Do Virgin births and Resurrections defy biology and physics

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm going to punt no and no.

Firstly a birth in someone who has not had sex is scientifically concievable.

Secondly, If life is due merely to the arrangement of matter then providing there is a technology to arrange then a resurrection does not defy physics. In fact a denial of  this defies physics.

[Outrider]

I'm going to punt no and no.

OK.

Firstly a birth in someone who has not had sex is scientifically concievable.

Not just conceivable (kudos on the pun, by the way) but extensively scientifically documented - parthenogenesis is part and parcel of the life-cycle of countless species, from bacteria all the way up to reptiles and amphibians, although in varying circumstances. It defies the conventional understanding of HUMAN biology, although there are niche cases where self-fertilisation might be possible and there is of course the range of artificial insemination processes which would permit birth without penetrative sex.

Secondly, If life is due merely to the arrangement of matter then providing there is a technology to arrange then a resurrection does not defy physics.

Perhaps - perhaps, instead, what it does is pushes back the boundary on what we consider 'death' to be. Resurrection is the return to life from death, but if (as has been discussed elsewhere recently) death is irreversible end of life, then by definition resurrection is nonsensical - what you instead have is a technology that pushes the boundary of death further back. Semantics, perhaps, but worth mentioning.

It also, if we're looking at technological interventions, raises the question of what we consider to be 'life' and 'self' - if, for instance, the technology in question was to somehow 'scan' the braind and reproduce the thinking processes in an synthetic processor (rather than a continuation of the biological original) would that be 'resurrection'? Is that the same person? Does the body - the same body - have to come as well, is the brain necessary, or are we the pattern of neural algorithms? Are we us without the hormones, can they be adequately simulated? If the technological substrate doesn't have the same morphic adaptability as the original brain, and our psychological state is therefore limited to the static snap-shot at the time of our biological demise, are we still alive or is it just as simulation?

All of which is to say, whilst something conforming to some definition of 'resurrection' might be possible, it doesn't seem likely that bronze age myths of magical interventions has much to say on the matter.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Firstly a birth in someone who has not had sex is scientifically concievable.

Well it is relatively common in some other species where parthenogenesis occurs, although I don't believe there are any evidence of this naturally occurring in humans to produce a live birth. There is, however, plenty of evidence of the formation of teratomas.

But, of course, this is perfectly plausible with artificial intervention - a woman becoming pregnant though in vitro fertilisation with donor sperm - which would not need the woman to have had sex.

But if you are arguing that 'vrigin' birth is possible biologically haven't you just removed any requirement for 'divine' intervention.

[Nearly Sane]

Well it is relatively common in some other species where parthenogenesis occurs, although I don't believe there are any evidence of this naturally occurring in humans to produce a live birth. There is, however, plenty of evidence of the formation of teratomas.

But, of course, this is perfectly plausible with artificial intervention - a woman becoming pregnant though in vitro fertilisation with donor sperm - which would not need the woman to have had sex.

But if you are arguing that 'vrigin' birth is possible biologically haven't you just removed any requirement for 'divine' intervention.

Perhaps the divine turkey baster?

[ProfessorDavey]

Perhaps the divine turkey baster?

Indeed

And it is also, of course, possible for a woman to become pregnant without their having been penetrative sex if a man has ejaculated sperm close to the vaginal opening. So that could technically also be a virgin birth.

But you would need to evoke Occam. So if a woman is pregnant and claims she has not had sex then the most likely explanation is that she is lying (perhaps because she is in denial), or mistaken. Even today there are plenty of girls who misunderstand what sex is and under what circumstances you can become pregnant - for example considering that sex only occurs within marriage.

These would be far, far more likely explanations than some kind of divine guff. And also let's recognise that claim of a virgin birth comes in completely unverified texts (which also contain information which is demonstrably wrong) written decades, if not centuries after the purported event.

[Nearly Sane]

Surely the question relates back to what is a miracle - see thread I prepared earlier.


https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=21327.0

[jeremyp]

I'm going to punt no and no.

Firstly a birth in someone who has not had sex is scientifically concievable.

Secondly, If life is due merely to the arrangement of matter then providing there is a technology to arrange then a resurrection does not defy physics. In fact a denial of  this defies physics.

I guess it is conceivable but the probability of it happening would be low enough to regard it as impossible within the life time of this universe.

What is the mechanism by which you are proposing it happens?

