Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think, Vlad, you are very struggling to tell the difference between facts and claims - or you're wumming.

You are entitled to your thoughts Gordon. I have gone through why I think these claims are good though....You on the other hand....argument from disbelief and philosophical naturalism.

Now what about that alternative history?

[Gordon]

Now what about that alternative history?

That is your very own straw man, Vlad - I've simply asked you to support your historical claim and you've failed to do so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is your very own straw man, Vlad - I've simply asked you to support your historical claim and you've failed to do so.

It's alright saying that Gordon but I don't recall you refuting the community which based itself on the truth of these matters. That of course would immediately call for an alternative explanation and you don't want to expose yourself to having to prove a position by actually suggesting one.........so all we have then is your assertion I've failed.

May I suggest that rather than me being the WUM here.....it could be........

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think the question is rather would a physical resurrection be observable to science. The clue here is in the word physical.

In principle or in practice?

In principle that would depend on whether or not the processes involved were yet understood by “science”. If they were, then yes; if they weren’t, then no.

In practice though that would depend on what evidence was available for the methods and tools of science to consider.

As I understand it though, your schtick is a supernatural resurrection. You know, one with "magic happens here" in the middle of it.

So what has science got to do with it anyway?

Of course one would be stupid to suggest that a methodological physicalist assessment was not made because no one involved had a white coat.

What are you struggling to say here?

Your closing sentence is a complete pisstake. ''History happens regardless of events......'' Ha Ha HaHo Ho Ho He He He.

Something you say a lot when the logic goes way over your head. Bizarrely you seemed to think that there being “no gaps in history” was an argument of some kind.

It wasn’t.

Goodness me Hillside an argument avoiding anything historically relevant to the argument which ends with a conclusion about history.

Try reading it again for comprehension veeeeeery slooooowly.

Wonderful...........er........................ where are they?

The arguments in logic that undo you? They’re the ones posted countless times that have shown you to be wrong every time you’ve tried the negative proof fallacy, the argument from personal incredulity, the “a bad argument becomes a good argument if I like the outcome” fallacy (we haven’t though of name for that one yet), the argumentum ad poplulum, the argumentum ad consequentiam, the reification fallacy (“what about my encounter with god then?”), the ad hom, the endless straw men, the flat out lying, the… etc and wearingly etc.

Look, it’s simple enough. If you expect anyone else to take your personal faith beliefs as something other than you just guessing, then – finally – all you have to do is to post an argument for it that isn’t fallacious.

Go on – you know you want to don’t you.

Don’t you?

[Gordon]

It's alright saying that Gordon but I don't recall you refuting the community which based itself on the truth of these matters.

A couple of problems here: first, I'm not 'refuting the community' but simply asking you (presumably on their behalf) to provide enough support to treat their claims as facts, and second the 'truth of these matters' is what you've still to demonstrate.

That of course would immediately call for an alternative explanation and you don't want to expose yourself to having to prove a position by actually suggesting one.........so all we have then is your assertion I've failed.

You have failed: I don't need to suggest an alternative since I'd just be making it up, and you'd quite reasonably then ask me to support said alternative if I were daft enough to attempt one.

May I suggest that rather than me being the WUM here.....it could be........

You can, and I'll leave that for others to judge.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A couple of problems here: first, I'm not 'refuting the community' but simply asking you (presumably on their behalf) to provide enough support to treat their claims as facts, and second the 'truth of these matters' is what you've still to demonstrate.

You have failed:

Firstly I was referring to the community founded on the principle that this was the truth.
Secondly me pointing out such a community provides further historical basis. Therefore I have not failed your request to do so.

Again, again, again......what have you got?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The arguments in logic that undo you? They’re the ones posted countless times that have shown you to be wrong every time you’ve tried the negative proof fallacy, the argument from personal incredulity, the “a bad argument becomes a good argument if I like the outcome” fallacy (we haven’t though of name for that one yet), the argumentum ad poplulum, the argumentum ad consequentiam,

And again Hillside ....where are they.....where are these fallacies? And conversely because I hate the idea of you and Gordon falling back to your ''interrogator'' habits....What'yougot other than argument from disbelief?

