Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on September 06, 2025, 06:22:23 PM
-
Nope - I think Occam works fine in this context. It is about identifying the explanation with the fewest necessary assumptions rather that whether those assumptions are able to be proved. In this case the assumption that there was a supernatural event falls foul of Occam as there are simpler explanations that do not require this additional assumption.
But you are assuming that all resurrection are supernatural...
-
But you are assuming that all resurrection are supernatural...
1. Has there been more than one, or just one?
2. Either way, how have you checked out that the 'dead' then 'not dead' states in the same person actually occurred?
3. If you conclude there was a resurrection, was this a natural process and, if so, what was that process?
4. If not natural, but you believe it happened, in what ways have you substantiated that supernatural forces were at work?
5. Have you considered that the Jesus claim might be fictitious propaganda?
All reasonable questions to ask of a Christian.
-
1. Has there been more than one, or just one?
Has the universe had just one beginning or several? If one are you then prepared to accept by your own logic that the universe had a supernatural beginning?
2. Either way, how have you checked out that the 'dead' then 'not dead' states in the same person actually occurred?
In the case of Christ yes.
3. If you conclude there was a resurrection, was this a natural process and, if so, what was that process?
Natural for God. The term Supernatural is a moveable feast, it seems
5. Have you considered that the Jesus claim might be fictitious propaganda?
Yes, there is no contempory historical account that it is
-
Has the universe had just one beginning or several? If one are you then prepared to accept by your own logic that the universe had a supernatural beginning? In the case of Christ yes. Natural for God. The term Supernatural is a moveable feast, it seems Yes, there is no contempory historical account that it is
Jesus had a few miracle working contemporary rivals. All propaganda about them, and none about Jesus?
-
Has the universe had just one beginning or several? If one are you then prepared to accept by your own logic that the universe had a supernatural beginning?
Nice evasion attempt, Vlad - the question I asked you was about resurrections and not universes.
In the case of Christ yes.
My question was " how have you checked out that the 'dead' then 'not dead' states in the same person actually occurred" I get that you believe this in the case of Jesus but what due diligence have you carried out?
Natural for God.
What does this actually mean? Does it mean that anything this God does becomes 'natural' for an 'all the omnis' supreme supernatural being but would not be naturalistic as we humans understand it? It reads like meaningless special pleading.
The term Supernatural is a moveable feast, it seems
Not really: it is a label used to indicate fantastical/superstitious claims that cannot be explored using methodological naturalism. It is for those who make these claims to justify them.
Yes, there is no contempory historical account that it is
We're back to provenance again: since little is known about who wrote what, where and when, along with later editing, and since the accounts that Christians believe were likely written by members of the Jesus fan club, then the risks of propaganda, exaggeration and mistakes cannot be easily dismissed. Are you saying that you accept that there are these risks in relation to the NT content?
-
Nice evasion attempt, Vlad - the question I asked you was about resurrections and not universes.
I was merely opening a discussion about how you see the number of resurrection as relevant to the issue of whether all or only some resurrections are supernatural.
My question was " how have you checked out that the 'dead' then 'not dead' states in the same person actually occurred" I get that you believe this in the case of Jesus but what due diligence have you carried out?
An encounter with the risen Christ confirms for me as do repeat encounters that Christ was resurrected.
What does this actually mean? Does it mean that anything this God does becomes 'natural' for an 'all the omnis' supreme supernatural being but would not be naturalistic as we humans understand it? It reads like meaningless special pleading.
Not really: it is a label used to indicate fantastical/superstitious claims that cannot be explored using methodological naturalism. It is for those who make these claims to justify them.
We're back to provenance again: since little is known about who wrote what, where and when, along with later editing, and since the accounts that Christians believe were likely written by members of the Jesus fan club, then the risks of propaganda, exaggeration and mistakes cannot be easily dismissed. Are you saying that you accept that there are these risks in relation to the NT content?
Naturalism as I have said is rather in the eye of the beholder in a way that physicalism, materialism and empiricism are not.
What due diligence have you done that you dismiss the gospel accounts?
-
I was merely opening a discussion about how you see the number of resurrection as relevant to the issue of whether all or only some resurrections are supernatural.
Really! Then why were you talking about universes?
An encounter with the risen Christ confirms for me as do repeat encounters that Christ was resurrected.
I get that you believe this happened, but your personal anecdote ain't convincing evidence for your claim.
Naturalism as I have said is rather in the eye of the beholder in a way that physicalism, materialism and empiricism are not.
Stop being silly: methodological naturalism involves a 'method', whereby investigations into claimed phenomena can be conducted. If you want to claim the supernatural then you need an appropriate 'method'.
What due diligence have you done that you dismiss the gospel accounts?
I don't need to: I merely need to point out that the provenance is weak to non-existent: since the who, where, when, risk of bias and details of any later editing are unknowns, so are all clear risks.
My expectation is that those who take the NT seriously will have assessed these risks - the old 'burden of proof' issue that you don't understand - but sadly it seems they haven't, probably because they can't (in the absence of methods to quantify the supernatural), so they fall back on the fantasy of 'faith'.
So, until they do, I feel it is reasonable to not take the NT at all seriously as documentary history.
-
So three assumptions. Compare that with the strength of the evidence pointing towards the gospels being true. For example, that Jesus died is a claim backed up with lots of evidence from the NT. Likewise that the tomb was empty. Also, the body wasn't ever produced. The numerous times the accounts of the appearances agree (eg 2 gospels say there was an appearance in Galilee, two of them say at least two appearances in Jerusalem, all say he appeared to women first, two say they touched him and saw his hands and feet, and he ate fish. Acts cites multiple ones, Paul cites one to 500 people. NT describes persecution for their belief.)
All of which are no more than anecdotes: and that ain't evidence, since they could involve mistakes, exaggeration or lies.
-
I'm sorry but you are talking non-sense.
