Resurrection impossible?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

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

Do I think they think he was really dead? The alternative would have been that they pronounced him dead for a joke or a scheme.

You have not here or ever acknowledged that your views on cases of resurrection are based, not on facts or the report but on a dogmatic view on how the universe is which certainly runs roughshod over Popper, the problem of induction and your own view of the importance of actual evidence.

[Nearly Sane]

Do I think they think he was really dead? The alternative would have been that they pronounced him dead for a joke or a scheme.

You have not here or ever acknowledged that your views on cases of resurrection are based, not on facts or the report but on a dogmatic view on how the universe is which certainly runs roughshod over Popper, the problem of induction and your own view of the importance of actual evidence.

Except as already coveted the resurrection claim is specifically meant to be impossible. The case here is irrelevant. You also have managed to misunderstand the problem of induction (again).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except as already coveted the resurrection claim is specifically meant to be impossible. The case here is irrelevant. You also have managed to misunderstand the problem of induction (again).

In what way?

[Nearly Sane]

In what way?

That it doesn't stop anyone concluding here that the strong likelihood is mistake rather than resurrection. It rules out absolutes not probability.


And again I don't see what you think this means for any miracle claims.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That it doesn't stop anyone concluding here that the strong likelihood is mistake rather than resurrection. It rules out absolutes not probability.

Yes but Gordon states that these doctors are wrong....as opposed to Harrowby's ''possibly'' wrong.

So I have mentioned the problem of induction in it's proper context after all.

I do not believe I have at anytime specified this as a supernatural miracle. Indeed I have left this open as a possible unlikely natural event.

I'm not sure that I agree with your definition that miracles are impossible. Preferring ''possible for God'' although I am tolerant of ''a highly unlikely event caused by God's intervention'',

[Gordon]

Do I think they think he was really dead? The alternative would have been that they pronounced him dead for a joke or a scheme.

You have not here or ever acknowledged that your views on cases of resurrection are based, not on facts or the report but on a dogmatic view on how the universe is which certainly runs roughshod over Popper, the problem of induction and your own view of the importance of actual evidence.

You seem to be thrashing about.

As far as I can see the link you posted portrays this case as being a mistake, for reasons not yet clear, and not some kind of miracle despite your use of the term 'resurrection', which usually associated with a miracle claim.

So, since this case only involves human error, then your noting of any views I may or may not have about other and separate claims of miraculous events involving divine agency is entirely irrelevant as regards this specific case. 

[Nearly Sane]

Yes but Gordon states that these doctors are wrong....as opposed to Harrowby's ''possibly'' wrong.

So I have mentioned the problem of induction in it's proper context after all.

I do not believe I have at anytime specified this as a supernatural miracle. Indeed I have left this open as a possible unlikely natural event.

I'm not sure that I agree with your definition that miracles are impossible. Preferring ''possible for God'' although I am tolerant of ''a highly unlikely event caused by God's intervention'',

Now you seen to be showing that you have no understanding of how everyday language works. And that's where you are using the problem of induction in its 'wrong context'.


It's not my definition that miracles are impossible but that people who believe then to be done by good see them as not being able to happen without their god's intervention. It isn't that they are 'highly unlikely' any deal of a pack of cards is highly unlikely.


And this illustrates your continued inability to show how any event claimed to be a miracle can be determined to be so due to the lack of a methodology. You know, that thing that you have been asked for thousands of times and haven't been able to provide.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not my definition that miracles are impossible but that people who believe then to be done by good see them as not being able to happen without their god's intervention. It isn't that they are 'highly unlikely' any deal of a pack of cards is highly unlikely.

Sorry I must have got the idea that you stated that miracles are definitionally impossible.
We seem to be in agreement that the better definition is an event possible for God.

Since there is no actual evidence at present that the patient was in fact alive between pronounced dead by three doctors and later being found alive we cannot say definitively that the doctors were wrong until enquiry is made.

Given the above then an actual resurrection can be categorised as unlikely.

