Searching for GOD...

[wigginhall]

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.

That's why you can't actually tell anybody how the soul works then?

[Stranger]

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 "source entity" could be deterministic. This is just personal incredulity again.

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.

So, something that you don't understand, 'explains' your subjective perception of things. Except that if you don't understand it, you cannot possibly understand how it explains your subjective perception. So this is some odd usage of the word 'explain', I assume?

[wigginhall]

AB is also saying that something not in nature (soul) explains certain things in nature, e.g. decisions.   However, he can't actually 'explain' how this works, since the pesky thing is so elusive, since it's supernatural.   Hey ho.   

[ippy]

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.

No wonder you travell all over the place A B, to share re-enforcement meetings with others of a similar mindset, this away with the fairies stuff of yours sure needs re-enforcement.

ippy

[Gordon]

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.

So what: that certain people may have been real, such as Pilate, isn't evidence for divine agency.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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.

Wow. You asked me for an example of the logical fallacies on which you rely. The above is a doozy of one - called the survivorship bias. See here for details:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

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

Again there is no such argument, and no it's just a statement of fact. If you think you have a method to distinguish your claims and assertions from guessing though, by all means finally tell us what it is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what: that certain people may have been real, such as Pilate, isn't evidence for divine agency.

Again you propose something which the Jewish and Roman authorities could have used to scotch early Christianity.
You seem to have switched from your argument that Jesus,s trial was of little interest to Jewish and Roman attributes back to divine agency.Ive already agreed that divine agency cannot be established by physical observation...but a ressurection could be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Wow. You asked me for an example of the logical fallacies on which you rely. The above is a doozy of one - called the survivorship bias. See here for details:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

Again there is no such argument, and no it's just a statement of fact. If you think you have a method to distinguish your claims and assertions from guessing though, by all means finally tell us what it is.

Survivor bias is a bit of pop business oriented talk. There is little of substantial support for your application of it here.

Even a broad reading of Grimes research findings would trump your extremely broad reading of survivor bias........

[Gordon]

Again you propose something which the Jewish and Roman authorities could have used to scotch early Christianity.

Depends on when you are thinking of: at the time Jesus was killed there was no 'Christianity' as such.

You seem to have switched from your argument that Jesus,s trial was of little interest to Jewish and Roman attributes back to divine agency.Ive already agreed that divine agency cannot be established by physical observation...but a ressurection could be.

You mentioned the position of local authorities: I'm just noting you're over-reaching on this aspect. You'd better explain exactly how there 'could be' a resurrection since it seems your method excludes 'physical observation' - so what is included?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Depends on when you are thinking of: at the time Jesus was killed there was no 'Christianity' as such.

You mentioned the position of local authorities: I'm just noting you're over-reaching on this aspect. You'd better explain exactly how there 'could be' a resurrection since it seems your method excludes 'physical observation' - so what is included?

Firstly. The extant earliest evidence states that Jesus is tried under and at the instigation of leading national figures of the Jewish and Roman authorities. Were this not the case those authorities could have used this exaggeration to destroy early Christianity.

Secondly you haven't understood that a physical resurrection is susceptible to empirical observation.
What is needed is a dead body and then a physically resurrected body. The clue is in the word physical.

I am suggesting that God is not detected empirically.
For some reason you are conflating God with the resurrection whereas the physical resurrection could pass for a highly improbable natural phenomenon.

[Enki]

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

Having read the link which you gave, it simply paraphrases the main points of Grimes' study, and I see nothing in this which gainsays that he was looking at anti-science conspiracy narratives, where science produces the verifiable evidence which ultimately reduces/ eliminates the suggested conspiracy. I see nothing there to alter what I have said at all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Survivor bias is a bit of pop business oriented talk.

You have the same approach here as AB. When you’ve been caught out in a fallacious argument, you attack the fallacy itself (a sort of "fallacy ad hom") rather than deal with the problem you’ve caused yourself. AB calls them “man-made”, you call them “pop business orientated” (whatever that means) but it’s the same “play the man, not the ball” dishonesty.

There is little of substantial support for your application of it here.

No, your “how come a community survived if their belief wasn’t true?” trope is precisely the structure of the survivorship bias. Read the link I posted and you’ll see why.

Even a broad reading of Grimes research findings would trump your extremely broad reading of survivor bias........

Of course they wouldn’t, and I have no idea why you’re bothering with the conspiracy line as for what it’s worth that seems to be to be one of the less likely explanations. Simple error or a deliberate trick as examples wouldn’t entail a conspiracy at all. Countless communities have believed countless things that aren’t true with no conspiracy involved in the phenomenon, which should at least give you pause before making this mistake again.

[torridon]

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.

So you've gone and buried your head right back in that sand again. 