Occam, in its usual formulation is simply 'Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity' - it is completely silent, as far as I'm aware, as to whether those entities are natural or supernatural. Indeed in its earliest formulation it was used in the context of god, a clearly supernatural entity. So Occam applies equally to supernatural as to natural entities - the only issue being whether those entities are necessary or not and that the explanation with the fewest necessary entities (or assumptions) should be preferred.
So Spud's claims relies on more necessary assumptions in order to justify the claim (i.e. entities) than other explanations. Specifically 1) the existence of supernatural events; 2) fidelity of eye witness account and 3) fidelity of transfer of that information from person to person across tens to hundreds of years and significant geographical and language divides.
I think the supernatural natural divide comes a lot later than the first formulation of the razor. It comes from a later mindset and even now the boundary is a moveable feast.
If like I suspect Nearly Sane believes nothing which applies to the natural applies or works in the supernatural.
I think we therefore need to take a critical view of philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism.
-
I don't need to:
And also, you can't.
-
And also, you can't.
I don't need to even bother: it's not my claim, and I already know that the 'faith' position ignores both provenance and how you might confirm supernatural intervention. The burden of proof is all yours.
So, as it stands, I can regard the fantastical bits of the NT as being unsubstantiated nonsense, unless you guys can present some evidence that isn't easily dismissed as being fallacious/wishful thinking. Alas, it seems you can't.
All I can do is wonder why you are so gullible.
-
I don't need to even bother: it's not my claim, and I already know that the 'faith' position ignores both provenance and how you might confirm supernatural intervention. The burden of proof is all yours.
So, as it stands, I can regard the fantastical bits of the NT as being unsubstantiated nonsense, unless you guys can present some evidence that isn't easily dismissed as being fallacious/wishful thinking. Alas, it seems you can't.
All I can do is wonder why you are so gullible.
Faith position, provenance and supernatural....all terms you are chucking about shamanically.
-
Faith position, provenance and supernatural....all terms you are chucking about shamanically.
It seems your silliness is boundless.
-
No - remarkable claims (such as the supernatural) require remarkable and related evidence: the NT ain't it.
You will of course have some notion of what 'Remarkable evidence' would be in this context. Are you prepared to share that?
-
All I can do is wonder why you are so gullible.
Not sure what your scale of gullibility is here.
What are you comparing my so called gullibility with?
Let me help you out here.
Gullible as?
Believing in the resurrection is the equivalent of?
-
Not sure what your scale of gullibility is here.
What are you comparing my so called gullibility with?
Let me help you out here.
Gullible as?
Believing in the resurrection is the equivalent of?
Gullible - as in believing anecdotal accounts of fantastical and supernatural claims that have no substantive provenance.
-
Gullible - as in believing anecdotal accounts of fantastical and supernatural claims that have no substantive provenance.
As far as I know anecdote forms part of many historical accounts, Supernatural is a flexible term, I don't think you've revealed what you mean by provenance. For provenance I have records of ownership. What do you have? I noticed you have chosen not to say how gullible or What an equivalent might be.
Is this because you are afraid I might challenge any comparison? You would be correct there.
-
As far as I know anecdote forms part of many historical accounts, Supernatural is a flexible term, I don't think you've revealed what you mean by provenance. For provenance I have records of ownership. What do you have? I noticed you have chosen not to say how gullible or What an equivalent might be.
Is this because you are afraid I might challenge any comparison? You would be correct there.
Stop being silly: I've clearly explained what provenance means, and more that once too.
The notion that I should be required to offer a 'comparison' to your preferred superstitious nonsense is just your usual attempt at evasion. As regards gullibility: you are a living example of that yourself if you really believe that dead people don't stay dead on a the basis of anecdotes that have no provenance.
-
Stop being silly: I've clearly explained what provenance means, and more that once too.
The notion that I should be required to offer a 'comparison' to your preferred superstitious nonsense is just your usual attempt at evasion. As regards gullibility: you are a living example of that yourself if you really believe that dead people don't stay dead on a the basis of anecdotes that have no provenance.
It seems from my enquiries that you are wrong about the New Testament having Zero provenance. I think you may be in want of another word.
Of course dead people usually stay dead. But to argue that is always the case is to ignore the problem of induction, that life is merely a certain arrangement of matter, that a resurrection might be an extremely rare natural event.
You said that re.arkable events need remarkable evidence. Please tell us what that remarkable evidence would be in this context.
In terms of comparison let me help you further Is my gullibility the equivalent of accepting there are fairies at the bottom of the garden ?
-
I think the supernatural natural divide comes a lot later than the first formulation of the razor. It comes from a later mindset and even now the boundary is a moveable feast.
To an extent I agree with you. To the ancients there would have been no dividing line between 'natural' and 'supernatural', simply because they didn't have the tools to determine the naturalistic explanation for many things.
So this distinction between natural and supernatural, from the perspective of human observation, is a relatively modern thing. But, than this is an incredibly important but, just because ancient people were not easily able to discern naturalistic explanations that doesn't mean that they didn't exist. And that is the key point - not whether humans determine whether things are natural or supernatural, but whether they actually are. And the further point is that countless things that were explained in terms of supernatural approaches as we would consider them now (e.g. the action of the gods) have been determined subsequently to be completely natural phenomena. So what we end up with is 'supernatural' effectively being a term for something that we haven't yet explained as a natural phenomena - but given time we almost certainly will. So we are back to the god of the gaps - supernatural merely being a by-word for our current ignorance.
-
It seems from my enquiries that you are wrong about the New Testament having Zero provenance. I think you may be in want of another word.
Of course dead people usually stay dead. But to argue that is always the case is to ignore the problem of induction, that life is merely a certain arrangement of matter, that a resurrection might be an extremely rare natural event.
You said that re.arkable events need remarkable evidence. Please tell us what that remarkable evidence would be in this context.
In terms of comparison let me help you further Is my gullibility the equivalent of accepting there are fairies at the bottom of the garden ?
Your idiocy continues.
