Searching for GOD...

[floo]

Non secateurs.

We have several secateurs, some are getting a bit blunt as we have had them for years.

[Gordon]

Can a resurrection be classed as a highly improbable event. Yes.

Is this hypothetical resurrection, or are you presuming that such an event has already occurred?

Even then 'improbable' implies a probability of greater than zero, and since probability is naturalistic you'll have a method in mind to calculate just how improbable recovery from being clinically dead for 2/3 days is - do tell.

[Gordon]

Non secateurs.

Perhaps you should use them to prune your arguments of fallacies and incoherence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is this hypothetical resurrection, or are you presuming that such an event has already occurred?

Even then 'improbable' implies a probability of greater than zero, and since probability is naturalistic you'll have a method in mind to calculate just how improbable recovery from being clinically dead for 2/3 days is - do tell.

1: There are reports of a physical resurrection and evidence of a community with an experience of this.

2: Yes it's highly improbable but that is the nature of miracles.

[Alan Burns]

any comment about the controversy over the passage?

What controversy?

[Nearly Sane]

1: There are reports of a physical resurrection and evidence of a community with an experience of this.

2: Yes it's highly improbable but that is the nature of miracles.

nope, they are impossible. That's the claim and probability is a piece if naturalistic methodology. 

[Nearly Sane]

What controversy?

so you actually know nothing about your bible? Really? you don't know the disputes about the story of JC and the the woman accused of adultery?

[Gordon]

1: There are reports of a physical resurrection and evidence of a community with an experience of this.

The risk of mistakes, exaggeration and lies in these reports is?

2: Yes it's highly improbable but that is the nature of miracles.

Show us your method/workings then.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps you should use them to prune your arguments of fallacies and incoherence.

Maybe you should start finding some. Read my footnote quote from Bertrand.

[Gordon]

Maybe you should start finding some. Read my footnote quote from Bertrand.

Which you don't understand, else you'd know that BR later noted that Kant had disposed of the ontological argument (which is what BR is talking about in this quote).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes we know of AI and IVF.

Neither of which are "virgin births" in the sense that both sperm and egg are still required. Your schtick involves the absence of the former, and I have no idea what it claims about the latter.

Can a resurrection be classed as a highly improbable event. Yes.

Actually no because organ decomposition is irreversible, but in any case you're not claiming a naturalistic event at all. Even if evidence was found that human death and life again could occur naturally, that would banjax your claim of evidence for a god. 

Could there ever be a technical resurrection? Yes......... if information is physical oh I see you think it is.

See above.

Life is merely how matter is arranged isn't it?

Matter and forces, yes.

An intelligent materialist would of course twig this...and you don't seem to.

Perhaps the problem here is that you're neither intelligent nor a materialist. Nice own goal though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

1: There are reports of a physical resurrection and evidence of a community with an experience of this.

No, there are reports of a physical resurrection and evidence of a (subsequent at least) community that believed it. Experiencing something and believing it to be true are not the same thing. You're trying the reification fallacy again.

2: Yes it's highly improbable but that is the nature of miracles.

High improbability is in the nature of naturalistic events. Here's you're trying to jemmy a naturalistic phenomenon (probability) on to a non-naturalistic claim ("miracles"). Big fail.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Non secateurs.

You don't understand the term non sequitur. Try looking it up.

[floo]

Perhaps you should use them to prune your arguments of fallacies and incoherence.

Maybe he needs to buy some new ones which aren't so blunt!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

Maybe he needs to buy some new ones which aren't so blunt!

He routinely uses the term when what he actually means is, "that's an argument I don't like but can't rebut", while himself regularly trying non-sequiturs to support his schtick. 

[floo]

Floo,

He routinely uses the term when what he actually means is, "that's an argument I don't like but can't rebut", while himself regularly trying non-sequiturs to support his schtick.

I suppose one has to pity his sad state!

[Alan Burns]

so you actually know nothing about your bible? Really? you don't know the disputes about the story of JC and the the woman accused of adultery?

I am well aware of many people who try to discredit the truth of the bible stories by thinking up their own imaginary scenarios then digging for evidence to try to substantiate them.

My own experience of the bible is a treasury of truth, wisdom and divine revelations.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#16454

Non secateurs.

Perhaps you should use them to prune your arguments of fallacies and incoherence.

No need for him to change his much more effective strategy of using them to cut down opposing arguments. The truth of what he is saying is not affected by
- calling them arguments of fallacies and incoherence
- accusing him of lying
- posting an argument and assuming the truth of it by calling it a "rebuttal"

You really need to sort out your worldview.