Knowledge will always be incomplete; I don't see how that licences us to ignore what we have learned to date, which is what you are doing.  Biblical authors had nothing to say about cognitive perception, agency or consciousness lag, so that is a poor attempt at an excuse for not taking on board what we have learned about such things through study and research.

[torridon]

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.

So when a fox is trying to catch its prey it must have a soul if it takes a soul to 'try' to do things.

Cue some wibble about 'reaction' now 

[SusanDoris]

I find this thread of   continuing interest, but oh how I wish those who are trapped in,  bound to, and seemingly unable to see beyond, or escape from behind the barrier that separates them from reality, which for me is also truth and freedom, could indeed step outside it.

[Nearly Sane]

I find this thread of   continuing interest, but oh how I wish those who are trapped in,  bound to, and seemingly unable to see beyond, or escape from behind the barrier that separates them from reality, which for me is also truth and freedom, could indeed step outside it.

I am sure AB would mirror that.

[SusanDoris]

I am sure AB would mirror that.

Yes, sad to say, I think you are right.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Having read the link which you gave, it simply paraphrases the main points of Grimes' study, and I see nothing in this which gainsays that he was looking at anti-science conspiracy narratives, where science produces the verifiable evidence which ultimately reduces/ eliminates the suggested conspiracy. I see nothing there to alter what I have said at all.

And I see nothing to say the focus is not on conspiratorial behaviour rather than the research having no application outside antiscience conspiracies.
Indeed Grimes in his paper makes reference to Watergate which cannot be considered an anti science conspiracy by any stretch.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I find this thread of   continuing interest, but oh how I wish those who are trapped in,  bound to, and seemingly unable to see beyond, or escape from behind the barrier that separates them from reality, which for me is also truth and freedom, could indeed step outside it.

Yes, Can you prove this barrier? How high is it, what is it made of and what colour it is.  Could you give us the SI units of this truth and freedom?

[BeRational]

Yes, Can you prove this barrier? How high is it, what is it made of and what colour it is.  Could you give us the SI units of this truth and freedom.

One measure might  be the inability to use logic and create arguments shot through with fallacies.

You do it a lot.

Do you think you can make an argument for god that is not logically flawed?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You have the same approach here as AB. When you’ve been caught out in a fallacious argument, you attack the fallacy itself (a sort of "fallacy ad hom") rather than deal with the problem you’ve caused yourself. AB calls them “man-made”, you call them “pop business orientated” (whatever that means) but it’s the same “play the man, not the ball” dishonesty.

No, your “how come a community survived if their belief wasn’t true?” trope is precisely the structure of the survivorship bias. Read the link I posted and you’ll see why.

Of course they wouldn’t, and I have no idea why you’re bothering with the conspiracy line as for what it’s worth that seems to be to be one of the less likely explanations. Simple error or a deliberate trick as examples wouldn’t entail a conspiracy at all. Countless communities have believed countless things that aren’t true with no conspiracy involved in the phenomenon, which should at least give you pause before making this mistake again.

Firstly we are dealing with period in time when our focus of investigation, the early Christian community is not the survivor.

You are therefore using something vague and probably inappropriate and from hindsight.
Multiple poor methodology on your part I am afraid.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One measure might  be the inability to use logic and create arguments shot through with fallacies.

You do it a lot.

Citations?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One measure might  be the inability to use logic and create arguments shot through with fallacies.

Not measurable though particularly since you frequently exaggerate to suggest total inability.

How long have you held a blackbelt in hyperbole?

[Gordon]

Firstly. The extant earliest evidence states that Jesus is tried under and at the instigation of leading national figures of the Jewish and Roman authorities. Were this not the case those authorities could have used this exaggeration to destroy early Christianity.

Good heavens, Vlad, you still don't get it: if there is any exaggeration then it isn't a factor in the actions of these authorities at the point Jesus is killed. It becomes a risk within the NT accounts that were written years later and are of uncertain provenance.

Secondly you haven't understood that a physical resurrection is susceptible to empirical observation.
What is needed is a dead body and then a physically resurrected body. The clue is in the word physical.

Plus the method of ensuring a specific body has been dead for 2/3 days and then isn't - got such a method?

I am suggesting that God is not detected empirically.

The why do you say above 'What is needed is a dead body and then a physically resurrected body': if these were the case it sounds kind empirical don't you think?

For some reason you are conflating God with the resurrection whereas the physical resurrection could pass for a highly improbable natural phenomenon.

I thought that for Christians the resurrection of Jesus claim was their 'evidence' of supernatural intervention whereas you seem to be suggesting some natural process: still, you're the Christian here!.

In any event 2/3 day dead people do naturally stay dead Vlad: ask you local undertaker for confirmation. During the first half of a long NHS career I dealt with many deaths and attended around 25 PMs: nobody ever recovered.

[Alan Burns]

So when a fox is trying to catch its prey it must have a soul if it takes a soul to 'try' to do things.

Cue some wibble about 'reaction' now 

No, just instinct