1. Aside from a few letters of Paul (the ones that aren't forgeries that is) the rest of the NT is decades post-hoc and the circumstances surrounding them are not known (who, when, where), the originals aren't extant, the biases of the authors is not known and neither is the extent to which they were edited over several centuries. Therefore, they lack substantive provenance and should be taken with a lorry load of salt.
2. I'm glad to you see you note that dead people do stay dead: I'm sure that undertakers will confirm this, since it seems to be always the case. If you want to claim that resurrection after being dead for 3 days might be "an extremely rare natural event" then you'll be able to explain and provide evidence regarding what conditions and processes might indicate that the claimed resurrection of Jesus was a rare natural event.
3. But you guys believe that 'God did it' and that the special case of Jesus wasn't a routine natural event, since if it was Jesus would have stayed dead: therefore I presume you think it must be a supernatural event, and if that is your claim then the ball is in your court.
4. I'd say that you were indulging in equivocation if you are looking to compare two fantastical claims: that a dead person didn't stay dead and that some gardens may contain fairies: in either case how would you would you go about obtaining the facts? Even if you succeeded in finding fairies and confirming their existence (Conan Doyle should be a warning to you here), how would that be relevant to dead people not staying dead in antiquity?
-
Your idiocy continues.
So we come back to the central theme of "Nutter baiting"
-
So we come back to the central theme of "Nutter baiting"
That is your term, and not mine.
Perhaps you need to think more carefully about what you are saying. If, however, you post material that so easily exposed as weak thinking (like your example of comparing fairies with a resurrection) then you should expect to be challenged.
-
Of course dead people usually stay dead. But to argue that is always the case is to ignore the problem of induction, that life is merely a certain arrangement of matter, that a resurrection might be an extremely rare natural event.
Well firstly let's be clear about the definition of death:
'the irreversible cessation of all biological functions that sustain a living organism.'
So if it isn't irreversible then there isn't death.
But let's for the sake of arguments work with your little theory that there was an extremely rare natural event which meant that Jesus' physiology suddenly was kick started again having ceased for a period of time. By your own admission this would be a natural event and therefore neither supernatural nor requiring 'divine' intervention. Just something which naturally occurs but is very, very rare. So were that to have happened it would provide no indication of divinity just an intriguing and unusual natural event.
But let's get back to reality - which is a more plausible explanation for someone considered to be dead who then was alive again:
a). Your theory (which isn't divinely inspired anyhow) or
b). The notion that 1stC people did not have the tools and understanding to determine between actual death and a deep but reversible coma. So that what they were actually witnessing was merely someone who wasn't dead but coming round from a deeply comatose state.
But of course we have no credible evidence that anything requiring an explanation ever happened, given the only 'evidence' is in carefully curated faith-based texts (where the text we have available is from hundreds of years after the purported event).
-
Well firstly let's be clear about the definition of death:
'the irreversible cessation of all biological functions that sustain a living organism.'
So if it isn't irreversible then there isn't death.
1)I guess, practically speaking that state is itself dependent on the ability to resuscitate. Which is dependent on available technique and technology
2) The NT which would not have that technology states that Jesus was beyond resuscitation acknowledges that, as they would say his cessation of biological function was irreversible.
3) You would acknowledge that your definition is naturalistic and as such factors out the supernatural. So what we have to think about is, as a naturalistic statement does it rule out God's intervention(philosophical naturalism) or merely make no comment on it(methodological naturalism). I think here were are getting to a difference between naturalism and materialism.
4) As we have arrived at materialism we can examine the correctness of the definition itself, because in materialism Life boils down as does everything to be merely the certain arrangement of matter. Matter can be rearranged with the appropriate technology.
5) What is a chap like yourself, an advocate of a circular universe and against the linear time doing arguing irreversibility? Here you people are arguing for it as a natural process while actually arguing that the natural state is circularity and reversibility and cause and effect not necessary.
It is confusion in these matters that makes naturalism suspect because of it's appeals to contradictions.
That I'm afraid has to be all for now but I appreciate, Professor, your willingness to have a discussion about it.
-
Vlad
Naturalism and the supernatural seem to be mutually exclusive: the former has underpinning methods and the latter does not.
Therefore there are no good reasons to take supernatural claims seriously since the are no underpinning methods that would allow such claims to investigated.
-
1)I guess, practically speaking that state is itself dependent on the ability to resuscitate. Which is dependent on available technique and technology
True - whether someone is dead or not is linked to the available technology to resuscitate - in other words whether the state is reversible or not. Hence people considered dead centuries ago would not be considered to be dead now as they can readily be resuscitated with modern technology. But that isn't what I'm talking about ... see below.
2) The NT which would not have that technology states that Jesus was beyond resuscitation acknowledges that, as they would say his cessation of biological function was irreversible.
Sure, there wasn't modern technology in 1stC to resuscitate someone, but that isn't my point. My point is that there wasn't the technology to determine whether physiological functions remained active (e.g. a deep coma) which can naturally resolve. We are able with modern technology to determine between actual death and deep coma (which may resolve naturally or might require intervention).
This wouldn't be the case in the 1stC where there would be no way to determine whether someone was in a deep coma (and not dead) and therefore if that state naturally resolved those 1stC people may conclude that the person was dead and then alive. When of course they were nothing of the sort - they were never dead in the first place. And where the state may resolve naturally the non-availability of resuscitation technology is irrelevant.
-
3) You would acknowledge that your definition is naturalistic and as such factors out the supernatural.
But there is no evidence that anything 'supernatural' actually exists and therefore until or unless there is confirmation that supernatural things actually exist I will work on the presumption that observations have naturalistic explanations. And clearly the onus is on you to prove the supernatural as you (not me) is the one who claims supernaturalism is a thing.
-
But let's for the sake of arguments work with your little theory that there was an extremely rare natural event which meant that Jesus' physiology suddenly was kick started again having ceased for a period of time. By your own admission this would be a natural event and therefore neither supernatural nor requiring 'divine' intervention. Just something which naturally occurs but is very, very rare. So were that to have happened it would provide no indication of divinity just an intriguing and unusual natural event.
