Brian continues clinging to probabilities,I straightforwardly analyze the likelihood of possible explanations for the gospel evidence about the Resurrection. You say "stick with the Resurrection", but when faced with such an analysis, your head disappears into the sand, and your only response is to speciously characterize me as "clinging".
which are not used in historical hypotheses—period!Again: I doubt you could name a single professional historian who 1) denies that the logically possible explanations for a historical fact (e.g. the existence of the gospels) must sum to 100% probability, or 2) claims that no judgments can be made about the relative probabilities of those possible explanations. My point stands unrebutted, and your concluding exclamation does not constitute an argument.
My case was made; he ignored it.On the contrary, you cannot quote a single element of your case which I have not rebutted. By contrast, I count over thirty arguments or pieces of evidence in my previous response that you here simply ignore.
If you think you have a "case" which I do not or cannot answer, I invite you to use my Atheist Cage Match Challenge to showcase your claim that I "ignore" your "case".
He claims his probabilities escape naiveté. You, the reader, be the judge. This debate has reached completion (07 March 2003).I'm quite happy to consider this debate finished and allow our readers to judge whose case is stronger. I compliment your intellectual courage for posting my previous response in full even though you leave it so completely unanswered.