Resurrection impossible?

[Gordon]

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.

As I recall, Vlad, we're talking about the case you started this thread about and provided a link to (any more info yet?).

What you are indulging in here is called the fallacy of equivocation in respect of your use of the term 'resurrection'.

[Harrowby Hall]

When it comes to resurrection, Vlad, you can't even get your own right.

The pessimistic Scottish undertaker in Walmington-on-Sea spelt his name with "s" not "z".

The newspaper report states that the man was in prison. Might it be that the facilities in the prison were such that the three doctors did not have all the facilities which, had it been a hospital, would have indicated that the man was not dead?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When it comes to resurrection, Vlad, you can't even get your own right.

The pessimistic Scottish undertaker in Walmington-on-Sea spelt his name with "s" not "z".

Are you Zure?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When it comes to resurrection, Vlad, you can't even get your own right.

The pessimistic Scottish undertaker in Walmington-on-Sea spelt his name with "s" not "z".

The newspaper report states that the man was in prison. Might it be that the facilities in the prison were such that the three doctors did not have all the facilities which, had it been a hospital, would have indicated that the man was not dead?

Death is ascertained by a doctor. In this case we have three.

[Nearly Sane]

Death is ascertained by a doctor. In this case we have three.

And by the report they were wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

Are you Zure?

Just to note that I think Vlad's spelling is correct.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And by the report they were wrong.

Are you saying the patient was never doomed?.............doomed, doomed I tell ye.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And by the report they were wrong.

But a doctor is the highest authority in this matter and here we have three.

[Nearly Sane]

But a doctor is the highest authority in this matter and here we have three.

'Facts are chiels that winna ding'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'Facts are chiels that winna ding'

Are you saying therefore that a doctors declaration of death a fact or not,or something like a fact as long as it continues to be so?

[Nearly Sane]

Are you saying therefore that a doctors declaration of death a fact or not,or something like a fact as long as it continues to be so?

No, the fact here is that the bloke is alive.

[Gordon]

But a doctor is the highest authority in this matter and here we have three.

And these doctors got it wrong - perhaps when you get around to following this case up, since it was you that brought it to our attention (albeit with a misleading thread title) you'll be able to tell about the background: for instance, were these doctors incompetent, were they competent but faced with a very rare complicating factor (catalepsy), were there constraints in the setting that they were working in?

Let us know when you find out more.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, the fact here is that the bloke is alive.

Nobody is disputing that now. However, at a certain point in time three doctors did.

[Nearly Sane]

Nobody is disputing that now. However, at a certain point in time three doctors did.

And what do you think we can derive from that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And these doctors got it wrong - perhaps when you get around to following this case up, since it was you that brought it to our attention (albeit with a misleading thread title) you'll be able to tell about the background: for instance, were these doctors incompetent, were they competent but faced with a very rare complicating factor (catalepsy), were there constraints in the setting that they were working in?

Let us know when you find out more.

Well Gordon there were three doctors on the case and they are after all the highest authorities here.
As.for your assertion that they were wrong and the patient was alive all the time.........where is your evidence? Do you for example have the read outs from monitors attached prior to the declaration of life?
It seems therefore that special pleading is taking place here. That Mr Smith can become Santa every Christmas but you cannot be alive, dead then alive again.

Of course the real problem here is humanities competence in matters of death particularly as you seem to be reaching a conclusion with no actual evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And what do you think we can derive from that?

Technically, I would say that three doctors pronounced this man dead and after a period when the body was not monitored he was found to be alive.

That seems to sum up the facts in this case so far.
Any other statement / conclusion would seem so far to lack evidence.

[Gordon]

Well Gordon there were three doctors on the case and they are after all the highest authorities here.
As.for your assertion that they were wrong and the patient was alive all the time.........where is your evidence? Do you for example have the read outs from monitors attached prior to the declaration of life?
It seems therefore that special pleading is taking place here. That Mr Smith can become Santa every Christmas but you cannot be alive, dead then alive again.

Of course the real problem here is humanities competence in matters of death particularly as you seem to be reaching a conclusion with no actual evidence.

