Before I find research for eveidence, if it is out there, I need to know what is it that you need to be disproven to question your faith. I don't feel like finding an argument here and there, because what happens, is almost every xtian I have done this for, they shrug off that fact and pose another. So, if you want me to take the time to do something like this, it needs to be worth my time to help you see something that really matters to you. It is not always easy to do and does take lots of time (sometimes). I find the feedom of being without faith more lifting that any moment of my spiritual past. If I can help someone see that reality can have the burden of supernatualism lifted from them to be like I and the slowly growing population sees it, then it is certainly worth my time. Remember, faith is not proof to me, so if that is all you are willing to listen too, this all will be moot.

But how many people die for what they know to be a lie?
If Jesus' resurrection did not happen then it had to be a cleverly fabricated lie. So who invented the lie and how was it spread? There are 2 alternatives...
A. Jesus' disciples made up the lie.
BUT Would they all die or suffer for what they knew to be a lie and no one recant it? Why would they do that?
B. Someone else made up the lie.
BUT Who? Why would the disciples believe it? What changed the Apostle Paul and the skeptic James? What evidence do you have to support this idea beyond mere conjecture?

Neither of these alternatives stand up to scrutiny, so the story stands as true.

See, here in lies the problem. You negate any alternative possibility as not possible, but the proof you have can be just as susceptible to the same scutnity. A story is not true just because it was told as such. The world is round, no matter how sure the people on it thought it was flat.

What is the one thing you would doubt, if you could be proven to doubt it?

Quick reply... I'm not really sure that I understand the question you're asking. There's something about the wording that is not clear to me.

But I think my answer is... the resurrection of Jesus. If you could prove that it is not true then I would stop believing in Jesus. Does that answer what you're asking?

More later... gotta get ready for church. Hey, if I'm wrong about what I believe please convince me. Otherwise I'm wasting my time on Sundays when I could be out playing disc golf! But until then I'll be praying for you Donovan, as I have been for the past few years.

Sorry, for the awkward question, but you got it. Resurrection it is. I don't know if I can disprove this, as it was so long ago and good records really were not kept well even for the side of proving it, but I will see what I can come up with.

Here's a fuller answer to a previous post--

You just need to prove that the resurrection of Jesus is not true.

On the positive side you also need to prove that atheism offers more love, joy, and peace than knowing Jesus has given me. You also need to provide something in atheism that is greater than God’s grace and forgiveness.

But you need to give evidence not just conjecture. You well said, “faith is not proof to me” and I totally agree, so if you make a claim it has to be based on evidence not just possibilities. In your recent posts you’ve already said several things that have no evidence to support them and you expect me to accept those on “faith”, but I don’t accept statements of mere possibility on blind faith without evidence.

I totally appreciate your zeal for what you believe. Every person should diligently search for truth. To put it on the table you’d like to convince me that you are right that there is no god and nothing supernatural. And I’m trying to convince you that there is a God, that Jesus is God, and that you can know Him. One of us is right and one of us is wrong. There is a god or there isn’t, so one of us is deluded about reality. If atheism is true then the kindest thing that atheists could do would be to help those who believe in the supernatural to see the truth that there is only the material world. If I ever become an atheist I hope I would be a more zealous evangelist for atheism than Richard Dawkins because that would be the most loving thing that I could do for the poor, deluded people who believe in a god that isn’t there.

I totally agree with you. Faith has to have evidence. That’s true of everything in our lives. I don't accept blind faith either, that's fideism and I reject it. Faith without evidence could lead someone to believe in anything from Zeus to astrology to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

DISClaimer- I’ve already been spending more time on here than I should. I have some big life transitions, as well as job and family priorities that I need to focus on until at least Dec 5 maybe longer, so I don’t plan to be on here very much. I’ll try to reply if I can squeeze in a few minutes but I can’t promise anything.

DISC-lamer 2: Sometimes I don’t reply to points made because a reasonable explanation would take too much time to write. But just saying “I disagree” isn’t worth too much because it’s just a statement with nothing to back it up with. I may start doing that, though, as a placeholder to remind myself of topics to come back to.

To take it in parts...

I'm not negating ANY possibility, only those you presented.
A central part of my line of argument by necessity involves disproving the alternative theories that have been proposed. If all other alternative theories do not hold up then that leaves the resurrection as the most likely. If this method is unacceptable then I need to just stop here.

How so? Please be give more specifics about the issue of people dying for what they knew to be a lie. Was my argument of 11/12 at 10:46 erroneous?

After doing tons of research, I will try to condense my writing in as brief a way as possible. First thing is that disproving something happen is not logical, unless it can be first proved that it did happen. The burden of proof must first be that something is real, otherwise it can’t be disproved. We can’t disprove a god exists as we can’t prove one does. We have agreed to this in another thread.

One can tell you unicorns existed because of all the historical documents, books, pictures, paintings, sculptures, other artworks, and how you see representations of them everywhere in our world. I can poll thousands of humans and a bunch of them will tell you they believe in unicorns. Some will even say they saw one. But there is no way you are going to buy that argument. Why? I won’t buy it because none of those things are proof to me. I need to see a fossil, some DNA, or some real hard evidence, like having one at the zoo where I would have no doubt that it is real or seeing fossils where the horn and animal bone structure came from the same animal and it looked like a horse. When you believe something or have had it repeated to you so much, it can cloud your perception of what evidence is or whether it is real evidence.