The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
I am going to waive the first round and Pro would have to wave the final round.
Pro: Jesus did resurrect and I can prove it
Con: No he didn't
Burden of proof is on Pro. If I fail to counter his claims sufficiently then he wins. If I do counter his claims sufficiently then I win.
Kind of an extreme burden of proof since I would have to debunk all his claims to win but given there isn't a lot to discuss I don't think this is too much to ask for.
I don't really want to add rules since I know they ain't going to be enforced and think if the previous rules are going to be broken I still think I can win if I do post arguments as well.
Thanks for reading and participating in whatever way you see fit.
Hopefully this is worthwhile.
Types of evidence GeneralGrant can use is:
- Personal experience
- Scientific evidence
- Trace evidence
- Relationship evidence
So basically X person saw Jesus resurrect.
Science can repeat it.
Now if it wasn’t clear already what GG did. I’ll make it clear. Neither of them meets the scrutiny even if it may seem so on the surface.
Given how sacred this is to Christians I don’t think they would even consider this can be repeated so we are left with only one way of finding proof. I’ll move on specifically talking about his argument before giving speaking about testimony given the context would be helpful to my point and to readers.
James conversation and Saul’s/Paul’s conversation
Under the evidences I gave both of these fit under only one of those I gave and since they both come from the same source if I provide the source to be wrong then they are both wrong. I want to make this as specific to the issue at hand instead of taking another jab at the Bible so I will be specifically talking about how it isn’t enough to be considered a testimony.
The syllogism if I basically removed X and put in James or Saul/Paul would fit right in but I left out key information which renders GG’s evidence useless. I will be demonstrating it by using the best use of testimony.
Best use of Testimony: In law
In law, testimony is considered admissible evidence. For something to be admissible it must be relevant or reliable. I will grant relevant but I won’t grant reliability. Being relevant doesn’t mean it is correct since I can simply say you are going to lose but since the information I gave doesn’t demonstrate how you would lose since I am talking about a future event there is not reliable data I can give thus relevancy is useless without it being reliable as well. Given the effectiveness of an eyewitness testimony. If you look at the second link below you would realize back in 1947 they realized how little the human mind remembers and what happens when dealt with a lot of tension. Participants were given time to give detail of what occurred and painted the worse picture possible instead of what actually occurred. Given that people are susceptible at over exaggerating what they saw it isn’t a stretch for me to state that the two people mentioned as proof were over exaggerating what was going on. The participants in Allport & Postman stated the person who was aggressing was black even though the person was white. The people GG mentioned were so distraught of a human dying that they have lied to themselves into thinking Jesus rose from the dead or became delusional and thought they actually saw Jesus. I stated this because using Occam’s Razor there are more simple answers then Jesus rising from the dead. So the only real way of proving this resurrection can’t be done and thus no evidence can be brought for Jesus’s resurrection.
Effectiveness of Eyewitness testimony
Stuff that GG said that I want to specifically answer
James believed the Resurrection so strongly that he was willing to die for that belief.
He even wrote on why the Resurrection was absolutely necessary for the Christian faith in 1 Corinthians 15.
First, I think TRN should take digital evidence off the table or else he could not believe in anything from the 1830s to the beginning of the universe.
one who was skeptical and did not believe and the other who hated Christianity, came to be the greatest believers. That is some change! Yet you fail to give a good explanation.
Next, I knew you were going to go with the suicide bombers.
You see, Muslims who do this sort of thing are sincere in what they believe,but they don't know if it is true.
The disciples were in a position to know whether or not Jesus was raised from the dead.
It simply is not plausible to suggest that each of these men would face continual persecution and horrifying deaths for something they knew to be a lie.
After all, liars don’t make good martyrs.
And in contrast to suicide bombers, the disciples didn’t kill others in their respective martyrdoms. And they didn’t use violence to force people to convert to Christianity. In fact, they did no harm to anyone, but loved their enemies and willingly accepted persecution from them for the sake of the gospel.
You have yet to give how the Bible is reliable. I await for you to do so.
YOUR QUOTE: "If he hadn't raised from the dead, then death could not be conquered."
The problem is NOT Jesus raising from the dead, it is the biblical axiom that He really didn't DIE because He arose from the tomb to life in 3 days! Therefore how can the TRUE Christian like myself say that He died for our sins when He remains alive?!!! Dying for only 3 days and coming back to life is an embarrassment if one wants to use the notion of "Jesus died for our sins." Get it? 2+2=4.
>>If he hadn't raised from the dead, then death could not be conquered.
Death can't be conquered because there is no evidence of it. Some people are hopeless. I only wish you are given the tools to realize that and change your view on things. Oh well.
If he hadn't raised from the dead, then death could not be conquered.
I hate it when Jesus' Resurrection is brought forth, this is because it shows that Jesus really didn't die as a true sacrifice! Whereas, a true sacrifice, as in World War II, is that you remained dead! The soldiers in all wars did NOT have the option of returning to life after 3 days as Jesus did, so where is the TRUE sacrifice for the sins of the world? My faith is tested at all times, where this proposition is one of the worst in this vein.
That is all right.
I am such a procrastinator.
Sorry about that.
Well, not this opponent. Hahahahaha
I thought my opponent wouldn't need more than 5k characters.
Thanks. I got it. I wish you would have allowed more words.
>>You can never be absolutely certain that Jesus did not rise from the dead.
That is not good enough stance to win in my opinion.
Green square is Pro.
Red square is Con.
Are you pro or con?
I think it would be better to say "we don't have enough evidence to conclude that he did" instead of "no he didn't". You can never be absolutely certain that Jesus did not rise from the dead.