Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on January 09, 2018, 02:07:20 PM
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/prison-inmate-dead-wake-up-mortuary-spain-three-doctors-pronounced-gonzalo-montoya-jimenez-oviedo-a8149066.html#commentsDiv
-
This may be highly unusual but is seemingly not miraculous. According to the report catalepsy is suspected, so although he appeared dead he wasn't actually dead, which is the key point: he wasn't resurrected from being dead but he did recover from illness.
-
Isn't the impossibility of the resurrection the reason why people claim it's a miracle?
-
This may be highly unusual but is seemingly not miraculous. According to the report catalepsy is suspected, so although he appeared dead he wasn't actually dead, which is the key point: he wasn't resurrected from being dead but he did recover from illness.
According to the report he was pronounced dead by three doctors.
-
According to the report he was pronounced dead by three doctors.
So he was: but wrongly, given subsequent events. The report you cited suggests that he had catalepsy and that these doctors were misled as a result.
Perhaps you need to rename this thread to something like 'Chap unexpectedly recovers: was thought to be dead, but really wasn't'.
-
According to the report he was pronounced dead by three doctors.
And?
-
So he was: but wrongly, given subsequent events. The report you cited suggests that he had catalepsy and that these doctors were misled as a result.
Perhaps you need to rename this thread to something like 'Chap unexpectedly recovers: was thought to be dead, but really wasn't'.
He was pronounced dead by three doctors and later found to be alive. Please explain how that gives warrant for saying that three doctors were wrong.
You are undoubtedly correct that the chap recovered but less safe on what he recovered from since you only have proof of recovery.
-
He was pronounced dead by three doctors and later found to be alive. Please explain how that gives warrant for saying that three doctors were wrong.
You are undoubtedly correct that the chap recovered but less safe on what he recovered from since you only have proof of recovery.
Don't be silly Vlad: they were wrong since it turned out he wasn't dead in the first place, and in saying that I'm just summarising from the very link that you yourself posted, which makes it clear he was wrongly pronounced as being dead. I'm not in a position to comment on the competence or otherwise of these medics, or on the complexities of catalepsy in this case - but since you brought this up by starting this thread perhaps you might do some follow-up and tell us more about the findings from any reviews of the actions of these medics.
-
Don't be silly Vlad: they were wrong since it turned out he wasn't dead in the first place, and in saying that I'm just summarising from the very link that you yourself posted, which makes it clear he was wrongly pronounced as being dead. I'm not in a position to comment on the competence or otherwise of these medics, or on the complexities of catalepsy in this case - but since you brought this up by starting this thread perhaps you might do some follow-up and tell us more about the findings from any reviews of the actions of these medics.
Wait a minute. All we have proof of is that later he was found to be alive. There is no actual evidence from the time of the first place when three Doctors declared him dead to the time he was found to be alive.
You are therefore arguing not from evidence but from " these things are impossible".
-
Wait a minute. All we have proof of is that later he was found to be alive. There is no actual evidence from the time of the first place when three Doctors declared him dead to the time he was found to be alive.
You are therefore arguing not from evidence but from " these things are impossible".
The report on the net aslo said that Montoya may not have been taking his epilepsy medication while in prison, which could have led to a case of catalepsy - a condition where vital signs drop to undetectable levels. This theory has yet to be confirmed by medical professionals.
-
Wait a minute. All we have proof of is that later he was found to be alive. There is no actual evidence from the time of the first place when three Doctors declared him dead to the time he was found to be alive.
You are therefore arguing not from evidence but from " these things are impossible".
I'm not arguing at all: I'm simply summarising from the article you posted, Vlad, which does imply that he was ill (catalepsy) and not really dead at all. Since this case clearly intrigues you perhaps you now need to dig up some more precise details, such as the results of any investigation.
Over to you.
-
I'm not arguing at all: I'm simply summarising from the article you posted, Vlad, which does imply that he was ill (catalepsy) and not really dead at all. Since this case clearly intrigues you perhaps you now need to dig up some more precise details, such as the results of any investigation.
Over to you.
I'm not really up on catalepsy. It sounds like something the casual visitor to the religionethics forum might come down with.
-
There are reports from time to time of someone who is thought to be dead who has woken up again.
-
There are reports from time to time of someone who is thought to be dead who has woken up again.
Yes but this is a mainland Europe, three doctor case.....also those stories too probably suffer from the same time gap for which there is no evidence.
-
He was pronounced dead by three doctors and later found to be alive. Please explain how that gives warrant for saying that three doctors were wrong.
You are undoubtedly correct that the chap recovered but less safe on what he recovered from since you only have proof of recovery.
The warrant for saying they were wrong is that we are working in the field of methodological naturalism. It's effectively a piece of definition here - bloke isn't dead so they were wrong to say he was.
I have no idea why you want to go down the route of saying that the definition might be changed here as it effectively denies the claims that Christianity seems based on. Do you really want to be claiming that JC and this bloke are equivalent and JC was cataleptic?
-
I'm not really up on catalepsy. It sounds like something the casual visitor to the religionethics forum might come down with.
Possibly as the result of encountering daft threads like this one.
Surprised you raised it using the term 'resurrection', since beyond hyperbolic newspaper headlines nobody seems to be saying it was similar to another claimed resurrection involving someone who, it is claimed by his supporters, was really really dead (as a doornail etc), since if these cases were comparable then we might conclude that the other chap was also just a tad unwell, and not at all dead.
-
One of the worst kinds of hell must be awaking in your coffin six feet under. I think I once heard of a coffin being exhumed, where it was evident the corpse was alive when placed in it, albeit that this was not realised at the time of burial.
-
I have no idea why you want to go down the route of saying that the definition might be changed here as it effectively denies the claims that Christianity seems based on. Do you really want to be claiming that JC and this bloke are equivalent and JC was cataleptic?
Well, Christ was described as "the first fruits of them that sleep". Now, I always supposed that meant that there would be others after Jesus who would rise from the dead to a spiritual life in heaven.
