Resurrection impossible?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/prison-inmate-dead-wake-up-mortuary-spain-three-doctors-pronounced-gonzalo-montoya-jimenez-oviedo-a8149066.html#commentsDiv

[Gordon]

This may be highly unusual but is seemingly not miraculous. According to the report catalepsy is suspected, so although he appeared dead he wasn't actually dead, which is the key point: he wasn't resurrected from being dead but he did recover from illness.
 

[Nearly Sane]

Isn't the impossibility of the resurrection the reason why people claim it's a miracle?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This may be highly unusual but is seemingly not miraculous. According to the report catalepsy is suspected, so although he appeared dead he wasn't actually dead, which is the key point: he wasn't resurrected from being dead but he did recover from illness.

According to the report he was pronounced dead by three doctors.

[Gordon]

According to the report he was pronounced dead by three doctors.

So he was: but wrongly, given subsequent events. The report you cited suggests that he had catalepsy and that these doctors were misled as a result.

Perhaps you need to rename this thread to something like 'Chap unexpectedly recovers: was thought to be dead, but really wasn't'.

[Nearly Sane]

According to the report he was pronounced dead by three doctors.

And?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So he was: but wrongly, given subsequent events. The report you cited suggests that he had catalepsy and that these doctors were misled as a result.

Perhaps you need to rename this thread to something like 'Chap unexpectedly recovers: was thought to be dead, but really wasn't'.

He was pronounced dead by three doctors and later found to be alive. Please explain how that gives warrant for saying that three doctors were wrong.

You are undoubtedly correct that the chap recovered but less safe on what he recovered from since you only have proof of recovery.

[Gordon]

He was pronounced dead by three doctors and later found to be alive. Please explain how that gives warrant for saying that three doctors were wrong.

You are undoubtedly correct that the chap recovered but less safe on what he recovered from since you only have proof of recovery.

Don't be silly Vlad: they were wrong since it turned out he wasn't dead in the first place, and in saying that I'm just summarising from the very link that you yourself posted, which makes it clear he was wrongly pronounced as being dead. I'm not in a position to comment on the competence or otherwise of these medics, or on the complexities of catalepsy in this case - but since you brought this up by starting this thread perhaps you might do some follow-up and tell us more about the findings from any reviews of the actions of these medics. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly Vlad: they were wrong since it turned out he wasn't dead in the first place, and in saying that I'm just summarising from the very link that you yourself posted, which makes it clear he was wrongly pronounced as being dead. I'm not in a position to comment on the competence or otherwise of these medics, or on the complexities of catalepsy in this case - but since you brought this up by starting this thread perhaps you might do some follow-up and tell us more about the findings from any reviews of the actions of these medics.

Wait a minute. All we have proof of is that later he was found to be alive. There is no actual evidence from the time of the first place when three Doctors declared him dead to the time he was found to be alive.

You are therefore arguing not from evidence but from " these things are impossible".

[BeRational]

Wait a minute. All we have proof of is that later he was found to be alive. There is no actual evidence from the time of the first place when three Doctors declared him dead to the time he was found to be alive.

You are therefore arguing not from evidence but from " these things are impossible".

The report on the net aslo said that Montoya may not have been taking his epilepsy medication while in prison, which could have led to a case of catalepsy - a condition where vital signs drop to undetectable levels. This theory has yet to be confirmed by medical professionals.

[Gordon]

Wait a minute. All we have proof of is that later he was found to be alive. There is no actual evidence from the time of the first place when three Doctors declared him dead to the time he was found to be alive.

You are therefore arguing not from evidence but from " these things are impossible".

I'm not arguing at all: I'm simply summarising from the article you posted, Vlad, which does imply that he was ill (catalepsy) and not really dead at all. Since this case clearly intrigues you perhaps you now need to dig up some more precise details, such as the results of any investigation.

Over to you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not arguing at all: I'm simply summarising from the article you posted, Vlad, which does imply that he was ill (catalepsy) and not really dead at all. Since this case clearly intrigues you perhaps you now need to dig up some more precise details, such as the results of any investigation.

Over to you.

I'm not really up on catalepsy. It sounds like something the casual visitor to the religionethics forum might come down with.

[floo]

There are reports from time to time of someone who is thought to be dead who has woken up again. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are reports from time to time of someone who is thought to be dead who has woken up again.

Yes but this is a mainland Europe, three doctor case.....also those stories too probably suffer from the same time gap for which there is no evidence.

[Nearly Sane]

He was pronounced dead by three doctors and later found to be alive. Please explain how that gives warrant for saying that three doctors were wrong.

You are undoubtedly correct that the chap recovered but less safe on what he recovered from since you only have proof of recovery.

The warrant for saying they were wrong is that we are working in the field of methodological naturalism. It's effectively a piece of definition here - bloke isn't dead so they were wrong to say he was.


I have no idea why you want to go down the route of saying that the definition might be changed here as it effectively denies the claims that Christianity seems based on. Do you really want to be claiming that JC and this bloke are equivalent and JC was cataleptic?

