'Cold-Case Christianity'

[Nearly Sane]

Super natural doesn't mean 'can't be measured' but refers to being outside of the known laws of nature.

Actually that is meaningless. It assumes laws of nature that can be defined in some objective fashion. You have one?

[Maeght]

Hillside

Enjoying the posts but can't help thinking that what you so want to say is that if this detective had been a true atheist he would never have converted.

That an atheist can convert must be a bit shocking to some I suppose.

Go on Hillside treat yourself to ''the no true atheist fallacy''.............IMHO you know you want to.

I would find it hard to see how someone with no faith could become someone of faith (be converted) just by investigating the gospels and concluding that they were the record of eye witnesses. Personally even if I reached that conclusion I would still consider those eye witness accounts to be anecdotal and to reflect the beliefs of the individuals rather than to be accurate records of actually events. It would give me cause for thought of course but would I suddenly believe just because someone 2000 years ago believed and told someone else about it? I don't think I would unless I had some hint of a belief already existing - hence the not a true atheist suggestion I guess. Of course I haven't been in such a position but that's how I see it.

[Maeght]

Actually that is meaningless. It assumes laws of nature that can be defined in some objective fashion. You have one?

The known laws of nature are those we have determined by physical measurements.

If you consider it to be meaningless perhaps you should talk to the Oxford Dictionary people who define supernatural as

'(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

so not a one off so not in line with your definition

I think I have talked at length about definitions on the supernatural debate board. Where I defined the supernatural as that which is not governed nor generates any law of nature, nor is explicable by science. I don't recall using the word miracle....I think the terms supernatural and miracle are interchanged.

What I think though is that any definition of the supernatural which contains the word supernatural isn't much cop.

I think the word natural can be wooly or used merely to say ''not''god.

I see trees of green, red roses too, they seem to whisper I love you.

And I say to myself what a wonderful world...........ohhhhhhh yyyyyyyyeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhh.

[Nearly Sane]

I think I have talked at length about definitions on the supernatural debate board. Where I defined the supernatural as that which is not governed nor generates any law of nature, nor is explicable by science. I don't recall using the word miracle....I think the terms supernatural and miracle are interchanged.

What I think though is that any definition of the supernatural which contains the word supernatural isn't much cop.

I think the word natural can be wooly or used merely to say ''not''god.

I see trees of green, red roses too, they seem to whisper I love you.

And I say to myself what a wonderful world...........ohhhhhhh yyyyyyyyeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhh.

I asked you yesterday, you made one off one of your pillars, undefined but there we are

[Spud]

and again it is so much worse. Because let's say there is a voice, how do we determine it's from heaven (without Spud's begging the question) and not say James Earl Jones in a time machine with a megaphone

You read it in context.

[Spud]

That truly must have happened - I've read it somewhere. John's gospel says John the Baptist said he heard it. And by tradition, Peter told Mark it did. And Matthew and Luke read Mark, so they said it happened as well. (Did someone tell Peter, by the way? Was he a disciple at this point*?)

*Nope, I've just checked - Simon Peter was away casting his nets in the Sea Of Galillee at the time, along with Andrew and co.

Just as a person who hadn't seen a resurrection would rely  on the honesty of the people who scientifically verified it, they would also rely on honesty of those who heard the voice.

[Nearly Sane]

You read it in context.

and?

[jeremyp]

Jeremy. Many history books are written which don't directly quote witness in the first person.

How many history books have you read? The ones I have read frequently quote witness accounts when they are available. No academic history book would be taken seriously without quotes from and references to the best available sources.

Many of the personae mentioned in the Gospels and those contempory with it were still consultable by Paul who wrote some of the epistles.

Of Jesus' original followers, Paul only claims to have talked to Peter and James the brother of Jesus. He also explicitly denies his gospel comes from talking to other people. He says he received it direct from the hallucination he had of Jesus.

This is why your Christianity myther ideas only gain traction centuries after when mythers can feel comfortable spouting any theory no matter how bad the historical fit.

Why do you mean by "Christianity myther"?

I believe you are specially pleading here.

I believe you don't know what the phrase "special pleading" means.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm saying that a person can be declared dead by scientific method and the same person can be declared alive by scientific method whichever order that may come.

