Is the Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Better Than Mohammed's Miracles?

No. All Christians have is ancient testimony which is the same evidence as those who claim Mohammed flew through the night, or that Balaam's ass talked, or that Jonah was swallowed by a great mythical fish, or that an axehead floated, or that a pillar of fire directed the Israelites by night, or that the Red Sea parted, or that the pool of Siloam healed people, and so on. But ancient testimony ain't worth *shit* when it comes to any of these things. It doesn't matter how believers dress them up either. ;-)

My contention, as readers know, is that the basis for all miracle claims in the ancient past is faith, which is an irrational leap over the probabilities. When faith is the basis then anything can be believed. That is my point. The evidence for one miracle is going to be believed by people of different faiths as being better than the evidence for a different miracle by people in a different faith. If the way they assess them is by faith then any one of them can be seen as better evidenced than the others.

I have pointed out what is lacking with the evidence for the resurrection.

I have offered what kind evidence could convince me to believe.

I have said why the historical evidence just doesn't cut it.

Bart Erhman sums this up quite nicely.

The case of Oprah Winfrey's half-sister is telling on the matter.

This leads me to think the evidence is not there at all for such a claim, which is what I think of the Muslim claims. I don't consider either claim to be warranted at all for the same reasons.

The evidence that the Jews themselves didn't believe Jesus was resurrected should be good enough.

Christian, your only recourse is that you have “priors” prior to examining the evidence for the resurrection. And in your bag of priors is that God exists. Upon the supposition that God exists it becomes more probable than not that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Aside from the fact that even the Jews of Jesus' day didn't believe (see above link), there is an additional problem. Where do you get your "priors" from? Since the evidence for the resurrection cannot be established from the raw historical data alone, then you must approach said evidence from a “prior” that you cannot have yet. Chronologically, the evidence from the raw historical data must lead you to believe that your God did this particular miracle. But there are plenty of theists who do not think God raised Jesus from the dead even given their theistic faiths.

My contention is that you accept the evidence for the resurrection because you were raised to believe and that’s it. It’s the only explanation that fits since the evidence simply is not there. And that makes you deluded.

Someone must first start out believing in the kind of God that did this or that particular miracle before said person can find that evidence convincing, which is circular, viciously so. The evidence of a biblical miracle cannot reasonably convince someone that such a God exists unless said person already believed such a God exists.

So it doesn't matter if the evidence for one miracle is considered better than the evidence for a different one if how believers assess them is based on faith. Again, anything can be believed if based on faith. There is no such thing as a rational faith.

It makes no practical difference for me to admit, if I did, that one miracle claim has more evidence to it anyway. For what would the difference be between a one and a billion chance and a one and a billion and a half chance. None that I can see. It would still be astronomically improbable.

Still, I think Islam contains less improbabilities, as I argued in my chapter for The End of Christianity, something that can be seen in draft form right here.

The Muslim faith does not contain the improbabilities like a Trinity, an incarnation, atonement, resurrection, ascension and a rapture (or whatever). So Islam becomes pretty much easier to believe, and in that faith Mohammad flew through the night. So what? It's still by far more probable to them given the other theistic alternatives.

Dr. Jerald Dirks explains in some detail on why he rejected Christianity and embraced Islam, and it's for these very reasons.

Any more questions? ;-)

0 comments: