That is assuming that anything supernatural actually exists. We have no need for anything supernatural to explain the universe around us. So inventing something that we:

a. have no need to invent in order to explain anything in our lives
b. can’t even make sure we’ve invented correctly or invented at all

makes no sense doing at all.

What would it take to convince you that you don’t exist? Does believing that you exist qualify as a religion?

The problem is, God is supposed to be supernatural– if not, he has no meaning. When we can’t think of something that would prove God to us, all we’re saying is, we can’t imagine something outside the physical laws of the universe. This is simply a limit on the human mind. It’s just like our inability to imagine a color outside of the rainbow (okay, plus black and white– perhaps I should say a color outside of all known colors). What do we think of when we think about how Bees see infrared? Well, we translate it into a color– I always imagine a red glow– or something else analogous to what we’ve seen with our senses, and we use that.

We can’t imagine things outside of our abilities of perception. And for something to be supernatural, it has to prove not only that it has some physical form and certain properties– ie, that it has some natural aspect– it has to prove that it is supernatural. And naturally, none of us can imagine what that would be. It would have to be something more than we can perceive with our senses.

That’s the difference between someone proving that a germ or whatever exists– for us to believe in those things, we only have to perceive their physical forms and properties. Therefore, we’re capable of imagining them, and we’re capable of imagining what would make us believe in them.

If God presented himself before me today, and I only experienced him with my five senses, I would have no way of knowing that he was supernatural. To imagine the proof that he would give, is to imagine extra senses that I don’t have. That’s why it is impossible for me to give an example of something that would prove the supernatural.

Counter Evidence Principle (CEP): S would be reasonable in concluding that p is true on the basis of the evidence E only if it is reasonable for S to believe that the evidence E would indicate ~ p if ~p had been the case.

In other words, an individual would be reasonable to conclude that the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are accurate accounts of witness testimony based on the evidence in the Bible’s account ONLY IF it is reasonable to believe that the writers of the Gospels could and would have reported honest, accurate testimony of witnesses who disputed the resurrection story.

If you do not think that the writers of the Bible would have reported the witness testimony of people who saw a body in that cave, then it’s not reasonable for you to accept as evidence the testimonies they did include.

For an easy start, the infidels.org has some scholarly reviews of the evidence which you can look over. A quick overview of the secular evidence:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html

A long review of McDowell taking many claims point-by-point and explaining the actual evidence, not afraid to acknowledge where McDowell is right and where he overstepped the bounds. It’ll take time to review, but you should get a better understanding of what evidence is actually available and some of the issues that are considered when interpreting it:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

Yeah, I know how bad it looks to dump everything from a single site so I used two different authors and tried to select examples which cited many different points of view in the field and tried to educate the reader rather than dictating a conclusion.

If you want to delve into the gospels themselves, that’s a whole new kettle of fish…

You should probably look into those claims in much more detail, as you would probably be shocked and insulted that McDowell would make such bold claims based on such flimsy pieces of evidence. I too read McDowell and when I did the research on my own, I felt like he had treated me like a fool and an idiot.

Could you recommend some places I might look into these sources? Then I can better answer what you have to say.

Spurs Fan — No, admitting that the secular histories don’t condone the Resurrection does not end my argument. I wouldn’t expect secular histories to do that.

Secular histories include the dozen or so that mention Jesus. They don’t condone the New Testament view that Jesus rose from the dead

Cory,

Doesn’t this end your argument all together? This proves Jesus lived. Isn’t the ressurection part pretty important?

As to requiring absolute proof, I will admit that there is no absolute proof for the Resurrection (or any other event from 2000 years ago). So, no, a well-documented hole in the chain of reasoning that leads one to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead would be sufficient.

Well,…okay then!

Secular histories include the dozen or so that mention Jesus. They don’t condone the New Testament view that Jesus rose from the dead, but sources like Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Phlegon, and Mara Bar-Serapion (according to McDowell’s Evidence for Christianity pp. 171-174) confirm the basic outline of Jesus’ life and ministry.

You should probably look into those claims in much more detail, as you would probably be shocked and insulted that McDowell would make such bold claims based on such flimsy pieces of evidence. I too read McDowell and when I did the research on my own, I felt like he had treated me like a fool and an idiot.

Quickly glancing at the list, I see that none of these people were alive when Jesus was, and some never mention Jesus at all. The reference that is closest to Jesus was by Tacitus and it comes over two generations after Jesus’s death, and Josephus’s quotes are almost certainly interpolations (even if they weren’t, Josephus too wasn’t born until after Jesus died and does not discuss a resurrection). The rest of the list are even worse.

So since you seem to be aware that the only evidence of Jesus’s resurrection comes from the bible, I’m curious as to why you would accept these pious claims but not others? If you’ve decided to accept the biblical accounts, what sort of things could shake your faith?

You already seem to know that there are major discrepancies between the different biblical accounts, ranging from the way in which Jesus appeared, what he did after all the way to the day he died. Yes, you’re right that it shows it wasn’t a collaboration, but it also shows that these accounts are at best accounts of stories passed from person to person and not eye-witness stories. Since you know that, I really have to wonder what more you’d like to see before your faith would be shaken?

I’m sure that we can provide many accounts by pious sources that are actually eyewitnesses to miracles just as dramatic as Jesus’s resurrection. Would you accept them? What if they weren’t eyewitness accounts and the accounts we have differ from one another in major respects and despite their earth-shattering nature (literally-earthquakes, remember?), no secular accounts corroborate them. Would you believe these miracles just as you believe in Jesus miracles?

If you already accept that the gospels weren’t written by eyewitnesses (or were written by very mentally confused ones) and were pious sources with no secular corroboration, then what would convince you to change your mind?

You say you want a “well-documented hole”, but you should know that few records exist from these times. Is your belief in Jesus based around a lack of evidence that a miracle didn’t happen? Do you apply that same sort of reasoning anywhere else in your life?