A minimal case against belief in the resurrection

Taking a Humean aproach:

P1. Miracles like Jesus' resurrection are initially extremely improbable relative to our background knowledge (even on a worldview which includes an interventionist god with a redemptive plan for humanity).

P2. Extremely improbable claims require extremely good evidence before they can be rationally accepted.

P3. The evidence for Jesus' resurrection is not extremely good

---

C4. Jesus' resurrection cannot be rationally accepted

Here's part 12 of tooltime9901's excellent resurrection series (catch them all!):
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cexxNdVwnbg

Here's my previous vid that talks about what might constitute excellent evidence for a miracle claim:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=23iMspol7yU

Category:

Education

Tags:

• skepticism
• tooltime9901
• veritas48
• god
• jesus
• risen
• resurrection
• evidence
• atheism
• hume
• apologist
• proof
• miracles
• accept

[bitbutter]

You still haven't offered anything in the way of reasons to suppose that the particular miracle of J's resurrection was to be expected. You'll need to do that if you want to challenge premise one.

[glramer2007]

Yes it does. You're implying that Jesus death is highly unlikely because there is of premise number one. I'm saying that if you read the bible in context it's not unlikely at all. In fact it's highly likely.

[bitbutter]

Does what you're saying now have something to do with the argument presented in this video? Its not clear to me how it relates to the premises.

[glramer2007]

And like I said before, the Jews didn't write any prophecies about Jesus' death, but that really has nothing to do with it. You know the verse the wages of sin is death? For Jesus to overcome sin he also had to overcome the wages of sin. Which is death.

[bitbutter]

So still no a priori reason to expect the particular miracle of J's resurrection has been offered. Premise one seems solid.

[glramer2007]

Who said the Jews knew anything about Jesus planning on dying and rising again? A lot of Jews were pissed at Jesus because they thought he was going to free them from Roman rule. The clean animals were taking the punishment that the Jews were sentenced to. Once Jesus took that punishment AND rose from the dead he not only freed man from sin, he freed himself from the punishment of sin, which is eternity in Hell.

[bitbutter]

If your claim rests only on what you mentioned in the comments here then we're done. I'm not persuaded that the Jews' preference for killing 'clean' animals once a year allows us to conclude that they knew God's pan of salvation would hinge on a human sacrifice, much less that this would be the particular crucifixion of of Jesus first century Palestine. This is an enormous stretch.

The premise stands that the resurrection is, a priori extremely improbably, even on theism.

[bitbutter]

"but according to the law it is understood that Jesus would have to rise again in order to fulfill the law."

Again, can you provide any sources to back this claim?

[glramer2007]

Well think about it. Did the Jews offer just one clean animal without defects once in their lifetime and it was sufficient? They had to do it every year in order to purify themselves.

[bitbutter]

"but according to the law it is understood that Jesus would have to rise again in order to fulfill the law."

Can you provide any sources to back this claim?