The Instigator
Prelude
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The Resurrection of Jesus

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Prelude
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 965 times Debate No: 78096
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

Prelude

Pro

I will defend the position, that the resurrection of Jesus happened.



I will argue that:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.

2. The disciples of Jesus had an experience that made them believe that Jesus body was resurrected.


I will then present the hypotheses that Jesus was resurrected that accounts for the known data.

To win the debate Con has either to show that one of the two points above is wrong or he has to present his own naturalistic hypothesis that accounts for the data. He then has to show that his hypothesis is more probable true than the Resurrection Hypothesis.


I would like to apologize in advance for any grammar or word mistake I'm going to make, because I'm not a native speaker.

Position and Burden of proof:

The plausibility of a hypothesis is always depending on your horizon. If you start with the metaphysical position that God does not exist, then it is improbable or impossible that the resurrection happened. Contrary it would get very probable if you start with the position that the Judeo-Christian God exists.
Therefore I suggest to adopt the position of Agnosticism for this debate.

Definitions:

Agnosticism: Not knowing if God exists. It is possible that God exists, it is possible that he does not exist. (1)

Resurrection: The bodily rising from the dead

A priori knowledge: Knowledge independent of experience, deductive. (f.i. Knowledge about the probability, that Person x will win the lottery)

A posteriori knowledge: Knowledge dependent on experience or empirical evidence, inductive. (f.i. Knowledge that Person x won the lottery) (2)

Structure:

R1: Acceptance
R2: Case of Pro and Con, Cons reply to Pro
R3: Rebuttals
R4: Final Rebuttals, Conclusion

Sources:

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Illegalcombatant

Con

This is me accepting.

Also as addressed in the comments section another way for me as the Con to win the debate is to show that there is insufficient evidence to justify the claim that Jesus was dead for 3 days (give or take) then God raised him from the dead.

I look forward to Pros opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Prelude

Pro

Jesus death by crucifixion:

Crucifixion was a common form of execution employed by the Romans to punish members of the lower class, slaves, the rebellious and those accused of treason. From the first century B.C through the end of the first century A.D. Dionysus, of Halicarnassus, Livy, Philo and Josephus report of people being tortured with whips or fire before they were crucified.(1) After being tortured the victim often was followed by a crowd to a place outside the city where it was then crucified. (2)

Why should we think that Jesus died by crucifixion? We have four reasons to think so.

1. The crucifixion of Jesus is attested by christian and non christian sources alike.

Flavius Josephus was a jewish historian born in Jerusalem.

From the Testimonium Flavianum (75-95 A.D.):

„About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.“ (3)

Today most scholars agree, that there are three christian interpolations added afterwards.

They are: “if indeed one should call him a man“, “He was the Messiah“ and „ For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him“

On the other hand part of the passage is not typically Christian:

-“a wise man“ is not a typical Christian formulation

-“those who had first come to love him did not cease to do so“ conforms to Josephus characteristic style

-Most scholars agree, that the word phylon „tribe“, is not a typically Christian word (4)

Josephus had keen interest in spiritual matters, had close connections to Jewish Priests and Pharisees and grew up and spent a lot of time in Jerusalem during the period the early church was growing and Jews had embraced the Christian message. We therefore have good reasons to think that Josephus heard about Jesus and that the trimmed version of the text of Josephus about Jesus is authentic. The person arguing for a whole interpolation is taking the position of the minority of recent scholars and has the burden of proof, also because there are just two known cases in the whole Testimonium Flavianum that are suspected of interpolation. (5)(6)

Tacitus is generally regarded as the greatest of Roman historians (7)

In the Annals (116-117 A.D.) he writes about how Nero reacted to the rumour that he set Rome on fire:

"Therefore, to squelch the rumor Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people called „Christians,“ [a group] hated for their abominable crimes. Their name comes from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment, the deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.“ (8)

The text shows no signs of interpolation, fits to the style of Tacitus and its very doubtful that a Christian interpolator would have used insulting remarks of Christians. Therefore the vast majority of scholars believe that the text is authentic. (9)

The canonical Gospels

Pior to the 1990 a large segment of the New Testament scholarship had the view that the Gospels belong to a unique genre seen as a type of mythology. Therefore anyone making a claim of historicity of an event in the Gospels had the burden of proof. (10)

Over the past 20 years a huge shift has occurred away from the view above, towards seeing the Gospels as the genre bioi meaning a type of Graeco-Roman biography.(11)

The shift was initiated by Richard Burridge, who tried to disprove the claim that the gospels are the genre of Graeco-Roman biography but then reversed his opinion.

