First, it’s not that the resurrection being a real supernatural event is “so unlikely” (although, it is), it’s just that it’s less likely than any natural explanation. If we have a 1 in 100 natural explanation (someone had a post-bereavement hallucination), it’s irrational to accept a 1 in 100 billion supernatural explanation (a first century Jew was born of a virgin, flew up into space and was 1/3rd of God) instead. In fact, it’d be irrational to accept a 1 in 200 natural explanation if we had a 1 in 100 one. Second, the background information we have doesn’t refer to God as such, it refers to all the thousands of claimed supernatural beings: Literally everything we now know to have a natural explanation was once explained by the supernatural. Trees grew due to tree spirits. Thunder was caused by Thor. Etc. Not one supernatural claim has ever been demonstrated to be true.

“Because if there is a God, then you do not have that probability information.”

Wrong. We’d have exactly the same probability information because we don’t know whether God exists or not. Whether God actually exists or not is irrelevant to my argument.

“Would you agree with that?”

No. Would you agree that because we don’t know whether God exists, we can’t estimate how likely it was that Joseph Smith received golden plates from the angel Moroni? Or that because we don’t know if Allah exists we can’t estimate how likely it was that Mohammed flew on a winged horse? Or because we don’t know whether aliens exist we can’t estimate how likely it was that Betty and Barney Hill were abducted by aliens?

“P.S. If you see unicorns […]”

If there was evidence for unicorns and not for horses, then unicorns would be real and horses would be mythical. So what? This is an example of the patented Christian Argument from Wishful Thinking: If there was lots of evidence for God, there’d be lots of evidence for God! Yeah, and there wouldn’t be any atheists or Hindus. But there are, so…

Your first response is a restatement of your opinion. Thank you for reminding us of that.

This statement is confusing. The resurrection is supposed to be evidence that God exists, not the other way round. I’m not starting with any assumption that God doesn’t exist, I’m starting by estimating how likely resurrections are.

You cannot start by “estimating how likely resurrections are” without porting your assumptions into it. You have an experience base, and that gives you an estimate of how likely resurrections are under natural circumstances, but you cannot say a resurrection is too unlikely, and therefore irrational to believe, unless you have decided in advance there is no God. If there is a God, then you have no idea how likely a resurrection might be. You have zero basis for any likelihood estimate, if there is a God.

When you say you have enough probability information to be sure that a resurrection is so unlikely, it’s irrational to believe it happened, then you are of necessity also saying you are sure there is no God. Because if there is a God, then you do not have that probability information.

Would you agree with that?

P.S. If you see unicorns, and if multiple other people see unicorns in a setting where illusion, collusion, or delusion are unlikely, and where no one was predisposed to invent a fantasy of unicorns, and if you all touch them and interact with them and watch them do playful sparring with their horns, think unicorns, not horses. That is not to say I believe in unicorns, I’m just borrowing from your little proverb. Rather it is to say that the ultimate test of whether a thing is real isn’t what someone thinks based on vague and indirect evidence, including probability estimates. The ultimate test is whether it happened in a way that rational people in an epistemically favorable setting can acquire enough information to know whether it happened.

“So don’t undersell your point: The odds are far, far worse than what you stated.”

I agree. My figure was based on the most simplistic assumptions I could make and I did that to come up with the most generous estimate I could. According to your far less generous estimate, it appears that “a miracle happened” is now even less likely than any naturalistic explanation, no matter how far-fetched: ‘Space aliens staged the resurrection as a prank’ would arguably be more likely. ‘Someone lied’ would definitely be more likely. ‘One of Jesus’s followers had a post-bereavement hallucination and honestly inferred from that that Jesus had resurrected’ must surely be more likely than 1 in 100, but that makes it literally a billion times more likely than an ‘a miracle happened’.

If there is a more likely explanation, then it is irrational to accept a less likely explanation by definition.

“Now, if your claim therefore is that it’s too unlikely to be real, then you’re throwing in question-begging assumptions. The odds for it happening in a closed naturalistic universe are exactly zero, whereas the odds for it happening in a God-created, God-ordained universe where God wanted it to happen are exactly 100%.”

This statement is confusing. The resurrection is supposed to be evidence that God exists, not the other way round. I’m not starting with any assumption that God doesn’t exist, I’m starting by estimating how likely resurrections are.

“If I read you right, your claim is more like the Humean one, which isn’t, probabilities tell us miracles can’t happen, but more like, Miracle claims point to something so far out of the realm of common human experience, the odds tell us we’re far wiser to treat them as false than as true.”

Not far off. Hume with added probabilities.

If you hear hoofbeats, think horses not unicorns.

