you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

This seems like faulty logic to me. What other things in your life do you affirmatively believe “by default” just because their counter-arguments seem implausible to you? Doesn’t it make more sense to not hold belief in something until you have evidence supporting that belief?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    It's not so much that I believe it 'by default'. Rather, when I've examined the historical case for the resurrection, the arguments that it really happened seem stronger than the arguments that it was a hoax, or a mass hallucination, or that he fainted etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    I’m sorry if this comes off as rude or blunt, but here goes:

    I am not aware of any evidence that resurrection is possible, or indeed that anything that could be called “supernatural” is real. Don’t you need to establish that before you can claim that arguments for a flipping resurrection seem strong? What am I missing here?

  • source
  • parent