Resurrection impossible?

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[Maeght]

I don't think saying that you can't exclude something is an NPF.

[Gordon]

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.

[floo]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[floo]

I'd like to see the working out on that which actually addresses characteristics and categories and isn't horses laugh.

And in English?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[floo]

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.

[Stranger]

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...     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Maeght]

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.

[floo]

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!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm very much interested in why people believe what they do.

Apart from Maeght that is.