[SteveH]

Parthenogenesis would result in a clone of the mother, which would, of course, be female.
Most orthodox Christians regard both events as miracles, which would render irrelevant any question of their scientific plausibility, but Walt disnae, apparently.

[Nearly Sane]

I guess it is conceivable but the probability of it happening would be low enough to regard it as impossible within the life time of this universe.

What is the mechanism by which you are proposing it happens?

Presume you're not saying that about 'virgin birth', as per earlier posts cover, dependent on definition it happens.

As to 'resurrection', again as covered by Ourider that's also about definition.

[jeremyp]

Presume you're not saying that about 'virgin birth'

Why would you presume that?

If we are talking about the idea of a human female conceiving a child - especially a male child - without any male gametes b being involved, I think the probability of that happening is, practically speaking, zero.

[Nearly Sane]

Why would you presume that?

If we are talking about the idea of a human female conceiving a child - especially a male child - without any male gametes b being involved, I think the probability of that happening is, practically speaking, zero.

Any reason why you quotemined, and removed 'as per earlier posts cover, dependent on definition it happens'  from the sentence?

[ProfessorDavey]

Why would you presume that?

If we are talking about the idea of a human female conceiving a child - especially a male child - without any male gametes b being involved, I think the probability of that happening is, practically speaking, zero.

But being a virgin refers to having had penetrative sex. There are ways in which sperm from a man could induce a pregnancy without there having been penetrative sex, as has been indicated in other posts. So this doesn't necessarily mean that there are no male gametes involves, merely no penetrative sex.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Do Virgin births and Resurrections defy biology and physics

So having tried to deflect from your error on the thread you fell apart on, you’ve decided to try to deflect on a new thread instead. Oh well…

As for this new deflecting thread, you’ve missed the point entirely. If the virgin birth and resurrection stories were that both were surprising but also naturalistic, then you’d be in Caesar’s dying breath territory – an “extraordinary” claim but only in the sense that the facts are non-intuitive but nonetheless discoverable “with a little research”.

That’s not what the Bible stories claim though. What they actually claim is that the normal rules of physics and biology were temporarily suspended by an intervening god. That puts you in this territory instead:

“In other words, claims require extraordinary evidence if they entail the falsehood of established scientific results that are themselves extensively tested and well understood. The existence of ghosts would be just such a claim, demanding revolutionary changes to the foundations of physics and biology. The evidence would need somehow to outweigh or account for all the physical and biological evidence supporting our existing expectation that ghosts are impossible.”

So yes, as the author of the argument that blew up on you makes clear it’s still not a fallacy when, if you want to claim "goddidit" miracles, that that extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. 
       

[jeremyp]

Any reason why you quotemined, and removed 'as per earlier posts cover, dependent on definition it happens'  from the sentence?

Because it wasn't relevant. I was talking about the virgin birth. In fact, I completely missed the fact that the title also talks about resurrections.

[jeremyp]

But being a virgin refers to having had penetrative sex. There are ways in which sperm from a man could induce a pregnancy without there having been penetrative sex, as has been indicated in other posts. So this doesn't necessarily mean that there are no male gametes involves, merely no penetrative sex.

I was assuming people weren't going to get picky about vocabulary. Yes, you could use a turkey baster, but I assume by "virgin birth" Vlad meant child conceived without the aid of sperm obtained from a human male. Any other definition renders the question trivial.

[Nearly Sane]

Because it wasn't relevant. I was talking about the virgin birth. In fact, I completely missed the fact that the title also talks about resurrections.

It talks about Virgin births not 'the Virgin birth'.

[jeremyp]

It talks about Virgin births not 'the Virgin birth'.

Are you seriously trying to make the lack of the use of the plural a "gotcha"?

[Nearly Sane]

Are you seriously trying to make the lack of the use of the plural a "gotcha"?

No, I'm pointing out why people responded as they did.

[ProfessorDavey]

I was assuming people weren't going to get picky about vocabulary. Yes, you could use a turkey baster, but I assume by "virgin birth" Vlad meant child conceived without the aid of sperm obtained from a human male. Any other definition renders the question trivial.

It does render the question trivial, but isn't that the issue - defining something in a manner which either ignores its definition (death) or limits its definition (virgin birth without male gamete).

Vlad, as often the case, is attempting to play sneaky tricks with a view to getting us to confirm something (e.g. that virgin birth using its actual definition is entirely possible and likely happens regularly) to then imply that the claimed gospel virgin birth must also be perfectly plausible too.