Roswell Crash vs. Gospels (anecdotes)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> RON

> Read the writings of theists. For centuries they have been describing

> their encounters with God. Their experience is overwhelming evidence.


Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron, isn't it?

In what way is the Roswell UFO crash less believable than the New
Testament? They are both specific
historical claims.

You have survivors who are documented witnesses, which is better than the
NT's source material by far,
especially considering the provenance issues.

You know there is a restricted aircraft testing area in the desert (you can
 go there), so the "secular facts" about Roswell itself are accurate

And Roswell even had published newspapers articles about the UFO's.



Is there anything which makes the New Testament *more* plausible than other
 oft-debunked extraordinary
claims? I mean, the NT histories contradict each other. The Roswell stories
 don't seem to conflict as much,
or even if they do, it would considered evidence of a hoax even by
Christians. Yet, they solemnly accept that
an ancient rabbi who was an incarnated god of some kind rose from the dead
after taking responsibility for
moral decisions others would make--even when the four independant accounts
of the story cannot be inclusively
linked into one complete historical narrative (due to variations in the
stories).

• Previous message: Is this the work of MSFITT?
• Next message: Four underlying presuppositions (back to Tim)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]