The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is historically probable

Finally my opponent wants to discuss the historical side of things. Too bad he waited until the last round to do so. >1. 'Jesus was indeed crucified and buried...' More accurately, Jesus was probably crucified and buried. There is not enough evidence for us to be certain, but it is likely.< Absolutely correct. However, something can be considered a histroical fact when the reasons for a position are more than the reasons against it. The disciples's sincere belief that he rose from the dead. Again my opponent agrees to the fact, but lists 4 possibilities. The truth of the story. It couldn't have been contrived. Since they willingly suffered torture, repeatedly and martyrdom rather than recant shows that they were sincere. Liars make poor martyrs. Jesus didn't die? That is called the swoon theory and no scholar uses that argument. The disciples were honestly mistaken. A number of problems with that one. The first being what about Paul and James? An impostor? Really? Certainly his family, and foes alike would have recognized a fake, and it fails to account for the empty tomb. That leaves the last, that the resurrection occured. That offers no problems with any of facts, it takes into account of them all. Paul, my opponent simply states that he might have changed his mind, but the question remains, why did he change his mind? So this point still stands. James, since my opponent offers nothing to refute this, it stays. The empty tomb. Again my opponent just brushes this off. 75% is a sizable majority of critical scholars. But I also have provided historical reasons for the empty tomb. And this has not been refuted. Now, I agree, this as well as the other facts, if left alone doesn't automatically prove the resurrection. But as my opening statement says my case is cumulitive. Something has to acccount for all of the facts. Again why I choose to believe in the resurrection is because of SECULAR historiographical rules. "A position is demonstrated, when the reasons for accepting it significantly outweigh the reasons for not accepting it... A finding of historicity is essentially a default position, meaning that we have no other reasonable way to account for the presence of a story in the text." -Robert Miller, "Historical Method and the Deeds of Jesus: The Test Case of the Temple Demonstration." Forum 8 (1992): 5-3 And: "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." C. Behan McCullagh, "Justifying Historical Descriptions" Also he states: "But if the evidence is support of an explanitory hypothesis is strong, and there is no alternative hypothesis supproted nearly as well, it is reasonable to believe it is probably true" McCullah, "The Truth of History." My opponent claims again and again about science. But as I have pointed out, science has nothing to say about history nor the supernatural realm. Science cannot prove that Alexander the Great existed or did any of the things accredited to him. My opponent says that he is more certain of his position. Again I ask how is he so certain that on Easter the laws of nature were not superseded? What scientific discovery proved that this didn't happen on Easter? All my opponent has done is claim a-priori that the laws of physics cannot be violated. But in order to do that, he must disprove the existence of the supernatural! But that cannot be done. So to say a-priori that the laws weren't violated is a logical error. And science has nothing to say concerning historic events. Therefore the only way to see if the laws of nature were indeed superceded or not is to conduct a historical investigation using established historical procedures that I have laid out. Another thing is that if God does indeed exist, then miracles (suspensions of the laws of nature) can happen as Anthony Flew admits. Indeed, if God exists and created the universe (um that would include creating the laws of nature) then He would be above said laws and can supercede them when he wished. But the question remains, did He? That is a historical question, something that science cannot answer, but only historical investigation can. My opponent refused to offer an alternative explanation, though this was to be a debate on the historicity of hte resurrection, in which case an alternative case should be provided (which would bolster his argument that the laws of physics weren't violated). Here is why I think he has evaded to do so, he has none that competes with the resurrection. In fact he even admits as much. > I do not think there is enough evidence for any particular explanation over any other, but < Here I disagree totally. We have enough evidence (5 facts) that attest to the fact that SOMETHING happened. The question is what accounts for those facts? As stated above by critical scholars, the theory that best explains the facts is the one that probably happened. If my opponent put forth an alternative that explains these facts better than the resurrection, then I would have to admit that the resurrection probably DIDN'T happen. However, in this debate, no has been forthcoming. Since the only resurrection has been put forth as a historical explanation, and since it takes into account all the facts, then, by historical standards it is historically probable. >How can you (indeed, how can anybody) justify this?< Appeal to Emotion. >This is not an argument, it is an excuse. An excuse for those who are not capable of explaining, or, more to the point, refuse to accept the logical explanation.< Blatantly false and nothing more than an Ad Hominem. There was no logical alternative explanation given in the entire debate to discuss! Just a-priori assertions. >This argument is a terrible one because it relieves one of any responsibility of explanation< Absolutely false. It is certainly responsible to look for a natural cause first. However, if there is none, then one is justified in accepting, even temporarily, a supernatural cause. Not only that but is an Appeal to Consequence of Belief. >He must prove that anything supernatural is possible< That is what this debate is for. If the resurrection is historically probable, then the supernatural is possible, especially since Jesus himself said that the resurrection would be evidence of His deity. And as intellectual "greats" as Dawkins and Flew and others admit, there are strong arguments for God's existence ("God VS. Science", TIME Nov 18, 2006 P. 53) and said at Oxford "A serious case could be made for a deistic God." So I think my opponent should take a pause for a second when one of his heroes admits such a claim. >I am quite certain that the true explanation is one that does not undermine the whole of science and mathematics.< Nothing more than an Argument from silence. So, in closing, we have five facts that have bee uncontested. This is supposed to be a historical debate, therefore the rules of historicity apply. The rules state that the theory that explains the facts better than the competeing theory is the one that probably happened. However, disappointingly, no other theory was posited, and since the resurrection does indeed explain the facts quite well, then according to critical historical guidelines, it is what probably happened. Meaning that the laws of nature, were probably supeceded. Now my opponent knew that this was to be a debate on the historicity of the resurrection. His refusal to interact on that level is quite telling. In closing I would quote James D.G. Dunn regarding the historical alternative theories: "Alternative interpretations of the data fail to provide a more satisfactory explanation." If that is the case as admitted even by critical scholars, then the resurrection, according to critical guidelines, is the more probable one.