The Resurrection of Jesus

Historical facts: My opponent has, as he claims with great importance, proved that a number of scholars hold these three claims to be true. I thank him for finally sourcing the quotes.Appeal to authorityThese three facts are of the utmost importance in this debate. If there is no evidence for these facts, then there is no reason to even search for a hypothesis to explain them. Because of their extreme importance to the debate, we must very good evidence to support them. Unfortunately, the only evidence my opponent has chosen to use in support of them is to appeal to authority. My opponent does justify the use of appeal to authority, and I am not questioning that this is a valid form of evidence. What I am saying is that this is not strong enough evidence. I have given my opponent several opportunities to answer specific questions about how we know these "facts," but he has not done so. He simply appeals to authority. I hope that readers can see that he has ignored the two questions I posed in R3 in favor of deferment to scholars. I would consider this a drop of my argument that although there is a consensus among scholars, there is a general lack of evidence presented in this debate."I have used a proper appeal to authority in justifying three minimal facts. I have justified my use of this tactic as being accepted in argumentation. I have negated the effect of bias by using mostly experts who disagree with my hypothesis." These facts are not minimal. They are essential to the debate. His tactic is accepted, but it is not strong enough to justify these important facts.Conclusion concerning the historical factsAs Christopher Hitchens liked to say "Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence." I am not saying that his claims are extraordinary, but he has not justified how we can know so much about an event from so long ago. He only presented one kind of evidence: Expert testimony. While this is important, it leaves one wanting more evidence.Weighing the RH1. It is impossible for someone to rise from the dead.2. This simple science is part of our background knowledge pertaining to the situation. 3. I am not convinced that I must set aside my scientific knowledge in order to evaluate the plausibility of the claim.4. Not sure that his point makes sense.5. I agreed to use the historical criteria, but did not limit myself to only using those criteria. I have not gone beyond the agreed upon parameters. 6. There is not strong enough evidence to support the data in the first place. Regardless, the supernatural is simply not plausible. Conclusion concerning the weighing of the RHIt is not an a priori bias. It is science. It is implausible for someone to rise from the dead. The Rh cannot properly be held up to the criteria because the basic historical facts do not hold up to much scrutiny.Conclusion - ConclusionI hope readers and voters can see that these three facts are far from minimal: They are the framework of the debate. I contend that this appeal to authority was not enough evidence to support these facts. Additionally, my opponent dropped my questions concerning the "facts." I said in R2 that if something is implausible, then it does not pass. My opponent did not challenge this. It is implausible for someone to rise form the dead. The RH does not pass.Note: I fear that some readers and voters will look at this debate and say that I took it out of the context of weighing the hypothesis. I wish to remind these people that the historical facts are imperative to being able to properly weigh the hypothesis. I contend that the facts were not adequately proven. At no point did I agree to present an alternative hypothesis. All I agreed to do was to argue that there is not enough evidence for these facts and the RH. I believe that I have done so.Vote Con!!