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

It was a great debate and I hope we can have more in the near future. Before I begin, I want to address one thing. The issue of whether or not Jesus is divine is rightly another issue (though most would agree that if Jesus did resurrect, he is likely divine), but it's a mistake on my opponent's part for accusing me of tipping it off. Sure, I mentioned it but in no way did I make it out more than it was supposed to be. If you read any of my arguments, they don't give any particularly special attention if I were to shift the resolution from Jesus resurrection to Jesus' divinity - highlighting my opponent's faulty claim. ==================== Disciple's sincerity -- Issue of my historical explanation ==================== I see now. My opponent claims that I haven't accounted for the list of historical facts -- and in fact, he is correct that I haven't explained what happened in particular to James, Paul, or the disciples. I haven't cited an explicit historical explanation for their conversions or ardent beliefs. Likewise, it would be historically pertinent to figure out why they did. What makes his argument so abhorrent in it's entirety, it's essentially an argument from ignorance. Simply because I can't give an explicit historical account for Jesus' resurrection, he assumes that his explanation -- which isn't more than an interpretation based on assumptions yet to be validated -- is correct. My argument, which he hasn't accurately responded to, is that my failure to answer such questions does not negate my position. True, if I were to give an accurate historical explanation for the resurrection story than it would make it easier for everyone. However, given that history isn't that simple, we must work off what we can. My argument, then, is that there is nothing historically significant to point out Jesus' resurrection. Why is this so? Because the events recounted in Jesus' resurrection IS NOT UNIQUE IN ANY RELEVANT SENSE. Obviously, this is why I listed examples of groups of people believing in crazy ideas. ==================== Disciple's sincerity -- Other examples ==================== "You see, today a Christian or Muslim or whatever will die for what they BELIEVE to be true even though they might be wrong. However, the disciples, as well as James and Paul died for what they KNEW to be true or false. They didn't believe simply because someone else told them, they themselves claim to have witnessed the risen Jesus. " ----> This is probably one of the worst misuse of words I've seen in awhile. By definition, to believe is to hold a certain claim to be true. Conventionally, to know something is to believe something to be true, to be justified in believing it, and to be correct about it (justified true belief, though Gettier problems challenge this conception). I agree that religious believers now believe in God. However, for you to emphasize the disciples "KNOWING" Jesus rose is an abuse of words. Strictly speaking, if they knew Jesus resurrected this would be circular (since you are essentially claiming that Jesus did resurrect) - rather, I'd take it you mean they believed Jesus resurrected but had MUCH MORE confidence in it given that they had a first-hand experience. Indeed, this seems like the correct interpretation since you added believers now never witnessed Jesus rising but heard it from some other source. The problem with such an argument is that basically, the only significant difference believers now and disciples back then is a degree of belief. I agree that a firsthand experience would likely make you much more confident in a belief, but this doesn't preclude those without such an experience having an the same or more degree of confidence. Many people can have a lower emotionally threshold to believing in claims (we call these people gullible), so even in the most ridiculous situations they can deceive themselves of something to be true. Therefore, your insistence on the disciple's first-hand experience is novel but inapplicable. ==================== Other points ==================== 1. Oral traditions "Really, it is reasonable to ASSUME that? This is a debate about historical evidence. Not assumptions. If you make a claim, then it is incumbent to put forth evidence. " ----> You have this odd habit of completely abusing words. Obviously, my assumption about the vulnerability of oral traditions was backed up in, literally, the SAME SENTENCE. So before you claim that it's incumbent for me to put forth evidence, I'll counter that it's incumbent for you to actually read my arguments. Likewise, your repetition of your argument doesn't escape my criticisms. "Then why even bring it up, hmmmm? You have had four rounds to do so. And the ascension is different from the resurrection. So I have provided evidence for the integrity of the oral tradition, all you have done so far is to assume that the tradition is erroneous. " ----> The contraction won't is will not, which means when I include "I won't bother. .. ", it means exactly that. Your attempts to put words in my mouth isn't too convincing. 2. Parsimony No, you've got it all wrong. What we mean by parsimony commonly refers to ontological parsimony[1], which means T1 entails less entities than T2, all else being equal. You're explanation entails a complete rethinking of many philosophical and scientific issues in the face of a religious factor, meaning it's less parsimonious (and thus meaning you need a strong case). ==================== Conclusion ==================== History is as much about facts as it is about interpretation. What I've attempted to do in this debate is to show that I can easily discount the story of Jesus' resurrection without toiling over facts -- rather, I can demonstrate the superiority of a naturalistic explanation from simple facts we know about today's world. My opponent hasn't done anything to dispel my case by consistently failing to address it properly. ---References--- 1. . http://plato.stanford.edu...