Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Just returned from a church service, full to overflowing, celebrating this great feast of the Resurrection.  Such a joyful occasion - but I am sad that so many people are unable to join in this wonderful celebration for whatever reason.  So I said prayers for everyone on this forum who does not yet know God, in the hope that one day they too will be able to discover God in their lives and begin a new life of faith.
I wish you all a happy, joyful Easter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

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.

1: I am saying a physically resurrected body would be empirically observed yes.
You don't seem to be able to separate Divine agency which is not empirically detectable from a physical resurrection which would be. Indeed a physical resurrection could pass for an extremely improbable natural event.
2; Nobody doubts that nobody recovered on your watch...That's why I constantly refer to the words miracle, improbable event, and extremely improbable event.

[Alan Burns]

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.

As I said earlier, my Christian faith does not conflict in any way with human scientific discovery.  Science can be used to show how the biological machinery works, but its current scope does not include the driver of the machinery.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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

Oh dear. Whether "the" survivor or "a" survivor makes no difference to your mistake of attempting a survivorship bias. If you'd bothered reading the link I posted you'd know that.

You are therefore using something vague and probably inappropriate and from hindsight.

No, I'm actually explaining to you that you used precisely the construction of a survivorship bias when your tried a very bad argument. The the Christian community survived tells you nothing whatever about the truth or otherwise of its beliefs.

Multiple poor methodology on your part I am afraid.

Actually, it's on yours.

Try again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As I said earlier, my Christian faith does not conflict in any way with human scientific discovery.

No, it flatly contradicts the scientific knowledge we have. That's why you have such a bad case of cognitive dissonance.

[Gordon]

1: I am saying a physically resurrected body would be empirically observed yes.
You don't seem to be able to separate Divine agency which is not empirically detectable from a physical resurrection which would be. Indeed a physical resurrection could pass for an extremely improbable natural event.
2; Nobody doubts that nobody recovered on your watch...That's why I constantly refer to the words miracle, improbable event, and extremely improbable event.

You are confused, Vlad.

1. I am saying a tortoise flying naturally under its own power would be observed: yes?

Can you see the problem here?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

1: I am saying a physically resurrected body would be empirically observed yes.

Then you’re still wrong. A body would have been observed, but you’d have no way of knowing whether it had been resurrected.

You don't seem to be able to separate Divine agency which is not empirically detectable from a physical resurrection which would be.

No it wouldn’t. How would you observe a “resurrection”?

Indeed a physical resurrection could pass for an extremely improbable natural event.

It would if ever you found a way of establishing that a resurrection had happened at all.

2; Nobody doubts that nobody recovered on your watch...

Meaning?

That's why I constantly refer to the words miracle, improbable event, and extremely improbable event.

A category error on your part. “Miracles” allegedly happen outside of naturalistic parameters; extremely improbable events don’t. You need to decide which you’re claiming and, even once you’ve done that, still you’d have no means of knowing that a resurrection (of either kind) had happened.

[Enki]

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.

I think you will find that his two references to Watergate are:

1)within the context of exposed conspiracies, where he is making the point that such exposure doesn't necessarily mean that all conspiracy allegations are paranoid. He also makes the point here that 'There is also merit to charges that vested interests can distort and confuse public perception' such as the case for climate change.

2)the suggestion that it is an open question as to whether even relatively small exposed conspiracies (such as Watergate, for example, which has historically been rapidly exposed), introduce bias in the estimations of one of the parameters of his model.

However the focus of his work is squarely on 'Anti-Science conspiracy narratives', which he refers to constantly. E.G. He says:

One of the major motivations is to help counter-act anti-science beliefs from gaining a foothold by quantifying how extraordinarily unlikely it is that a cohesive scientific fraud could take place on such massive scales. This applies not only to the stances examined here, but also to the wild array of popular anti-science beliefs

I am not suggesting, by the way, that the resurrection was a conspiracy at all. I have no means of knowing, as I have already stated. However, this study by D R Grimes does not advance the idea that it was a conspiracy or not, one jot.

[bluehillside Retd.]

enki,

I am not suggesting, by the way, that the resurrection was a conspiracy at all. I have no means of knowing, as I have already stated. However, this study by D R Grimes does not advance the idea that it was a conspiracy or not, one jot.

Of course it doesn’t. What Vlad is attempting here is a false binary – either it’s a conspiracy or it’s a kosher resurrection – and then he’s looking for support that conspiracies tend not to last very long (therefore it’s a kosher…etc).

It’s a nonsense firstly because there are occasions when conspiracies do survive but, more to the point, because the idea that the story was a conspiracy is not one anyone proposes in any case. There are plenty of possible explanations that involve neither a conspiracy nor a resurrection, but it would screw the lie he’s attempting if he included them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are confused, Vlad.

1. I am saying a tortoise flying naturally under its own power would be observed: yes?

Can you see the problem here?

If life is merely the arrangement of matter then a person raised from the dead would be a cinch compared to a tortoise flying under it's own power which would probably mean a rearranged tortoise.