See ya later....interrogator.

[Gordon]

Firstly I was referring to the community founded on the principle that this was the truth.

Super: but you haven't established their principled understanding is correct in terms of demonstrable historical facts (as opposed to what they may have believed).
 

Secondly me pointing out such a community provides further historical basis. Therefore I have not failed your request to do so.

You have: you're stuck at what they said they believed, which isn't confirmation that what they believed was factually correct.

Again, again, again......what have you got?

Just the question I keep asking and you keep avoiding: how have you excluded the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies in the NT content?

[Alan Burns]

This is just an assertion - how do you know a deterministic being cannot experience trying?

By definition, a deterministic being can only react to events as determined by the uncontrollable rules of science.  So any act of conscious trying would just be another illusion because every event in the deterministic being is pre determined.  There is no source to facilitate the act of trying, unless you concede that there could be a spiritual source which can occur outside the physical deterministic cause and effect chains of events.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just the question I keep asking

Unreasonably so since historical justifications have been given namely:

The existence of a community founded within memory of and probably given the amount of time for establishment shortly after the events describe.

The existence of other communities not associated with the orthodox following.

The community is founded partly on multiple attestation of resurrection experiences.

That the story could have been checked out.

The failure to establish epistoliary material as imaginative fiction.

That it is unlikely that the authorities couldn't have scotched the stories and therefore the movement.

We know that people die for all sorts of things...but a story like this?
There would have been reversion to the original pre-resurrection Jesus as failed leader and messiah.   

[Gordon]

Unreasonably so since historical justifications have been given namely:

The existence of a community founded within memory of and probably given the amount of time for establishment shortly after the events describe.

Your use of 'events' is spurious: you may believe this but you're unable to demonstrate that these 'events' are historical facts.

The existence of other communities not associated with the orthodox following.

Which doesn't imply these 'events' you mention are facts.

The community is founded partly on multiple attestation of resurrection experiences.

If so this would only confirm what this community claimed or believed.

That the story could have been checked out.

How and by whom: the anecdotal accounts in the NT are of uncertain provenance and it seems weren't written concurrently with the claimed 'events'. Plenty to be sceptical about here.

The failure to establish epistoliary material as imaginative fiction.

Straw man, again: I haven't claimed the NT is fiction but have noted that since you can't exclude certain risks then as things stand the key divine claims in the NT are indistinguishable from fiction. 

That it is unlikely that the authorities couldn't have scotched the stories and therefore the movement.

The local authorities involved in the demise of Jesus were dealing with a localised issue which, no doubt, they felt was resolved with his death. The subsequent growth of Jesus supporters is a different matter entirely.

We know that people die for all sorts of things...but a story like this?

You mean for a cause: just like suicide bombers today. That some people are prepared to die for their cause may say something about them but doesn't validate their cause, so your 'but a story like this' seems like special pleading.

There would have been reversion to the original pre-resurrection Jesus as failed leader and messiah.

Perhaps, but this can never be known: so it seems to be you, and not me, who is suggesting an alternative history.

[Enki]

And how would that be?

1) Grimes is dealing with comparatively recent conspiracies in 'areas where science is well established'.

2) All the four examples he gives are anti-science conspiracy narratives(moon landing, climate change,vaccination, cancer cure) where verifiable evidence is available.

3) All his results and mathematical computations are based upon anti-science conspiratorial reactions, and projected numbers of people holding such beliefs in the face of scientific and medical evidence.



The idea of a resurrection conspiracy is not measurable by these methods, because:

1) No body of Jesus has been found

2) There is no hard evidence of a living being(Jesus) either being resurrected or alive today.

3) There is plenty of anecdotal evidence,(none of which in the case of the resurrection is even first hand reporting),  a point which Grimes makes when dealing with comparatively recent anti-science conspiracies('a reliance on anecdote')

4) The events surrounding the resurrection are of such an age that it becomes nigh on impossible to gather any verifiable evidence at all.