Well, technically yes – at least for the former, deep coma for example. It’d be a bit harder for “science” to declare someone to be dead when he’s riding a bicycle and playing the flute, but the principle holds.

Your problem here though I’d have thought is that the Christian faith – your faith – requires a resurrection narrative in which Jesus actually was dead, even if only for a bit. You know, properly, pushing up daisies, it doesn’t matter what science says, full on, no holds barred, shuffled of this mortal coil, dead. If instead you’re retrenching to, “OK, maybe he seemed dead according to contemporary (and even to modern if it had been around at the time) science but actually he was just asleep” or similar that’s fine by me but where would that leave the central pillar of your faith?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Well, technically yes – at least for the former, deep coma for example. It’d be a bit harder for “science” to declare someone to be dead when he’s riding a bicycle and playing the flute, but the principle holds.Your problem here though I’d have thought is that the Christian faith – your faith – requires a resurrection narrative in which Jesus actually was dead, even if only for a bit. You know, properly,

pushing up daisies, it doesn’t matter what science says, full on, no holds barred, shuffled of this mortal coil, dead. If instead you’re retrenching to, “OK, maybe he seemed dead according to contemporary (and even to modern if it had been around at the time) science but actually he was just asleep” or similar that’s fine by me but where would that leave the central pillar of your faith?

of
No I'm not I'm saying science could examine a resurrected person because it would be capable of declaring the same person dead then declare them alive if that were the case.....and so are you it seems.

I don't know where you are getting the idea I think Jesus was just asleep or in a coma?

[Nearly Sane]

You read it in context.

And that dies nothing to stop it being James Earl Jones having a laugh in his time machine

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No I'm not I'm saying science could examine a resurrected person because it would be capable of declaring the same person dead then declare them alive if that were the case.....and so are you it seems.

You'll need to unscramble that for meaning, but your position seemed to be that science sometimes gets things wrong - maybe the dead person wasn't really dead, maybe the live person wasn't really alive etc. No-one disagrees that science gets things wrong sometimes.

So what though? What point do you think you're making?

I don't know where you are getting the idea I think Jesus was just asleep or in a coma?

From you. Why else would you tell us that, even if science had been brought to bear on the resurrection, it could have been mistaken (coma rather than dead for example).

Again, so what?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

The only certainties are if the probability is 1 (certain to happen) or 0 (certain not to happen). For any other probability, faith is required.

Nope. I appear to have a computer in front of me, but "I" could just be an algorithm in a computer game programmed to believe that. The truth "computer" is therefore a probabilistic one. 

There could also be invisible tap dancing pixies jumping off the keys just before my fingers reach them. I have no reason to think they're there but I can't disprove it, so the truth "no pixies" is also a probabilistic one.

Should I proceed on the basis that one of them is true, that neither of them is true, or that both of them are true?

The fact that you have made this up means that it is false by default. Now, you could be honest and admit that you have made it up, in which case you can easily answer your own question.

However, Let’s just assume that you really believe what you wrote!? I’ll demonstrate on your post the inductive process I suggested on the Faith & Belief  Induction vs Deduction thread (saves me using it on the Celestial Teapot). I’ll start with this:

There could also be invisible tap dancing pixies jumping off the keys just before my fingers reach them. I have no reason to think they're there but I can't disprove it, so the truth "no pixies" is also a probabilistic one.

1.   How are you defining pixies?

2.   What are your reasons for claiming that they are invisible?

3.   What are your reasons for claiming that they are tap dancing?

4.   What are your reasons for claiming that they are jumping off the keys (presumably not at the same time they are tap dancing!) just before your fingers reach them?

[Sebastian Toe]

1.   How are you defining pixies?

2.   What are your reasons for claiming that they are invisible?

3.   What are your reasons for claiming that they are tap dancing?

4.   What are your reasons for claiming that they are jumping off the keys (presumably not at the same time they are tap dancing!) just before your fingers reach them?

1. Invisible beings who have a penchant for tap dancing and jumping.
2. Because nobody can see them! To use a comparison - maybe like your God?
3. Because they sometimes communicate with me and tell when they are doing it. Does your God communicate with you? Maybe the process is similar?
4. D'oh, if they didn't then they would be killed or injured. That is fairly obvious isn't it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

The fact that you have made this up means that it is false by default.