[Gordon]

I'm not really up on catalepsy. It sounds like something the casual visitor to the religionethics forum might come down with.

Possibly as the result of encountering daft threads like this one.

Surprised you raised it using the term 'resurrection', since beyond hyperbolic newspaper headlines nobody seems to be saying it was similar to another claimed resurrection involving someone who, it is claimed by his supporters, was really really dead (as a doornail etc), since if these cases were comparable then we might conclude that the other chap was also just a tad unwell, and not at all dead.

[floo]

One of the worst kinds of hell must be awaking in your coffin six feet under. I think I once heard of a coffin being exhumed, where it was evident the corpse was alive when placed in it, albeit that this was not realised at the time of burial.

[Dicky Underpants]

I have no idea why you want to go down the route of saying that the definition might be changed here as it effectively denies the claims that Christianity seems based on. Do you really want to be claiming that JC and this bloke are equivalent and JC was cataleptic?

Well, Christ was described as "the first fruits of them that sleep". Now, I always supposed that meant that there would be others after Jesus who would rise from the dead to a spiritual life in heaven.
Maybe this chap is extra-special, and indicates a new phase of physical resurrections in God's vast historical plan. Was the guy renowned for some urgent spiritual message he was giving to the world before he was pronounced dead? Or was he just some ordinary Joe Bloggs?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The warrant for saying they were wrong is that we are working in the field of methodological naturalism.

And subject as you never tire of telling us to the issue/problem of induction.
Since MN is evidential, where is your evidence concerning the status of the patient between the time of diagnosis of death and the discovery of life?

[Nearly Sane]

And subject as you never tire of telling us to the issue/problem of induction.
Since MN is evidential, where is your evidence concerning the status of the patient between the time of diagnosis of death and the discovery of life?

Since I don't make a claim for certainty, the problem of induction isn't relevant here. For the supernatural claim of the Christian resurrection, I would ask you for your methodology but I presume you will evade that as you have thousands of times before.

[Gordon]

And subject as you never tire of telling us to the issue/problem of induction.
Since MN is evidential, where is your evidence concerning the status of the patient between the time of diagnosis of death and the discovery of life?

What on earth are you wittering on about now: the criteria for clinical death involves the presence or absence of certain phenomena, as does the criteria for life, with associated clinical methods. The issue here is that the methods used by these medics were clearly insufficient in these specific circumstances: either they were simply wrong or that they didn't use methods that would have indicated something rare, like catalepsy.

In any event your query is daft: the status of the person between being wrongly presumed to be dead and then being found to be alive was that they were - be prepared for a shock - always 'alive', but presumably unwell in a manner not recognised at the time.

Anyway, as I suggested earlier, since you raised this maybe it is your responsibility now to get some more information about the specifics of this case.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since I don't make a claim for certainty, the problem of induction isn't relevant here. For the supernatural claim of the Christian resurrection, I would ask you for your methodology but I presume you will evade that as you have thousands of times before.

I don't believe this thread has specified a Christian resurrection merely a resurrection. Indeed I was at pains not to put this in Christian topic.

That said, if one is prepared to discuss natural resurrection and there is no reason not to, one cannot declare that a resurrection could be impossible for God or a universal intelligent designer.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't believe this thread has specified a Christian resurrection merely a resurrection. Indeed I was at pains not to put this in Christian topic.

That said, if one is prepared to discuss natural resurrection and there is no reason not to, one cannot declare that a resurrection could be impossible for God or a universal intelligent designer.

Has someone actually declared that?

[Gordon]

I don't believe this thread has specified a Christian resurrection merely a resurrection. Indeed I was at pains not to put this in Christian topic.

You used 'resurrection' in the title, Vlad, but it is hyperbole in this case - the guy was never dead in the first place (unless by 'resurrection' you mean 'recovered from illness')

That said, if one is prepared to discuss natural resurrection and there is no reason not to, one cannot declare that a resurrection could be impossible for God or a universal intelligent designer.

One simply observes that in this case your 'natural resurrection' actually involves somebody not being dead at all but being ill, which is very different the idea of a 'God' resurrecting someone who has been dead for around three days, which isn't the situation regarding this case regarding which you started this thread: how are you getting on with obtaining details of this case?

I suspect you raising this case is another 'Vlad shoots himself in feet' incident.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You used 'resurrection' in the title, Vlad, but it is hyperbole in this case - the guy was never dead in the first place (unless by 'resurrection' you mean 'recovered from illness')

One simply observes that in this case your 'natural resurrection' actually involves somebody not being dead at all but being ill, which is very different the idea of a 'God' resurrecting someone who has been dead for around three days, which isn't the situation regarding this case regarding which you started this thread: how are you getting on with obtaining details of this case?

I suspect you raising this case is another 'Vlad shoots himself in feet' incident.

Alas here we see the insistent of evidence making dispensation for itself.
Resurrection is what it means Gordon. Your post seems strongly to insist on impossibility and thus you are ignoring the problem of induction.
Your two fallacies therefore have been obligingly flagged up by yourself.

I didn't mention God but you seem to be forgetting the problem of induction in his case too.