Replies

I did not mean to imply that it was “extraodinary,” proof, only that there exists an adequate argument, and that Buddhists do not even make any claims to falsifiability. Buddhism is like a bowling ball with no finger holes. It may be beautiful, but no one can pick it up. Paul said that if Christ is not risen, then we [professed Christians] are, of all people, most miserable [as misled fools].
The evidence for the Resurrection is adequate except for those who simply don’t want to believe it. Indeed, the God inclines some to belief, others to unbelief. [Jn 6:44,65) There’s another politically incorrect sharp edge you won’t find outside Christianity.

I did not mean to imply that it was “extraodinary” proof, only that there exists an adequate argument [...] The evidence for the Resurrection is adequate except for those who simply don’t want to believe it.

Thank you for your non-hostile response!

I respect your saying that you regard the Biblical evidence as "adequate." So what you're saying is that Carl Sagan's famous quote "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is too strict a standard, and that you prefer the guideline "Extraordinary claims are satisfied by 'adequate' evidence," right?

Then shouldn't you also find the eleven sworn affidavits testifying to the actuality of the "golden plates" of Mormonism at least "adequate?" In fact, there are probably hundreds of different supernatural events, inexplicable occurrences, etc. (levitating swamis, angelic apparitions, cornfield symbols, mutilated livestock, alien abductions, and even alien seductions) which all happened in the last fifty years, for which much more evidence than the Bible provides could be submitted. Why don't you believe in them all?

I, for my part, consider it rational to accept (as "likely" - not as absolute "truth") eyewitness accounts and the like only if it pertains to normal, everyday occurrences - and even then, only if no better evidence is available.

In the case of clearly extraordinary claims ("I am a time-traveller from the future!", "I was abducted by gray-skinned aliens!", "He was born of a virgin!", "He walked on water!", "He cursed a fig tree, and it withered!") which may even contradict widely accepted physical laws, I feel that it is justified to demand harder proof - for example, results which can be independently verified by experts under laboratory conditions.

Do you disagree?

Regards,