However given the right gravitational conditions a tortoise could fly naturally.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

enki,

Of course it doesn’t. What Vlad is attempting here is a false binary – either it’s a conspiracy or it’s a kosher resurrection – and then he’s looking for support that conspiracies tend not to last very long (therefore it’s a kosher…etc).

Am I? If you think there are stations in between feel free.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No, it flatly contradicts the scientific knowledge we have. That's why you have such a bad case of cognitive dissonance.

No, my beliefs do not contradict scientific knowledge.  They do however contradict some the conclusions and assumptions you have made, such as the assumption that complex neurological activity alone can define conscious awareness, or the conclusion that our perception of free will must be an illusion because current scientific knowledge can't define how it works.

[Gordon]

If life is merely the arrangement of matter then a person raised from the dead would be a cinch compared to a tortoise flying under it's own power which would probably mean a rearranged tortoise.

'If' - but as things stand dead people stay dead and tortoises don't fly under their own power: these are the arrangements that always apply to humans and tortoises. 

However given the right gravitational conditions a tortoise could fly naturally.

Do you realise how utterly daft this sounds?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

these are the arrangements that always apply to humans and tortoises. 

Well, nearly always.

[torridon]

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

When a squirrel buries nuts before winter, that is considered an instinctive behaviour.  It probably doesn't know why it is dong it.  But there are plenty of examples of non-instinctive behaviours in the animal kingdom, behaviours where the individual has to learn.  It is not just humans that have evolved beyond instinctive-only behaviours.

[Enki]

Well, nearly always.

Don't know about tortoises, but elephants, that's a different matter entirely.

I seen a peanut stand, heard a rubber band
I seen a needle that winked its eye
But I be done seen about everything
When I see an elephant fly
(What'd you say, boy?)
I said, when I see an elephant fly

I seen a front porch swing, heard a diamond ring
I seen a polka-dot railroad tie
But I be done seen about everything
When I see an elephant fly

I saw a clothes horse rear up and buck
And they tell me that a man made a vegetable truck
I didn't see that, I only heard
Just to be sociable, I'll take your word

I heard a fireside chat, I saw a baseball bat
And I just laughed till I thought I'd die
But I be done seen about everything
When I see an elephant fly

But I be done seen about everything
When I see an elephant fly
When I see an elephant fly

[torridon]

No, my beliefs do not contradict scientific knowledge. 

Please read the thread. This must have been pointed out to you several million times already, your ideas about free will alone contradict not just the science, but even basic logic. Noone can make a choice on a basis that is free of any basis. Preconscious processing precedes consciousness, not the other way around as you seem to believe. Many animals apart from humans exhibit learning and other higher cognitive function in contradiction of your oft repeated assertions that other animals run on instinct only.  Your denial of science is of the same scale as a haddock denying seawater.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't know about tortoises, but elephants, that's a different matter entirely.

I seen a peanut stand, heard a rubber band
I seen a needle that winked its eye
But I be done seen about everything
When I see an elephant fly
(What'd you say, boy?)
I said, when I see an elephant fly

I seen a front porch swing, heard a diamond ring
I seen a polka-dot railroad tie
But I be done seen about everything
When I see an elephant fly

I saw a clothes horse rear up and buck
And they tell me that a man made a vegetable truck
I didn't see that, I only heard
Just to be sociable, I'll take your word

I heard a fireside chat, I saw a baseball bat
And I just laughed till I thought I'd die
But I be done seen about everything
When I see an elephant fly

But I be done seen about everything
When I see an elephant fly
When I see an elephant fly

Was your motivation for this that I believe in the resurrection and Gordon Disney?

[ippy]

Just returned from a church service, full to overflowing, celebrating this great feast of the Resurrection.  Such a joyful occasion - but I am sad that so many people are unable to join in this wonderful celebration for whatever reason.  So I said prayers for everyone on this forum who does not yet know God, in the hope that one day they too will be able to discover God in their lives and begin a new life of faith.
I wish you all a happy, joyful Easter.

Well as long as you're not involving very young children A B, with this nonsense of yours there's not a lot of harm in doing the above but really is it really worth the bother?

Your re-enforcement meetings obviously help you to still believe that stuff and keep you happy all at the same time.

I suppose we all have pastimes that are a waste of time but we still enjoy them, I love reading and watching old aircraft other than I enjoy spending my time with this interest, technicaly it's equally as useless as your persuit of religious prayers etc, but I'm sure you enjoy your persuit.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well as long as you're not involving very young children A B,

What rubbish. Resign from the board.

[BeRational]

What rubbish. Resign from the board.

Why?

Children should never be told as fact that a god  or gods exist.

[Nearly Sane]

Why?

Children should never be told as fact that a god  or gods exist.

Because if you do, they turn into a chicken and explode.

[BeRational]

Because if you do, they turn into a chicken and explode.

Or they become indoctrinated as they have no critical capacity to see that the claim has no basis.

[Nearly Sane]

Or they become indoctrinated as they have no critical capacity to see that the claim has no basis.

that must mean I believe in a god, oh wait, no I don't.

[BeRational]

that must mean I believe in a god, oh wait, no I don't.

My grandfather smoked all his life and did not get cancer, so smoking does not cause cancer