He writes that it „has played a key role in establishing that the Gospels were read in the early century primarily as biographies.“ and further: „I do not think it is now possible to deny that the Gospels are a subset of the broad ancient literary genre of 'lives,' that is, biographies.“(12)

From being of the genre bioi it does not follow that the Gospels can't include mythical or invented elements. But because the Gospels are of the genre of bioi a Person making the claim that a specific event is not historical has the Burden of Proof.

When it comes to the historical Jesus and the early Christianity many and perhaps most scholars see the canonical Gospels as the best sources. (13)

Therefore I include them in my sources for the crucifixion:

In the Gospels the crucifixion is f.i mentioned in Mark 15:12-15. (67-70 A.D.)

The Letters of Paul are one of the earliest sources dating between 48-65 A.D.
They mention the crucifixion f.i. in 1. Cor. 15:3-5 (54-55 A.D)


So we have seen that the crucifixion is attested by Christian and non Christian sources alike.

2. The second reason for thinking that Jesus died by crucifixion, already mentioned briefly, is that the reports are early.

If Jesus died at 30-33. A.D and 1. Corinthian was written 55 A.D there are just about 25 years or less in between. Thats very short on a scale of historians.

3.A third reason is that the Passion Narratives on the crucifixion are credible because the criterion of embarrassment weights in favour of a historical kernel. Also the narrative is plausible given peripheral details like the following of the crowd attested by Lucian as mentioned above or the practice of breaking the legs of the victims mentioned by Cicero. (14)

4.The fourth reason to think that Jesus died by crucifixion is that it is very improbable to survive a crucifixion. There is in fact just one account in antiquity about a person surviving crucifixion. Josephus reports seeing three of his friends crucified. He quickly pleaded with his friend the Roman commander Titus, who then ordered that all three should be removed immediately and should get the best medical care Rome had to offer. Although they tried to rescue all just one survived. We don't have any evidence that Jesus was taken from the cross alive nor that he got the best medical treatment the Romans had to offer, therefore the historian, led by probabilities, has to conclude that if Jesus was crucified he died during this process. (15)

The disciples of Jesus had an experience that made them believe that Jesus body was resurrected

The claim that Jesus appeared bodily to the disciples is present through the NT. (See f.i 1 Cor 15:3-5; Luke 24:36-49 for appearance to disciples, 1 Cor. 9:1 for appearance to Paul.)

It is further described in Acts 10:39-41 that Jesus ate and drank with the disciples.

In Luke 24:36-43 we get to know that Jesus was described as having „flesh and bones“ and that he could have been touched.


After Jesus death, the disciples endured persecution, and a number of them experienced martyrdom. The strength of their conviction indicates they were not just claiming that Jesus had appeared to them. They really believed it.

In Acts we get to know about several imprisonments, flogging, and martyrdom of the Apostles. (16)

Outside the NT the persecution and martyrdom is attested by several sources:

Clement writes that Paul and Peter like many, possibly all, Apostles where suffering „unto death“ . (17) and that there was a vast number of believers suffering tortures and persecution. (18)

Also Polycarp comments on the suffering of Paul and other Apostles. (19)

We also get to know by Josephus that James the brother of Jesus was executed under the Sanhedrin and that John the Baptist was executed by Herod. (20)

Those accounts show us that the disciples were willing to die for their claim that Jesus appeared to them.