I started with Gordon's claim that dead people NEVER rise from the dead and stated that this ignored the problem of induction. Also, if the study of history is methodologically naturalistic. Even the strongest evidence of a physical resurrection eg video of the event could not lead to a verdict of divine intervention and the hunt for a natural explanation continues. I don't confuse the divine substance though with physical. A risen human would though be a physical entity.
I suggest then that there is a problem when philosophical naturalist argument argues that a resurrection must be a total supernatural event and therefore cannot be
This problem is methodological naturalism has no view on the supernatural one way or another, has techniques now to record a physical raised body, and the problem of induction renders a never invalid.
-
I started with Gordon's claim that dead people NEVER rise from the dead ...
He is correct - they don't, because by definition they cannot. Why, well because death is irreversible by definition and therefore if it is reversed the person wasn't dead in the first place.
-
He is correct - they don't, because by definition they cannot. Why, well because death is irreversible by definition and therefore if it is reversed the person wasn't dead in the first place.
His (and your correctness) though is contrary to how materialism defines life and by implication. Death, where all states merely describe the arrangement of matter. Your argument suggests that rearrangement is impossible which IS contrary to reality.
Unless you can successfully argue against these points it seems you are putting up an arbitrary contempory definition against the logic of the materialist description of life and death.
-
I started with Gordon's claim that dead people NEVER rise from the dead and stated that this ignored the problem of induction. Also, if the study of history is methodologically naturalistic. Even the strongest evidence of a physical resurrection eg video of the event could not lead to a verdict of divine intervention and the hunt for a natural explanation continues. I don't confuse the divine substance though with physical. A risen human would though be a physical entity.
Have a chat with some undertakers, Vlad. A video would be of no help since it a) could be fake, b) it provides no evidence of either clinical death or recovery from death.
I suggest then that there is a problem when philosophical naturalist argument argues that a resurrection must be a total supernatural event and therefore cannot be
Apart from the fact that I'm not a philosophical naturalist, you problem is still that you need a method to show that an event occurred as the result of supernatural intervention - without that method you can't demonstrate anything supernatural and, therefore, it is easy-peasy to simply conclude that perhaps there was no event in the first place or, if there was, the accounts cannot be trusted.
This problem is methodological naturalism has no view on the supernatural one way or another, has techniques now to record a physical raised body, and the problem of induction renders a never invalid.
If you want to say a resurrection is a natural event then please show how clinical death can be reversed after three days - and I think you'll struggle with that, since there are some situations that seem irreversible. You are, I'm afraid wedded to a supernatural explanation - but the problems is you have no means/method to make that case. Apparently the NT says that Jesus walked on water - give that a try and let us know how you get on: my guess is that you'll immediately find yourself swimming (or drowning if you can't swim).
You're thrashing about trying to find a way to portray supernatural events, such as miracles, as being real-world happenings even though they can't have a natural explanation (because by definition they ain't natural). Your crusade is hopeless, since if you could ever provide a testable explanation for a miracle it then ceases to be a miracle, and 'faith' is no longer required.
-
His (and your correctness) though is contrary to how materialism defines life and by implication. Death, where all states merely describe the arrangement of matter. Your argument suggests that rearrangement is impossible which IS contrary to reality.
Unless you can successfully argue against these points it seems you are putting up an arbitrary contempory definition against the logic of the materialist description of life and death.
Go and study the biology of clinical death and why it is irreversible - the 'matter' (the biology) is 'rearranged' in one sense: it will start to decompose, but it can't be 'rearranged' back to it's previous state, Dr Frankenstein.
-
But let's get back to reality
By which you mean the reality of philosophical naturalism. Other philosophies are available - which is a more plausible explanation for someone considered to be dead who then was alive again:
a). Your theory (which isn't divinely inspired anyhow) or
b). The notion that 1stC people did not have the tools and understanding to determine between actual death and a deep but reversible coma. So that what they were actually witnessing was merely someone who wasn't dead but coming round from a deeply comatose state.
In the context we are talking about and sticking rigorously to methodological naturalism (But not philosophical naturalism) Given Jesus mode of death and injuries inflicted to speed death and the broader experience of this type of death by contempory people and NT literature on his resurrection the room for the coma theory shrinks just on the reports of the injuries. To me it is inconclusive. However your question is framed from a philosophical naturalists point of view it not only doesn't do god one way or another but actively excludes God....and Yes I am saying that as if it is a bad thing.
Again my encounter with Christ tips the balance in favour of a resurrection for me. Your insistence on a material death just brings us back to a material definition which rather faults your definitionBut of course we have no credible evidence that anything requiring an explanation ever happened, given the only 'evidence' is in carefully curated faith-based texts (where the text we have available is from hundreds of years after the purported event).
Credible? That's what can be believed isn't it so the question there is believed by who?. Secondly it is a view which comes from having to ignore the whole of the NT on the grounds of historical worthlessness and that I believe takes you out of the mainstream and even out of the ambit of Bart Ehrman and dare I say it dear Richard Carrier as well.
Outside of Biology Davey it seems you are merely Mr Davey.
-
Go and study the biology of clinical death and why it is irreversible - the 'matter' (the biology) is 'rearranged' in one sense: it will start to decompose, but it can't be 'rearranged' back to it's previous state, Dr Frankenstein.
Go and study the biology of sheep and find out why giving birth to an identical sheep never happens...oh but of course it does doesn't it.
-
By which you mean the reality of philosophical naturalism. Other philosophies are available In the context we are talking about and sticking rigorously to methodological naturalism (But not philosophical naturalism) Given Jesus mode of death and injuries inflicted to speed death and the broader experience of this type of death by contempory people and NT literature on his resurrection the room for the coma theory shrinks just on the reports of the injuries. To me it is inconclusive. However your question is framed from a philosophical naturalists point of view it not only doesn't do god one way or another but actively excludes God....and Yes I am saying that as if it is a bad thing.
