The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is historically probable

Well this is certainly turning out better than expected! First a straw man. I am not saying, nor have I said that the resurrection because the bible says so! Plz point to where I said that! Again a straw man. I am not basing my argument on the textual reliability, general historical reliability, or inspiration of the bible. Again another straw man. >Have the laws of science ever previously been violated? No they certainly haven't, so why should we believe they were in this case, based on anecdotal evidence.< Again I ask my opponent how does he KNOW this? Is he omniscient? That is what we are trying to discover! If the evidence points towards the resurrection, then, yes, something miraculous happened, if something else can explain the facts better than the resurrection theory, then something else happened. My opponent simply refuses to engage me on this. You claim it is absurd for me to require any sort of historical evidence on your part. Quite wrong sir, according to the rules of historiography, BOTH sides are to put forth arguments, evidence and theories that best explains the facts. And the one that does, is the one that probably happened. Again I quote skeptic historian C. Behan McCullagh says in his book "Justifying Historical Descriptions": "If the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any COMPETING explanation, then it is likely to be true." Yes competing explanation, which would have to come from you. However, you have as yet to be forthcoming. >You are claiming that the laws of physics were violated; you are making a massive claim and supporting it with ancient writing. Massive claims like that require enormous evidence, and no ancient writing will suffice.< If my explanation of the fact I provided above outshines yours (you have as yet to provide what you believe happened on Easter) then yes the laws of physics have been suspended. That is what SUPERnatural means, it supersedes the natural, not ANTInatural. Again if God exists, then he can indeed suspend the laws when he desires. Again you show your antisupernatural bias when you say that no ancient writing will suffice, especially when earlier you said that ancient writings may be true! I believe that I do have good evidence. The five facts that I gave earlier, since there is no alternative explanation for them by you, point directly to the resurrection. But until you engage in the historical debate (which this debate is supposed to be about), my facts stand, and since no alternative explanation is given, the resurrection wins out, and if that is so then the supernatural exists. >Like I have said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And ancient mystery that has not been shown to be true, goes absolutely no way to doing this.< Again I believe I do have such evidence, but since you refuse to engage with me and see which theory better fits the facts I provided...... >There is no certain evidence for anything supernatural whatsoever. Unless you can prove that the supernatural realm exists, you can't use it in your favour.< Argument from silence. If the resurrection theory surpasses alternative theories to account for the facts, the the resurrection is historically probable and thus the supernatural. And I do not use the supernatural to support my case, I go in the opposite direction. >You can't prove that something doesn't exist! You can justify believing in anything by saying that!< Exactly, then you cannot be so dogmatic can you? You claim that the laws of physics can't be suspended upon request. I agree. Humans cannot suspend the laws of physics, but if God exists, the they can be. Even the great former atheist Anthony Flew admitted as much. And as I stated in my previous post, even atheist biologist Richard Dawkins said that there were strong arguments for the existence of God. So to be so dogmatic a-priori is unwarranted and shows your bias. So, the buld of your argument is that the laws have never been altered. But I want to know how you know that. Indeed you are completely unwilling to engage me in a historical debate on the resurrection, one that would point to the probability of the supernatural or not! And since you knew, especially after reading my opening statement, are simply unwilling to engage me on the matter, is indicative of the weakness of your position. Again I quote a skeptical historian: "Third, evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is a contradiction in terms--it is no evidence at all. The nonexistence of an object is established not by nonexistent evidence but by affirmative evidence of the fact that it did not, or could not exist." -Hackett, "Historians' Fallacies", Harper: 1970 p.62 In other words if the resurrection didn't happen (as you claim) then something else did (was the body stolen? etc.) You too have to provide an alternative and back it up. In fact that is how it is done in science as well as CSI, and history. >If you can't prove that the bible is definitely true, then that undermines any conclusions you draw from it.< That is not how history is done, neither crime investigations for that matter! Again the facts I provided are admitted as facts by virtually all CRITICAL scholars that have studied the subject! 1.Jesus was indeed crucified and buried. This is attested to not only in the Gospels, but also by Paul and extra-biblical sources. And is admitted to as fact by almost all scholars. 2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose from the dead and appeared to them. This is attested to by the fact that they willingly suffered for that message. That is accorded to in Acts, as well as extra-biblical sources and is also accepted as historical fact by nearly all scholars. 3. Paul, who was an enemy of the church suddenly changed. This is stated by Paul himself in a number of N.T. texts and have claimed to have seen the risen Christ. Usually people will convert on the word of someone else, that is a secondary source. But Paul's conversion is due to something that he himself experienced. That is a primary source. Again, almost all scholars accept this as fact. 4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, suddenly changed. This is attested to in the Bible, and extra-biblical source reports that he was a strict Jew. The Bible also testifies that after the Resurrection, James became a leader of the church. 5. The tomb was found empty. This is accepted by the majority of scholars also (Gary Habermas did a study on the state of scholarship to date. He reports that 75% of scholars agree that the tomb was indeed found empty). My opponent simply refuses to refute any of these they stand. And since he refuses to even give an alternative theory, the resurrection still stands! Science has not disproved the supernatural in any way! And my opponent has repeatedly made use of straw men and special pleading as well as shown a-priori bias in his dogmatic stance against the supernatural without engaging me historically. What if the resurrection is right? Then his worldview is wrong. But since he simply refuses to engage and see if the resurrection probably occurred or not, I can't help but feel I am winning the case. So in the hopes of getting things started I'd like to ask, what do you think happened on Easter morning? If not the resurrection then what? Lets see which explanation best fits the facts and thus point to what probability happened, something naturalistic, or resurrection, based on secular historical guidelines I provided. Is my opponents case really that weak? Is that why he refuses to offer an explanation? I hope I am wrong.