@AnyMous
Jesus died by crucifixion
Some theories (e.g., the swoon hypothesis) suggest Jesus may not have died but instead survived in a critically wounded state.
That doesn't seem plausible since he was severely whipped, hung on a cross, had a spear thrust in his side, and yet appeared to hundreds of people only a few days later with no apparent sign of streets from the abuse.
The disciples had experiences they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus
Psychological phenomena like hallucinations or mass delusions could explain these experiences.
Hard to image who hundreds of people could have a hallucination about interacting with the risen Jesus over a several month period, in different places. Especially, when people touched him and his healed wounds.
The disciples were transformed and willing to suffer and die for their belief
Many religious movements have members willing to die for a cause (e.g., Islamic martyrs, Heaven’s Gate). Sincerity does not equal truth.
But, that is not what we are dealing with here. You are asking us to believe that the apostles (and other eye-witnesses) were willing to die for a cause they KNEW to be a hoax. That ain't going to ever happen. People are willing to die for things they believe to be true, but would they all be willing to die for something they know to be a lie? I don't think so.
Paul, a skeptic and persecutor, converted after an experience he believed was of the risen Jesus
Paul’s experience as described could be explained as a medical event, such as an epileptic seizure
But, this is not what he said is it. He said that Jesus blinded, told him the things he was going to suffer for him him. His eyesight was restored and he immediately switched sides, going from a persecuter to a defender of Cbrist.
You are asking us to believe all this happened from an epileptic seizure? I'm not seeing how that is remotely possible.
"Personal comes from Non-Personal"
Consciousness is studied as an emergent property of neural complexity. Neuroscientific research supports that self-awareness, emotions, and decision-making arise from interactions among neurons and biochemical processes in the brain. Models of emergent complexity suggest that personality and agency result from layers of cognitive functions rather than requiring an external personal agent.
What are you talking about? Has a personality ever resulted from any known process other than reproduction? No. It is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. In otherwords, a miracle.
"Morality comes from Nothing"
Morality is widely studied in evolutionary biology and psychology as a product of social and survival mechanisms. Studies in primates, early human societies, and evolutionary game theory suggest that moral behaviors like cooperation, fairness, and reciprocity arise due to natural selection favoring group survival. Morality is not derived from "nothing" but from social contracts, evolutionary pressures, and cognitive processes.
That description is incompatible with data. Even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization observe a moral code similar to everyone else’s. Although differences certainly exist in civil matters, virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed, theft and cowardice are universal. If man were responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other thing that man has invented. Animals have no problem with theft, greed etc.
Not buying it.
"Reason comes from Non-reason"
Cognitive science and evolutionary biology suggest that rational thought evolved as an adaptive trait. Early organisms developed simple problem-solving and predictive abilities, which became more sophisticated through natural selection. Neural networks, trial-and-error learning, and reinforcement mechanisms led to the development of logic, abstraction, and critical thinking. While the initial cognitive processes may not have been "reasoned" in the human sense, they laid the foundation for rational faculties.
You or anyone else can suggest all they want to. But it won't change the fact that if your arbitrariness was true, then the principles of logic or reason would vary by circumstance. But, that is not the way reason works is it? No, reason and logic are stable regardless, of location, people group, or circumstance.
Dr. Jason Lisle explains how good reasoning and "right" thinking is supposed to work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LAFmAkqYhA&ab_channel=TheChurchatPecanCreek%2CByPastorTreyTalley