Again my encounter with Christ tips the balance in favour of a resurrection for me. Your insistence on a material death just brings us back to a material definition which rather faults your definitionCredible? That's what can be believed isn't it so the question there is believed by who?. Secondly it is a view which comes from having to ignore the whole of the NT on the grounds of historical worthlessness and that I believe takes you out of the mainstream and even out of the ambit of Bart Ehrman and dare I say it dear Richard Carrier as well.
Outside of Biology Davey it seems you are merely Mr Davey.
But it is you folk who wish us to consider that Jesus was alive (in a natural and materialistic sense) and that he was then dead (in a natural and materialist sense) and then alive again (in a natural and materialistic sense). Hence the justification needs to be ... err ... naturalist and materialist. And given that life and death are fundamentally natural phenomena the onus is on you to demonstrate that there is something that isn't natural (e.g. supernatural) that impacts life/death as natural phenomena. I've seen no evidence for this although there is countless evidence to support life/death as natural phenomena.
'Again my encounter with Christ tips the balance in favour of a resurrection for me.'
Well how lovely for you. But you are now reducing resurrection into a 'true for me', subjective phenomenon. In other words Jesus lives on (i.e is resurrected) in the hearts/minds of those that believe as such. In which case, fine, but so what. We can all accept the notion of 'living on' in memories or in the minds of believers. But that isn't what we are talking about. Nope we are talking about physical resurrection - physically alive, then physically dead and then physically alive again. And you have exactly zero evidence to support your assertion that this actually happened. There is plenty of evidence that some people (albeit it would appear not most of those who were around at the time) believe it to be the case, but that is a completely different thing.
-
Go and study the biology of sheep and find out why giving birth to an identical sheep never happens...oh but of course it does doesn't it.
What on earth are you on about?
-
What on earth are you on about?
I think he is alluding to Dolly the cloned sheep.
But he is (as so often) wrong on this too. Dolly the sheep wasn't identical to the animal that donated the cell from which the nucleus was transferred to an enucleated oocyte. Dolly was nearly (but not totally due to mitochondrial DNA) genetically identical to the donor sheep. But that isn't the same as being the same organism. Identical twins are just as identical genetically as Dolly the sheep is to the donor (arguably more so due to being conceived and developed in the same uterine environment. But we don't consider identical twins to be the same person, do we.
-
Thank you PD - since cloning is a naturalistic process im struggling to see how it relates to anything supernatural.
Not unless - drum roll here - Vlad is going to tell us that that during the three days in the tomb, Jesus was cloned! Wait though - cloning is naturalistic.
-
Have a chat with some undertakers, Vlad. A video would be of no help since it a) could be fake, b) it provides no evidence of either clinical death or recovery from death.
All videos can be faked and if that being instrumental evidence is no good then what evidence is? And if no evidence is any good Gordon , perhaps you ought to ask yourself why you personally keep banging on about it.
-
All videos can be faked and if that being instrumental evidence is no good then what evidence is? And if no evidence is any good Gordon , perhaps you ought to ask yourself why you personally keep banging on about it.
That there is no methodology for supernatural claims.
-
All videos can be faked and if that being instrumental evidence is no good then what evidence is? And if no evidence is any good Gordon , perhaps you ought to ask yourself why you personally keep banging on about it.
I think the point isn't that he keeps banging on about it. It that you keep banging on about it and therefore your assertions should be rebutted.
So the onus isn't on Gordon or me etc to prove that the purported resurrection actually had a natural explanation, as that would clearly be the default position as we know natural explanations are a thing. Nope the onus is on you to prove (or at least provide some credible evidence) that the purported resurrection was supernatural. And good luck with that as you'd need to:
a). Demonstrate that supernatural occurrences exists (i.e. are a thing). There is no evidence for this.
b). That this particular event was actually supernatural and not natural. There are many plausible explanation that rely on a naturalistic explanation, yet you haven't even got off first base (see a). above).
And, of course, you don't even have any credible evidence that the purported event even happened, regardless of how it is explained and/or interpreted. Don't forget that the original ending of Mark (before it was doctored), the earliest of the gospels, contains no resurrection account, merely an empty tomb which is no more evidence of resurrection than the discovered empty grave of Gladys Hammond:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Save_the_Newchurch_Guinea_Pigs
Mark includes all sorts of stuff, so why would he leave out surely the most important thing of all (a post-resurrection appearance) if he thought there were any.
-
All videos can be faked and if that being instrumental evidence is no good then what evidence is? And if no evidence is any good Gordon , perhaps you ought to ask yourself why you personally keep banging on about it.
You mentioned videos: not me.
I'd say that it's more the case that you'd don't have robust evidence to support your claim, since none has been offered that is backed by a method that is specific to the supernatural.
For as long as you guys keep banging on about Jesus, and expect to be taken seriously, others of us will point out that you have no good grounds to support what you assert.
-
You mentioned videos: not me.
No Gordon, You said videos can be faked, so no gaslighting please.
And videos, being instrumental evidence, being faked means that any evidence could be faked.
So then, what value does evidence have if it cannot be trusted.
What diligence checks can themselves be trusted?
I'd say that it's more the case that you'd don't have robust evidence to support your claim, since none has been offered that is backed by a method that is specific to the supernatural.
I think I need to remind you that naturalism is suspect because philosophical naturalism is circular and methodological naturalism cannot be untangled from philosophical naturalism. If you are not a philosophical naturalist your arguments certainly are.
-
I think the point isn't that he keeps banging on about it. It that you keep banging on about it and therefore your assertions should be rebutted.
So the onus isn't on Gordon or me etc to prove that the purported resurrection actually had a natural explanation,
That totally misunderstands what I am saying. The onus is on Gordon to back up his assertion that resurrection is supernatural and that applies to you if you also assert it.
-
No Gordon, You said videos can be faked, so no gaslighting please.
