What is Reddit's opinion of The Son Rises?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

In depth and productive discussion of this topic would fill many books and indeed much has been written before. Perhaps this book would better answer your questions than our (both) one line snarky replies to each other ;)

let me know if you want a reading companion

Cool, so what’s your disproof of the possibility of miracles?

How would someone demonstrate the truth of the resurrection? I think that if you approach the question without assuming that the resurrection couldn’t have happened then that is the most likely answer: https://www.amazon.com/Son-Rises-Historical-Evidence-Resurrection/dp/1579104649

Sure, but if we’re unsure then not having any historical claims makes it less verifiable.

Non-mobile: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1579104649/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1429417752&sr=8-1&keywords=the+son+rises&pi=AC_SY200_QL40&dpPl=1&dpID=415nYfIAk0L&ref=plSrch

^That's ^why ^I'm ^here, ^I ^don't ^judge ^you. ^PM ^/u/xl0 ^if ^I'm ^causing ^any ^trouble. ^WUT?

I don't think authors like William Lane Craig and N. T. Wright who defend this kind of argument would dispute that a naturalistic explanation would better account for the empty tomb alone. However, when a broader array of facts is considered, the Resurrection accounts for all of them, and provides a simpler explanation than some ad hoc story that provides separate naturalistic explanations for each.

I can't speak for /u/Georgebernardpaw, but generally the idea here is that you can historically prove certain facts that are religiously neutral in themselves—like that Jesus was crucified, that he was buried by Joseph of Arimathea, that the women found the tomb empty on Sunday, and that many people believed they saw Jesus alive—and then posit the Resurrection as the simplest and most plausible explanation for all of those facts. Some of the most noted defenders of arguments like these are William Lane Craig, N. T. Wright, and Michael Licona.

Usually, the counterargument is that our background knowledge that people do not rise from the dead renders the Resurrection, if not impossible, at least so improbable that we should prefer any natural explanation, no matter how far-fetched or ad hoc. That is what I used to think myself, but now I find it rather circular (we know that no particular miracle has occurred in the past because miracles are highly improbable, and we know miracles are highly improbable because no miracles have occurred in the past). When I became convinced of the existence of God by philosophical arguments, I naturally came to think that miracles aren't so unlikely after all.

Bill Craig has participated in many live debates on this subject which are available online; two of the most interesting are his debates against Bart Ehrman (video, transcript), who argues that historians can never prove a miracle for methodological reasons, and against Robert Greg Cavin (audio), who argues that Jesus must have had a long-lost twin who faked the Resurrection. (After all, we know that sometimes identical twins are separated by birth and meet by chance later in life; we know people sometimes carry out outrageous hoaxes; and we know that dead people don't get up and walk out of their tombs.)