Resurrection impossible?

[floo]

Nope. From the Oxford English Dictionary

noun

    1An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.
    ‘the miracle of rising from the grave’

    1.1 A remarkable event or development that brings very welcome consequences.
    ‘it was a miracle that more people hadn't been killed’
    ‘industries at the heart of the economic miracle’

1.2 An exceptional product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something.
‘a machine which was a miracle of design’
as modifier ‘a miracle drug’

That is the dictionary definition. But I am of the opinion that one day science will come up with an explanation for what is inexplicable at present. Many o the things we experience today, thanks to science, would have been considered miraculous a few hundred years ago.

[Maeght]

That is the dictionary definition. But I am of the opinion that one day science will come up with an explanation for what is inexplicable at present.

Ah right, so its your opinion. Could you be wrong?

Many o the things we experience today, thanks to science, would have been considered miraculous a few hundred years ago.

I don't think this makes any difference to whether miracles as supernatural events are possible or not.

[floo]

Ah right, so its your opinion. Could you be wrong?

I don't think this makes any difference to whether miracles as supernatural events are possible or not.

Of course I could be wrong, I just hope I am not. In my 68 years I probably have had much more experience of the so called 'supernatural' than most people, but I am of the opinion there is a natural explanation for it, even if we haven't come up with one yet.

[Maeght]

Of course I could be wrong, .... 

That's good to hear you acceptvthat.

I just hope I am not. In my 68 years I probably have had much more experience of the so called 'supernatural' than most people, but I am of the opinion there is a natural explanation for it, even if we haven't come up with one yet.

But you could be wrong.

[floo]

That's good to hear you acceptvthat.

But you could be wrong.

Of course I could be wrong as I keep saying. I just hope I am not, the alternative is too ghastly to contemplate.

[jeremyp]

That's good to hear you acceptvthat.

But you could be wrong.

Nothing is 100% in the real world, but some things are so unlikely as to be impossible for all practical purposes. When Little Roses says "x is impossible" it's a short hand for "x is so unlikely, it ain't never going to happen". And she's right on this occasion.

[Maeght]

Nothing is 100% in the real world, but some things are so unlikely as to be impossible for all practical purposes. When Little Roses says "x is impossible" it's a short hand for "x is so unlikely, it ain't never going to happen". And she's right on this occasion.

If it is a supernatural miracle then yes it is unlikely but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Miracles are not impossible if there is a God.

[jeremyp]

If it is a supernatural miracle then yes it is unlikely but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Miracles are not impossible if there is a God.

Give me any evidence that there is a god.

[Nearly Sane]

If it is a supernatural miracle then yes it is unlikely but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Miracles are not impossible if there is a God.

How do evaluate the likelihood of a miracle? Maybe everything TNA happens is a miracle.


I agree with you though that there is no point in referring to the idea that things don't happen often is a useless and circular argument against miracles.

[Nearly Sane]

Give me any evidence that there is a god.

Maeght isn't claiming there is.

[jeremyp]

Maeght isn't claiming there is.

So there's no god therefore miracles are virtually impossible as LR said.

Good. Let's move on.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So there's no god therefore miracles are virtually impossible as LR said.

Good. Let's move on.

Are you moving on Jeremy? Goodbye.

[jeremyp]

Are you moving on Jeremy? Goodbye.

Any chance of keeping the conversation on topic?

[Nearly Sane]

So there's no god therefore miracles are virtually impossible as LR said.

Good. Let's move on.

No, that isn't the point being made. And virtually impossible again just applies an idea of unlikelihood that makes no sense in regard to miracles. Everything that happens may have a supernatural cause.

[Maeght]

So there's no god therefore miracles are virtually impossible as LR said.

Good. Let's move on.

As NS says, I am not saying there is a God. What I am pointing out is that the argument that miracles such as the resurrection are impossible because they don't usually happen misses the point of miracles being unusual supernatural events. If a God exists then Miracles such as the resurrection are surely possible. It is not possible to say 100% that God doesn't exist therefore it is not possible to say miracles are impossible.