Maybe this chap is extra-special, and indicates a new phase of physical resurrections in God's vast historical plan. Was the guy renowned for some urgent spiritual message he was giving to the world before he was pronounced dead? Or was he just some ordinary Joe Bloggs?
-
The warrant for saying they were wrong is that we are working in the field of methodological naturalism.
And subject as you never tire of telling us to the issue/problem of induction.
Since MN is evidential, where is your evidence concerning the status of the patient between the time of diagnosis of death and the discovery of life?
-
And subject as you never tire of telling us to the issue/problem of induction.
Since MN is evidential, where is your evidence concerning the status of the patient between the time of diagnosis of death and the discovery of life?
Since I don't make a claim for certainty, the problem of induction isn't relevant here. For the supernatural claim of the Christian resurrection, I would ask you for your methodology but I presume you will evade that as you have thousands of times before.
-
And subject as you never tire of telling us to the issue/problem of induction.
Since MN is evidential, where is your evidence concerning the status of the patient between the time of diagnosis of death and the discovery of life?
What on earth are you wittering on about now: the criteria for clinical death involves the presence or absence of certain phenomena, as does the criteria for life, with associated clinical methods. The issue here is that the methods used by these medics were clearly insufficient in these specific circumstances: either they were simply wrong or that they didn't use methods that would have indicated something rare, like catalepsy.
In any event your query is daft: the status of the person between being wrongly presumed to be dead and then being found to be alive was that they were - be prepared for a shock - always 'alive', but presumably unwell in a manner not recognised at the time.
Anyway, as I suggested earlier, since you raised this maybe it is your responsibility now to get some more information about the specifics of this case.
-
Since I don't make a claim for certainty, the problem of induction isn't relevant here. For the supernatural claim of the Christian resurrection, I would ask you for your methodology but I presume you will evade that as you have thousands of times before.
I don't believe this thread has specified a Christian resurrection merely a resurrection. Indeed I was at pains not to put this in Christian topic.
That said, if one is prepared to discuss natural resurrection and there is no reason not to, one cannot declare that a resurrection could be impossible for God or a universal intelligent designer.
-
I don't believe this thread has specified a Christian resurrection merely a resurrection. Indeed I was at pains not to put this in Christian topic.
That said, if one is prepared to discuss natural resurrection and there is no reason not to, one cannot declare that a resurrection could be impossible for God or a universal intelligent designer.
Has someone actually declared that?
-
I don't believe this thread has specified a Christian resurrection merely a resurrection. Indeed I was at pains not to put this in Christian topic.
You used 'resurrection' in the title, Vlad, but it is hyperbole in this case - the guy was never dead in the first place (unless by 'resurrection' you mean 'recovered from illness')
That said, if one is prepared to discuss natural resurrection and there is no reason not to, one cannot declare that a resurrection could be impossible for God or a universal intelligent designer.
One simply observes that in this case your 'natural resurrection' actually involves somebody not being dead at all but being ill, which is very different the idea of a 'God' resurrecting someone who has been dead for around three days, which isn't the situation regarding this case regarding which you started this thread: how are you getting on with obtaining details of this case?
I suspect you raising this case is another 'Vlad shoots himself in feet' incident.
-
You used 'resurrection' in the title, Vlad, but it is hyperbole in this case - the guy was never dead in the first place (unless by 'resurrection' you mean 'recovered from illness')
One simply observes that in this case your 'natural resurrection' actually involves somebody not being dead at all but being ill, which is very different the idea of a 'God' resurrecting someone who has been dead for around three days, which isn't the situation regarding this case regarding which you started this thread: how are you getting on with obtaining details of this case?
I suspect you raising this case is another 'Vlad shoots himself in feet' incident.
Alas here we see the insistent of evidence making dispensation for itself.
Resurrection is what it means Gordon. Your post seems strongly to insist on impossibility and thus you are ignoring the problem of induction.
Your two fallacies therefore have been obligingly flagged up by yourself.
I didn't mention God but you seem to be forgetting the problem of induction in his case too.
-
Alas here we see the insistent of evidence making dispensation for itself.
Resurrection is what it means Gordon. Your post seems strongly to insist on impossibility and thus you are ignoring the problem of induction.
Your two fallacies therefore have been obligingly flagged up by yourself.
I didn't mention God but you seem to be forgetting the problem of induction in his case too.
As I recall, Vlad, we're talking about the case you started this thread about and provided a link to (any more info yet?).
What you are indulging in here is called the fallacy of equivocation in respect of your use of the term 'resurrection'.
-
When it comes to resurrection, Vlad, you can't even get your own right.
The pessimistic Scottish undertaker in Walmington-on-Sea spelt his name with "s" not "z".
The newspaper report states that the man was in prison. Might it be that the facilities in the prison were such that the three doctors did not have all the facilities which, had it been a hospital, would have indicated that the man was not dead?
-
When it comes to resurrection, Vlad, you can't even get your own right.
The pessimistic Scottish undertaker in Walmington-on-Sea spelt his name with "s" not "z".
Are you Zure?
-
When it comes to resurrection, Vlad, you can't even get your own right.
The pessimistic Scottish undertaker in Walmington-on-Sea spelt his name with "s" not "z".
The newspaper report states that the man was in prison. Might it be that the facilities in the prison were such that the three doctors did not have all the facilities which, had it been a hospital, would have indicated that the man was not dead?
Death is ascertained by a doctor. In this case we have three.
-
Death is ascertained by a doctor. In this case we have three.
And by the report they were wrong.
-
Are you Zure?
Just to note that I think Vlad's spelling is correct.
-
And by the report they were wrong.
Are you saying the patient was never doomed?.............doomed, doomed I tell ye.
-
And by the report they were wrong.
But a doctor is the highest authority in this matter and here we have three.
-
But a doctor is the highest authority in this matter and here we have three.
'Facts are chiels that winna ding'
-
'Facts are chiels that winna ding'
Are you saying therefore that a doctors declaration of death a fact or not,or something like a fact as long as it continues to be so?
-
Are you saying therefore that a doctors declaration of death a fact or not,or something like a fact as long as it continues to be so?
No, the fact here is that the bloke is alive.