No Vlad - you introduced the notion of videos in your #379, and I responded to that.
And videos, being instrumental evidence, being faked means that any evidence could be faked.
Yep - it's always a risk.
So then, what value does evidence have if it cannot be trusted.
What diligence checks can themselves be trusted?
Depends on what is be cited as evidence and to what extent it can be investigated.
I think I need to remind you that naturalism is suspect because philosophical naturalism is circular and methodological naturalism cannot be untangled from philosophical naturalism. If you are not a philosophical naturalist your arguments certainly are.
All you're reminding me of is that you often don't fully understand the terms you use.
-
That totally misunderstands what I am saying. The onus is on Gordon to back up his assertion that resurrection is supernatural and that applies to you if you also assert it.
Stop misrepresenting what I say.
I don't think the resurrection actually happened at all, since those who assert it did seem to think that 'God did it', which is a supernatural claim, but they don't have a method to substantiate their claim, so I see no reason to take supernatural claims seriously.
You need to pay more attention to what people actually say.
-
That totally misunderstands what I am saying. The onus is on Gordon to back up his assertion that resurrection is supernatural and that applies to you if you also assert it.
But neither Gordon nor I are asserting any such thing so there is absolutely no onus on us to back anything up.
You on the other hand make multiple assertions, notably:
1. That the claims in the gospels are an accurate reflection of what people witnessed at the time.
2. That these claims were faithfully translated over generations so that what we have as text (from the 3rd-6thC) has not been altered in meaning despite having been written decades (to hundreds of years for the actual texts we have) later, by unknown authors, likely written geographically far from the scene of the action and in a different language to that spoken by those present.
3. And even if 1 and 2 are demonstrated (they aren't of course) that the only explanation for the observations is resurrection (physically alive, physically dead then physically alive again) rather than something more mundane (e.g. he wasn't dead). And
4. That this was a supernatural event and divinely inspired.
Given that you haven't even come close to providing credible evidence that the events, claimed much late to have happened, actually happened you are miles off with any credible argument.
-
Mark includes all sorts of stuff, so why would he leave out surely the most important thing of all (a post-resurrection appearance) if he thought there were any
Mark 16:9-20 looks like an appendix, forming an inclusio with the introduction in chapter 1:1-13.
It is similar to the rest of the gospel in that it's
a conflation of material from the other gospels. The Griesbach hypothesis shows the rest of Mark's gospel to be a conflation of Matthew and Luke.
It's interesting that all the resurrection accounts are more than just statements that Jesus was seen after his tomb was found empty. They also focus on the commissioning of the apostles to being the news to all the world.
-
But neither Gordon nor I are asserting any such thing so there is absolutely no onus on us to back anything up.
You on the other hand make multiple assertions, notably:
1. That the claims in the gospels are an accurate reflection of what people witnessed at the time.
2. That these claims were faithfully translated over generations so that what we have as text (from the 3rd-6thC) has not been altered in meaning despite having been written decades (to hundreds of years for the actual texts we have) later, by unknown authors, likely written geographically far from the scene of the action and in a different language to that spoken by those present.
3. And even if 1 and 2 are demonstrated (they aren't of course) that the only explanation for the observations is resurrection (physically alive, physically dead then physically alive again) rather than something more mundane (e.g. he wasn't dead). And
4. That this was a supernatural event and divinely inspired.
Given that you haven't even come close to providing credible evidence that the events, claimed much late to have happened, actually happened you are miles off with any credible argument.
No, Gordon thinks that resurrection is a supernatural claim and wonders why I suggest it might natural and he has said they never happen. These are positive assertions.
You entertained the idea of resurrection being natural and then said let's though get back to reality. The reality being that resurrection is a supernatural claim.
If as you seem to be saying you now aren't arguing either, then goodnight.
-
No, Gordon thinks that resurrection is a supernatural claim and wonders why I suggest it might natural and he has said they never happen. These are positive assertions.
My how you struggle - if you think the resurrection is a naturalistic claim then explain how it happens naturally that a 3 day dead corpse gets reanimated. I say it is a supernatural claim because you guys claim it is a miracle, and I reject that because you have no underlying method to substantiate that claim.
-
Moderator:
This thread has been created for the posts on the 'Matthew' thread that were on the topic of the Resurrection - further discussion on this should occur in this thread.
-
No, Gordon thinks that resurrection is a supernatural claim and wonders why I suggest it might natural and he has said they never happen. These are positive assertions.
You entertained the idea of resurrection being natural and then said let's though get back to reality. The reality being that resurrection is a supernatural claim.
If as you seem to be saying you now aren't arguing either, then goodnight.
Hey ho - back to basics Vlad. You really need to scrutinise those ancient texts from which you derive your beliefs. That you believe that Christ was raised from the dead, I don't dispute. However, you seem stuck on this idea of the resurrection of a physical body, and this you suggest is a natural claim. The argument is ultimately futile, because of the contradictory nature of the original, already no doubt corrupted texts.
The first accounts that concern the Resurrection are of course St Paul's (and we need not concern ourselves here whether his accounts of his experience of the risen Christ was a real event). However, he did go to some lengths to describe what he meant by resurrection, and it certainly did not refer to a resurrection of a physical body - "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven". And of Christ "So it is written; the first Adam became a living soul; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit". Further, in the 15th chapter of Corinthians, he goes on to strongly imply that the physical body dies "It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body " He also refers to Christ as "the first fruits of them that sleep", indicating that such a spiritual resurrection had never occurred before. It is important in all this to understand that Paul is still talking about bodies, except that he didn't believe the resurrected body of Christ - or any following - was physical.
This of course raises the question of how the much later gospel accounts of the Resurrection in Luke and John are at great pains to stress the physicality of Jesus' resurrected body. Apart from the fact that the idea of any eye-witness testimony there is much in doubt, I'd say that the already emerging beliefs of Gnosticism and Docetism were becoming a threat to the established idea that Jesus did walk on earth in a physical body, and that physical body suffered and died. These later beliefs insisted there was no real incarnation of a divine spirit, and that Jesus earthly appearance was just that - an appearance, or at best a mortal man who had temporarily been inhabited by the divine. So the writers of Luke and John did their bit to counter these beliefs, as did the writer of the much later letter of 1John.
