agnosticquestions wrote:I'm looking for logical tools to analyze these things, and what I'm met with over and over on this topic from various people boils down to:
1) There is no proof
2) Lack of proof shouldn't get in the way of believing it, though
3) How could you really prove anything at all anyway?
4) Therefore, just believe this because we say so
This is an unfair assessment. First of all, "various people" on this thread can only include Eugene and I, and nowhere did I say anything remotely like, "there is no proof; believe it because I say so." On the contrary, I directed you toward historical evidences of the resurrection, the reliability of the Gospels, and some apologists who I feel discuss these matters intelligently.
Eugene has stated that proof is impossible for some true statements, and I concur, since this much has been proven mathematically. But notice that this is a very rigorous, mathematical definition of proof. In the real world we can't rely solely on mathematically-perfect deductive reasoning, but also inductive reasoning, which occasionally fails us. (For example the statement, "All swans are white" was assumed correct until Europeans found black swans in Australia.) Inductive reasoning is, itself, a form of inference to the best explanation, which some epistemologists consider the most fundamental form of reasoning for creatures such as ourselves that need to make sense of diverse sensory input. If you study epistemology for long, you'll find that there's very little you can say you "know" in a rigorous sense. Even Descartes' famous "I think, therefore I am" is suspect.
You can't "prove," in a rigorous sense, that the chair you are sitting in will continue to hold you up, or even that it held you up last time you posted to this forum. But do you believe these things without reason? Of course not! You remember sitting in the chair, phenomena we call "people" remember seeing you in that chair from time to time, there are scientific theories endorsed by these people that mention electron-electron repulsion, molecular bonding in the parts of the chair, gravity holding your bottom to the chair and the chair to the floor, etc. We get by very nicely with these kinds of explanations, even though they occasionally fail us (e.g. quantum mechanics) and fall short of absolute proof.
You may think there is a great divide between such a readily demonstrable, high-confidence proposition as whether a chair will hold you and the historical reliability of the Gospels and the fact of the Resurrection. This is because atheists are compelled to relegate such matters to the hazy, unknowable past. But while it may take careful study to understand some aspects of these matters that are unfamiliar to us--for example the culture and politics of first century Israel, or methods of deducing the order in which manuscripts were written from their content--I have found that such study can give a surprisingly high confidence in the Resurrection of Christ. From study I have done (to varying degrees) it is equally clear to me that the important claims of the followers of Buddah, Allah, the Hindu deities, L. Ron Hubbard, and yes, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, are not substantiated. Please study these matters for yourself as a true freethinker and I think you'll find what you're looking for.