-
But a doctor is the highest authority in this matter and here we have three.
And these doctors got it wrong - perhaps when you get around to following this case up, since it was you that brought it to our attention (albeit with a misleading thread title) you'll be able to tell about the background: for instance, were these doctors incompetent, were they competent but faced with a very rare complicating factor (catalepsy), were there constraints in the setting that they were working in?
Let us know when you find out more.
-
No, the fact here is that the bloke is alive.
Nobody is disputing that now. However, at a certain point in time three doctors did.
-
Nobody is disputing that now. However, at a certain point in time three doctors did.
And what do you think we can derive from that?
-
And these doctors got it wrong - perhaps when you get around to following this case up, since it was you that brought it to our attention (albeit with a misleading thread title) you'll be able to tell about the background: for instance, were these doctors incompetent, were they competent but faced with a very rare complicating factor (catalepsy), were there constraints in the setting that they were working in?
Let us know when you find out more.
Well Gordon there were three doctors on the case and they are after all the highest authorities here.
As.for your assertion that they were wrong and the patient was alive all the time.........where is your evidence? Do you for example have the read outs from monitors attached prior to the declaration of life?
It seems therefore that special pleading is taking place here. That Mr Smith can become Santa every Christmas but you cannot be alive, dead then alive again.
Of course the real problem here is humanities competence in matters of death particularly as you seem to be reaching a conclusion with no actual evidence.
-
And what do you think we can derive from that?
Technically, I would say that three doctors pronounced this man dead and after a period when the body was not monitored he was found to be alive.
That seems to sum up the facts in this case so far.
Any other statement / conclusion would seem so far to lack evidence.
-
Well Gordon there were three doctors on the case and they are after all the highest authorities here.
As.for your assertion that they were wrong and the patient was alive all the time.........where is your evidence? Do you for example have the read outs from monitors attached prior to the declaration of life?
It seems therefore that special pleading is taking place here. That Mr Smith can become Santa every Christmas but you cannot be alive, dead then alive again.
Of course the real problem here is humanities competence in matters of death particularly as you seem to be reaching a conclusion with no actual evidence.
Don't be silly, Vlad - doctors are fallible given that they are people, and people are fallible, and the clear implication from the article you yourself provided (which is all the information I've seen so far) is that he was never dead - therefore it seems reasonable to presume he remained alive.
How are you getting on acquiring more details of this case - it seems, from what you now say, there were 'monitors attached prior to the declaration of life' - how do you know this, or are you making stuff up?
-
Technically, I would say that three doctors pronounced this man dead and after a period when the body was not monitored he was found to be alive.
That seems to sum up the facts in this case so far.
Any other statement / conclusion would seem so far to lack evidence.
Then, since this story is your baby, go and get some more information.
Interesting that you chose to use 'resurrection' in this thread title: why did you do that?
-
Technically, I would say that three doctors pronounced this man dead and after a period when the body was not monitored he was found to be alive.
That seems to sum up the facts in this case so far.
Any other statement / conclusion would seem so far to lack evidence.
so what is the point you are trying to make?
-
Don't be silly, Vlad - doctors are fallible given that they are people, and people are fallible, and the clear implication from the article you yourself provided (which is all the information I've seen so far) is that he was never dead - therefore it seems reasonable to presume he remained alive.
How are you getting on acquiring more details of this case - it seems, from what you now say, there were 'monitors attached prior to the declaration of life' - how do you know this, or are you making stuff up?
Gordon
Doctors are fallible but we do have three in this instance.
I never said there were monitors attached and mentioned it only to establish whether you had actual evidence for your assertion that the doctors are wrong.
As for finding stuff out at your bidding. I have set in motion discussion in all matters I wanted and so, as far as I am concerned,..............mission accomplished.
-
Technically, I would say that three doctors pronounced this man dead and after a period when the body was not monitored he was found to be alive.
That seems to sum up the facts in this case so far.
Any other statement / conclusion would seem so far to lack evidence.
If your source is the Independent article you refer to, this is the total information you have:
A prisoner certified dead by three doctors was reportedly found to be alive just hours before his post-mortem.
Gonzalo Montoya Jimenez, an inmate at a jail in Asturias, northern Spain, was put in a body bag and transferred to a hospital mortuary after he was discovered collapsed in his cell, according to Spanish media.
Jimenez’s family said he “had autopsy markings on him, ready to be opened up".
Is it possible. perhaps, that only one doctor had examined him, and that this doctor then sought the signature of colleagues for procedural reasons? From the information presented it is possible that the "dead" man had not been in any clinical environment until he reached the hospital mortuary. He had "died" in a prison cell and was then shipped straight to the mortuary? I accept that these are merely assumptions that I am making, but they are consistent with the information in the article, which merely states that three doctors had "certified" not "examined" him. The only sources for this "information" may well be the man's relatives.
I think that you have checked your sources as thoroughly as I did mine about Dad's Army ...
-
Gordon
Doctors are fallible but we do have three in this instance.
I never said there were monitors attached and mentioned it only to establish whether you had actual evidence for your assertion that the doctors are wrong.
As for finding stuff out at your bidding. I have set in motion discussion in all matters I wanted and so, as far as I am concerned,..............mission accomplished.
In other words you started a thread based on a press report in an attempt at point-scoring, such as by using a provocative title, and now you're wriggling and trying to evade.
-
I just found this on Wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome
-
In other words you started a thread based on a press report in an attempt at point-scoring, such as by using a provocative title.
I don't believe that on the matter in question I have stated anything other than that based on the facts as presented and others have quite reasonably speculated on what went on......and you have asserted wrongness on the part of the doctors based not on the evidence available but on a dogmatic view of the way you think the universe is.
If any points have been scored it is because you have willingly played the game.
-
I don't believe that on the matter in question I have stated anything based on the facts as presented and others have quite reasonably speculated on what went on......and you have asserted wrongness on the part of the doctors based not on the evidence available but on a dogmatic view of the way you think the universe is.
So tell me: do these doctors, given the chap is still alive and kicking, think they got it wrong or do they think he really was dead, and then wasn't? Suggest you check this out and let us know.