In the light of this, I'd say that we are indeed faced with accounts of the supernatural, and I really don't see any methodology to determine the veracity of such claims. Have there been 'further fruits' of resurrected people since?
-
Hey ho - back to basics Vlad. You really need to scrutinise those ancient texts from which you derive your beliefs. That you believe that Christ was raised from the dead, I don't dispute. However, you seem stuck on this idea of the resurrection of a physical body, and this you suggest is a natural claim. The argument is ultimately futile, because of the contradictory nature of the original, already no doubt corrupted texts.
The first accounts that concern the Resurrection are of course St Paul's (and we need not concern ourselves here whether his accounts of his experience of the risen Christ was a real event). However, he did go to some lengths to describe what he meant by resurrection, and it certainly did not refer to a resurrection of a physical body - "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven". And of Christ "So it is written; the first Adam became a living soul; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit". Further, in the 15th chapter of Corinthians, he goes on to strongly imply that the physical body dies "It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body " He also refers to Christ as "the first fruits of them that sleep", indicating that such a spiritual resurrection had never occurred before. It is important in all this to understand that Paul is still talking about bodies, except that he didn't believe the resurrected body of Christ - or any following - was physical.
This of course raises the question of how the much later gospel accounts of the Resurrection in Luke and John are at great pains to stress the physicality of Jesus' resurrected body. Apart from the fact that the idea of any eye-witness testimony there is much in doubt, I'd say that the already emerging beliefs of Gnosticism and Docetism were becoming a threat to the established idea that Jesus did walk on earth in a physical body, and that physical body suffered and died. These later beliefs insisted there was no real incarnation of a divine spirit, and that Jesus earthly appearance was just that - an appearance, or at best a mortal man who had temporarily been inhabited by the divine. So the writers of Luke and John did their bit to counter these beliefs, as did the writer of the much later letter of 1John.
In the light of this, I'd say that we are indeed faced with accounts of the supernatural, and I really don't see any methodology to determine the veracity of such claims. Have there been 'further fruits' of resurrected people since?
Don't forget that Paul's encounter with Jesus was after the ascension. The Gospel writers wrote about Jesus' earthly life up until the Ascension,.
-
The Gospel writers wrote about Jesus' earthly life up until the Ascension,.
Or in the case of Mark (the earliest gospel) didn't ... well until later actors doctored it.
-
Don't forget that Paul's encounter with Jesus was after the ascension. The Gospel writers wrote about Jesus' earthly life up until the Ascension,.
The account of the Ascension only occurs in Acts, that most fantastical* and obviously unhistorical book in the NT (It contradicts Paul). The account there is just Luke's peculiar obsession with insisting that Jesus had a physical body from the first (the Docetists must have really got to him)
*and that's saying something.
-
The account of the Ascension only occurs in Acts, that most fantastical* and obviously unhistorical book in the NT (It contradicts Paul). The account there is just Luke's peculiar obsession with insisting that Jesus had a physical body from the first (the Docetists must have really got to him)
*and that's saying something.
The point is, Paul saw Jesus in heaven in a vision, because he was too late on the scene to see him in the flesh. He describes his body as 'glorious', in contrast with our 'lowly' bodies, in Philippians 3:21. Stephen also saw him in a vision. In John's gospel Jesus says he is going to the Father, clearly a reference to his ascension. In Matthew he says he will be with us always, a similar reference.
-
Go and study the biology of sheep and find out why giving birth to an identical sheep never happens...oh but of course it does doesn't it.
You mean twins? Sheep never give birth to twins? Is that what you are claiming.
A decomposed body - even one that has only been decomposing for a few hours cannot be resurrected because that would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
-
Hey ho - back to basics Vlad. You really need to scrutinise those ancient texts from which you derive your beliefs. That you believe that Christ was raised from the dead, I don't dispute. However, you seem stuck on this idea of the resurrection of a physical body, and this you suggest is a natural claim. The argument is ultimately futile, because of the contradictory nature of the original, already no doubt corrupted texts.
The first accounts that concern the Resurrection are of course St Paul's (and we need not concern ourselves here whether his accounts of his experience of the risen Christ was a real event). However, he did go to some lengths to describe what he meant by resurrection, and it certainly did not refer to a resurrection of a physical body - "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven". And of Christ "So it is written; the first Adam became a living soul; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit". Further, in the 15th chapter of Corinthians, he goes on to strongly imply that the physical body dies "It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body " He also refers to Christ as "the first fruits of them that sleep", indicating that such a spiritual resurrection had never occurred before. It is important in all this to understand that Paul is still talking about bodies, except that he didn't believe the resurrected body of Christ - or any following - was physical.
This of course raises the question of how the much later gospel accounts of the Resurrection in Luke and John are at great pains to stress the physicality of Jesus' resurrected body. Apart from the fact that the idea of any eye-witness testimony there is much in doubt, I'd say that the already emerging beliefs of Gnosticism and Docetism were becoming a threat to the established idea that Jesus did walk on earth in a physical body, and that physical body suffered and died. These later beliefs insisted there was no real incarnation of a divine spirit, and that Jesus earthly appearance was just that - an appearance, or at best a mortal man who had temporarily been inhabited by the divine. So the writers of Luke and John did their bit to counter these beliefs, as did the writer of the much later letter of 1John.
In the light of this, I'd say that we are indeed faced with accounts of the supernatural, and I really don't see any methodology to determine the veracity of such claims. Have there been 'further fruits' of resurrected people since?
Yes you can probably suggest that the resurrection was purely spiritual but the case for the narrative outlining a physical resurrection I think is far stronger.
Again I feel you are using the term Supernatural without due care and attention to issues surrounding naturalism.
