The Resurrection of Jesus

Summary of previous rounds and Historical FactsIn R2 my opponent provided the historical criteria and his three basic facts. Then he explained how the facts match to the criteria.I responded by questioning the validity of the facts: If these facts are not, in fact, really facts, then there is no reason for the RH My main contention in this debate has been that there is not enough evidence of these facts. In R3 my opponent provided a number of *unsourced* quotes from a number of new testament scholars. First of all, the quotes are unsourced to neither I, nor the reader, is able to look at the quotes in context. Secondly, just because a bunch of scholars agrees on something does not make it true. At one time the scholars thought the world was flat and the sun went around the Earth. I challenged my opponent to explain how we knew all of these things. I asked him a few simple questions within my argument. If these are such simple facts, it should not be a big deal to respond to my simple questions. I asked things like:"How do we know that Jesus died?" and "How do we know what the disciples experienced?" My opponent chose to evade answering my questions in R4. He said things like Well, scholars agree on this so your argument doesn't have much weight, and here's the big one:"We do not need to know what it was exactly that the disciples experienced. The second fact agreed upon by the majority of scholars friend and foe is that the disciples had an experience which they believed to have been of the risen Jesus. Whether it was or not is not a part of my argument."Okay, we don't need to know exactly what the disciples experienced, but if all these scholars agree on it as a fact, then we must have a pretty good idea of what went on. All I am asking my opponent to do is explain some of the ways that we are able to know this. Many experts agree on these facts. As I said above, many experts also heat was an invisible liquid at one point. Where's the proof that its not? Friction generates heat too. All I am asking my opponent to do is to provide a little bit of evidence, beyond just "what the experts think."Weighing the RH1. I have a priori ruled out the supernatural. My opponent is saying that we cannot a priori rule out anything. Then why do we have the plausibility criteria? The purpose is to examine a hypothesis and see whether it makes sense. To do this, we must use our knowledge of the world and of science to determine whether this hypothesis is logical and plausible. Could it have happened this way? No.Why? Because science tells us that it is against the laws of nature. In order for us to accept the supernatural, we must have an explanation on how this could have occurred.2. Until we are sure we know what the facts are, we can't say whether it explains that facts.3. Same as number 2.4. How many assumptions do we have to make? We have to assume the supernatural is possible. That's a pretty large assumption.My opponent has not proven that we must reject science a priori, therefore the RH does not pass." Con has yet to give an alternative hypothesis that would explain the consensus facts and the agreed upon historical criteria. By default, the RH so far leads." I did not agree to give an alternative hypothesis. I agreed that I would simply argue that the resurrection did not happen because there is not enough evidence to confirm the facts, therefore there is no reason to believe that it did.Conclusion1. How do we know any of what we know? My opponent has yet to say. He only says that the scholars think so so it must be true.2. Until the facts have been proven, it is difficult to evaluate the hypothesis.3. My opponent has not sufficiently shown why we cannot rule out science a priori. The RH is implausible and the facts are not concrete enough.