5) The only science which we can, with some confidence, rely upon, is that there has never been a scientifically attested case of someone coming back to life after 3 days being dead.

Hence, this particular study does nothing to evaluate the idea that the resurrection was a conspiracy or not because it is not wthin its remit, but it does suggest insights on how enthusiastic adherents to conspiracy theories may act, as per the last paragraph of my preceding post.

That is why, on balance, I suggest that it mitigates against you. I have no axe to grind either way. The resurrection might have been a conspiracy, or a product of exaggeration and wishful thinking, or even one that took actually took place according to which part of the Gospels or Paul you care to emphasise. I can only say that I see no reason to regard the supposed resurrection to be true, whilst accepting that to many Christians to believe in this is of the utmost importance.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1) Grimes is dealing with comparatively recent conspiracies in 'areas where science is well established'.

2) All the four examples he gives are anti-science conspiracy narratives(moon landing, climate change,vaccination, cancer cure) where verifiable evidence is available.

3) All his results and mathematical computations are based upon anti-science conspiratorial reactions, and projected numbers of people holding such beliefs in the face of scientific and medical evidence.



The idea of a resurrection conspiracy is not measurable by these methods, because:

1) No body of Jesus has been found

2) There is no hard evidence of a living being(Jesus) either being resurrected or alive today.

3) There is plenty of anecdotal evidence,(none of which in the case of the resurrection is even first hand reporting),  a point which Grimes makes when dealing with comparatively recent anti-science conspiracies('a reliance on anecdote')

4) The events surrounding the resurrection are of such an age that it becomes nigh on impossible to gather any verifiable evidence at all.

5) The only science which we can, with some confidence, rely upon, is that there has never been a scientifically attested case of someone coming back to life after 3 days being dead.

Hence, this particular study does nothing to evaluate the idea that the resurrection was a conspiracy or not because it is not wthin its remit, but it does suggest insights on how enthusiastic adherents to conspiracy theories may act, as per the last paragraph of my preceding post.

That is why, on balance, I suggest that it mitigates against you. I have no axe to grind either way. The resurrection might have been a conspiracy, or a product of exaggeration and wishful thinking, or even one that took actually took place according to which part of the Gospels or Paul you care to emphasise. I can only say that I see no reason to regard the supposed resurrection to be true, whilst accepting that to many Christians to believe in this is of the utmost importance.

No I think some might have exaggerated(if that can actually be separated from lying), some may have been overcome with wishful thinking but given the numbers involved and confidently given by Paul a good many would have to be lying if this were a conspiracy.

There is no reason to suppose that a lie in science would automatically be less successfully hidden or not confessed than a lie about a person rising from the dead.
No careers or reputations were at threat from not going along with the conspiracy as would be the case in science or an established organisation. Certainly the reputations of the disciples were done at the time of the crucixion with Peter publicly denying Christ.
The survival of the resurrection 'motivation' is therefore quite remarkable.

If we have a look at this Oxford University report on Grimes there seems not to be the distinction you draw between science or other conspiracies.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-01-26-too-many-minions-spoil-plot

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You mean for a cause:

No I mean for a story. There are no deaths reported for the sake of Lazarus being raised from the dead nor apparently the Boy killed when he fell out of Paul's Window,

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your use of 'events' is spurious: you may believe this but you're unable to demonstrate that these 'events' are historical facts.

Which doesn't imply these 'events' you mention are facts.

If so this would only confirm what this community claimed or believed.

How and by whom: the anecdotal accounts in the NT are of uncertain provenance and it seems weren't written concurrently with the claimed 'events'. Plenty to be sceptical about here.

Straw man, again: I haven't claimed the NT is fiction but have noted that since you can't exclude certain risks then as things stand the key divine claims in the NT are indistinguishable from fiction. 

The local authorities involved in the demise of Jesus were dealing with a localised issue which, no doubt, they felt was resolved with his death. The subsequent growth of Jesus supporters is a different matter entirely.

You mean for a cause: just like suicide bombers today. That some people are prepared to die for their cause may say something about them but doesn't validate their cause, so your 'but a story like this' seems like special pleading.