And this illustrates your continued inability to show how any event claimed to be a miracle can be determined to be so due to the lack of a methodology. You know, that thing that you have been asked for thousands of times and haven't been able to provide.

Again I am not talking about the miraculous here merely an unlikely event.
Given what we know therefore a resurrection cannot be ruled out.
The only definition where I can be found wanting on is that where death is refined as the permanent cessation of life rather than merely the cessation of life. I fear any step on so redefining would make you guys look suspicious.

[Harrowby Hall]

Yes but Gordon states that these doctors are wrong....as opposed to Harrowby's ''possibly'' wrong.

Stop distorting what I have written.

I did not say that the doctor was "possibly wrong", I was suggesting a possible explanation as to why the doctor was wrong.

You are turning an unimportant little anecdote based on a mistaken judgement by a medical practitioner in another country into fake news. Donald Trump would be proud of you.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry I must have got the idea that you stated that miracles are definitionally impossible.
We seem to be in agreement that the better definition is an event possible for God.

Since there is no actual evidence at present that the patient was in fact alive between pronounced dead by three doctors and later being found alive we cannot say definitively that the doctors were wrong until enquiry is made.

Given the above then an actual resurrection can be categorised as unlikely. 


And this illustrates your continued inability to show how any event claimed to be a miracle can be determined to be so due to the lack of a methodology. You know, that thing that you have been asked for thousands of times and haven't been able to provide.

Again I am not talking about the miraculous here merely an unlikely event.
Given what we know therefore a resurrection cannot be ruled out.
The only definition where I can be found wanting on is that where death is refined as the permanent cessation of life rather than merely the cessation of life. I fear any step on so redefining would make you guys look suspicious.

I don't think that is a redefinition. Death is definitionally a permanent state in the way it is used. If you are alive then you cannot have been dead. I made that point at the start of the thread, it isn't me defining it that way, it's the way medicine does, hence the increased ability to resuscitate people has not been declared as being resurrection.

And in those terms that is precisely why those who think of the claims resurrection of JC or others are from a death that is irrecoverable. The irony about you posting the OP and then engaging here is that it seems to reduce JC to a cataleptic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop distorting what I have written.

I did not say that the doctor was "possibly wrong", I was suggesting a possible explanation as to why the doctor was wrong.

My apologies. Maybe you should have.

[Gordon]

Since there is no actual evidence at present that the patient was in fact alive between pronounced dead by three doctors and later being found alive we cannot say definitively that the doctors were wrong until enquiry is made.

Since, looking at the article, it doesn't say these doctors are claiming they were correct and that this chap was definitely dead - if they had I expect it would have been mentioned - it seems reasonable to conclude that they too agree they were mistaken. Have you found any further details regarding this case?

Given the above then an actual resurrection can be categorised as unlikely.
Again I am not talking about the miraculous here merely an unlikely event.
Given what we know therefore a resurrection cannot be ruled out.
The only definition where I can be found wanting on is that where death is refined as the permanent cessation of life rather than merely the cessation of life. I fear any step on so redefining would make you guys look suspicious.

It might be a good idea for you to stop digging, Vlad, and get some more information about this case, since it was you who raised it and in doing so mentioned 'resurrection'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think that is a redefinition. Death is definitionally a permanent state .

To some yes. However if you take that line, technically you are wrong because if permanent is forever or until the end of History then we are not there yet so the assertion that death is permanent is not demonstrable.

We are on safer ground with a definition which stops at ''The cessation of life''.

As for the rest '' If you are alive then you cannot have been dead.'' is a belief. Let me counter it by defining life as a particular arrangement of matter. We cannot state therefore that life cannot come about via the complete recycling of dead matter or that our dead material bodies could not be rearranged in a way that we are alive.

[Nearly Sane]

To some yes. However if you take that line, technically you are wrong because if permanent is forever or until the end of History then we are not there yet so the assertion that death is permanent is not demonstrable.

We are on safer ground with a definition which stops at ''The cessation of life''.