If any points have been scored it is because you have willingly played the game.
You didn't score any anyway - but you do get full marks for obfuscation.
-
So tell me: do these doctors, given the chap is still alive and kicking, think they got it wrong or do they think he really was dead, and then wasn't? Suggest you check this out and let us know.
You didn't score any anyway - but you do get full marks for obfuscation.
Do I think they think he was really dead? The alternative would have been that they pronounced him dead for a joke or a scheme.
You have not here or ever acknowledged that your views on cases of resurrection are based, not on facts or the report but on a dogmatic view on how the universe is which certainly runs roughshod over Popper, the problem of induction and your own view of the importance of actual evidence.
-
Do I think they think he was really dead? The alternative would have been that they pronounced him dead for a joke or a scheme.
You have not here or ever acknowledged that your views on cases of resurrection are based, not on facts or the report but on a dogmatic view on how the universe is which certainly runs roughshod over Popper, the problem of induction and your own view of the importance of actual evidence.
Except as already coveted the resurrection claim is specifically meant to be impossible. The case here is irrelevant. You also have managed to misunderstand the problem of induction (again).
-
Except as already coveted the resurrection claim is specifically meant to be impossible. The case here is irrelevant. You also have managed to misunderstand the problem of induction (again).
In what way?
-
In what way?
That it doesn't stop anyone concluding here that the strong likelihood is mistake rather than resurrection. It rules out absolutes not probability.
And again I don't see what you think this means for any miracle claims.
-
That it doesn't stop anyone concluding here that the strong likelihood is mistake rather than resurrection. It rules out absolutes not probability.
Yes but Gordon states that these doctors are wrong....as opposed to Harrowby's ''possibly'' wrong.
So I have mentioned the problem of induction in it's proper context after all.
I do not believe I have at anytime specified this as a supernatural miracle. Indeed I have left this open as a possible unlikely natural event.
I'm not sure that I agree with your definition that miracles are impossible. Preferring ''possible for God'' although I am tolerant of ''a highly unlikely event caused by God's intervention'',
-
Do I think they think he was really dead? The alternative would have been that they pronounced him dead for a joke or a scheme.
You have not here or ever acknowledged that your views on cases of resurrection are based, not on facts or the report but on a dogmatic view on how the universe is which certainly runs roughshod over Popper, the problem of induction and your own view of the importance of actual evidence.
You seem to be thrashing about.
As far as I can see the link you posted portrays this case as being a mistake, for reasons not yet clear, and not some kind of miracle despite your use of the term 'resurrection', which usually associated with a miracle claim.
So, since this case only involves human error, then your noting of any views I may or may not have about other and separate claims of miraculous events involving divine agency is entirely irrelevant as regards this specific case.
-
Yes but Gordon states that these doctors are wrong....as opposed to Harrowby's ''possibly'' wrong.
So I have mentioned the problem of induction in it's proper context after all.
I do not believe I have at anytime specified this as a supernatural miracle. Indeed I have left this open as a possible unlikely natural event.
I'm not sure that I agree with your definition that miracles are impossible. Preferring ''possible for God'' although I am tolerant of ''a highly unlikely event caused by God's intervention'',
Now you seen to be showing that you have no understanding of how everyday language works. And that's where you are using the problem of induction in its 'wrong context'.
It's not my definition that miracles are impossible but that people who believe then to be done by good see them as not being able to happen without their god's intervention. It isn't that they are 'highly unlikely' any deal of a pack of cards is highly unlikely.
And this illustrates your continued inability to show how any event claimed to be a miracle can be determined to be so due to the lack of a methodology. You know, that thing that you have been asked for thousands of times and haven't been able to provide.
-
It's not my definition that miracles are impossible but that people who believe then to be done by good see them as not being able to happen without their god's intervention. It isn't that they are 'highly unlikely' any deal of a pack of cards is highly unlikely.
Sorry I must have got the idea that you stated that miracles are definitionally impossible.
We seem to be in agreement that the better definition is an event possible for God.
Since there is no actual evidence at present that the patient was in fact alive between pronounced dead by three doctors and later being found alive we cannot say definitively that the doctors were wrong until enquiry is made.
Given the above then an actual resurrection can be categorised as unlikely.
And this illustrates your continued inability to show how any event claimed to be a miracle can be determined to be so due to the lack of a methodology. You know, that thing that you have been asked for thousands of times and haven't been able to provide.
Again I am not talking about the miraculous here merely an unlikely event.
Given what we know therefore a resurrection cannot be ruled out.
The only definition where I can be found wanting on is that where death is refined as the permanent cessation of life rather than merely the cessation of life. I fear any step on so redefining would make you guys look suspicious.
-
Yes but Gordon states that these doctors are wrong....as opposed to Harrowby's ''possibly'' wrong.
Stop distorting what I have written.
I did not say that the doctor was "possibly wrong", I was suggesting a possible explanation as to why the doctor was wrong.
You are turning an unimportant little anecdote based on a mistaken judgement by a medical practitioner in another country into fake news. Donald Trump would be proud of you.
-
Sorry I must have got the idea that you stated that miracles are definitionally impossible.
We seem to be in agreement that the better definition is an event possible for God.
Since there is no actual evidence at present that the patient was in fact alive between pronounced dead by three doctors and later being found alive we cannot say definitively that the doctors were wrong until enquiry is made.
Given the above then an actual resurrection can be categorised as unlikely.
And this illustrates your continued inability to show how any event claimed to be a miracle can be determined to be so due to the lack of a methodology. You know, that thing that you have been asked for thousands of times and haven't been able to provide.
Again I am not talking about the miraculous here merely an unlikely event.
Given what we know therefore a resurrection cannot be ruled out.
The only definition where I can be found wanting on is that where death is refined as the permanent cessation of life rather than merely the cessation of life. I fear any step on so redefining would make you guys look suspicious.
I don't think that is a redefinition. Death is definitionally a permanent state in the way it is used. If you are alive then you cannot have been dead. I made that point at the start of the thread, it isn't me defining it that way, it's the way medicine does, hence the increased ability to resuscitate people has not been declared as being resurrection.
