Resolved: There is sufficent evidence to believe in Jesus' resurrection

Jesus' Burial Con gives an interesting response to my claim that "Jesus was buried in a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea." To put it candidly, my main contention was that Joseph was a well known public figure. I use this later to tie in the fact that the location of the tomb was well known since Joseph was the one who provided it. I was not making an argument as to who buried Jesus. Last round I noted the crucial role the Sanhedrin played in society. In summation: Joseph of Arimathea is important because he was a rich man, who was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin. He provided the tomb for Jesus' burial and his role in the public spotlight ensured that the location of the tomb was well known to Jews and Christians Con did nothing to "refute" this claim except lodge irrelevant points against it, which appear to be red herrings. Con produced scriptures that "contradict" each other with regard to who laid Jesus' body in the tomb. He attempts to undermine the point I made that Joseph of A. provided the tomb for Jesus, and adds how Nicodemus and Joseph of A. were secret followers of Jesus. The latter has nothing to do with the claim I made! He concludes my argument fails because 1) Paul contradicts the gospel's and 2) Joseph was a follower of Jesus. These two reasons do not affect at all; they're irrelevant. Regarding Con's "refutation" of the argument from the empty tomb and post resurrection sightings, it's not my job to sift through another website and refute someone else's article on the topic. I will debate what Kohai has said, not infidels.org. Con is responsible for making the appropriate arguments; Not linking a website that lays the arguments out to copy paste. This is borderline plagiarism. His note, "Note: this has been an adaption to inidels.org," nonetheless doesn't constitute a citation. There were no quotes or footnotes to indicate what was or was not his own words. I'll leave this to the voters to judge. As it stands, Con has made no attempt to explain how the natural theories can account for the sightings and early church. The Empty Tomb Con argues that the resurrection hypothesis is not the only compatible theory to account for the empty tomb. He says there were no eye witnesses of anyone who watched the tomb, and it's unlikely that there were any guards "since we have only one story that places the guards." Con concludes, "the best explanation is Joseph of A. removed Jesus from the tomb after he placed him in it." First, I'd like to respond to the two questions that Con claims I'm begging. 1) It's possible that the tomb was empty, that the resurrection didn't happen, and that there is a natural explanation. But this is precisely what's in question. Here is what I'm arguing: Either the evidence is best explained by a natural account or it is best explained by a supernatural account The evidence is not best explained by a natural account C:Therefore, it's best explained by a super natural account If there are facts that are best explained by an actual resurrection, then there is in fact sufficient evidence to believe in Jesus' resurrection 2) Where is the question begging? Even if we don't know where the tomb is today, this does not invalidate the fact that there were witnesses to the tomb. In fact, today in Israel there are a few burial sites that are the possible tombs that Jesus was laid in. [1] There's no reason to think that the tomb was left unguarded after Jesus was placed in the tomb. The Chief Priests knew the claims Jesus made and the large following he had. Following the crucifixion, the priests approached Pilate and asked him for extra protection at the tomb (Matthew 27:62-66). They wanted to ensure that the tomb was heavily guarded. If they were so preoccupied with the security of the tomb, why didn't they use the temple police to guard it in the mean time before asking for Roman assistance? It would be reasonable, considering the fact that the Chief Priests wanted to make sure Jesus' body remained in the tomb, that they would've had their own guards in place before. Nevertheless, Con shoulders the burden in explaining why he thinks the tomb was left completely unguarded and why there was no guard afterwards. Secondly, Con invalidates the guard story because it appears in only one Gospel. However, it's been noted that the guard story also appeared in the independent work of the apocryphal Gospel of Peter. [2][3] There is evidence in the text to show that there were Roman guards sent to guard the tomb. With this being the case, it would have been difficult for Joseph to remove the body from the tomb, let alone roll the 1 1/2-2 ton stone out of the way. [4] Here is my response to Con's conspiracy theory: if Joseph stole the body with the guards in place, then the resurrection appearances would have to necessarily be explained by natural means (hallucinations, dreams, etc.) The resurrection appearances cannot be sufficiently explained by natural means Therefore, the idea that Joseph stole the body is false. Premise 2: Countering the Nat. explanations of the Resurrection Sightings Hallucinations and Dreams It's been argued that subjective experiences and states of mind created hallucinations or dreams for the disciples and this accounts for what they believed to be the risen Jesus. For Michael Goulder, "psychological states of mind ("conversion visions") particularly explain Peter's experience and Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus."[5] The biggest blow to this theory is hallucinations are not seen collectively by groups of people. By definition, hallucinations "involve sensing things while awake that appear to be real, but instead have been created by the mind."[6] To have over 500 people experience the exact same subjective hallucination would be impossible. Similarly, the dream hypothesis suffers from the same fate as the hallucination theory. Did all the disciple's experience the exact same dream? This itself would seem like a supernatural occurrence if all the disciples and the 500 all experienced the exact same dream. Theories 3 (misidentifications) and 4 (Misunderstandings) are extremely vague. It's not enough to throw out the names of theories and just assume that they adequately rebut my arguments. Con must flesh out the theory and argue for the position. Fabrications and Origin of the Disciple's Belief Con failed to draw a clear point with his example of The Watch Tower Society. He seems to say that someone can still believe or follow a religion even if the religion is false. First, there is a difference between dying for a belief one strongly believes to be true (even if false) and dying for a belief that one knows to be false. Secondly, Con has this nonsensical idea that Christians were slaughtered without the chance to recant their beliefs. Paul had been persecuted from city to city and he had multiple opportunities to recant his faith. Also note the martyrdom of Saint Stephen. He was tried by the Sanhedrin and taken outside of the city to be stoned to death. Surely, during trial Stephen would have opportunities to recant his beliefs. There are no reasons to think otherwise. In response to the charge that I've begged the question, I do not explicitly see where I've done so. All Con did was list conditionals and has not explained how I've begged the question, which would be assuming what I'm attempting to prove. The Joseph Smith analogy fails because it's a weak analogy, and therefore uncogent. It's weak because there is a distinct difference between the revelations of Joseph Smith and the early Christian church. Joseph Smith received private, subjective "revelations," while Christianity was a more publicized event, with appearances being testified and "witnessed" by a large number of people. It's easy to conceal a conspiracy with just one person involved, but if the 500+ people all "lied," it's highly plausible at least one would have told the truth. Hence, the Joseph Smith example breaks down and fails.