As for the rest '' If you are alive then you cannot have been dead.'' is a belief. Let me counter it by defining life as a particular arrangement of matter. We cannot state therefore that life cannot come about via the complete recycling of dead matter or that our material bodies could not be rearranged in a way that we are alive.

Again this is you struggling with how language works. You are right that death being permanent is a belief but it's also part of what the MN part uses as the definition. At base this is your old habit of seeing MN as PN , and thereby misrepresenting people.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again this is you struggling with how language works. You are right that death being permanent is a belief but it's also part of what the MN part uses as the definition. At base this is your old habit of seeing MN as PN , and thereby misrepresenting people.

Gibberish.

[Gordon]

To some yes. However if you take that line, technically you are wrong because if permanent is forever or until the end of History then we are not there yet so the assertion that death is permanent is not demonstrable.

So we aren't permanently dead until in 5 billion years or so the Earth is consumed by the expanding Sun as it reaches the end of its fuel: well that's a lovely thought Vlad.

We are on safer ground with a definition which stops at ''The cessation of life''.

Super, but not especially helpful since in the case we are discussing it seems like it didn't cease, where the assumption that it did cease  was human error - remember!

As for the rest '' If you are alive then you cannot have been dead.'' is a belief. Let me counter it by defining life as a particular arrangement of matter. We cannot state therefore that life cannot come about via the complete recycling of dead matter or that our material bodies could not be rearranged in a way that we are alive.

Looks like you are channelling your inner Alan Burns.

[Nearly Sane]

Gibberish.

For someone coming into this discission amongst many others, shorn of context, that would be true. That doesn't apply to you though. So rather than indulge in your wee tantrum, try and engage.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For someone coming into this discission amongst many others, shorn of context, that would be true. That doesn't apply to you though. So rather than indulge in your wee tantrum, try and engage.

Ok so what's this?

You are right that death being permanent is a belief but it's also part of what the MN part uses as the definition.

And you accuse me of

seeing MN as PN

[/qoute]
!

[Nearly Sane]

Ok so what's this?
And you accuse me of

seeing MN as PN

You aren't playing so dumb not to recognise using MN and PN as acronyms for methodical and philosophical naturalism, are you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You aren't playing so dumb not to recognise using MN and PN as acronyms for methodical and philosophical naturalism, are you?

I don't know what you are talking about but saying MN takes it's definition of death from PN beliefs and then accuse me of confusing MN with PN looks particularly dumb on your part.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know what you are talking about but saying MN takes it's definition of death from PN beliefs and then accuse me of confusing MN with PN looks particularly dumb on your part.

except that isn't what the post says. MN's definition of death is permanent. It's not a PN statement. It's not a philosophical position. It's what we use to mean death in MN.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So we aren't permanently dead until in 5 billion years or so the Earth is consumed by the expanding Sun as it reaches the end of its fuel: well that's a lovely thought Vlad..

Not just a thought but true also Gordon unless permanent death is redefined to 'six feet under'.

Death as permanent cessation of life cannot be a precise scientific definition and certainly no basis for ever issuing conformations or certificates of death when they usually are issued.

 

[Nearly Sane]

Not just a thought but true also Gordon unless permanent death is redefined to 'six feet under'.

Death as permanent cessation of life cannot be a precise scientific definition and certainly no basis for ever issuing conformations or certificates of death when they usually are issued.

This is you getting even more confused about different usesx of language! In a scientific sense, a number of things indicate the permanent cessation of life but they are being used to show that because that is what is being looked for.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

except that isn't what the post says. MN's definition of death is permanent.

That would mean MN has a rather peculiar definition of permanent since we are nowhere near the end of time......What is it's definition in MN by the way?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is you getting even more confused about different usesx of language! In a scientific sense, a number of things indicate the permanent cessation of life but they are being used to show that because that is what is being looked for.

Permanence is an undemonstrable extrapolation.

if Death is not the cessation of life then what IS the cessation of life?