Perhaps, but this can never be known: so it seems to be you, and not me, who is suggesting an alternative history.

Your critique of the reasons why the resurrection may be true still proceed largely from argument from disbelief.

Why would the communities involve believe incorrectly?

How does such a tall story survive?

How did such a conspiracy survive? A resurrection would not be just a minor detail if you were the authorities attempting to scotch a movement you thought it important enough to kill it's leader.

On a separate issue isn't your statement that divine claims are indistinguishable from fiction merely argument from disbelief?

[torridon]

I am not in the denial of human scientific discoveries.  I just point out that they are currently unable to fully define our reality.  When you say above : I take it on board and try to understand it honestly. can you define the nature of the "I" in that sentence?  What is the "I" that is trying to understand?  If everything involved in the process is just deterministic reactions to events, there is nothing actually doing the "trying" - it all just happens.  But if you substitute the human soul for "I", then it all makes perfect sense.

It might make perfect sense so long as you don't think about it carefully.  And that is what most humans do and have done.  But it doesn't make any sense in the context of the knowledge with have accrued through medical science or cell biology or particle physics. As far as science is concerned, duallist explanations are dead in the water. So what is the 'I' in 'I like chocolate'. It makes no sense to view that 'I' has having a distinct ontology of its own, separate from the body.  Medical science has never discovered an 'I' somewhere deep in the body.  Rather the 'I' is a sense of self that the body produces under hormonal regulation.  When I was one cell, I had no sense of self.  Later when I was two cells, I had no fear of heights, when I was four cells, eight cells, sixteen cells, I still had no sense of agency.  It takes a fully working brain under optimal conditions to produce feelings like a sense of right and wrong or a sense of balance or a sense of direction or a sense of self.  There are emergent phenomena,they derive from a working brain, they are not some separate ephemeral immaterial being that somehow inexplicably undetectably coincides with a body and inhabits it.  That view ultimately makes no sense at all.

[torridon]

How does such a tall story survive?

Tall stories do survive, they not only survive, they grow and diversify in the process, especially in oral cultures.  Think Robin Hood; there probably was once a Robin of Loxley but he is as nothing compared to the extent and diversity of the legends and myths that grew in the telling and retelling.  How does one excise the myth to see the original truth ?  Not easy, especially from deep antiquity.  Tall stories even survive in the modern day, see how the internet fuels conspiracy theories and fake news.

[Stranger]

By definition, a deterministic being can only react to events as determined by the uncontrollable rules of science.  So any act of conscious trying would just be another illusion because every event in the deterministic being is pre determined.  There is no source to facilitate the act of trying, unless you concede that there could be a spiritual source which can occur outside the physical deterministic cause and effect chains of events.

You're just asserting again it using different words. How do you know that what we experience as trying can't be deterministic?

And yet again, even a 'spiritual' source can only act deterministically or randomly unless it is logically impossible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Tall stories do survive, they not only survive, they grow and diversify in the process, especially in oral cultures.  Think Robin Hood; there probably was once a Robin of Loxley but he is as nothing compared to the extent and diversity of the legends and myths that grew in the telling and retelling.  How does one excise the myth to see the original truth ?  Not easy, especially from deep antiquity.  Tall stories even survive in the modern day, see how the internet fuels conspiracy theories and fake news.

Yes I'm sure that might be the case for King Arthur or Robin Hood but in the case of The epistolary evidence we find the story fully formed and unchanged since.

[Gordon]

Your critique of the reasons why the resurrection may be true still proceed largely from argument from disbelief.

Nope - such an argument would go 'the resurrection isn't true because I don't believe it' whereas I'm saying 'the unresolved risks associated with the resurrection story render it indistinguishable from fiction'.

Why would the communities involve believe incorrectly?

'Incorrect' is your term: not mine. I'd say their belief is unjustified (even if it was sincere.)

How does such a tall story survive?

'Tall story' is your term: not mine. Human agency, Vlad.

How did such a conspiracy survive? A resurrection would not be just a minor detail if you were the authorities attempting to scotch a movement you thought it important enough to kill it's leader.