Although scholars differ on the nature of the experience of the disciples, most temporary scholars writing on the subject agree that after Jesus was crucified, the disciples had some experiences that made them believe Jesus has appeared to them. (21) See note for samples. (22)

We see that the leader of the disciples was crucified, that the movement of the disciples was shattered, and shortly after they recovered claiming that Jesus had appeared to them, and were willing to suffer and not just one, but many, maybe all of them suffered martyrdom.

What is the probability (posteriori) that the events above occurred without that the resurrection happened?

Given this data I think we have sufficient reasons to conclude that it is more probable that the Resurrection occurred than that it did not.

Sources:

(1) Hengel, M. Crucifixion. 46-63

(2) Lucian, Peregrinus. 34

(3) Josephus, Testimonium Flavianum. Book 18 Chapter 3,3

(4) Edwin M. Yamauchi, Jesus Outside the New Testament in Jesus under Fire. 213

(5) Michael R Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus. 240-241,

(6) Edwin M. Yamauchi, Jesus Outside the New Testament in Jesus under Fire. 212

(7) Gilderhus, M. T. History and Historians. 20

(8) Tacitus, Annals. Book 15 Chapter 44

(9) Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament. 39

(10) Funk, Hoover and the Jesus Seminar 4-5

(11) France, R.T. The Gospel of Mark 5

(12) Burridge, R.A. What are the Gospels? viii-ix

(13) Ehrmann (2004), Johnson (1996), Meier (1991), Witherington (2006)

(14) Cicero, Phil. 13.27

(15) Josephus. Life 420-21

(16) Acts 4, Acts 5, Acts12

(17) 1 Clement 5.2-7

(18) 1 Clement 6.1

(19) Policarp. Phil. 9:1-2

(20) Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 20.200; 18.5.2

(21) Habermas, „Mapping“ in Stewart, 79

(22) Borg, Braaten, Carnley, Craffert, Dunn, Ehrman, Lapide, Lüdemann, Montefiore, Vermes, Viney, Wright

Illegalcombatant

Con

Illegalcombatant forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Prelude

Pro

For reasons of fairness I skip that round.
Illegalcombatant

Con

Thanks to Pro for being a good sport.

Recently DDO was down for a while, and it just so happened that was the only time I could get on the computer ergo couldn't post in the last round. First world problems.........

What I have in mind is the following question, can the claim that Jesus rose from the dead be justified on the evidence ? As such we need to look carefully at what the evidence is and is not and putting it through some critical analysis.

Lets say for the sake of argument it is granted.........

1) God exists (Some sort of non worldly entity that has the power among other things to raise the dead)

2) Person X died

3) Some people CLAIMED at some point in time God rose Person X from the dead

So even if granting the existence of God, the cruification of Jesus, the CLAIM by some people that they saw and or interacted with Jesus after this death..................you still have all your work ahead of you.

Persecution

Pro presents persecution as a reason as to why the miracle claim (God raised Jesus from the dead) as more probable than not.

There is a few problems with this argument, if you think this kind of reasoning justifies such an inference then in order to be consistent you have to also draw such an inference to other claims where those people were persecuted for it.

Are you willing to accept various competing religious claims where persecution is at play ? Islamic, Catholic, Mormons, Hindus, Jehavoah Witness, etc etc. Sure you can bite the bullet here , but my objection here is that persecution in face of said claim does not justify the inference that therefore that claim more likely is true.

Moderns days miracle claims vs Jesus miracle claims

Sam Harris points out..."Even if we had multiple, contemporaneous, eye witness accounts of the miracles of Jesus this would still not provide sufficient basis to believe these events had actually occurred, well why not ?

First hand accounts of miracles are quite common even in the 21st century. I have met literally hundreds, of western education men and women who think that their favorite Buddhist or Hindu guru has magic powers. The powers ascribe to these gurus is every bit as outlandish as those to Jesus.

The fact is people who tell these stories desperately want to believe them, all to my knowledge lack the kind of corroborating evidence we should require before believing before natures laws have being abrogated.

It remains a fact that yogi and mystics are said to be walking on water, raising the dead, flying without the aid of technology, materializing objects, reading minds, foretelling the future......RIGHT NOW. In fact all these powers have being subscribed to Sathya Sai Baba the south Indian Guru by an uncountable number of eye witnesses.