And in those terms that is precisely why those who think of the claims resurrection of JC or others are from a death that is irrecoverable. The irony about you posting the OP and then engaging here is that it seems to reduce JC to a cataleptic.
-
Stop distorting what I have written.
I did not say that the doctor was "possibly wrong", I was suggesting a possible explanation as to why the doctor was wrong.
My apologies. Maybe you should have.
-
Since there is no actual evidence at present that the patient was in fact alive between pronounced dead by three doctors and later being found alive we cannot say definitively that the doctors were wrong until enquiry is made.
Since, looking at the article, it doesn't say these doctors are claiming they were correct and that this chap was definitely dead - if they had I expect it would have been mentioned - it seems reasonable to conclude that they too agree they were mistaken. Have you found any further details regarding this case?
Given the above then an actual resurrection can be categorised as unlikely.
Again I am not talking about the miraculous here merely an unlikely event.
Given what we know therefore a resurrection cannot be ruled out.
The only definition where I can be found wanting on is that where death is refined as the permanent cessation of life rather than merely the cessation of life. I fear any step on so redefining would make you guys look suspicious.
It might be a good idea for you to stop digging, Vlad, and get some more information about this case, since it was you who raised it and in doing so mentioned 'resurrection'.
-
I don't think that is a redefinition. Death is definitionally a permanent state .
To some yes. However if you take that line, technically you are wrong because if permanent is forever or until the end of History then we are not there yet so the assertion that death is permanent is not demonstrable.
We are on safer ground with a definition which stops at ''The cessation of life''.
As for the rest '' If you are alive then you cannot have been dead.'' is a belief. Let me counter it by defining life as a particular arrangement of matter. We cannot state therefore that life cannot come about via the complete recycling of dead matter or that our dead material bodies could not be rearranged in a way that we are alive.
-
To some yes. However if you take that line, technically you are wrong because if permanent is forever or until the end of History then we are not there yet so the assertion that death is permanent is not demonstrable.
We are on safer ground with a definition which stops at ''The cessation of life''.
As for the rest '' If you are alive then you cannot have been dead.'' is a belief. Let me counter it by defining life as a particular arrangement of matter. We cannot state therefore that life cannot come about via the complete recycling of dead matter or that our material bodies could not be rearranged in a way that we are alive.
Again this is you struggling with how language works. You are right that death being permanent is a belief but it's also part of what the MN part uses as the definition. At base this is your old habit of seeing MN as PN , and thereby misrepresenting people.
-
Again this is you struggling with how language works. You are right that death being permanent is a belief but it's also part of what the MN part uses as the definition. At base this is your old habit of seeing MN as PN , and thereby misrepresenting people.
Gibberish.
-
To some yes. However if you take that line, technically you are wrong because if permanent is forever or until the end of History then we are not there yet so the assertion that death is permanent is not demonstrable.
So we aren't permanently dead until in 5 billion years or so the Earth is consumed by the expanding Sun as it reaches the end of its fuel: well that's a lovely thought Vlad.
We are on safer ground with a definition which stops at ''The cessation of life''.
Super, but not especially helpful since in the case we are discussing it seems like it didn't cease, where the assumption that it did cease was human error - remember!
As for the rest '' If you are alive then you cannot have been dead.'' is a belief. Let me counter it by defining life as a particular arrangement of matter. We cannot state therefore that life cannot come about via the complete recycling of dead matter or that our material bodies could not be rearranged in a way that we are alive.
Looks like you are channelling your inner Alan Burns.
-
Gibberish.
For someone coming into this discission amongst many others, shorn of context, that would be true. That doesn't apply to you though. So rather than indulge in your wee tantrum, try and engage.
-
For someone coming into this discission amongst many others, shorn of context, that would be true. That doesn't apply to you though. So rather than indulge in your wee tantrum, try and engage.
Ok so what's this?
You are right that death being permanent is a belief but it's also part of what the MN part uses as the definition.
And you accuse me of
seeing MN as PN
[/qoute]
!
-
Ok so what's this?
And you accuse me of
seeing MN as PN
You aren't playing so dumb not to recognise using MN and PN as acronyms for methodical and philosophical naturalism, are you?
-
You aren't playing so dumb not to recognise using MN and PN as acronyms for methodical and philosophical naturalism, are you?
I don't know what you are talking about but saying MN takes it's definition of death from PN beliefs and then accuse me of confusing MN with PN looks particularly dumb on your part.
-
I don't know what you are talking about but saying MN takes it's definition of death from PN beliefs and then accuse me of confusing MN with PN looks particularly dumb on your part.
except that isn't what the post says. MN's definition of death is permanent. It's not a PN statement. It's not a philosophical position. It's what we use to mean death in MN.
-
So we aren't permanently dead until in 5 billion years or so the Earth is consumed by the expanding Sun as it reaches the end of its fuel: well that's a lovely thought Vlad..
Not just a thought but true also Gordon unless permanent death is redefined to 'six feet under'.
Death as permanent cessation of life cannot be a precise scientific definition and certainly no basis for ever issuing conformations or certificates of death when they usually are issued.
-
Not just a thought but true also Gordon unless permanent death is redefined to 'six feet under'.
Death as permanent cessation of life cannot be a precise scientific definition and certainly no basis for ever issuing conformations or certificates of death when they usually are issued.
This is you getting even more confused about different usesx of language! In a scientific sense, a number of things indicate the permanent cessation of life but they are being used to show that because that is what is being looked for.
-
except that isn't what the post says. MN's definition of death is permanent.
That would mean MN has a rather peculiar definition of permanent since we are nowhere near the end of time......What is it's definition in MN by the way?
-
This is you getting even more confused about different usesx of language! In a scientific sense, a number of things indicate the permanent cessation of life but they are being used to show that because that is what is being looked for.
Permanence is an undemonstrable extrapolation.
if Death is not the cessation of life then what IS the cessation of life?
-
That would mean MN has a rather peculiar definition of permanent since we are nowhere near the end of time......What is it's definition in MN by the way?
