The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is historically probable

Well again, since my opponent doesn't even wish to refute any of the five facts that I have proposed, they still stand. It most certainly does matter what happened Easter morning. IF the resurrection occurred, then the laws of nature were indeed superseded that day. Says who? It most certainly can. If it can be shown that the resurrection did happen according to secular guidelines, then, one can reasonably believe that it occurred. If no other theory as to what happened on that day accounts for the data as well as the resurrection, then the facts are evidence for the resurrection. Likewise, if something naturalistic can be shown to account for the data as well as or even better than the resurrection, then we can be reasonable to be skeptical. >You think an ancient mystery is enough to prove the inconsistency of mathematics? You're evidence is not strong enough.< Says whom? You won't even engage the evidence I DO put forth! All you have been doing is saying "it's impossible" and refusing to put forth any kind of competing historical theory that can be weighed against the resurrection or even try to refute the facts I have proposed! Yes, I ask my opponent how he knows that the laws of nature have never been superseded. He would have to have knowledge that on Easter morning, the laws of nature wasn't violated. I wonder how he knows that. Which scientific discovery states that on Easter, the resurrection didn't happen. Well, there isn't. In fact, science has nothing to say on these matters. Another thing my opponent misses is that science is very limited! Science can't answer questions about value. Science can't answer questions of morality. Finally, science can't help us with questions about the supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach. Not only that but the scientific method is limited in it's ability to observe and test. It cannot for example tell us that Caesar was emperor of the Roman Empire. Science is limited to the here and now. So to say something didn't happen in the past is outside the prevue of science. Indeed science cannot tell us whether all things that happen are not by an omnipotent God or purely by natural forces. >How could you justify saying they were broken temporarily at one point in the universe because Jesus wanted them to be because of what some ancient writings say?< Science deals with what normally happens. Not the way they MUST happen. Laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. Again my opponent simply makes an a-priori assumption of atheistic naturalism without engaging the evidence. It is nothing more than a anti-supernatural bias. My opponent keeps saying that it is impossible. I wonder how he knows that the laws of nature just can't be superseded. The only way I think he could know that is if he KNEW that there is no omnipotent God that could indeed supersede the natural laws that He created! But that would be self-refuting. He would have to be God in order to KNOW that there is no God. But, if one cannot KNOW that there is no God to intervene, then one cannot be so dogmatic, and that opens up the possibility for the supernatural. Indeed, if you want to know what happened in the past, whether what is reported is naturalistic in nature, or supernatural, science has no say. To discover what probably happened lies in the realm of historiography. Science deals with what we now know, not what happened in the past. So again my opponent just refuses to engage me on the historical level, which is what this debate is about, and my opponent knew that coming into the debate. Here is what I think. The reason why my opponent will not put forth his own theory (and thereby proving that the laws of nature weren't violated on Easter morning.), is because he feels that what naturalistic theory he puts forth will stand up to the guidelines of historiography. Which is quite telling of my opponents position. SO to recap, this is supposed to be a debate on what the historic probability of the resurrection, based upon guidelines put forth by secular historians. It is supposed to be what the historic evidence point to and which theory accounts for the data. So, here are the facts that are uncontested thus far: 1. Jesus was crucified and died and buried 2. The disciples had what they believed to be experiences of the risen Jesus 3. Paul, an enemy of Christians, suddenly converted 4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, suddenly converted 5. The tomb was found empty. The historic question remains, what accounts for those facts? Why did the disciples really believe to have seen Jesus alive? Why did Paul suddenly convert? Likewise James? How did the tomb become empty? Something must have happened, nothing happens in a vacuum. "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.B. McCullagh, "Justifying Historical Descriptions" "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"- C.B. McCullagh, " The Truth of History" Ok, one theory is that Jesus was raised from the dead. It takes into account the death of Jesus, why the disciples really believed in the resurrection, why Paul suddenly converted, why James converted and the empty tomb. The opposing theory is?..................... Nothing. So, according to historiography, since there is only one theory that accounts for the facts better than the opposing hypothesis (in this case there is no opposing theory to compete with!) the resurrection wins out. The implications? That means that on that day, God interceded and suspended the laws of nature. Jesus also claimed to be deity and that the resurrection would be the vindication of those claims. In other words, according to the rules of historiography, the resurrection probably happened (since there is no competition from my opponent), therefore Christianity is probably true and it is reasonable to believe in it. All my opponent has done so far is engage in straw men, and show an anti-supernatural bias a-priori, and has not shown one piece of historical evidence that the resurrection did not happen. How could he do that? Well, historical evidence that something else happened, or put forth a competing theory that takes into account the data better than the resurrection. THEN we would be in a better position to say that the laws of nature were not superseded that day. However, until my opponent does, the topic of the debate, which is based upon secular guidelines, point in the opposite direction.