Why Christianity Fails in Terms of the Evidence

[Sam26]

There is a very simple argument that shows that the Bible provides very little evidence to support the belief that Christ physically rose from the dead. I'm not saying there is no evidence, only that the evidence is so weak that it doesn't warrant believing in the Christian faith. I'm talking mainstream Christian denominational beliefs.

We're going to assume that the gospels are eyewitness accounts (this grants what most will not grant, because there are less than four eyewitness accounts), and we'll also assume they were written in the first century. Also we'll grant that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which is another point that probably isn't true. So this argument grants what many others will not grant, and should not grant, and we'll still defeat the Christian belief in the resurrection. The reason for this particular attack is that Christianity falls to pieces if the resurrection is not true (at least for many Christians).

First, there are only four witnesses (actually less, probably two) to the resurrection. Thus all the evidence that Christians use to support the resurrection - the post-resurrection appearances, the guards at the tomb, the missing body, the grave clothes, the moved stone, etc, etc, are all based on the testimony of four (probably 2) biased witnesses. This is a key point, because testimonial evidence tends to be very weak, and in this case we are supposed to believe in something that has never occurred in history, based on the testimonial evidence of four people. And remember it's not just four witnesses, it's four biased witnesses, i.e., they were friends of Jesus. Even if they were sincere in their beliefs, it doesn't change the nature of their testimony. We have no objective unbiased witnesses, and there are no detailed objective historical accounts to warrant belief in a resurrection. We have second-hand testimony (hearsay) that there were over 500 post-resurrection appearances, but hearsay is very weak, much weaker than the four first-hand testimonials. It would take more than four people to convince any reasonable person that such an event actually took place, even if they were unbiased. Thus based on this simple analysis there is no good reason to believe that the physical resurrection took place; and thus it's misguided to place your faith (your belief) in the resurrection based on such weak evidence. You have to almost blindly accept it as true.

Modus Ponens

Premise 1) If the resurrection of Christ is based on two or three eyewitness accounts over 2000 years ago, then there isn't strong enough evidence to warrant belief in the resurrection.

Premise 2) The resurrection is based on two or three eyewitness accounts from over 2000 years ago.

Conclusion: There isn't strong enough evidence to warrant belief in the resurrection.

[Obvious Leo]

Don't waste another moment of your life with this sort of shit. A dead person is a piece of rotting meat. End of story.

[Dalek Prime]

Don't waste another moment of your life with this sort of shit. A dead person is a piece of rotting meat. End of story.

And thankfully we don't actually experience the putrefaction.

[attofishpi]

Why Christianity Fails in Terms of the Evidence

That's the beauty of it.
To know the truth to it is to suffer the fate that only a true sage knows. Ultimately the evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

[Sam26]

Why Christianity Fails in Terms of the Evidence

That's the beauty of it.
To know the truth to it is to suffer the fate that only a true sage knows. Ultimately the evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

If evidence is so subjective, then anything and everything can be true or false. However, the evidence in this case is supposedly objective, and we can read it. It's not intellectually difficult. It's true that people tend to believe what they want to believe, but this is, in spite of the evidence/reasons.

[Sam26]

Don't waste another moment of your life with this sort of shit. A dead person is a piece of rotting meat. End of story.

If you don't like "...this sort of shit," then don't read it, and don't make asinine comments.

[attofishpi]

Why Christianity Fails in Terms of the Evidence

That's the beauty of it.
To know the truth to it is to suffer the fate that only a true sage knows. Ultimately the evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

If evidence is so subjective, then anything and everything can be true or false.

When one considers evidence one should always deduce to a binary decision.

However, the evidence in this case is objective, and we can read it. It's not intellectually difficult. It's true that people tend to believe what they want to believe, but this is, in spite of the evidence/reasons.

You're still not getting that an individual can be personally provided all the evidence they require?

[Sam26]

When one considers evidence one should always deduce to a binary decision.

It's not always a binary decision. For example, not only can your decision be true or false, but you can suspend your belief, which is neither true or false. This means that you don't know whether it's true or false, so you withhold your decision about its truth or falsity. This is what agnostics do. I'm not an agnostic when it comes to the resurrection, because I don't believe their is enough evidence. Therefore, I believe it's false to believe that Christ rose from the dead.

You have to be careful about using the word "always," because it's not always the wise choice.

[attofishpi]

When one considers evidence one should always deduce to a binary decision.

It's not always a binary decision.

At the base level a decision is always binary Einstein.

[Sam26]

When one considers evidence one should always deduce to a binary decision.

It's not always a binary decision.

At the base level a decision is always binary Einstein.

Some decisions are binary, but not all. Many times we just choose not to act, which is a third option.

[attofishpi]

It's not always a binary decision.

At the base level a decision is always binary Einstein.

Some decisions are binary, but not all.

Do logic.

Many times we just choose not to act, which is a third option.

It remains a binary option, Sam.

[Sam26]

It's not always a binary decision.

At the base level a decision is always binary Einstein.

Some decisions are binary, but not all.

Do logic.

Many times we just choose not to act, which is a third option.

It remains a binary option, Sam.

Why are you arguing about this - look it up. Binary logic is binary, but there are three-valued logics, where the outcomes would be -1, 0, and +1. Besides, I have studied logic (symbolic logic and modal logic).

[attofishpi]

Why are you arguing about this - look it up. Binary logic is binary, but there are three-valued logics, where the outcomes would be -1, 0, and +1. Besides, I have studied logic (symbolic logic and modal logic).

I'm an old hat at ultimate logic, a choice of c-1, 0, and +1 is negating an alternative, it remains binary.

[Skip]

If they want to waste their lives, this is a safer way than flattening pennies on the streetcar tracks, and equally productive.

[Sam26]

Why are you arguing about this - look it up. Binary logic is binary, but there are three-valued logics, where the outcomes would be -1, 0, and +1. Besides, I have studied logic (symbolic logic and modal logic).

I'm an old hat at ultimate logic, a choice of c-1, 0, and +1 is negating an alternative, it remains binary.

Well, I'm an older hat (lol). The point is that there is a logic that is trinary or trivalent, and that's my only point. If you want to still call it binary, be my guest. But thanks for your responses, maybe I'll learn something from an old hat, but you must be older than me.