Bigfoot and the Resurrection of Jesus

[Faizal_Ali]

If you are looking for hard evidence to prove beyond a doubt to yourself that Jesus is alive, you are probably not going to find it. If you are looking for enough evidence to justify the leap of faith, I believe it is there.

I disagree with both. I am not looking for evidence that demonstrates “beyond a doubt” that Jesus was resurrected. I am simply expecting the same sort and degree of evidence by which we usually accept things to be true. The “resurrection” story does not even remotely measure up. The evidence for the existence of Bigfoot is orders of magnitude greater. We have literally hundreds of people who claim to have directly experienced Bigfoot, and these accounts are not beset by the problems that exist for the Gospels. We know exactly who these people are. Many of their accounts are available on audio or video recordings and, if you wish, you can likely speak with many of them in person yourself. These are not just written stories that are at best 2nd hand accounts based on earlier versions that have been lost to time, by authors whose very identities are unknown. And those who claim to have experienced Bigfoot act exactly as one would expect someone who has seen Bigfoot to act.

Moreover, the existence of Bigfoot does not require the belief in any immaterial, supernatural beings or forces.

So anyone who believes in the resurrection but not in Bigfoot is simply being highly biased and inconsistent their appraisal of the evidence.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

I am simply expecting the same sort and degree of evidence by which we usually accept things to be true. The “resurrection” story does not even remotely measure up.

The evidence for the existence of Bigfoot is orders of magnitude greater.

You, I assume, are aware of the life of Jesus. What is it that you expect there to be in terms of evidence? Jesus lived over 2000 years ago. His ministry lasted for a few, mere years. I don’t know exactly what you are looking for, in terms of hard evidence, but you are not going to find it. He was a no one in an occupied land. He was not a leader. He was not an author. He moved from place to place and spoke with people, and left impressions on their hearts. He was just one of many millions to die. The one notorious thing that he did was to come back again. What do you expect to see in terms of evidence?

I’m sorry that you don’t see enough of a reason to consider that he is the who he says. I understand your struggle with the lack of evidence. You are right, especially given the degree that you demand, to complain that it is not enough for you. That said, you complain too strongly. Your demands may be too high.

So anyone who believes in the resurrection but not in Bigfoot is simply being highly biased and inconsistent their appraisal of the evidence.

It’s not a contest, but Bigfoot is a red herring. There’s sloppy video and (as you say) recordings of first-hand testimonies. There is some hard evidence to show that Bigfoot may exist. There are no casts of Jesus’ footprints, or samples of his hair (unless you count this… but it matters not to me.) There are the words of followers, and those words are compelling. Have you ever read this book? I found it to be a very interesting read:

Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts

Do you believe in Bigfoot? Does the evidence that Bigfoot exists compel you to belief? Or is this just the standard that you are setting so that you can contrast it to belief in Jesus? Please answer, because I would like to know what you are thinking.

Whether the testimonies regarding Jesus are first-hand or third-hand, they are consistent and numerous. As I said before (and every other Christian here will agree), there is enough evidence to compel one to consider a relationship with Jesus Christ. There is not enough evidence to prove that he exists. It just doesn’t work that way.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

There is not enough evidence to prove that he exists . It just doesn’t work that way.

Assumption free proof is not available for anything I am aware of.

Only evidence and sometimes compelling evidence.

The evidence for the resurrection is compelling but only for those whose heart is open to it. If your heart wants to reject the evidence it will no matter how compelling the evidence is because your ears will not hear it.

So many times on these forums I have seen compelling cases made only for the opponent to repeat the words “there is no evidence”.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

So anyone who believes in the resurrection but not in Bigfoot is simply being highly biased and inconsistent their appraisal of the evidence.

Hehe.

Anyone who says this is either a believer in Big Foot or unaware of the evidence suggestive of the Ressurection. Which one are you?

[Faizal_Ali]

You, I assume, are aware of the life of Jesus. What is it that you expect there to be in terms of evidence? Jesus lived over 2000 years ago. His ministry lasted for a few, mere years. I don’t know exactly what you are looking for, in terms of hard evidence, but you are not going to find it.

OK, then. I agree.

I’m sorry that you don’t see enough of a reason to consider that he is the who he says.

Why are you sorry? You just explained why this evidence does not, and indeed cannot, exist. So that’s where things have to remain. If we are trying to behave rationally, we should not accept the existence of things for which evidence cannot exist. That seems very simple to me.

Do you believe in Bigfoot? Does the evidence that Bigfoot exists compel you to belief?

No, and no. That is the point.

Or is this just the standard that you are setting so that you can contrast it to belief in Jesus?

Sort of, but not exactly. I am simply explaining that I am consistent in how I evaluate and apply evidence

If you accept that the resurrection of Jesus actually happened, then you should accept that Bigfoot exists, because the evidence of the latter far exceeds that of the latter. One could also reject both, as I have. And, strictly speaking, one could believe in Bigfoot but not the resurrection and still be consistent in how one appraises and accepts the evidence.

But someone who believes in the resurrection but not in Bigfoot is simply not being consistent or rational in how they use evidence to determine their beliefs.

[Faizal_Ali]

Anyone who says this is either a believer in Big Foot or unaware of the evidence suggestive of the Ressurection. Which one are you?

What evidence for the “resurrection” is there, that does not also exist for Bigfoot?