It means no such thing. How would you eliminate the possibility of a lucky guess?

Now, you could be honest and admit that you have made it up, in which case you can easily answer your own question.

You’ve missed it again. I merely said that there “could be” invisible etc pixies. There could be anything. You seem to be implying an epistemic difference between something I’ve “made up” and something you think to be true as an article of “faith”.

Why? 

However, Let’s just assume that you really believe what you wrote!?

I do. There could be pixies, just as there could be “God”.

I’ll demonstrate on your post the inductive process I suggested on the Faith & Belief  Induction vs Deduction thread (saves me using it on the Celestial Teapot).

Don't forget that you misunderstood the Celestial Teapot argument, but OK...

I’ll start with this:

1. How are you defining pixies?

How are you defining “God”?

2. What are your reasons for claiming that they are invisible?

I can’t see them!

3. What are your reasons for claiming that they are tap dancing?

I didn’t. I just said that they could be. What are your reasons for claiming (insert claimed characteristic of your god of choice here)?

4. What are your reasons for claiming that they are jumping off the keys (presumably not at the same time they are tap dancing!) just before your fingers reach them?

Again, I didn’t. I just said they could be. What are your reasons for claiming (insert claimed characteristic of your god of choice here)?

Are you beginning to see your problem here?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 
You'll need to unscramble that for meaning, but your position seemed to be that science sometimes gets things wrong - maybe the dead person wasn't really dead, maybe the live person wasn't really alive etc. No-one disagrees that science gets things wrong sometimes.

So what though? What point do you think you're making?

From you. Why else would you tell us that, even if science had been brought to bear on the resurrection, it could have been mistaken (coma rather than dead for example).

Again, so what?

I have never said Jesus was in a coma, therefore it must be mere rectal pluck from your good self.

[Jack Knave]

Oh, right, we're at the pixie stage. Soon someone will mention Hitler!.......

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh, right, we're at the pixie stage. Soon someone will mention Hitler!.......

.......or leprechauns.

I think we need to keep in mind also that if life is simply a matter of how material is organised then our matter organisational activities merely have to become a bit more sophisticated. It may even turn out to be easier raise (reorganise the material of the dead back to it's living state) than to create new life in the laboratory.

I don't see how the above should not fit in with the stock of belief of anyone who thinks science has all the answers where the organisation of matter is concerned.

[Jack Knave]

.......or leprechauns.

I think we need to keep in mind also that if life is simply a matter of how material is organised then our matter organisational activities merely have to become a bit more sophisticated. It may even turn out to be easier raise (reorganise the material of the dead back to it's living state) than to create new life in the laboratory.

I don't see how the above should not fit in with the stock of belief of anyone who thinks science has all the answers where the organisation of matter is concerned.

I'm not totally against you on this point, I don't think matter alone can do it all. It is subject to laws that are by definition non-material.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not totally against you on this point, I don't think matter alone can do it all. It is subject to laws that are by definition non-material.

what does that actually mean?

[NicholasMarks]

Sorry to butt in...but there seems to be a lttle controversy going on about resurrection...and I'm your boy on these spiritual matters.

Jesus was talking about resurrection of his spirit back to the flesh...and he showed us by performing that deed.

His words are important because they boil down to this...you can't do this but I can because I have followed strict righteous laws. If you follow those same laws you can do it as well. But you have to prime your spiritual being to be more than just an electric by-stander...you have to make it a responsive electric person and then...you to will be reborn to a new vessel. Now this is useful because by this method we are passed along the generations and protected from genetic failure...whilst our old, worn out vessel, is put to rest.

The rest have a promise as well...but they will have to wait until the last generation where they will be given one last chance to repent...I wonder when that will be??

No...only joking...the Biblical signs indicate that this is that last generation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I have never said Jesus was in a coma, therefore it must be mere rectal pluck from your good self.

OFFS! It was merely used as an example of how "science" - especially contemporary science such as it was - could have been fooled. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't see how the above should not fit in with the stock of belief of anyone who thinks science has all the answers where the organisation of matter is concerned.

No-one does think that science has all the answers to anything - that's just your (oft repeated) straw man.

[Jack Knave]

what does that actually mean?

It is plain English, what don't you understand?