The apostles trilemma

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Easily done.

1. Actually dead people don't come back from actual death.

2. Stories of "encounters" with dead people are more economically/parsimoniously explained by the demonstrated tenets of human psychology than the wholly unevidenced wild wibble of supernatural assumptions unsupported by evidence.

So Shaker, the most monumental mistake in history or the biggest Con in History?

[Shaker]

Ah, excluded middle fallacy, it's been at least minutes since we last met.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Easily done.

1. Actually dead people don't come back from actual death.

2. Stories of "encounters" with dead people are more economically/parsimoniously explained by the demonstrated tenets of human psychology than the wholly unevidenced wild wibble of supernatural assumptions unsupported by evidence.

2. Positive assertion. Please demonstrate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah, excluded middle fallacy, it's been at least minutes since we last met.

And the excluded middles are?

1. Unknown unknowns
2. Something science will discover in future
3. Whatever they are they relieve me of the burden of having to focus on anything that's been put to me.
4. There are excluded middles and here they are.

[jeremyp]

2. Positive assertion. Please demonstrate.

You want a demonstration that people who are dead don't come back from the dead? Ok.

Right, I need a volunteer...

[Sassy]

I cannot vote for any of the above, Corrie.

I believe that the letters were only accounts of those who witnessed the events of that time.
I do not believe anyone could be liars or deceivers if they followed Christ.
But I believe the teaching is do as I do. So everyone to do as Christ did.
Which includes the writers of the letters and gospels.

[floo]

I cannot vote for any of the above, Corrie.

I believe that the letters were only accounts of those who witnessed the events of that time.
I do not believe anyone could be liars or deceivers if they followed Christ.
But I believe the teaching is do as I do. So everyone to do as Christ did.
Which includes the writers of the letters and gospels.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm! Sass, I know quite a number of liars and deceivers, who claim to be followers of Jesus, including people I have met on-line!

[Nearly Sane]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm! Sass, I know quite a number of liars and deceivers, who claim to be followers of Jesus, including people I have met on-line!

Sassy is just using the No True Scotsman fallacy just as you were about possible resurrections.

[floo]

Sassy is just using the No True Scotsman fallacy just as you were about possible resurrections.

Ehhhhhhhhhh?

[Nearly Sane]

Ehhhhhhhhhh?

Sassy would use the No True Scotsman fallacy to say that any true follower of Christ's would not be a liar. You are using it in terns of resurrection to say that no one who cones back from the dead was truly dead.

[floo]

Sassy would use the No True Scotsman fallacy to say that any true follower of Christ's would not be a liar. You are using it in terns of resurrection to say that no one who cones back from the dead was truly dead.

I did say, 'in my opinion', whereas Sass states things for which she has no evidence as a fact.

[Nearly Sane]

I did say, 'in my opinion', whereas Sass states things for which she has no evidence as a fact.

Doesn't really matter, only opinion isn't a magic phrase. Your opinion is based on a fallacy. 

[floo]

Doesn't really matter, only opinion isn't a magic phrase. Your opinion is based on a fallacy.

And what fallacy is that, have you met anyone who has come back from the dead?

[Nearly Sane]

And what fallacy is that, have you met anyone who has come back from the dead?

I already posted this, see back on the No True Scotsman fallacy.

[jeremyp]

We seem to be in Wonderland all of a sudden. Apparently, the claim "nobody ever comes back from the dead" is an example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

If you are definitely seen alive somewhere, it means you were not dead, I'm tempted to say by definition. However, we observe dead things and they never come back alive again for any reasonable definition of being dead.

[Nearly Sane]

We seem to be in Wonderland all of a sudden. Apparently, the claim "nobody ever comes back from the dead" is an example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

If you are definitely seen alive somewhere, it means you were not dead, I'm tempted to say by definition. However, we observe dead things and they never come back alive again for any reasonable definition of being dead.

I see you are struggling with the the NTS. If the statement no true dead person can ever come back fro the dead,  then that's it. It is part of logic. Your incredulity fallacy addition doesn't help.

[Shaker]

Oh here we fucking go again.

[Nearly Sane]

Is it your cartilige, Shaker? That can be unpleasant.

[Shaker]

I see you are struggling with the the NTS.

National Trust for Scotland?

It's those lanyards again, isn't it?

[Maeght]

I see you are struggling with the the NTS. If the statement no true dead person can ever come back fro the dead,  then that's it. It is part of logic. Your incredulity fallacy addition doesn't help.

On the face of it it doesn't sound likean NTS. For something to be a NTS doesn't the definition of something need to be changed to allow an exclusion? Which bit of no dead people ever come backfrom the dead involves a change in definition?

[Nearly Sane]

On the face of it it doesn't sound likean NTS. For something to be a NTS doesn't the definition of something need to be changed to allow an exclusion? Which bit of no dead people ever come backfrom the dead involves a change in definition?

why does an NTS require a change in definition. The point about it is that it is a definition. If someone came back from the dead they weren't  truly dead. (Thar's the NTS)

[Nearly Sane]

National Trust for Scotland?

It's those lanyards again, isn't it?

Have a cup of tea and get back when you aren't as confused.

[Maeght]

why does an NTS require a change in definition.

Because that''s what a NTS is.  If you look it up on Rational Wiki for example it explains that 'the fallacy does not occur if there is a clear and well understood definition of what membership of a group requires and it is this definition which is broken. Thus the NTS fallacy only occurs if the group is later redefined for no valid reason'. For this to be an NTS the definition of death would need to be arbitrary changed for sake of argument.

The point about it is that it is a definition. If someone came back from the dead they weren't  truly dead. (Thar's the NTS)

No, there has to be a change in definition for the purpose of the argument for it to be an NTS.  So if the definition of being dead is clear and well understood then this isn't an NTS, nor is it one if the definition of being dead isn't clear and well understood at the start. There has to be a change mid argument for no valid reason in order to allow one example to be excluded from the group. Can't see that here but maybe you can  clarify.

[Rhiannon]

I'm with Maeght. The NTS applies to groupings of people whose definiition or characteristics are subjective and therefore open to challenge and a shift in definition - Scotsmen, Christians, socialists etc.

I don't see how this applies to dead people since their defining characteristic is being, well, dead, and that isn't a subjective judgement.

[Nearly Sane]

Except the definition of death is exactly not clear and has been the subject if much revision and confusion over time. It is generally a set of characteristics that we use, and what we would be saying here is that even given those characteristics being agreed with to start, should someone then be alive after showing those characteristics then they weren't 'truly' dead - and at that point you have your redefinition.