Resurrection Posts culled from the Matthew thread.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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...

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

[Dicky Underpants]

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?

[Gordon]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Gordon]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't need to:

And also, you can't.

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

Faith position, provenance and supernatural....all terms you are chucking about shamanically.

It seems your silliness is boundless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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 ?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Gordon]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your idiocy continues.

So we come back to the central theme of "Nutter baiting"

[Gordon]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.