So consider the foundational claim of Christianity, the claim is this that miracles today of a sort that surround some one like Sathya Sai Baba become especially compelling when presented in the pre-scentific religious context of the 1st century Roman Empire." [1]

What Sam is getting at here among other things I think is that there is more evidence for the miracle claims of Sathya Sai Baba than Jesus including him being raised from the dead.

If Sathya Sai Baba evidence isn't enough to justify a miracle claim of his and we are justified that there is some lying/false hood/error/deceptoin involved then more so for the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead.

Competing Hypothesis

Pro did allude to competing hypothesis so I thought I would present one. The hypothesis is pretty much the same for Jesus claims or Sathya Sai Baba that being and requires no appeal to a God or the divine that being........

H1) The claims of miracle X is false.

People lie, people lie all the time. Whether it be sincere mistake, self deception, being conned/manipulated by others or just flat out lying people tell falsehoods.

I submit this hypothesis as more probable to account and explain why the claims of said miracles whether it be claimed of Jesus or Sai Baba exist.

I look forward to Pros reply.

[1] https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Prelude

Pro

In the last round Con has attacked a straw man (1).

As you can see above I was not saying that the claim of the Resurrection is true because the disciples were persecuted and willing to die. I was saying that the persecution strongly indicates that they did not just claim that Jesus was resurrected but that they really believed it. This would therefore make the Hypotheses very unlikely that the disciples, aware of the fact that Jesus was not resurrected, made up the story.

I actually believe that a Hindu setting himself on fire in protest or a Islamist who commits suicide bombing because of his belief, really believe that their conviction is true.

I want to highlight that the disciples did not just die because they thought that the moral doctrine of their leader is true but because they believed Jesus was resurrected.

Paul writes: „And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith“ (1. Cor 15:14) So again; this argument does not necessarily show that the Resurrection is true. I used it to support the premise that the disciples of Jesus had an experience that made them believe that Jesus body was resurrected.

In my inductive Argument I supported the claims that: Jesus died by crucifixion and that the disciples of Jesus had an experience that made them believe that Jesus body was resurrected.

Therefore the reason why I think the Resurrection is more probable true than not is because I think the Resurrection Hypothesis can account better for the 2 premises above than any naturalistic Hypothesis.

So what counter Hypothesis did Con offer in the last round?

He actually offered three Hypotheses: They knowingly lied, they were deceived or they were duped by self deception.

Conspiracy Theory: (the disciples knowingly lied)

This Hypothesis was popular during the 18th and 19th Century. Today this explanation has been completely given up by scholars. What are the reasons for this? As I mentioned above this Hypothesis does not account for Premise 2: The Disciples had an experience that made them believe that Jesus body was resurrected. Furthermore they had absolutely nothing to gain in preaching this doctrine, while being aware of the fact that Jesus was not resurrected.

The disciples were duped by self deception:

This Hypothesis accounts for Premise 1 and 2.

But it fails to explain the force of the belief of the disciples. The jewish(2) historian Pinchas Lapide writes:

„If the defeated and depressed group of disciples overnight could change into a victorious movement of faith, based only on autosuggestion or self-deception—without a fundamental faith experience—then this would be a much greater miracle than the resurrection itself.”(3)

I feel like this Hypothesis could only be reasonable when combined with the Hallucination Hypothesis.

Hallucination Theory: (the disciples were deceived)

This Hypothesis is currently the most popular one out of the naturalistic explanations. It accounts for Premise 1 and 2.

Generally about 15 percent of the population will experience one or several hallucination during their lifetime. About half of those are visual in nature. Just a minority of them is multimode (f.i. Visual and auditory).(4)(5) Furthermore if several people by coincidence had a hallucination at the same time its highly unlikely that they have the same.

