resurrection never happened. I gave an argument against the resurrection from probability. Con never responded to that argument, so it stands unrefuted.
In conclusion, Pro didn't offer us anything more than his say so that there were Roman accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, but he gave us no evidence that such accounts exist or that we should trust them. I, on the other hand, gave an argument against the resurrection of Jesus that Pro never responded to. So voting should be easy on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: No brainer. Burden of proof was on Pro, and all he did was make baseless, unsourced assertions that Roman records of his resurrection exist. Con, meanwhile, showed that the implausibility of Jesus's resurrection would require very solid evidence in order to be accepted as true. Plus, Pro forfeited a round.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.