Searching for GOD...

[Roses]

I agree that alone they do not prove anything.

But given that those people who die cannot relate their experience, you could presume it comprises all the evidence we can expect to have.

But there is the event which changed the world - the resurrection.

You might presume that to be the case, but I don't think that presumption is valid.

As for the resurrection, there is no evidence to support it. As I have asked before, if Jesus did come back to life, why didn't he stay around instead of disappearing?

[Stranger]

I know enough to conclude that physically predetermined material reactions alone can never define what I choose to say, think or do.

You know absolutely everything about the physical world and exactly how your choices are made, then.   

[torridon]

There is nothing 'fringe' about it.  There are numerous accounts of a similar nature from all backgrounds and cultures.

What according to you would be a conclusive evidence of after life?!

I don't think you can even frame the concept in a meaningful way, never mind evidence.  What evidence would you accept that you are still breathing when you have stopped breathing ?  What evidence would you accept that a fire is still burning when it is no longer burning ?  Life is a process, when the process stops it isn't going any more.

[Gordon]

I agree that alone they do not prove anything.

But given that those people who die cannot relate their experience, you could presume it comprises all the evidence we can expect to have.

That makes no sense, Alan: if these claims are made by people who aren't dead, since they are still alive, then their reports aren't evidence of an 'after-life'.

But there is the event which changed the world - the resurrection.

Nope - not a historical event: the resurrection is certainly a story that has had significant social, political and cultural effects (I'll grant you that), but since there seems to be no way of excluding the risks of mistakes or lies in the resurrection claims then a story is as good as it gets I'm afraid.

[Sriram]

I don't think you can even frame the concept in a meaningful way, never mind evidence.  What evidence would you accept that you are still breathing when you have stopped breathing ?  What evidence would you accept that a fire is still burning when it is no longer burning ?  Life is a process, when the process stops it isn't going any more.

You are assuming the conclusion even before you start the investigation. You are already telling me what death is even before we start. 

If you investigate death or after life what would be a convincing evidence according to you, and how would you go about getting it?! 

[Gordon]

You are assuming the conclusion even before you start the investigation. You are already telling me what death is even before we start. 

If you investigate death or after life what would be a convincing evidence according to you, and how would you go about getting it?!

As part of any investigation you need a method that will include what would represent evidence, how this evidence would be identified, gathered and analysed etc.

So anyone proposing that 'after-life' was amenable to investigation would bear the burden of proof as regards what constituted evidence. 

[SteveH]

Surely there can not in the very nature of things be any evidence one way or the other for life after death, as the dead are not able to tell us.

[Roses]

Surely there can not in the very nature of things be any evidence one way or the other for life after death, as the dead are not able to tell us.

Agreed. However the probability is that once dead we stay that way.

[jeremyp]

I know enough

No you don't. You don't know anything about this topic. You make assertions but you have know way to determine whether they are true or not.

to conclude that physically predetermined material reactions alone can never define what I choose to say, think or do.

Got any evidence to support that assertion? No.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You are assuming the conclusion even before you start the investigation. You are already telling me what death is even before we start.

Yes, and rightly so. Lots of people think they experience lots of things – NDEs, alien abduction, Sasquatch, whatever. Either we must treat all such claims as provisionally true, or as provisionally not true pending evidence. You can’t just pick the one you happen to like best and dismiss the rest – it’s a one size fits all deal.   

If you investigate death or after life what would be a convincing evidence according to you…

That’s your problem – if you want to claim NDEs (or anything else) then you need to tell us what evidence you have for it. It’s called the burden of proof. 

… and how would you go about getting it?!

I wouldn’t, any more than you would go about getting it for my experience of leprechauns. I would though keep an open mind in the event that the person making the claim ever felt like producing some evidence to validate it. A good place to start by the way if you do want to think about what would constitute evidence would be to consider whether the same evidence model would validate equally claims we both think to be ridiculous (eg leprechauns).   

[torridon]

You are assuming the conclusion even before you start the investigation. You are already telling me what death is even before we start. 

If you investigate death or after life what would be a convincing evidence according to you, and how would you go about getting it?!

It's for you to come up with a notion of what life is such that a notion of after-life makes sense.  Generally we define life as a phenomenon of metabolism and replication.  The rocks in my garden are not alive because they aren't doing anything.  My spinach plants however are alive because I see them growing and this is a consequence of them using sunlight to process atmospheric carbon into spinach.  When my spinach plant dies it is because that process has stopped.  How can the process have not stopped if it has stopped ?  It doesn't make any sense to claim that the metabolism has left the plant and gone somewhere else and even if it had 'gone somewhere' how could we identify it as the same particular instance of the process ?