Time? I doubt it has one. You are again looking for complexities to MN that are about PN ideas. Do you think that when a doctor signs a death certificate they are stating that there is no possibility that someone might ever resurrect?
-
Permanence is an undemonstrable extrapolation.
if Death is not the cessation of life then what IS the cessation of life?
Anything in this PN sense you use it is undemonstrable. And your second sentence is your getting confused between MN and PN again.
-
Time? I doubt it has one. You are again looking for complexities to MN that are about PN ideas. Do you think that when a doctor signs a death certificate they are stating that there is no possibility that someone might ever resurrect?
I am not after the definition of time but the NM definition of permanence since you think it is part of the NM definition of death.
-
I am not after the definition of time but the NM definition of permanence since you think it is part of the NM definition of death.
That life won't return. It matters naught whether it's permanence or time is what you are talking about, and I am not sure that that can be seen as separate, it's again that MN isn't about PN claims.
-
That life won't return. It matters naught whether it's permanence or time
Well it does if you are saying the MN definition of death is permanent cessation of life.
If that is death then? What is the mere cessation of life or even the non permanent cessation of life?
Do you see the problems here? Permanence cannot be demonstrated and therefore cannot be part of a NM definition and the argument that the cessation of life is permanent is circular.
-
Well it does if you are saying the MN definition of death is permanent cessation of life.
If that is death then? What is the mere cessation of life or even the non permanent cessation of life?
Do you see the problems here? Permanence cannot be demonstrated and therefore cannot be part of a NM definition and the argument that the cessation of life is permanent is circular.
And again, off you go down a PN view. MN works with good enough not absolutes. And unless you think that all doctors who have signed death certificates and then the bodies have been burnt are potential murderers , then neither do you. Is it reasonable to expect the sun to come up tomorrow under MN - Yes. Is it an absolute claim - No. Again you get confused about what the problem of induction is.
-
Death as permanent cessation of life cannot be a precise scientific definition and certainly no basis for ever issuing conformations or certificates of death when they usually are issued.
Why not pop along and see your local undertaker: they have lots of practical experience and might be able to reassure you.
-
Why not pop along and see your local undertaker: they have lots of practical experience and might be able to reassure you.
LOL
-
Why not pop along and see your local undertaker: they have lots of practical experience and might be able to reassure you.
Talking of undertakers, a school friend and I used to pass an undertakers on our way back from our secondary school lunch break. The workshop door was usually open and the coffins on display. We used to dare each other to run in and touch the coffins. ::) On one occasion when doing so, I discovered a body of a man lying in an open coffin. It would have served me right if he had sat up and said, 'BOO'! ;D
-
My sister worked at a local undertakers as a secretary some years, she terminated her job there after working herself to death for them, I think we've now heard all of the possible manifold deadly puns connected with the undertaking industry, it's the sheer amount of them that have now all of them been worked to death.
I can't remember all of them but can remember the mirth when my sis came up with so many of them, and the amused wonderment of how many more before they run out of them, oh yes there were so many she had to be so careful when writing to any of the bereaved clients.
Regards ippy
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/16/romanian-court-tells-man-he-is-not-alive
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/16/romanian-court-tells-man-he-is-not-alive
Perhaps all resurrection from death claims, just like this one, are administrative errors.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/16/romanian-court-tells-man-he-is-not-alive
Is this chap the Son of God then?
-
Perhaps all resurrection from death claims, just like this one, are administrative errors.
How would we know?
This chap is apparently still dead.
-
How would we know?
This chap is apparently still dead.
It seems he speaks, he looks alive in the pics and presumably (and this is the giveaway) he has a pulse.
Never come across a corpse with those attributes.
-
It seems he speaks, he looks alive in the pics and presumably (and this is the giveaway) he has a pulse.
Never come across a corpse with those attributes.
I wonder if Jesus had them too?
-
I'm not sure you've thought this through PF. Putting up cases where ordinary people were considered to have died but then were found not to be. What do you think this suggests about the story of Jesus's resurrection?
-
I'm not sure you've thought this through PF. Putting up cases where ordinary people were considered to have died but then were found not to be. What do you think this suggests about the story of Jesus's resurrection?
Either he wasn't dead, or the story was concocted by the gospel writers.
-
I'm not sure you've thought this through PF. Putting up cases where ordinary people were considered to have died but then were found not to be. What do you think this suggests about the story of Jesus's resurrection?
I don't think we are judged on whether we think this is possible or not but on whether deep down we really want Jesus to have died and be safely dead at that.
Secondly could God not possibly arrange a resurrection?
Thirdly, the problem of induction never allows us to say never.
-
Either he wasn't dead, or the story was concocted by the gospel writers.
Or he was brought back to life by God. You cannot rule that out, only give your opinion.
-
I don't think we are judged on whether we think this is possible or not but on whether deep down we really want Jesus to have died and be safely dead at that.
A different point.
Secondly could God not possibly arrange a resurrection?
Yes, but again a different point.
Thirdly, the problem of induction never allows us to say never.
Not saying never, and again a different point.
-
Or he was brought back to life by God. You cannot rule that out, only give your opinion.
A very unlikely scenario.
-
A very unlikely scenario.
You cannot rule it out. Miracles are unlikey, that's why they are miracles. We've discussed this quite recently.
-
You cannot rule it out. Miracles are unlikey, that's why they are miracles. We've discussed this quite recently.
A miracle is only another name for something which is yet unexplained, it doesn't mean it has a supernatural cause.
-
A miracle is only another name for something which is yet unexplained, it doesn't mean it has a supernatural cause.
Nope. From the Oxford English Dictionary
noun
1An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.
‘the miracle of rising from the grave’
1.1 A remarkable event or development that brings very welcome consequences.
‘it was a miracle that more people hadn't been killed’
‘industries at the heart of the economic miracle’
1.2 An exceptional product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something.
‘a machine which was a miracle of design’
as modifier ‘a miracle drug’
-
Nope. From the Oxford English Dictionary
noun
1An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.
