It is reasonable to believe that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical event.

Hi Bible Defender, Thank you for challenging me to the debate. I agree with you that you need not prove Jesus rose from the dead with 100% certainty. All you need to do is show that the resurrection of Jesus is more likely than not. Likewise, I do not bear the burden of proving with 100% certainty that Jesus did NOT rise from the dead. I will only argue that it is signifigantly more likely than not that Jesus did not come back to life. For my first point, I'd like to draw attention to the reason that most nonChristian people do not believe Jesus rose from the dead. The reason many of us find it so difficult to believe that Jesus rose from the dead is because all of our experience points to the conclusion that dead bodies do not rise naturally or supernaturally. That the dead stay dead is attested by all of our direct experience with corpses, by most (or all) of the reported experience of everyone we know personally, and is even supported by the vast majority of personal testimony from those we do not know personally. That dead bodies do not return to life is an inductive generalization with extremely strong support. Of course, being an inductive generalization, it cannot be 100% certain. Nevertheless, it is extremely close to certain. Any evidence or argument seeking to overturn this strong generalization would need to be supported by even stronger evidence, which is a very high burden of proof to have to meet(not to say that no one could ever possibly meet it). I'd like to turn to my opponent's "facts". First, I'd like to note that, properly defined, none of these things are facts. They are hypotheses, or inferences, made from/about the actual, physical texts that we have. As Richard Carrier has written, "Proper facts are actual tangible artifacts (such as extant texts and archaeological finds) and straightforward generalizations therefrom. Everything else is a theory as to how those facts came about."[1] The existence of ancient documents like the Pauline letters is FACT. The events these documents describe are not facts, although we may hypothesize that certain events recorded in these documents actually happened in order to explain (for example) why the events were recorded in the first place, or why they were told a certain way, etc. But we must recognize that our hypothesis from the text is a hypothesis, not a fact. All of this isn't intended to downgrade the importance of historical hypotheses. Some hypotheses can be considered so well confirmed that they are far beyond reasonable doubt and cannot be doubted by rational people. With that said, my response toward my opponent's "facts" will fall into two basic categories: 1. I will deny that some of his "facts" are sound historical hypotheses. That is, I will argue that there are better hypotheses available, or at least that there is such considerable doubt lingering over his hypotheses that they add no weight to his case. 2. I will argue that his "facts" are better explained by a non-resurrection hypothesis. Now, onto your case: I agree that Jesus was crucified and buried, although I don't see how this adds any weight to the resurrection case. I agree that at least one or a few of the disciples believed that they experienced Jesus (in some sense) after his death. I also concede the point that first century Christians very likely suffered some forms of persecution, i.e., that at the very least they were made fun of, ridiculed, probably beaten or even killed on occasion. I expect that these Christians actually believed what they said they believed. I agree that Paul converted to Christianity from Judaism and that he converted on the basis of some type of profound experience (probably a vision, as the Bible says, or something like that). I concede that James the brother of Jesus was an active leader in the early church. I dispute the fact that James was skeptical of Jesus. Jesus' mother and brothers may have been portrayed as skeptical of Jesus in order to make the point that those who follow Jesus are closest to him (As Mark 3:34-35 says, "Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother"). I also beleve that the bible verses used to support James' Skepticism (Mark 3:31-35), do not necessarily imply that James was always skeptical of Jesus, but simply that there was some animosity early in Jesus' life [2]. Finally, I don't think we are in any position to say how the gruesome death of Jesus would have affected James and his attitude toward Jesus, so I don't think his previous skepticism should be seen as some great obstacle blocking his conversion that couldn't be overcome without someone returning from the dead. I do not agree that there was an empty tomb as I do not see sufficient evidence for it. Although I believe that we layman should generally trust the consensus of historians, I do not think that Habermas' study provides adequate grounds for us to believe that the majority of scholars believe in an empty tomb. In Habermas' article[3] he states, "[T]he majority of publications on the subject of Jesus' death and resurrection have been written by North American authors. Interestingly, my study...indicates an approximate ratio of 3:1 of moderate conservative to skeptical publications..." ["Moderate Conservatives" are those who think Jesus rose, "Skeptics" believe that Jesus did not rise]. In the nearest endnote to this statement, Habermas informs us "These percentages reflect only those publications that answer this specific question"; Evidently meaning that Habermas only took into account publications that specifically stated whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. Are believers more likely to publish works answering the question of Jesus' resurrection than nonbelievers? If so, (which certainly seems plausible) then there might appear to be more support for the resurrection (or the other facts, like the empty tomb) because believers are over-represented in his study. Secondly, what about those who are agnostic on this question, or deny that such things can be answered by historical inquiry? Taking such agnostics into account might bring the percentage of "Moderate Conservatives" down quite a bit. I agree that some of the earliest Christians believed that Jesus appeared to them and that Paul, the former persecutor, converted. How do I explain these facts? I propose that early Christianity was a typical cult. That is, early Christianity was analogous to cults we observe today. Studies have shown that individuals who join cults often have schizotypal tendencies,[4] and that schizotypal personalities (Which make up more than one-half percent of the population)[5] are more prone to hallucinations and anomalous perceptual experiences.[6] In fact, one study has shown that, in an altered state of consciousness, the individual hallucinating (or dreaming) will see a holy man but not recognize him at first.[7] (Compare this to the reports found in Luke 24:36-53 and John 20:11-13). If Christianity was a typical cult, it is no coincidence that they "saw him" after his death: they were predisposed to. As for Paul's conversion, I think that we can hypothesize some plausible factors which would have been sufficient to cause Paul's conversion experience (and subsequently his actual conversion): exhaustion (Paul's conversion occurred on a travel to Damascus), disgust at the hypocrisy and corruption of the Pharisees, guilt over persecuting the Christians, temporal lobe epilepsy[8], and/or schizotypal personality, as mentioned above. Now for my last point: my hypothesis explains at least one fact that the resurrection doesn't. It explains why Jesus did not appear to everyone on earth after his death (which would have caused more to convert, thereby saving more souls, which would have surely been something a loving God would want to do if the Christian story was true). See the Comments section for my references.