Don’t waste your time trying to convince a Christian that a natural explanation is more probable than a supernatural explanation for the missing body of Jesus. If you do, he (or she) will chuckle and reply with something similar to the following:
Ah, the old “probability” trap….. Hume thought he had this one figured out.Unfortunately, there is no way to calculate the probability of a supernatural being that has agency making a decision to do either one thing or another at any given time, unless somehow, it’s possible to know that being’s thoughts and timeline beforehand. So, the question of “what’s more probable” simply doesn’t apply at all.
Why don’t they use this same logic when their keys are missing???
Imagine a world where a supernatural explanation must be considered for every odd event. What chaos! The local bank is robbed and one of the tellers tells the police that she had a vision that Jesus took the money! Jesus took the money to distribute to poor people in the Third World! Should the police be obliged to take this claim seriously? Should the police spend valuable resources investigating this supernatural explanation for an empty bank vault?
Of course not!
Dear Christians: Please admit the truth. The reason why you jump to a supernatural explanation in the case of the first century missing corpse of Jesus is because every fiber in your body wants the supernatural explanation to be true!!!
End of post.
2 thoughts on “Christians: Why is it that when your keys are missing you assume a natural explanation, but when it comes to a missing first century corpse, you assume a supernatural explanation?”
It wasn’t the missing corpse that prompted a supernatural explanation. If you read the Gospels with even a little attention you would notice that the first explanations are natural ones – “where have you take the body” etc.
What prompts the supernatural explanation would be the physical, resurrected Lord. That’s where the natural explanations don’t suffice.
It seems that you don’t quite grasp categories here. Hence you category errors.
I am more than happy to exclude an empty tomb from the hypothesis. After all, a significant minority of scholars doubt its historicity.
So what did prompt the supernatural explanation? That is the BIG question? Was it:
-mistaken identity (seeing someone in the distance or in a crowd that looked like Jesus)?
-one or more hallucinations?
-a combination of all or some of the above?
Or, a never heard of before or since resurrection of a brain-dead corpse who appeared to his former fishing buddies; ate a broiled fish sandwich; and then levitated from the top of a nearby mountain into outer space???
You decide, Mr. and Mrs. America. Which explanation sounds more probable?