My other point it that PF pointing out cases where normal human beings were considered dead but weren't seems to undermine claims of Jesus's resurrection having to be a miracle, so I'm not sure why he is going down that route.

[jeremyp]

No, that isn't the point being made. And virtually impossible again just applies an idea of unlikelihood that makes no sense in regard to miracles. Everything that happens may have a supernatural cause.

No you see, you have used the nuclear option. If you are going to do that, we might as well stop now.

[Nearly Sane]

No you see, you have used the nuclear option. If you are going to do that, we might as well stop now.

No, it's simply that any claim about the supernatural isn't based on likelihood. The nuclear option doesn't cover tge point being made. And you seen to be arguing against points not made.

[jeremyp]

As NS says, I am not saying there is a God. What I am pointing out is that the argument that miracles such as the resurrection are impossible because they don't usually happen misses the point of miracles being unusual supernatural events. If a God exists then Miracles such as the resurrection are surely possible. It is not possible to say 100% that God doesn't exist therefore it is not possible to say miracles are impossible.

My other point it that PF pointing out cases where normal human beings were considered dead but weren't seems to undermine claims of Jesus's resurrection having to be a miracle, so I'm not sure why he is going down that route.

If you are going to claim that miracles are possible (likely even) because God, we need to stop now because you, like NS have invoked the nuclear option. Once you do that, all bets are off and the possibility of a rational discussion drops to zero.

[jeremyp]

No, it's simply that any claim about the supernatural isn't based on likelihood.

All reasoning about the real works is really based on probability. You are saying we can ignore probability. Hence you have ended any possibility ofd rational discussion about the real World. You have invoked the nuclear option.

[Nearly Sane]

If you are going to claim that miracles are possible (likely even) because God, we need to stop now because you, like NS have invoked the nuclear option. Once you do that, all bets are off and the possibility of a rational discussion drops to zero.

Except I didn't use the nuclear option and no one has suggested that miracles are possible (likely even). Rather that the unlikelihood of an event is a useless argument to state that miracles are impossible, and if you water that down to being they are just very very unlikely then that's just perfecting the circularity.

[Nearly Sane]

All reasoning about the real works is really based on probability. You are saying we can ignore probability. Hence you have ended any possibility ofd rational discussion about the real World. You have invoked the nuclear option.

You see this is where you are arguing against a point I haven't made. I didn't say anything about ignoring probability. It works in a naturalistic  methodology. It's great.


The point is that likelihood is a naturalistic assumption, it's precisely meaningless for supernatural claims. That doesn't give supernatural claims any validity, just that using arguments that are irrelevant to them is pointless. Until someone making the claims comes up with a super naturalistic methodology, they are just white noise. Arguing against them just follows the same rule. .

[jeremyp]

You see this is where you are arguing against a point I haven't made. I didn't say anything about ignoring probability.

"it's simply that any claim about the supernatural isn't based on likelihood." ~~ Nearly Sane 2018.

[Nearly Sane]

"it's simply that any claim about the supernatural isn't based on likelihood." ~~ Nearly Sane 2018.

Which isn't an argument against ignoring probability in a naturalistic methodology. I coveredqgt you were wrong in the post that you appear to have attempted to quptemine even if  you choose a quote that didn't back you up.

[Maeght]

If you are going to claim that miracles are possible (likely even) because God, we need to stop now because you, like NS have invoked the nuclear option. Once you do that, all bets are off and the possibility of a rational discussion drops to zero.

So would you prefer to use a flawed argument just to continue the debate? How is excluding the possibility of something rational when you yourself say nothing is 100% and the probability argument when it comes to supernatural miracles is meaningless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry but I felt a bit of a challenge as to why I included the tale of aRumanian declared dead but very much alive.

The simple answer was just to reopen the issue of proof of life.

Having done that then let us return to resurrections. We have to be careful always of never saying never.
I am with Meaght if he is saying if you cannot exclude God you cannot exclude miracles. Also I don't understand why there is an apparent down on resurrection in those who hold to scientism, since if life is merely an arrangement of matter then resurrection is merely a particular rearrangement.