Jesus Was Probably Resurrected By God

IntroductionPro is right that if I make an assertion, I must support it. However, I do not have to argue that God probably did not raise Jesus from the dead as the burden is not shared. Thus, I do not need to endorse an alternative hypothesis. Now, Pro in fact did presume the general reliability of the Gospels without real warrant. He mentioned things from the Gospels as if they were facts without actually justifying this in his earlier rounds. Also, citing William Lane Craig the whole debate only shows one mans interpretation of the evidence. He is not the ultimate authority, and many historians and scholars disagree with his views. He then lists 6 factors which go into making something more probable. However, he never justifies why we should actually accept this standard of authenticity, over another standard of authenticity. He then commits the bare-assertion fallacy by saying:"All of the facts I have presented in favor of the resolution display most (if not all) of these Indicators of Authenticity (notice that these Indicators aim at stating sufficient, not necessary, conditions of historicity). Thus we can be confident in the historicity of Facts#1-4 without appealing to the general reliability of the Gospels." - ProHe simply bare-asserts that all the facts he mentions display all of the indicators of authenticity. Where is the support for this? Also, I wasn't attacking the 4 facts when I was mentioning how Pro is presupposing the Gospels were reliable, I was mentioning all the little sub-"facts" based on them that Pro mentioned. Thus, my opponent seems to be straw-manning my position. Regardless, this is all a big red-herring. My position is that even if these 4 facts are true:(i) Jesus was buried(ii) His tomb was empty (iii) People claimed to see him after his supposed death(iv) People believed who had every reason not toThere are plenty of explanations for the facts. Pro must show that Jesus was probably resurrected by God, and that no other theory is as plausible (he attempts to do this in his last round). Pro then claims:"The general (much less 'complete') reliability of the Gospels isn't necessary to my case. As such, our readers may disregard this objection." - ProActually, the readers should not disregard my objection. This is because, as I said the whole time, even if I was was willing to grant the 4 facts, that doesn't mean I accept the little sub-"facts" my opponent had attached to them. Without justification, this is a fallacy of presumption; Pro just assumes that the document he cites is valid. All he did in his last round pertaining to this section is bare-assert a standard, then bare-assert that the facts meet that standard. That is not going to cut it. Is The Resolution The Best Explanation Of The Facts?I do not have an indifference to facts; this is a straw-man. My only point was that even if those 4 facts are true, the resolution doesn't follow (and Pro has the burden of proof in this debate). My opponent does actually try to give justification in this round. It is just unfortunate that he waited till his last round to present his argument in favor of the resolution with no chance to respond. He lists things which make an explanation more plausible:1. Explanatory scope2. Explanatory power3. Plausibility 4. Ad-Hocness5. Accordance with accepted beliefs 6. Superiority over rival hypothesesI am going to grant that the hypothesis that God rose Jesus from the dead passes 1 and 2, but argue that it fails so badly when it comes to 3, 4, 5, and 6 to the point where this failure over shadows everything else. Of course, this would severely undermine Pro's case to the point where we can safely say he did not meet his burden of proof. PlausibilityPro's support for plausibility is rather laughable. Just because Jesus was unique like and made radical claims, and a supernatural resurrection would confirm it, that doesn't mean that a miracle from God is plausible. People make radical claims about themselves theologically all the time; most of the time they are false. Also, another huge problem pokes its head. In order the resurrection by God to be plausible; God would have to be plausible. Pro has not actually argued in favor of God's existence. If God is not plausible, then Jesus' story is not plausible it seems. Pro just expected us to take God's existence as plausible on faith. Also, As Bart Ehrman notes:"What are miracles? Miracles are not impossible. I won’t say they’re impossible. You might think they are impossible and, if you do think so, then you’re going to agree with my argument even more than I’m going to agree with my argument. I’m just going to say that miracles are so highly improbable that they’re the least possible occurrence in any given instance. They violate the way nature naturally works. They are so highly improbable, their probability is infinitesimally remote, that we call them miracles. No one on the face of this Earth can walk on lukewarm water. What are the chances that one of us could do it? Well, none of us can, so let’s say the chances are one in ten billion. Well, suppose somebody can. Well, given the chances are one in ten billion, but, in fact, none of us can." - Bart D. EhrmanHere is why Pro fails; The very nature of a miracle is an improbable event. If a plane crashes and I was the only survivor; people would refer to it as a "miracle". Why? Because it was so improbable. Using a miracle (which by its very nature is improbable) as the most probable explanation appears to be a non-starter. For how can an improbable event by its very nature, be the most probable explanation without strong outrageously external grounding? It cannot. One has to presuppose God's existence in order to seem a miracle probable, but Pro hasn't given us a reason to believe God exists in order to make this event probable. A resurrection fails the plausibility test so badly, that this alone casts a shadow over the 2 tests the hypothesis in question does pass. Ad-HocnessThe assumption that God exists violates Occam's Razor to an unnecessary extreme because we only know for a fact that the natural world exists. Positing something (a supernatural world) that we have no evidence of is complete violation of Occam's Razor. If we can explain the evidence naturally this is to be preferred. Otherwise, when you lose your keys and you cannot think of an explanation the best one is; the key stealing angel took them. No rational being thinks this way. Natural explanations are far superior, as they are in accordance with what we know. Accordance With Accepted BeliefsThe accepted belief is that people don't just get raised from the dead... it simply doesn't happen as far as we know, and we have nothing which would indicate it can happen. Whether we are talking about a resurrection which occurred supernaturally or naturally is irrelevant. Therefore, the attempt to cover up this obvious blemish fails for my opponent.Superiority Over Rival HypothesesPro claims that other hypothesis are universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. However, most New Testament scholars are, well, Christian. The fact is that most historians don't accept the resurrection as the best hypothesis. As Historian Richard Carrier notes:"Misplacement fits the evidence better than most scholars think, and theft fits the evidence even better still, though I only discuss these possibilities elsewhere. I think it is most likely by far that the original belief was derived from dreams, hallucinations, or 'inspired' readings of scripture, which later became embellished into fabulous legends serving different dogmas." - Richard CarrierI am not saying I endorse Richard Carrier's beliefs, I am just noting that what Pro claims is "universally rejected" is still up for debate. ConclusionGod passes 1 and 2 with regards to Pro's criteria, but fails 3, 4, 5, and 6 so badly that Pro's case falls apart. Vote Con. Source[1] http://www.infidels.org...