So don’t undersell your point: The odds are far, far worse than what you stated. What that means is that if it happened, it’s a miracle. It also means that if miracles can’t happen, then it didn’t happen. It also means (in a related though not identical point), if we live in a closed naturalistic universe, it didn’t happen.

Now, if your claim therefore is that it’s too unlikely to be real, then you’re throwing in question-begging assumptions. The odds for it happening in a closed naturalistic universe are exactly zero, whereas the odds for it happening in a God-created, God-ordained universe where God wanted it to happen are exactly 100%.

The odds against its happening only matter if miracles are probability-dependent events, but nobody thinks they are. A probability-dependent event is by definition not a miracle. I want to make sure both of us are clear on that. I don’t think that should be the least bit controversial, as it’s in the very definition of a miracle.

But I don’t think that’s actually your claim. If I read you right, your claim is more like the Humean one, which isn’t, probabilities tell us miracles can’t happen, but more like, Miracle claims point to something so far out of the realm of common human experience, the odds tell us we’re far wiser to treat them as false than as true.

Am I correct in believing that’s your claim? If so, please let me know, and I’ll be glad to move forward in discussing this and other claims you’ve made here (such as, “Miracle claims are by definition irrational…”). If I’ve understood you wrongly on that, please tell me again what you’re really trying to say.

As you see, I am going to take this a step at a time, because that’s the only way to have a rational conversation. I see interesting points (and interesting problems_ in what you wrote. I could answer all of them at once, but that would almost certainly involve me answering something I thought you said, when you actually said (or intended to say) something different from that. That’s one of the ways these online discussions seem so often to fall apart. I’d rather do it in a way that has at least a chance of holding together.

I’d prefer to defend one of the two claims I made in the first place, not the list of claims I didn’t make which you asked me to defend (that was the burden of proof shenanigans to which I referred). I’ll restate my claim so it’s as clear and concise as I can manage, then I’ll expand on it a bit.

Christianity is irrational because it makes an extremely unlikely supernatural claim (that Jesus resurrected) on extremely weak evidence (testimony, but see below).

About 100 billion people have died and stayed dead, so Jesus’s resurrection would be a 1 in 100 billion event on purely numerical terms.
Miraculous claims are inherently irrational as, by definition, “a miracle happened” must be the least likely explanation for a claim otherwise it wouldn’t be a miracle in the first place. But if there is a more likely explanation, then it is irrational to prefer a less likely explanation. The claim that Jesus resurrected could be explained by many far more likely explanations, such as that someone made up a story. That kind of thing happens all the time – see all other religions for examples.
The gospels aren’t testimony (in the legal sense), they’re hearsay. We don’t know who wrote the gospels. We do know that they were written 40-90 years after Jesus lived, in a different language to that spoken by Jesus in a different country. They are full of inconsistencies, such as those regarding Jesus’s virgin birth and resurrection. For example, the earliest version of Mark lacks any resurrection appearances at all, or disciples seeing Jesus but not realising it was him until later.
It’s possible to argue that the gospels aren’t evidence for the resurrection at all, as they are also the books which claim Jesus resurrected. Claims aren’t evidence. If I stood in a court of law and claimed that 500 eyewitnesses saw me in a different town atthe time I was accused of committing a murder, would my case be dismissed on the grounds of this very strong eyewitness testimony, or would I need to provide evidence that these 500 eyewitnesses actually existed?
I’m not saying this is the only reason Christianity is irrational, as there are lots of other reasons. Example: prayer not only doesn’t work (as numerous studies have demonstrated) but couldn’t work (as most answered prayers would require free will to be violated).

The “big fuss,” as you call it, is not merely “religion” it is the reality of the truths of God in Jesus Christ, the holy and loving creator and God of the universe, and humans’ relationship with him.

Whether anyone gains from this discussion depends on whether they (and especially Mr. Rauser) take these points to heart and learns from them and/or returns a message that I can learn from.

The reason I don’t just answer, “Of course there’s evidence, here it is!” is because I have been answering that way for decades, and I don’t have decades available right now to answer your particular blog comment.

Burden of proof isn’t shenanigans. It’s the only sensible way to deal with people popping into one’s life with unsupported claims. If I had to disprove everything anyone ever suggested here and in other places where I interact, I’d need to be living multiple centuries every year. It makes a whole lot more sense to limit my responses to claims that are made responsibly. And that’s how I see burden of proof.

I find it interesting that you found it “interesting” that I would respond that way. You obviously intended that as a pejorative. It almost sounds like you thought that your posting some unsupported claims here created an obligation upon me to show what’s wrong with every one of them. What happens next if I accept that obligation is, people drop more unsupported claims in here. They write a couple sentences, each one of them requiring hundreds of words in response.

