Hallucination can't be ruled out, of course. However, if all I have to explain is that somebody wrote a story about a disciple perceiving Jesus alive some days after he died, I can compare the hallucination hypothesis with the hypothesis that the story isn't historical, and I can conclude that the latter hypothesis is more probable.

"This amounts to a convenient excuse, nothing more. Properly called a rationalization."

He is the one trying to conclude a whole bunch from the fact that the gospel stops after the crucifixion. Yet he ignores the fact that many works that focus on the suffering of Christ do that. I don't need an excuse. He is trying to claim something is remarkable that simply is not remarkable at all.

"Well, at least you fully admit you're falling for the fallacy of authority."

I found it amusing that you try and prove this assertion by pointing out Wikipedia agrees with you!

Yes, the snake-handler story is sad. It shows what happens when you value scripture outside of Christians tradition.

He really ignores the most obvious reason why Mark would leave off any lengthy account of the Easter story. He was writing what we call a passion. That is an account of the suffering of Jesus. He gives a short account of Jesus' ministry just to show how His suffering was the focus of His time with the disciples.

If you have an experience with a passion even today you get the question of hos much resurrection to include. Mel Gibson included just a minute or two. Some would want more. Some would want none. I can see why early Christians differed on this. Christians today differ in precisely the same way.

Why is the longer version of Mark considered scripture? Because the church said so. Really the historical and textual evidence is not enough to make us trust any book of scripture. God, through the church, says these books are legit so they are.

So there is just no reason from Mark to think the other stories of Jesus' appearances are false. He does emphasize Galilee which is interesting. Yet he gives no reason to believe He is telling the whole story. What happened in Galilee? The story ends because the passion has ended. It does not end because nothing interesting happened after that.

OTOH, the earliest Christians already *knew* that Christ had risen: it is one of the Mysteries of the Faith. If Mark is seen as being written for the edification of those who already accepted the Resurrection, but who may have been unaware of the background story, so to speak, then there would have been no reason to necessarily include the account. (And whether or not it is the case that, , as part of the Mystery, it was not to be readily revealed to the uninitiated, I leave to the scholars. Catechumens are still dismissed before the beginning of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, during which the Memorial Acclamation is said.)

Did I call it or what? "you'll mislead if you want to because it is your nature." Thanks for demonstrating your willful ignorance and dishonesty.

Hi Steve,

You might find these posts of mine helpful:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/good-and-bad-skepticism-carl-sagan-on-extraordinary-claims/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/cavin-and-colombetti-miracle-debunkers-or-can-a-transcendent-designer-manipulate-the-cosmos/

Of course, the McGrews' paper on the resurrection is well worth reading, but I expect you're well-acquainted with it.

Being critical of Catholic doctrine or beliefs is not the same as being "anti-Catholic". The latter implies some prejudice towards people who are Catholics whereas the former could just be a case of "love the sinner, hate the sin" to borrow a phrase.

It is absurdly improbable that we are the only life in the universe. The universe moves from low to high entropy by creating local pockets of low entropy and increasingly high complexity which add to the overall entropy of the universe. These pockets range from nebulas to stars to planets to life itself.

The drive to greater complexity culminating in life and even consciousness is powered by the universe's irreversible push towards high entropy, a process laid down by the presence of ultra low entropy conditions at the very beginning. One might even say that life is inevitable.

If you are ignostic or igtheist, it's pointless discussing with you because you regard everything in the world as jibberish.

This just comes off as careless jibberish that again, has nothing to do with me nor my statements. I'm not the one who made claims, floundered and back-pedaled into a passive-aggressive tone. I don't think anyone cares what you think of them - you'll mislead if you want to because it is your nature.

I am ignostic or igtheist.