‘the miracle of rising from the grave’
1.1 A remarkable event or development that brings very welcome consequences.
‘it was a miracle that more people hadn't been killed’
‘industries at the heart of the economic miracle’
1.2 An exceptional product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something.
‘a machine which was a miracle of design’
as modifier ‘a miracle drug’
That is the dictionary definition. But I am of the opinion that one day science will come up with an explanation for what is inexplicable at present. Many o the things we experience today, thanks to science, would have been considered miraculous a few hundred years ago.
-
That is the dictionary definition. But I am of the opinion that one day science will come up with an explanation for what is inexplicable at present.
Ah right, so its your opinion. Could you be wrong?
Many o the things we experience today, thanks to science, would have been considered miraculous a few hundred years ago.
I don't think this makes any difference to whether miracles as supernatural events are possible or not.
-
Ah right, so its your opinion. Could you be wrong?
I don't think this makes any difference to whether miracles as supernatural events are possible or not.
Of course I could be wrong, I just hope I am not. In my 68 years I probably have had much more experience of the so called 'supernatural' than most people, but I am of the opinion there is a natural explanation for it, even if we haven't come up with one yet.
-
Of course I could be wrong, ....
That's good to hear you acceptvthat.
I just hope I am not. In my 68 years I probably have had much more experience of the so called 'supernatural' than most people, but I am of the opinion there is a natural explanation for it, even if we haven't come up with one yet.
But you could be wrong.
-
That's good to hear you acceptvthat.
But you could be wrong.
Of course I could be wrong as I keep saying. I just hope I am not, the alternative is too ghastly to contemplate. :o
-
That's good to hear you acceptvthat.
But you could be wrong.
Nothing is 100% in the real world, but some things are so unlikely as to be impossible for all practical purposes. When Little Roses says "x is impossible" it's a short hand for "x is so unlikely, it ain't never going to happen". And she's right on this occasion.
-
Nothing is 100% in the real world, but some things are so unlikely as to be impossible for all practical purposes. When Little Roses says "x is impossible" it's a short hand for "x is so unlikely, it ain't never going to happen". And she's right on this occasion.
If it is a supernatural miracle then yes it is unlikely but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Miracles are not impossible if there is a God.
-
If it is a supernatural miracle then yes it is unlikely but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Miracles are not impossible if there is a God.
Give me any evidence that there is a god.
-
If it is a supernatural miracle then yes it is unlikely but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Miracles are not impossible if there is a God.
How do evaluate the likelihood of a miracle? Maybe everything TNA happens is a miracle.
I agree with you though that there is no point in referring to the idea that things don't happen often is a useless and circular argument against miracles.
-
Give me any evidence that there is a god.
Maeght isn't claiming there is.
-
Maeght isn't claiming there is.
So there's no god therefore miracles are virtually impossible as LR said.
Good. Let's move on.
-
So there's no god therefore miracles are virtually impossible as LR said.
Good. Let's move on.
Are you moving on Jeremy? Goodbye.
-
Are you moving on Jeremy? Goodbye.
Any chance of keeping the conversation on topic?
-
So there's no god therefore miracles are virtually impossible as LR said.
Good. Let's move on.
No, that isn't the point being made. And virtually impossible again just applies an idea of unlikelihood that makes no sense in regard to miracles. Everything that happens may have a supernatural cause.
-
So there's no god therefore miracles are virtually impossible as LR said.
Good. Let's move on.
As NS says, I am not saying there is a God. What I am pointing out is that the argument that miracles such as the resurrection are impossible because they don't usually happen misses the point of miracles being unusual supernatural events. If a God exists then Miracles such as the resurrection are surely possible. It is not possible to say 100% that God doesn't exist therefore it is not possible to say miracles are impossible.
My other point it that PF pointing out cases where normal human beings were considered dead but weren't seems to undermine claims of Jesus's resurrection having to be a miracle, so I'm not sure why he is going down that route.
-
No, that isn't the point being made. And virtually impossible again just applies an idea of unlikelihood that makes no sense in regard to miracles. Everything that happens may have a supernatural cause.
No you see, you have used the nuclear option (http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/going-nuclear.html). If you are going to do that, we might as well stop now.
-
No you see, you have used the nuclear option (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/2011/09/going-nuclear.html). If you are going to do that, we might as well stop now.
No, it's simply that any claim about the supernatural isn't based on likelihood. The nuclear option doesn't cover tge point being made. And you seen to be arguing against points not made.
-
As NS says, I am not saying there is a God. What I am pointing out is that the argument that miracles such as the resurrection are impossible because they don't usually happen misses the point of miracles being unusual supernatural events. If a God exists then Miracles such as the resurrection are surely possible. It is not possible to say 100% that God doesn't exist therefore it is not possible to say miracles are impossible.
My other point it that PF pointing out cases where normal human beings were considered dead but weren't seems to undermine claims of Jesus's resurrection having to be a miracle, so I'm not sure why he is going down that route.
If you are going to claim that miracles are possible (likely even) because God, we need to stop now because you, like NS have invoked the nuclear option. Once you do that, all bets are off and the possibility of a rational discussion drops to zero.
-
No, it's simply that any claim about the supernatural isn't based on likelihood.
All reasoning about the real works is really based on probability. You are saying we can ignore probability. Hence you have ended any possibility ofd rational discussion about the real World. You have invoked the nuclear option.
-
If you are going to claim that miracles are possible (likely even) because God, we need to stop now because you, like NS have invoked the nuclear option. Once you do that, all bets are off and the possibility of a rational discussion drops to zero.
Except I didn't use the nuclear option and no one has suggested that miracles are possible (likely even). Rather that the unlikelihood of an event is a useless argument to state that miracles are impossible, and if you water that down to being they are just very very unlikely then that's just perfecting the circularity.
-
All reasoning about the real works is really based on probability. You are saying we can ignore probability. Hence you have ended any possibility ofd rational discussion about the real World. You have invoked the nuclear option.
You see this is where you are arguing against a point I haven't made. I didn't say anything about ignoring probability. It works in a naturalistic methodology. It's great.