[Gordon]

#16454
No need for him to change his much more effective strategy of using them to cut down opposing arguments. The truth of what he is saying is not affected by
- calling them arguments of fallacies and incoherence
- accusing him of lying
- posting an argument and assuming the truth of it by calling it a "rebuttal"

You really need to sort out your worldview.

Just making fair comment old chap: that you, as a Vlad supporter, can't see this is no surprise given your own propensity for fallacies and incoherence. You really need to drop the 'worldview' nonsense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

No need for him to change his much more effective strategy of using them to cut down opposing arguments.

He does no such thing. To do that he’d need to understand what the term means, and to apply it appropriately. He does neither.

The truth of what he is saying is not affected by

- calling them arguments of fallacies and incoherence

Did you mean to say that? It’s not a matter of just calling them fallacies and incoherence; it’s a mater of identifying them correctly as such.

- accusing him of lying

He lies more or less pathologically, and being caught in a lie very much invalidates any truth he may have been trying to express by using the lie.

- posting an argument and assuming the truth of it by calling it a "rebuttal"

A rebuttal is a term used in logic that falsifies an opponent’s argument by identifying its failings. This happens a lot when Vlad (and you for that matter) attempt logical fallacies to support your position. Again, it’s not just a matter of calling something a rebuttal but of actually making a rebuttal according to those rules.

You really need to sort out your worldview.

Stop trolling. You’ve had explained many times now why your “world view” hobby horse fails. Or, to put it another way, it’s been rebutted. Why then do you repeat it endlessly rather than at least try to address the arguments that undo it?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Vlad,

There are reports of a physical resurrection and evidence of a community with an experience of this.

No, there are reports of a physical resurrection and evidence of a (subsequent at least) community that believed it.

On of the Christianity and Reincarnation thread, you asked of Vlad

No, you're lying. No-one says, "it cannot exist". What they actually say is that there's no cogent reason to think it does exist - a very different matter.

You try this particular lie all over the place. Why?

Firstly, it is not a lie.

Secondly, as to why, this is why!

Your response above: Why should one consider reports of a physical resurrection and evidence of a (subsequent at least) community that believed it to be true as any more accurate than There are reports of a physical resurrection and evidence of a community with an experience of this. How do you know what their experience of it was? It's obvious that you are starting from a position that such things cannot happen, whilst giving the impression in your exchanges with Vlad that a lack of testable evidence is the problem.

Like Gordon and Floo, you really need to sort out your worldview.

[Gordon]

Like Gordon and Floo, you really need to sort out your worldview.

I don't have a 'worldview', unless my feeling that having more jazz and less mayonnaise in the world would be good counts as one.

You really are going to have to educate yourself regarding basic philosophy - I told you this months ago yet you still don't understand basic stuff like logical fallacies.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Firstly, it is not a lie.

Yes it is. It’s something he accuses me (and others) of that I’ve expressly told him many times I do not think to be the case. In the unlikely event that he ever could find someone who actually does think as he tries to paint all “antitheists” as thinking, I’d agree that the absolutist “cannot” is logically unsustainable.

Secondly…

You can’t have a “secondly” when your firstly has just collapsed.

…as to why, this is why!

Your response above: Why should one consider reports of a physical resurrection and evidence of a (subsequent at least) community that believed it to be true as any more accurate than There are reports of a physical resurrection and evidence of a community with an experience of this.

It’s more accurate because a community believing something to be true is a commonplace. There’s no particular reason to doubt that they did believe it. Whether their belief was well-founded on the other hand is a different matter entirely – there are various alternative explanations for their beliefs, and no means to eliminate them.

How do you know what their experience of it was?

I don’t, any more than I know what the Greeks’ experience of Poseidon was or the Egyptians’ experience of Horus was. And nor do you. I do know though that epistemically the argument in all three cases for an objective truth is hopeless.

And that’s all that’s being said here.

It's obvious that you are starting from a position that such things cannot happen…

Why are you repeating Vlad’s lie about that? The only thing that’s obvious is that I find that there’s no cogent reason to think that such things did happen – a very different position.

…whilst giving the impression in your exchanges with Vlad that a lack of testable evidence is the problem.

Not just of testable evidence – of underpinning logic too.

Like Gordon and Floo, you really need to sort out your worldview.

Why are you persisting with making a fool of yourself with this nonsense?

[Robbie]

Far too many accusations of lying. Lying has to be deliberate. In other words with full knowledge.