Could you point me to the Youtube videos of people who describe their encounters with the risen Christ?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

Could you point me to the Youtube videos of people who describe their encounters with the risen Christ?

Why would you ask this question?

You don’t understand the issue well enough and such your just creating a false equivalence.

In what universities is the subject of big foot studied? Who celebrates big foots birthday? What percentage of the population believes in big foot? Has anyone martyred themselves for their belief in big foot? Are there any historical prophecies supporting this case? Can you cite any scholarly citation of the existence of big foot identifying what it is. Was big foot required to create something unique only to big foot?

Did you listen to the debate Rum cited?

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

Why are you sorry? You just explained why this evidence does not, and indeed cannot, exist. So that’s where things have to remain. If we are trying to behave rationally, we should not accept the existence of things for which evidence cannot exist. That seems very simple to me.

I’m sorry that it is so hard for you to see, because I would very much like for you to see. It would please me that you did see. I did explain why this hard evidence does not exist, but that does not preclude the existence of Jesus Christ, nor his Resurrection.

Do you believe in Bigfoot? Does the evidence that Bigfoot exists compel you to belief?

No, and no. That is the point.

So, there are literally hundreds, maybe thousands of first-hand accounts of encounters with a living Bigfoot and you do not believe that it exists??!! That’s hillarious. So then, after making all that point about Jesus and evidence, what would count for you as evidence that makes you believe?

Moreover, the existence of Bigfoot does not require the belief in any immaterial, supernatural beings or forces.

I think that herein lies the problem… it is a bias that keeps you from seeing.

[DaleCutler]

it is a bias that keeps you from seeing.

…and hearing.

[Faizal_Ali]

Why would you ask this question?

You don’t understand the issue well enough and such your just creating a false equivalence.

Let me ask it differently:

If Youtube existed 2000 years ago, and we had videos of the disciples themselves describing their experiences of the “risen Christ”, what effect would that have on the evidence for this resurrection, in your opinion? Would it strengthen it, weaken it, or make no difference?

In what universities is the subject of big foot studied?

About as many as where Intelligent Design Creationism is studied. But I digress. If as many people believed in Bigfoot as believe in Jesus’s resurrection, there probably would be university courses devoted to his study. I am not arguing that lots of people do believe in Bigfoot.

So, there are literally hundreds, maybe thousands of first-hand accounts of encounters with a living Bigfoot and you do not believe that it exists??!! T

That’s right.

I’m sorry, so you believe that Bigfoot exists? Then I am afraid that this line of argument was entirely wasted on you. However, you have just made it that much stronger for everyone else, so thanks!

I think that herein lies the problem… it is a bias that keeps you from seeing.

No, not a bias. Just the same position that you, I suspect, apply when your child tells you it was an elf that ate those cookies that were cooling on the kitchen counter. But I am assuming you don’t believe him, and I’ve been wrong about you on that sort of thing once already, so…

[DaleCutler]

From the endorsements to Hidden in Plain View, referenced above:

So maybe this belongs in the The Authorship of the Gospels discussion.

I hadn’t heard of ‘undesigned coincidences’ before, so I’m going to have to check this out. Of course, to my mind (as most who know it know ), all coincidences are designed, hence my terms ‘co-instants’ and ‘co-instance(s)’, denoting ‘not a chance!’

[DaleCutler]

No, not a bias.

…just a reprise of your red herring refrain, pretending they’re equivalent.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

I’ve really enjoyed it. I believe that she’s the wife of the man who was debating with Bart Ehrman on the YouTube video that Rum mentioned earlier in the thread.

[Faizal_Ali]

…just a reprise of your red herring refrain, pretending they’re equivalent.

Please explain how it is a red herring, clearly and specifically as you can. Because I am not seeing it.

[DaleCutler]

Read Hidden in Plain View and get back to me.

[DaleCutler]

(P.S.: Better right and happy.)

[Faizal_Ali]

They’re the same to me.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

Could you point me to the Youtube videos of people who describe their encounters with the risen Christ?

I would not rule the possibility that there are videos claiming to be such.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

If Youtube existed 2000 years ago, and we had videos of the disciples themselves describing their experiences of the “risen Christ”, what effect would that have on the evidence for this resurrection, in your opinion? Would it strengthen it, weaken it, or make no difference?

This is a good question. I think it would make very little difference because it is not only what the apostles said its how they acted which is compelling.
The other major issue is the prophecies which characterize Jesus remarkably accurately and were written prior to his birth. It’s very hard to find an equivalent to this story.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

Then I am afraid that this line of argument was entirely wasted on you. However, you have just made it that much stronger for everyone else, so thanks!

The line was not wasted on me, the argument was. I’m really not here to argue with you at all. I’ve admitted that one cannot “prove” the Resurrection, multiple times. so this is a one-sided “argument.” We disagree about the strength of the evidence that does exist, but the hard evidence (once again) is not the reason why we believe.

This is a good question. I think it would make very little difference because it is not only what the apostles said its how they acted which is compelling.
The other major issue is the prophecies which characterize Jesus remarkably accurately and were written prior to his birth. It’s very hard to find an equivalent to this story.

This, along with the personal experience, is why we believe. What you don’t understand (but hopefully you will someday) is that you can win every argument, but it doesn’t change the fact that Jesus is alive.