Even if it could be shown that this kind of occurrence probably happened, not much would be gained. It still would not explain why the disciples believed that Jesus was resurrected. From ancient Jewish and Pagan texts we get to know that people often thought that the dead had appeared to them in visions. The berieved however did therefore not conclude that the Person has returned physically to life but rather that it is in the afterlife. Wright writes that for someone in the ancient world visions of the deceased were not evidence that the person is alive but that he is dead. (6)(7)

In total I think the hallucination hypothesis is an option that remains open. I still think that it is quite improbable and that it lacks explanatory scope.

Sathya Sai Baba:

What about Cons objection that there are hundreds of people who were eyewittness of the 'miracles' of Sathya Sai Baba, wrongly claiming that he performed miracles?

It is not possible to argue against the reliability of eyewitnesses in one case, and therefore conclude that the reliability of eyewitnesses in another unrelated case is the same. You have to examine each case by its own, you have to show in the specific case why the eyewitness account in the Gospels is unreliable. In the case of Sathya Sai Baba you could ask again if the naturalistic explanation is more probable true than not.

So what about the case of Sathya Sai Baba?

Although I'm not very familiar with this topic there are many objections that can be found easily. Many of the supposedly unique 'materialized' Objects are found all over the world in several stores to purchase. (f.i. watches, a tiny bible or a wooden cross)(8) Various Prophecies of Sai Baba were shown to have discrepancies. (f.i that he will live until hes 96)(9) By video analysis several 'miracles' can be explained with sleight of hand. (10) And there are even dozens of videos on youtube explaining his 'miracles' (11). Therefore we have good reasons to think that the miracle claims of Sai Baba are more probably wrong than not.

What would be gained if Con could show me a case were the miracle claims of a guru are seemingly more probable true than not? Not much for him at least. I'm not in the naturalistic position denying miracles. It would fit well with the description in the Bible, were also non Christians were described as performing miracles(12) and therefore he would just attack his own naturalistic worldview.

Summary and Conclusion:

I have tried not just to argue that its reasonable to believe the resurrection is true, but that it is more probable true than not. I therefore have presented an inductive Argument with the premise 1: Jesus died by crucifixion and 2: the disciples had an experience that made them believe that Jesus bodily appeared to them. Con tried to attack Premise 2 and argued that the disciples might have lied. I refused this position because of the reasons above. Con has also tried to argue for some deception of the disciples. Also I have to admit that this is the most likely position out of the naturalistic explanations I still think its very improbable and has a small explanatory scope, because it does not show how the disciples would come to believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected even if the Hallucination Theorie was true. Con is free to address this point in the last round.

Unfortunately it was not possible to bring up all objections(13) in just 2 Rounds. Still thanks to illegalcombatant for participating.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...

(2) Religion and Ethnicity

(3) Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, p.126.

(4) Aleman and Laroi. Hallucinations: The Science of Idiosyncratic Perception. 25-46, 61-88

(5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... ; Table 1

(6) Wiliam Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith third edition. 384-85

(7) For references to ancient pagan and jewish texts see Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2:1169

(8) http://haraldssononmiraclesvisitingcards.blogspot.no...

(9) http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk...

(10) https://en.wikipedia.org...

(11) Sai Baba having a bad day 'materializing' a necklace https://www.youtube.com...

(12) 2 Thess 2:7–9, Acts 13:6–8, Acts 8:9–10

(13) For some other objections that were not adressed see f.i section about Hume; similar to 'extraodinary events require extraodinary evidence' if extrodinary event is defined as improbable. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Illegalcombatant

Con

Opening comments

What bothers me is how really "weak" the evidence is.

It's not so much evidence but rather a very questionable reasoning based on less evidence than that for the miracle claims of Sai Baba in order to justify the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

Pro pretty much convinced himself pretty quickly that the believers in the miracle claims of Sai Baba are in error even if sincere.

An important point about Sai Baba is about how it's all to easy for people to believe in miracles even in the 21st centaury.

So when Pro talks about the belief or growth in the belief that Jesus rose from the dead as some how less miraculous than that belief being wrongly believed in I find this risible.

As Sam Harris put it..." The fact is people who tell these stories desperately want to believe them, all to my knowledge lack the kind of corroborating evidence we should require before believing before natures laws have being abrogated."

Where is the corroborating evidence ?