I’ll deal with responsible objections and responsibly supported claims. I’ll also deal with them one at a time, because again, it’s easy for you to write a quick slam, like,

The Bible is testimony where it isn’t outright myth (Genesis, Exodus). Without it, Christianity wouldn’t exist. There are arguments for God, but arguments aren’t evidence, they don’t argue for the God of the Bible per se, and they all fail. Modern-day miracles are only claimed as evidence for Christianity because of prior Christian belief based on the Bible.

To answer that, — assuming you’d given reasons to believe any of these claims, which you haven’t — I’d need to deal with reasons to take Genesis and Exodus seriously; I’d have to explain how you’ve misunderstood the relation of evidence and argument; I’d have to show how some arguments actually do point to the God of the Bible, and that those that point more generally toward theism still have epistemological and probative effects on how we view other evidence; I’d have to deal with the facts of miracles today, of which apparently you are unaware; and I’d have to take time to unpack your logical fallacy of the last sentence in that paragraph.

Which one do you want to start with? One at a time. You can pick a different one from a different paragraph if you like

But remember, what you have (at least in this paragraph) is nothing more than bare claims, none of which is supported by any argument or evidence. Please do us both the favor of laying out your reasons for your position. I want to know what I’m answering before I answer it.

“First, that Christian evidence is strictly based on testimony”

The Bible is testimony where it isn’t outright myth (Genesis, Exodus). Without it, Christianity wouldn’t exist. There are arguments for God, but arguments aren’t evidence, they don’t argue for the God of the Bible per se, and they all fail. Modern-day miracles are only claimed as evidence for Christianity because of prior Christian belief based on the Bible.

“second, that testimony is always unreliable as you seem to claim”

I didn’t say testimony is always unreliable (although it is, as has been established quite clearly by studies showing that eyewitnesses disagree, for example), I said it isn’t reliable enough to establish that a man resurrected, an extreme 1 in 100 billion miraculous claim. Eight named eyewitnesses testified to have seen Joseph Smith’s golden plates, yet you’re not a Mormon. Why not?

“third that what you say about falsehood of religion shouldn’t be applied to all worldviews including atheistic, scientistic materialism”

I didn’t make this claim either. Scepticism should be applied to all claims. Instead of “atheistic, scientistic materialism”, why not just say naturalism? Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any observation which isn’t consistent with naturalism.

“fifth, that faith is meant to be a means of acquiring knowledge”

I didn’t make this claim either (and what happened to four?). Jesus said “blessed are those who believe but have not seen” – that’s praising people for “acquiring knowledge” through faith.

“sixth, that science has such a perfect track record”

I didn’t say perfect. But science has done far better than religion in discovering how the world operates. And it has improved exponentially over time, which cannot be said of religion, especially Christianity, which has diverged over time with disagreement over every aspect of it.

“seventh, that atheists have a stronger record of rational argumentation than Christians, that is, that they have a stronger demonstrated ability to construct and/or evaluate arguments using sound, fallacy processes of rational inference.”

I didn’t make this claim either. I agree that Christian theologians have invented lots of arguments to prove the existence of God. It’s just that these arguments all fail for one reason or another. Meanwhile, science looked at the evidence instead.

Wow. So few words, so many misconceptions. So many strong claims, too, several of which you speak as if they were established truth.

Since they are your claims, the burden is on you to support them. First, that Christian evidence is strictly based on testimony, second, that testimony is always unreliable as you seem to claim, third that what you say about falsehood of religion shouldn’t be applied to all worldviews including atheistic, scientistic materialism, fifth, that faith is meant to be a means of acquiring knowledge, sixth, that science has such a perfect track record, seventh, that atheists have a stronger record of rational argumentation than Christians, that is, that they have a stronger demonstrated ability to construct and/or evaluate arguments using sound, fallacy processes of rational inference.

Feel free to take them one at a time. I’m prepared to meet you rather easily on every single one of them. But they’re your claims, not mine, so it’s your turn to try to establish them.

I assume you agree that every “faith or religion” other than your own is untrue? In that case, it seems absurd to claim that faith and religious belief isn’t “more prone to fallacy than anything else”, when it has a 100% (when rounded to whole numbers) track record of arriving at false beliefs. Faith or religion are certainly more prone to arriving at false beliefs than the scientific method, to pick one example of something less prone to fallacy. Faith is inherently useless as a way of determining truth as there’s nothing that can’t be believed on faith (to quote Matt Dillahunty).

Christianity is inherently irrational as the evidence for it consists of nothing but testimony, which wouldn’t be anywhere near strong enough to establish that a resurrection happened even if it was the highest quality testimony of currently living, reliable, named eyewitnesses.