I figured this was ironically fitting for today.

This post from Debunking Christianity, the atheist blog run by ex-Christian John Loftus (I assume most people here have probably heard of him; check him out if you haven't), discusses an academic paper that asserts that Jesus could not have risen from the dead, even if a god happened to exist.

Here is an excerpt from the blog post, which was written by Darren M. Slade, PhD:

In what is already poised to become the most influential counterapologetic argument against the physical resurrection of Jesus, philosophers of religion, Dr. Robert Greg Cavin and Dr. Carlos Colombetti, recently published a 60-page report entitled, “The Implausibility and Low Explanatory Power of the Resurrection Hypothesis.” The article was part of a debate featuring Christian apologist and philosopher, Stephen T. Davis, hosted by the peer-reviewed academic journal, Socio-Historical Examination of Religion and Ministry (SHERM).

In the article, Cavin and Colombetti provide a detailed explanation of what is called the “Standard Model” (SM) in particle physics to argue that the resurrection hypothesis surrounding Jesus of Nazareth not only has low explanatory power, but it actually conflicts with SM so much that a miraculous resurrection would have been completely impossible. Indeed, according to the authors, the Standard Model of particle physics is so relevant and decisive in establishing the implausibility of the resurrection that it can be confidently asserted “no agent supernaturally interferes” with the physical world … ever.

I haven't taken the time to read the paper yet myself, but I'll probably try to do so at some point today.

Happy Easter

"The laws of physics say this story about the suspension of the laws of physics cannot happen!"

C'mon. The whole point of miracles is that they can't happen, and then according to the religious person happen anyway. Saying the laws of physics prohibit a particular miracle is useless.

7193372
I've only just started reading the paper, but I can already tell there's a lot more to its overall point than the mere fact that miracles are a violation of the laws of physics. It's more about whether belief in miracles would be rationally justifiable even if God or other supernatural beings who were capable of performing miracles actually existed.
Atheists already acknowledge that any supernatural explanation for a phenomenon is inherently less probable than a natural one, but religious people will nonetheless assert that it is at least possible and even plausible that God or some other supernatural being could be responsible for a phenomenon that does not have a known natural cause. This article is seeking to put the nail in that cross coffin by establishing that any sort of supernatural intervention--even if supernatural agents happened to exist--is so overwhelmingly improbable and implausible, that it is by all practical means impossible. In other words, even if God hypothetically exists, Christianity (or any religion that believes there is or has ever been supernatural intervention) is nonetheless demonstrably false.

7193344 I don't think Jesus rising from his tomb is that implausible.

People were really stupid back in the day. They couldn't tell apart an unconscious man from a dead man.

There are many presidencies where people who were thought dead have risen. There was even a design of graves that allowed the one in the coffin to ring a bell in case the buried person wasn't dead yet.

So yeah, I think it's completely possible for Jesus to walk out of the tomb, without breaking any laws of physics.

7193344
I'm currently reading the paper now.

7193486
The question being asked is not "Did Jesus walk around after his crucifixion and entombment?" The question is, "assuming he did do those things, what caused him to?"

The theological side of the argument (Davis, Craig, and others) asserts the "Ressurection Theory" which explicitly states "God did it." It was a supernatural event caused by God. A miracle.

Cavin and Columbetti propose several theories. Included among them are your own: Hallucination (people were really stupid back then) and Apparent Death (mistaken diagnosis of death). The paper examines all of these theories and assigns "believability" scores to them via some loose algebra, and attempts to assert that the Ressurection Theory ends up with such a poor score that it's effectively unreasonable to believe it. The other theories, despite having poor scores, are higher and therefore more believable.

Most of the paper so far is a rebuttal to Davis/Craig/others who criticized a previous work and is a dismantling of their arguments. The better parts of the paper are where they expand on their own stuff rather than simply saying "they did this wrong."

So far, the gist of it that I'm getting (haven't looked at the blog linked, only the paper itself) is that there is a disagreement between science and theology in that proponents of theology assert that science can't exclude the possibilities presented by theology while opponents say it can. They're not attempting to point to evidence that (as theists often erroneously ask for) disproves God/etc. They're saying that the explanation we have for various events as purely natural occurrences are satisfactory. God is not needed to explain these things. And since we explain so much so well with science, it is unreasonable to toss out the findings of science that we'd need to toss out in order to make room for God. Ergo, it seems that the "god of the gaps" argument in reverse has come upon us. The gaps are too small to contain God anymore.

So, this claim that it was impossible for Jesus to be resurrected is based mostly on the idea that:
Science/natural laws explain everything (so far) satisfactorily.
One thing we explain with natural laws is death.
Those laws prohibit magical resurrection.
Therefore it was not a magical resurrection but some other, natural set of events.
The belief that it was a miracle is not reasonable. Because even if we don't have the exact forensic evidence of that particular death/alleged death, we can confidently induce from our great experience with death that you can't go back to life after.

One of the more interesting arguments in support of this is that science doesn't test for and attempt to exclude the influence of demons. Any given law we have (L) is asserted to be comprehensive. It takes only natural inputs and gives only natural outputs. Theists (notably Patinga) assert that all such laws are perfectly true and valid, but they're actually part of an if/then clause. They're only true if God doesn't intervene (P). So it's not just L, it's "If -P, then L."

Where the theists' usual wordplay fails them is that they freely admit you can't test P. However we can test L. And each time L remains consistent, we effectively test that -P (if it is a thing) is correct. Since it is always the case that -P, L remains true. In order for P/-P to be useful or explanatory though, we'd need to be able to test for it independently of L. Since we can't, and we can (so far) disregard it, it's correct to dismiss it as superfluous. L retains explanatory value without even considering P/-P.

The only real issue is that the theists are asserting that, in the case of Jesus, "P, therefore not L" occurred. They'd claim that this is the time where it happened (along with any other miracles they happen to want to claim). As usual, this incurs a burden of proof on their part but they'll dodge this burden.

7193657 I find it weird that the article attacks resurrection. We simply don't have enough information to conclude anything. Even the Bible doesn't account the events in the tomb.

Why not argue the claim that the Sun stayed still in the sky. Earth stopping its rotation — that would truly be a breaking of physics and a miracle.

7193467

It's more about whether belief in miracles would be rationally justifiable

Nobody accused the faithful of being rationally justified in their faith.

7193691
The resurrection is far more central to the Christians' claims of legitimacy than other, more extreme "miracles." The flood myth, for example, has been thoroughly and utterly disproved by many folks but my favorite is Aronra's.

It has been stated by many Christians that the resurrection of Jesus is the only miracle they truly care about. Knocking that pillar out does more damage than any other.

7193713
The faithful often attempt to. Indeed, the opponents of the linked article do in fact claim that very thing.