Competing Hypothesis

"H1) The claims of miracle X is false.

People lie, people lie all the time. Whether it be sincere mistake, self deception, being conned/manipulated by others or just flat out lying people tell falsehoods."

Pro brings up hallucination. It should be noted that is a very small part within the human scope of people telling falsehoods. Once again consider the people Sam Harris personally has met that claim a guru has performed some miracle. Are most of these people experiencing hallucinations ? or were experiencing hallucinations at the time of said miracle ? probably not.

Weak evidence combined with dubious reasoning

So what exactly does Pros justification come down to ? some time ago, there were some people who belonged to one particular religious group, their leader died and it is claimed by them he rose from the dead.

Now there is no way for you to actually test this claim BUT you can have confidence that the claim is true because if it was not then the origin of the belief and it's growth in that belief would not of happened.

That is not evidence, that a very dubious I would say contrivance of an assertion cause the evidence is so under whelming.

Just in case you are tempted to think that is a justification consider the claims of Islam. A man received divine communication his name was Muhammad. After telling other people of his divine communication he is largely rejected, prosecuted and force to leave his home area of Mecca.

Fast forward to just before his death most of the Arabian Peninsula had converted to Islam, and he had united Arabia into a single Muslim religious polity.

It could be claimed this outcome is more probable if the divine communication claims of Mohamed are true. People could argue about how miraculous it all is, people could claim how it requires more of a miracle that Muhamed or Islam is false and spread so successfully then successfully spreading because it is true.

Are you now convinced that this is solid reason to accept Muhammad claims or Islam claims as true ? Unless you are already a Muslim probably not.

Are you willing to accept Jesus rose from the dead because of the bare assertion claim about how it would take more of a miracle for the origin of the belief and successful spread of that belief if it was false ? unless your already a Christian probably not.

Less eye witness testimony to the miracle claim than the miracles claims of Sai Baba

Can't actually test the claim

Made up assertions of what would or would not happen if the miracle had or had not happened.

All to easy for people to wrongly believe that a miracle has happened

I submit the evidence is lacking and the reasoning is flawed, and thus it has not being shown that Jesus rising from the dead based on the evidence is more probable than not.

I thank Pro for the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Prelude 9 months ago
Prelude
For completion: most of the argument is out of the book 'The Resurrection of Jesus a new historiographical Approach' by Michael Licona, which is also named in the sources
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
I will have a vote up soon.
Posted by Prelude 1 year ago
Prelude
@ dsjpk5 48 hours.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
How long did each opponent have to post an argument?
Posted by Prelude 1 year ago
Prelude
It seems like Con did not understand that if he does not argue against that Jesus died by crucifixion or that the disciples sincerely believed that Jesus was resurrected, than he can't just say there is insufficient evidence for my Hypothesis that accounts for the two points. If you like to conclude that there is insufficient evidence for the hypothesis you have to show that there is insufficient evidence for thinking that the resurrection more probably happened than not. Therefore you have to provide evidence for the counter hypothesis, what Con did not do. It is not enough to refer to possibilities, you have to name reasons why to think it is for instance true that someone performed a big 'magic trick' on the disciples (as con alluded to in the last round).

The Analogy with Mohamed fails because my Argument was not about the spreading of Christianity but about the belief of the first disciples. Also the reference to the persecution fails as an counter argument. As I noted earlier I used the persecution as an Argument that the disciples sincerely believed that Jesus appeared to them. So the Analogy to Mohamed would be that Mohamed sincerely believed that his moral doctrine was true. (And even this can be criticised as you can sense by reading about his gain in power)

If Con likes to refer to a citation I made it would be fair to use it in the right context. The jewish historian Lapide I cited did not think that the naturalistic explanation is more of a miracle than the resurrection(he is a Jew). He said it would be more of a miracle if all the disciples believed in the Resurrection solely because of autosuggestion.