-
Yes you can probably suggest that the resurrection was purely spiritual but the case for the narrative outlining a physical resurrection I think is far stronger.
So you think there is strong case for a physical resurrection the - and the details are?
Again I feel you are using the term Supernatural without due care and attention to issues surrounding naturalism.
By definition, and in practice, the two terms are mutually exclusive: the 'natural' is explored through the development of methodologies, and the 'supernatural' isn't. You're just diverting again.
What, in practice, and beyond your fevered imagination, are the specific 'issues' you see in naturalism: and to save time and effort, since I don't think anyone here subscribes to 'philosophical naturalism', you should maybe give that term a rest (and since it gets you a bit over-excited).
-
So you think there is strong case for a physical resurrection the - and the details are?
I did say a strong case in the narrative in the bible since Dicky was appealing to the new testament for his point(which suggested I needed to reread it.
The historical case is what it's always been letters, gospels, the existence of the early Christian community. Against which there seems to be no contradictory historical evidence. Indeed your case against is not historical and deliberately so dependent as it is on what apparently can be believed and what can't.
By definition, and in practice, the two terms are mutually exclusive: the 'natural' is explored through the development of methodologies, and the 'supernatural' isn't. You're just diverting again.
But this statement can only be true if you count a physical resurrection as a purely spiritual event but we have a physical person. Physical objects can notionally be studied. I think you missed where I said that historical study would have to find a natural cause since any supernatural cause is off limits to it
What, in practice, and beyond your fevered imagination, are the specific 'issues' you see in naturalism: and to save time and effort, since I don't think anyone here subscribes to 'philosophical naturalism', you should maybe give that term a rest (and since it gets you a bit over-excited)
Straight off there is a history of things considered supernatural reclassified as natural. Secondly. Philosophical naturalism states that supernatural events don't happen. Thirdly methodological naturalism deals with processes which are natural and what is natural is not clear cut unlike methodological materialism and empiricism where definitions are in other words methodological naturalism carries some com.itment to philosophical naturalism and this is not the case with methodological empiricism or materialism.
-
I did say a strong case in the narrative in the bible since Dicky was appealing to the new testament for his point(which suggested I needed to reread it.
The historical case is what it's always been letters, gospels, the existence of the early Christian community. Against which there seems to be no contradictory historical evidence. Indeed your case against is not historical and deliberately so dependent as it is on what apparently can be believed and what can't.
I don't have a 'case'. I'm merely pointing out that if your 'case' is dependent on a bunch of ancient anecdotes that have no substantive provenance, then you don't really have a 'case' at all.
But this statement can only be true if you count a physical resurrection as a purely spiritual event but we have a physical person. Physical objects can notionally be studied. I think you missed where I said that historical study would have to find a natural cause since any supernatural cause is off limits to it
The study of history is methodologically naturalistic, and if you'd like professional historians to study claimed supernatural events, as opposed to people having supernatural beliefs, then you'll need to instruct them on how to go about it.
Straight off there is a history of things considered supernatural reclassified as natural.
True: but only because the development of methodological naturalism has allowed cumulative investigation: so we know what causes thunder, what comets are and have developed germ theory. The important bit being that these have been shown to be natural phenomena. Thus the supernatural claim of Jesus not stayed dead can be contradicted by what we now know about the biology of death and that is what, in your 'case', you will need to overcome without descending into fallacies: the burden of proof here is all yours, since you are the claimant.
Secondly. Philosophical naturalism states that supernatural events don't happen. Thirdly methodological naturalism deals with processes which are natural and what is natural is not clear cut unlike methodological materialism and empiricism where definitions are in other words methodological naturalism carries some com.itment to philosophical naturalism and this is not the case with methodological empiricism or materialism.
Firstly, your obsession with philosophical naturalism is misleading you: nobody here subscribes to that and I certainly don't for the obvious reason that I can recognise that there may well be unknown unknowns, and that the certainty you ascribe to philosophical naturalism is a fool's paradise. Secondly, I don't think you understand the terms that you throw around so blithely, which makes it easy to see that your 'case' has more holes in it than a kitchen colander.
-
Yes you can probably suggest that the resurrection was purely spiritual but the case for the narrative outlining a physical resurrection I think is far stronger.
Again I feel you are using the term Supernatural without due care and attention to issues surrounding naturalism.
I myself of course don't believe in any resurrection; I do believe certain early Christians experienced phenomena which were purely psychological (more on this later).
The case for reports of disciples experiencing a physical risen Jesus on the contrary are not at all strong, for some of the reasons I wrote above. Those accounts were written much later and I suggest were pure invention. The earliest written witness is Paul, and he makes quite clear the state of belief about Jesus right at the beginning of 1Corinthians 15: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received"
And that was very different from what Luke and John in particular wrote. Note he says Jesus first appeared to Peter and then to the twelve (including Judas presumably). Now this may be total moonshine, but it is the tradition of belief which he received; the rest of the chapter may also be the result of a fevered imagination, but at least it asserts that dead physical bodies stay dead and rot.
-
I myself of course don't believe in any resurrection; I do believe certain early Christians experienced phenomena which were purely psychological (more on this later).
The case for reports of disciples experiencing a physical risen Jesus on the contrary are not at all strong, for some of the reasons I wrote above. Those accounts were written much later and I suggest were pure invention. The earliest written witness is Paul, and he makes quite clear the state of belief about Jesus right at the beginning of 1Corinthians 15: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received"
And that was very different from what Luke and John in particular wrote. Note he says Jesus first appeared to Peter and then to the twelve (including Judas presumably). Now this may be total moonshine, but it is the tradition of belief which he received; the rest of the chapter may also be the result of a fevered imagination, but at least it asserts that dead physical bodies stay dead and rot.
Not sure if you read my reply to your earlier post. Just to add, Luke 24 also mentions that Jesus had appeared to Simon, before the 'Twelve' had seen him. So this is consistent with what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, that Jesus appeared first to Peter.