You're again assuming the execution of Jesus was a big deal to the authorities of the time of his death: there is no evidence for this, and of course the NT stuff doesn't surface until much later (along with more organised Christianity).

On a separate issue isn't your statement that divine claims are indistinguishable from fiction merely argument from disbelief?

I refer the honourable gentleman to the first of my comments above in relation to all claims of divine agency.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're again assuming the execution of Jesus was a big deal to the authorities of the time of his death: there is no evidence for this, and of course the NT stuff doesn't surface until much later (along with more organised

That is clearly ignoring Christian evidence which describes the personalities involved in the trial.
I'm not sure about stuff surfacing since some was extant in an established community based partly on this event.

[torridon]

Yes I'm sure that might be the case for King Arthur or Robin Hood but in the case of The epistolary evidence we find the story fully formed and unchanged since.

Fully formed and unchanged ?  Really ?  Even within the four gospels there is development of the narrative; the earliest, Mark, ends at crucifixion but there is no resurrection, subsequent gospels add to this so by the time we get to John we have the sky darkening, thunder and lightning and lots of dead people climbing out of their graves and wandering around Jerusalem.  Looks consistent with a story that grew in the telling to me.  And that is not taking into account all the embellishments, additions, corrections, alterations, redactions and retranslations that took place over subsequent centuries by mostly unknown hands of copyists and translators.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fully formed and unchanged ?  Really ?  Even within the four gospels there is development of the narrative; the earliest, Mark, ends at crucifixion but there is no resurrection, subsequent gospels add to this so by the time we get to John we have the sky darkening, thunder and lightning and lots of dead people climbing out of their graves and wandering around Jerusalem.  Looks consistent with a story that grew in the telling to me.  And that is not taking into account all the embellishments, additions, corrections, alterations, redactions and retranslations that took place over subsequent centuries by mostly unknown hands of copyists and translators.

First of all to get you up to speed we find many of the gospel elements in the epistles which are within living memory and within 25 years.
These are written to established communities and we can work out that many of these are previously known.
The earliest Gospels were within Four decades so there could conceivable be people reading them who were in their teens and twenties at the time of the events described.

Your literary mutation theory is interesting.......have you applied this to other historical works since your methodology here suggests that no ancient texts are anything like the original.

I am not sure I can go along with your thesis on those grounds.

Also, aren't you coming close to an accusation against Christian copyists?

[Alan Burns]

You're just asserting again it using different words. How do you know that what we experience as trying can't be deterministic?

And yet again, even a 'spiritual' source can only act deterministically or randomly unless it is logically impossible.

If it is all physically deterministic, the act of trying must be an illusion because there can be no source entity to initiate the act.

The spiritual source would derive from the conscious will of the human soul interacting with our physical brain cells.  I do no pretend to know how this works, but it is the only explanation which reflects my perception of reality.

[Alan Burns]

It might make perfect sense so long as you don't think about it carefully.  And that is what most humans do and have done.  But it doesn't make any sense in the context of the knowledge with have accrued through medical science or cell biology or particle physics. As far as science is concerned, duallist explanations are dead in the water. So what is the 'I' in 'I like chocolate'. It makes no sense to view that 'I' has having a distinct ontology of its own, separate from the body.  Medical science has never discovered an 'I' somewhere deep in the body.  Rather the 'I' is a sense of self that the body produces under hormonal regulation.  When I was one cell, I had no sense of self.  Later when I was two cells, I had no fear of heights, when I was four cells, eight cells, sixteen cells, I still had no sense of agency.  It takes a fully working brain under optimal conditions to produce feelings like a sense of right and wrong or a sense of balance or a sense of direction or a sense of self.  There are emergent phenomena,they derive from a working brain, they are not some separate ephemeral immaterial being that somehow inexplicably undetectably coincides with a body and inhabits it.  That view ultimately makes no sense at all.

But you are basing your conclusions solely on the incomplete human knowledge contained in current scientific investigation.  My conclusions are based on the combined knowledge of human science and divine revelations of the Christian Bible.