Con said that there are more eyewitnesses of the miracles of Sai Baba than the Resurrection. This is true but the number of eyewitnesses is not the only criteria to use to say if a claim is probable true. You still have to weight the naturalistic explanations against that claim and provide evidence why its not just possible but more probable.
Posted by shalal12 1 year ago
shalal12
@Prelude,
Jesus (pbuh) is still alive and he will come back on Earth to help the mankind. Prophet Moses(pbuh) told that Jesus would come and Jesus told that Muhammad(pbuh) would come and Muhammad said and emphasized that Jesus is still alive and he will come on Earth for the second time.
You are searching your prophet in the past and you are not looking for him at the present!
Posted by Prelude 1 year ago
Prelude
@shalal12 I think it doesnt depent on the outcome of this debate if its in vain, because it helps clearing up positions or weighting arguments.
Posted by Prelude 1 year ago
Prelude
Okay I would accept it if you can show that the evidence I present is insufficient.
I'm not quite sure how you would do that without bringing up another Hypothesis.
The question is "Insufficient" for what? Insufficient for you to believe it or Insufficient for believing that the Resurrection more probably occured than it did not?

I accept it if you can show, that the ressurection more probably did not occur than that it did.
Posted by shalal12 1 year ago
shalal12
@Prelude,
What's the outcome of your debate?
Do you wanna prove us that he is still alive?
If He is alive, when is he going to come on Earth?
If He is not alive, all your effort is in vain at this debate.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 1 year ago
Illegalcombatant
"If you instead argue, that the evidence is insufficient in this case you are actually saying a competing hypothesis is more probable than the resurrection hypothesis."

I don't think one entails the other.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 1 year ago
johnlubba
PreludeIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't want to award any debater arguments as neither really tackled the crux of the argument, Pro wasted to much in the opening round trying to convince that Jesus was actually crucified, rather than giving good reasons as to why/how Jesus was resurrected, However Pro did give some argument which was the diciples belief and outspokenness regardless of fear of persecution, I don't feel Con really tackled this, instead Con attacked different cases such as Sai Baba and Islam and pointed to references made by Sam Harris and how easily people can be duped, I agree with Con on this point, but it really is a different case and was not a good enough rebuttal to Pro's argument. Nevertheless, I believe Pro could have argued better and barely fulfilled his BoP, even if with a minimal argument regarding the resolution, I don't believe Con gave enough of a rebuttal other than look, we can prove this guy is a fraud so Jesus must be also. Arguments a tie, sources to Pro. Conduct equal, DDO was down
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 1 year ago
FourTrouble
PreludeIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues resurrection is the best explanation for disciples' actual belief that Jesus was resurrected, and Pro refers to persecution as a reason that actual belief is likely. If a group of persecuted people actually believe Jesus was resurrected, it's probably true that Jesus was resurrected. Con asserts that belief alone isn't sufficient evidence, referring to Sai Baba and Muhammad to challenge the idea that beliefs are ever sufficient evidence. This makes the debate easy to judge. Pro gives me a reason to believe the disciples didn't lie (persecution); Con asserts they're lies but offers no reason to believe the disciples lied. And Pro tells me actual beliefs are more likely true than lies, while Con simply asserts we can't test beliefs. Con's argument isn't sufficient; he needs to explain why the beliefs are likely wrong. Con had lots of actual probabilistic arguments he could have made regarding resurrection. Showing that beliefs cannot be tested doesn't disprove probability.
Vote Placed by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
PreludeIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did a great job formatting and articulating his arguments. He also had great use of sources and excellent rebuttals. By the end of the debate pro did well supporting both his premises. The link from them to the resolution that ?the resurrection of Jesus happened? is unsubstantiated and seems to be a bit of a non sequitur. Thus even if I grant the arguments the conclusion does not follow. Con argues exactly this stating "even if granting the existence of God, the certification of Jesus, the CLAIM by some people that they saw and or interacted with Jesus after this death..................you still have all your work ahead of you." Con does sufficient in this debate to establish doubt but most importantly he highlights the lacked linked from pro?s arguments to the resolution. At the end of the debate the burden of proof is unfilled. Arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
PreludeIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round. I realize DDO was down for a while, but it wasn't 48 hours. This means con could have posted earlier. Forfeiture of a round is bad conduct.