Don't be silly, Vlad - doctors are fallible given that they are people, and people are fallible, and the clear implication from the article you yourself provided (which is all the information I've seen so far) is that he was never dead - therefore it seems reasonable to presume he remained alive.

How are you getting on acquiring more details of this case - it seems, from what you now say, there were 'monitors attached prior to the declaration of life' - how do you know this, or are you making stuff up?

[Gordon]

Technically, I would say that three doctors pronounced this man dead and after a period when the body was not monitored he was found to be alive.

That seems to sum up the facts in this case so far.
Any other statement / conclusion would seem so far to lack evidence.

Then, since this story is your baby, go and get some more information.

Interesting that you chose to use 'resurrection' in this thread title: why did you do that?

[Nearly Sane]

Technically, I would say that three doctors pronounced this man dead and after a period when the body was not monitored he was found to be alive.

That seems to sum up the facts in this case so far.
Any other statement / conclusion would seem so far to lack evidence.

so what is the point you are trying to make?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly, Vlad - doctors are fallible given that they are people, and people are fallible, and the clear implication from the article you yourself provided (which is all the information I've seen so far) is that he was never dead - therefore it seems reasonable to presume he remained alive.

How are you getting on acquiring more details of this case - it seems, from what you now say, there were 'monitors attached prior to the declaration of life' - how do you know this, or are you making stuff up?

Gordon
Doctors are fallible but we do have three in this instance.
I never said there were monitors attached and mentioned it only to establish whether you had actual evidence for your assertion that the doctors are wrong.

As for finding stuff out at your bidding. I have set in motion discussion in all matters I wanted and so, as far as I am concerned,..............mission accomplished.

[Harrowby Hall]

Technically, I would say that three doctors pronounced this man dead and after a period when the body was not monitored he was found to be alive.

That seems to sum up the facts in this case so far.
Any other statement / conclusion would seem so far to lack evidence.

If your source is the Independent article you refer to, this is the total information you have:

A prisoner certified dead by three doctors was reportedly found to be alive just hours before his post-mortem.

Gonzalo Montoya Jimenez, an inmate at a jail in Asturias, northern Spain, was put in a body bag and transferred to a hospital mortuary after he was discovered collapsed in his cell, according to Spanish media.

Jimenez’s family said he “had autopsy markings on him, ready to be opened up".

Is it possible. perhaps, that only one doctor had examined him, and that this doctor then sought the signature of colleagues for procedural reasons? From the information presented it is possible that the "dead" man had not been in any clinical environment until he reached the hospital mortuary. He had "died" in a prison cell and was then shipped straight to the mortuary? I accept that these are merely assumptions that I am making, but they are consistent with the information in the article, which merely states that three doctors had "certified" not "examined" him. The only sources for this "information" may well be the man's relatives.

I think that you have checked your sources as thoroughly as I did mine about Dad's Army ...

[Gordon]

Gordon
Doctors are fallible but we do have three in this instance.

I never said there were monitors attached and mentioned it only to establish whether you had actual evidence for your assertion that the doctors are wrong.

As for finding stuff out at your bidding. I have set in motion discussion in all matters I wanted and so, as far as I am concerned,..............mission accomplished.

In other words you started a thread based on a press report in an attempt at point-scoring, such as by using a provocative title, and now you're wriggling and trying to evade.

[floo]

I just found this on Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In other words you started a thread based on a press report in an attempt at point-scoring, such as by using a provocative title.

I don't believe that on the matter in question I have stated anything other than that based on the facts as presented and others have quite reasonably speculated on what went on......and you have asserted wrongness on the part of the doctors based not on the evidence available but on a dogmatic view of the way you think the universe is.

If any points have been scored it is because you have willingly played the game.

[Gordon]

I don't believe that on the matter in question I have stated anything based on the facts as presented and others have quite reasonably speculated on what went on......and you have asserted wrongness on the part of the doctors based not on the evidence available but on a dogmatic view of the way you think the universe is.

So tell me: do these doctors, given the chap is still alive and kicking, think they got it wrong or do they think he really was dead, and then wasn't? Suggest you check this out and let us know.

If any points have been scored it is because you have willingly played the game.

You didn't score any anyway - but you do get full marks for obfuscation.