• TootGuitar@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • selawdivad@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • TootGuitar@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year 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?