[Alan Burns]

As for the resurrection, there is no evidence to support it.

I am the evidence of the Resurrection, together with millions of other Christians.

Without the Resurrection, Christianity would not exist.

[Alan Burns]

Strawman.  No one has argued for 'physically predetermined material reactions'.  What we have said is that a meaningful resolution of choice is consequence of the factors that led to the choice.

So are you implying that these factors which determine our choices may not be entirely defined by physically predetermined material reactions?  If so, what else could be involved?

[torridon]

So are you implying that these factors which determine our choices may not be entirely defined by physically predetermined material reactions?  If so, what else could be involved?

Randomness.  I don't think we can confidently discount all possibility that genuine randomness exists in Nature.  Hence we cannot say 'predetermined'

[Gordon]

I am the evidence of the Resurrection, together with millions of other Christians.

Nope: your claim is evidence only of what you believe about the resurrection story, and since you illustrate this by using an ad pop we can dismiss it as a reasoned argument about the resurrection claim.

Without the Resurrection, Christianity would not exist.

Nope: without the resurrection claim, and the subsequent uses of that claim, it may be that Christianity would not have followed the same path, and might never have got off the ground. I'll ask again: how have you excluded the risks of mistakes or lies being an aspect of the resurrection claim? If you can't answer that then your belief remains just that: a belief, and you don't have grounds to see the resurrection claim as being a historical fact. 

[SteveH]

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection
Your post above is a complete misreading of Alan's: he wasn't offering a logical, historical argument for the resurrection, but making a personal statement of faith.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection
Your post above is a complete misreading of Alan's: he wasn't offering a logical, historical argument for the resurrection, but making a personal statement of faith.

No he wasn't - he was attempting a logical fallacy called reification (and the fallacies of the argumentum ad populum and the argumentum ad consequentiam by the way).     

What he should have said was something like:

"I am the evidence of a belief in a Resurrection, together with millions of other Christians.

Without the belief in a Resurrection, Christianity would not exist."

[Roses]

I am the evidence of the Resurrection, together with millions of other Christians.

Without the Resurrection, Christianity would not exist.

Without the mythical story of the resurrection, it might not exist. Maybe that would be no bad thing, especially as there has been so much abuse carried out in the name of that religion over the centuries. The RCC has nothing to be proud about that is for sure.

[Gordon]

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection
Your post above is a complete misreading of Alan's: he wasn't offering a logical, historical argument for the resurrection, but making a personal statement of faith.

Nope: Alan describes the resurrection as an event (see his #34347) and not a belief that there was such an event.

Your link has so many holes in it that it could function as a colander, and is a prime example of fallacy-ridden apologetics.

[SteveH]

SteveH,

No he wasn't - he was attempting a logical fallacy called reification (and the fallacies of the argumentum ad populum and the argumentum ad consequentiam by the way).     

What he should have said was something like:

"I am the evidence of a belief in a Resurrection, together with millions of other Christians.

Without the belief in a Resurrection, Christianity would not exist."

A complete misreading of the tone of his post, which was a personal, emotional stastement of faith, not dry philosophy.

[Roses]

A complete misreading of the tone of his post, which was a personal, emotional stastement of faith, not dry philosophy.

It is you who is misreading AB's post, he is stating the resurrection is factual event, as Gordon says, not a belief.

[SteveH]

It is you who is misreading AB's post, he is stating the resurrection is factual event, as Gordon says, not a belief.

Another misreading. You atheists can be completely tone-deaf at times.

[Roses]

Another misreading. You atheists can be completely tone-deaf at times.

 

[Stranger]

A complete misreading of the tone of his post, which was a personal, emotional stastement of faith, not dry philosophy.

Nonsense - Alan has frequently confirmed that he is talking about (what he sees as) objective facts and (what he sees as) objective evidence for them.

[SusanDoris]

Nonsense - Alan has frequently confirmed that he is talking about (what he sees as) objective facts and (what he sees as) objective evidence for them.

I agree with your posts of course.
AB is also am adult, a  father and a grandfather and should have learnt a bit more about what is fact and what is 100% faith beliefs by now, so that he does not deliberately or accidentally pass on the things he believes,  entirely without objective evidence to be facts, to younger generations. He has of course the right to believe it all if he chooses to do so, but it is not fair to inculcate so many falsehoods into young people, who then, if they are to find their way through the fog of faith, have to spend so much time learning where real science and knowledge leads.

ou he believes to future generations.