Resurrection Posts culled from the Matthew thread.

[Gordon]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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 definition

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).

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Gordon]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.