The point is that likelihood is a naturalistic assumption, it's precisely meaningless for supernatural claims. That doesn't give supernatural claims any validity, just that using arguments that are irrelevant to them is pointless. Until someone making the claims comes up with a super naturalistic methodology, they are just white noise. Arguing against them just follows the same rule. .
-
You see this is where you are arguing against a point I haven't made. I didn't say anything about ignoring probability.
"it's simply that any claim about the supernatural isn't based on likelihood." ~~ Nearly Sane 2018.
-
"it's simply that any claim about the supernatural isn't based on likelihood." ~~ Nearly Sane 2018.
Which isn't an argument against ignoring probability in a naturalistic methodology. I coveredqgt you were wrong in the post that you appear to have attempted to quptemine even if you choose a quote that didn't back you up.
-
If you are going to claim that miracles are possible (likely even) because God, we need to stop now because you, like NS have invoked the nuclear option. Once you do that, all bets are off and the possibility of a rational discussion drops to zero.
So would you prefer to use a flawed argument just to continue the debate? How is excluding the possibility of something rational when you yourself say nothing is 100% and the probability argument when it comes to supernatural miracles is meaningless.
-
Sorry but I felt a bit of a challenge as to why I included the tale of aRumanian declared dead but very much alive.
The simple answer was just to reopen the issue of proof of life.
Having done that then let us return to resurrections. We have to be careful always of never saying never.
I am with Meaght if he is saying if you cannot exclude God you cannot exclude miracles. Also I don't understand why there is an apparent down on resurrection in those who hold to scientism, since if life is merely an arrangement of matter then resurrection is merely a particular rearrangement.
-
Having done that then let us return to resurrections. We have to be careful always of never saying never.
I am with Meaght if he is saying if you cannot exclude God you cannot exclude miracles.
Your reasoning seems to be wandering towards an NPF: turn it around, Vlad, and present a good reason for including 'God' in the first place, since without a good reason then 'God' (along with any claims dependent on this 'God') can be discarded as an explanation for anything pending a good reason to take it seriously. The burden of proof is yours.
Also I don't understand why there is an apparent down on resurrection in those who hold to scientism, since if life is merely an arrangement of matter then resurrection is merely a particular rearrangement.
Is it?. Then you be able to tell us what this particular arrangement is and the process of re-arrangement - do that and the Nobel Prize for biology is all yours, and if you are referring to ancient anecdotal reports then please explain how you've excluded the risks of mistakes or lies in these reports.
Ta muchly.
-
Your reasoning seems to be wandering towards an NPF: turn it around, Vlad, and present a good reason for including 'God' in the first place, since without a good reason then 'God' (along with any claims dependent on this 'God') can be discarded as an explanation for anything pending a good reason to take it seriously. The burden of proof is yours.
Is it?. Then you be able to tell us what this particular arrangement is and the process of re-arrangement - do that and the Nobel Prize for biology is all yours, and if you are referring to ancient anecdotal reports then please explain how you've excluded the risks of mistakes or lies in these reports.
Ta muchly.
You are seeing NPF where there is none Gordon. That is just innuendo.
When antitheists saw there were arguments for God they then started talking about Good arguments.
Bollocks on their part I'm afraid.
-
You are seeing NPF where there is none Gordon. That is just innuendo.
It did look rather as if you were heading in that direction. Remember that we can't 100% exclude your old friends the leprechauns.
When antitheists saw there were arguments for God they then started talking about Good arguments.
Bollocks on their part I'm afraid.
Bollocks on your part, I'm afraid. When has anybody said there were no arguments (using the term loosely) for gods? The problem has always been that they are all hopelessly flawed.
-
I don't think saying that you can't exclude something is an NPF.
-
You are seeing NPF where there is none Gordon. That is just innuendo.
When antitheists saw there were arguments for God they then started talking about Good arguments.
Bollocks on their part I'm afraid.
I noted that you were wandering towards an NPF, since your 'if you cannot exclude God you cannot exclude miracles' isn't that far away from NPF territory.
-
You are seeing NPF where there is none Gordon. That is just innuendo.
When antitheists saw there were arguments for God they then started talking about Good arguments.
Bollocks on their part I'm afraid.
The arguments for god are about as credible as the arguments for fairies! Of course fairies might exist, one cannot be 100% sure they don't.
-
The arguments for god are about as credible as the arguments for fairies! Of course fairies might exist, one cannot be 100% sure they don't.
I'd like to see the working out on that which actually addresses characteristics and categories and isn't horses laugh.
-
I'd like to see the working out on that which actually addresses characteristics and categories and isn't horses laugh.
And in English?
-
And in English?
Horses laugh is argument from ridicule.
Lots of things are unfalsifiable. What happens is the antitheist selects the unfalsifiable thing they don't like and then equate it with a ridiculous falsifiable like a fairy or a leprechaun.
As you can see it isn't big and it isn't clever.
-
Horses laugh is argument from ridicule.
Lots of things are unfalsifiable. What happens is the antitheist selects the unfalsifiable thing they don't like and then equate it with a ridiculous falsifiable like a fairy or a leprechaun.
As you can see it isn't big and it isn't clever.
But there is no more evidence for the existence of the Bible god, than there is for a fairy or leprechaun, you haven't presented any. But at least we know what fairies and leprechauns look like. ;D
-
Lots of things are unfalsifiable. What happens is the antitheist selects the unfalsifiable thing they don't like and then equate it with a ridiculous falsifiable like a fairy or a leprechaun.
Once again, the point soars majestically over your head... ::)
-
Once again, the point soars majestically over your head... ::)
Nobody seems to be interested in why people believe what they do, but then fundamentalism never is interested in anything but it's own dogmas.Just like New atheism.
-
Nobody seems to be interested in why people believe what they do, but then fundamentalism never is interested in anything but it's own dogmas.Just like New atheism.
I'm very much interested in why people believe what they do.
-
Nobody seems to be interested in why people believe what they do, but then fundamentalism never is interested in anything but it's own dogmas.Just like New atheism.
That is a good one coming from you! ;D
-
I'm very much interested in why people believe what they do.
Apart from Maeght that is.