> He has to rely on anecdotal evidence and personal testimony based on personal experience. Does that mean my pain is a belief event rather than a truth event?
Well I just have to reference this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmp14eSdUEI
Pain actually is a sort of belief, so this would be a counterexample to how you are saying "anecdotal evidence = truth".
The resurrection itself is discussable based on the evidence at hand.
If there were evidence that Jesus rose from the dead then perhaps we'd expect non-christians to be convinced that the resurrection happened. Eh... I don't know how many times I've had this same discussion with people, maybe I should start counting. If I had a nickel for every time someone said "there is evidence Jesus rose from the dead" and they didn't actually know of any evidence, I'd have enough money to do a fake documentary telling how Jesus rose from the dead.
Board index ‹ Christianity
22 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: The Internet is killing Christianity
by Introverted Intuit » Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:59 pm
- Introverted Intuit
Re: The Internet is killing Christianity
by jimwalton » Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:29 am
> Pain actually is a sort of belief, so this would be a counterexample to how you are saying "anecdotal evidence = truth".
It's not a counterexample at all. It's an example that the brain can be tricked to disassociate itself from its pain receptors. But the man with the microphone had to ask the man in the water, "What does it feel like?" And that's my point. Without the personal testimony and anecdotal evidence, no one can know how a person feels or whether they are experiencing pain. Why didn't they use science to give evidence of the subject's pain?? Because they can't. It's outside of the scope of science to know such things. Science is great for its arena, but it's not valid for all arenas.
> The Resurrection
Well, we know the tomb was empty, because none of the "nonsense" of Christianity would have started without it. If a body was producible, it would have been produced. So there's the first piece of the project. We know the tomb was empty. It was a stone's throw from the crucifixion site, and its location was public knowledge.
Since we know the tomb was empty, we know the stone was rolled away, since otherwise they wouldn't have known the tomb was empty. There's piece #2.
Since we know the stone was rolled away, we know they looked inside, or else how would they have known the tomb was empty.
Since we know they looked inside, we know they formulated ideas about what might have happened. Given that all of them believed that bodily resurrection back to this life was impossible, they would have to formulate theories. This is a given.
And the Bible tells us what theories they formulated based on evidences brought to their attention after their initial opinions. The explanation they all proclaimed, without exception, is that Jesus had physically come back from the dead and that they had seen him, touched him, spoken with him, and eaten meals with him. They preached this message despite great opposition, mockery, and torture.
Those are some of the evidences we have. They're substantial enough to create a discussion from you in rebuttal.
It's not a counterexample at all. It's an example that the brain can be tricked to disassociate itself from its pain receptors. But the man with the microphone had to ask the man in the water, "What does it feel like?" And that's my point. Without the personal testimony and anecdotal evidence, no one can know how a person feels or whether they are experiencing pain. Why didn't they use science to give evidence of the subject's pain?? Because they can't. It's outside of the scope of science to know such things. Science is great for its arena, but it's not valid for all arenas.
> The Resurrection
Well, we know the tomb was empty, because none of the "nonsense" of Christianity would have started without it. If a body was producible, it would have been produced. So there's the first piece of the project. We know the tomb was empty. It was a stone's throw from the crucifixion site, and its location was public knowledge.
Since we know the tomb was empty, we know the stone was rolled away, since otherwise they wouldn't have known the tomb was empty. There's piece #2.
Since we know the stone was rolled away, we know they looked inside, or else how would they have known the tomb was empty.
Since we know they looked inside, we know they formulated ideas about what might have happened. Given that all of them believed that bodily resurrection back to this life was impossible, they would have to formulate theories. This is a given.
And the Bible tells us what theories they formulated based on evidences brought to their attention after their initial opinions. The explanation they all proclaimed, without exception, is that Jesus had physically come back from the dead and that they had seen him, touched him, spoken with him, and eaten meals with him. They preached this message despite great opposition, mockery, and torture.
Those are some of the evidences we have. They're substantial enough to create a discussion from you in rebuttal.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:29 am.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
22 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests