Science and spirituality

[Gordon]

I can't proceed to even attempt to answer your question if you aren't prepared to outline what you mean.

I KNOW WHAT I mean by supernatural . What do you mean by it? Same goes for methodology.

It's YOUR claim so tell us what YOU mean by supernatural, since it seems you know what YOU mean - stop evading.

Don't be shy: out with it; spill the beans.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope, it's a supernatural claim. It falls outside of methodological naturalism.

I move that a physically resurrected human being is eminently observable and examinable and falsifiable...You know what you have to do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's YOUR claim so tell us what YOU mean by supernatural, since it seems you know what YOU mean - stop evading.

Don't be shy: out with it; spill the beans.

Someone who doesn't honour the burden of his own assertions is not worthy of honour from me.

[Gordon]

Someone who doesn't honour the burden of his own assertions is not worthy of honour from me.

My irony meter has been locked in a darkened room - of course you're wumming now.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've read a lot on the topic.

I can't odds your claim. What was it that sparked your interest in this topic?

[Nearly Sane]

I move that a physically resurrected human being is eminently observable and examinable and falsifiable...You know what you have to do.

Again you are ignoring your supernatural claim. If you are making a natural claim about someone coming back from dead and being observed than that's your burden of proof.

[Maeght]

I can't odds your claim. What was it that sparked your interest in this topic?

Odds your claim??? Anyway .... I'm interested in what people believe and why. I like to understand people and how they think. I like to understand the world and religions and religions are a big part of the world  but I just don't get them, they seem totally foreign to me. The reasons for the birth of Christianity is one of several things which interest me - I sometimes imagine what events would i go and witness if I had a time machine and the events around the resurrection are one, but so would be watching what happened at Stonehenge or Avebury, being on the Grassy Knoll in Dallas when JFK was shot (to understand why people think shots were fired from there), seeing who Jack the Ripper was and so on - history's mysteries. It isn't because I have a secret belief in Jesus I'm afraid if that was what you were thinking/hoping.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again you are ignoring your supernatural claim. If you are making a natural claim about someone coming back from dead and being observed than that's your burden of proof.

And if you make the claim that somebody didn't and historical evidence is mere myth and storiesd
 then that's your burden of proof. I'm not saying I could find you guilty of that but you have been uncritical of Gordon who has.

As I have said the historical evidence, the new testament and what we know of the early christians, is all out there. I have also said that there is a point where you decide you believe it or don't. For me my experience of Christ helps me to recognise the experience of those who met the risen christ in an empathetic way so for me the history highlighted by the epistles is authentic. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Odds your claim??? Anyway .... I'm interested in what people believe and why. I like to understand people and how they think. I like to understand the world and religions and religions are a big part of the world  but I just don't get them, they seem totally foreign to me. The reasons for the birth of Christianity is one of several things which interest me - I sometimes imagine what events would i go and witness if I had a time machine and the events around the resurrection are one, but so would be watching what happened at Stonehenge or Avebury, being on the Grassy Knoll in Dallas when JFK was shot (to understand why people think shots were fired from there), seeing who Jack the Ripper was and so on - history's mysteries. It isn't because I have a secret belief in Jesus I'm afraid if that was what you were thinking/hoping.

An interesting set of drivers for your interest in these matters and interesting use of your ability to visualise things, may it continue to turn up riches for you.

My motivation for accepting Gospel and epistoliary material as history and reportage is my own experience of Christ which started from intellectual interest in big questions about the universe and morality from which I became aware of the voice beyond the theory and ideas. But a major turning point was the realisation that I had disregarded the actual documents of Christianity.

[Nearly Sane]

And if you make the claim that somebody didn't and historical evidence is mere myth and storiesd
 then that's your burden of proof. I'm not saying I could find you guilty of that but you have been uncritical of Gordon who has.

As I have said the historical evidence, the new testament and what we know of the early christians, is all out there. I have also said that there is a point where you decide you believe it or don't. For me my experience of Christ helps me to recognise the experience of those who met the risen christ in an empathetic way so for me the history highlighted by the epistles is authentic.

I am pointing out that you don't have a method to evaluate your supertural claim. That's saying nothing about what if anything it is based on.

As to the evidence of the physical, it's mixed up contradictory statements by unknown individuals, so in terms of evidence worthless.

As for your feelz, also in terms of evidence, worthless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am pointing out that you don't have a method to evaluate your supertural claim. That's saying nothing about what if anything it is based on.

As to the evidence of the physical, it's mixed up contradictory statements by unknown individuals, so in terms of evidence worthless.

As for your feelz, also in terms of evidence, worthless.

Feelz worthless? Must have some evolutionary value.

[Nearly Sane]

Feelz worthless? Must have some evolutionary value.

The is referring to evidentiary value in terms of the historical method.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The is referring to evidentiary value in terms of the historical method.

Somebody who dismisses history because it's 'just a load of old dusty books' is going to have less empathy with the handling of the evidence than somebody who recognises the value of it. Similarly someone with experience is going to be able to make a better evaluation than the non expert.

Anybody who sees God raised Jesus and jesus was seen post mortem as the same claim has not analysed the evidence sufficiently....in the words of Newman and Baddiel in history today.....That's you that is....

[Nearly Sane]

Somebody who dismisses history because it's 'just a load of old dusty books' is going to have less empathy with the handling of the evidence than somebody who recognises the value of it. Similarly someone with experience is going to be able to make a better evaluation than the non expert.

Anybody who sees God raised Jesus and jesus was seen post mortem as the same claim has not analysed the evidence sufficiently....in the words of Newman and Baddiel in history today.....That's you that is....

It really would help discussion if you didn't misrepresent me. I have discussed the supernatural claim, and any physical claim seperately. Stop lying.

[Enki]

And if you make the claim that somebody didn't and historical evidence is mere myth and storiesd
 then that's your burden of proof. I'm not saying I could find you guilty of that but you have been uncritical of Gordon who has.

As I have said the historical evidence, the new testament and what we know of the early christians, is all out there. I have also said that there is a point where you decide you believe it or don't. For me my experience of Christ helps me to recognise the experience of those who met the risen christ in an empathetic way so for me the history highlighted by the epistles is authentic.

It seems that you are basically saying 'true for me but not true for you'. I would have thought that for something to be considered an historical fact one would need far greater and more objective standards than your(or my) own feelings and experiences. In the absence of such standards(which have been clearly pointed out to you by others) I fail to see why one should consider the resurrection to be an historical fact.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It seems that you are basically saying 'true for me but not true for you'. I would have thought that for something to be considered an historical fact one would need far greater and more objective standards than your(or my) own feelings and experiences. In the absence of such standards(which have been clearly pointed out to you by others) I fail to see why one should consider the resurrection to be an historical fact.

Nobody takes the word of one person.
All I'm saying is someone with experience is often able to discern the authenticity of an account or otherwise.
e.g. experienced teachers know when a pupil is trying to pull the wool over their eyes or a detective will recognise when someone's story does or doesn't add up.
That is why we recognise the value of exper-ience and exper-tise.

[Nearly Sane]

Nobody takes the word of one person.
All I'm saying is someone with experience is often able to discern the authenticity of an account or otherwise.
e.g. experienced teachers know when a pupil is trying to pull the wool over their eyes or a detective will recognise when someone's story does or doesn't add up.
That is why we recognise the value of exper-ience and exper-tise.

You seem to be saying though that you are experienced in some area of expertise, as well as having a non evidentiary experience but conflating the two. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem to be saying though that you are experienced in some area of expertise, as well as having a non evidentiary experience but conflating the two.

You'll have to define what you mean by non evidentiary experience.

[Nearly Sane]

You'll have to define what you mean by non evidentiary experience.

In terms of historical evidence, remember it's naturalistic as per all UK university courses, a 'meeting' with some form of spirit is not part of that.

And can you cover if you are confusing experience  of a subject of expertise, with any 'experience'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In terms of historical evidence, remember it's naturalistic as per all UK university courses, a 'meeting' with some form of spirit is not part of that.

And can you cover if you are confusing experience  of a subject of expertise, with any 'experience'?

YES We know what methodological naturalism entails, we'll,  kind of. Experience, of anything, is non transferable however experience can help us in DECIDING what is or is not authentic about others experience.

As a new Christian I was recommended a book called Evidence that demands a verdict by an eminent lawyer.His route to Christianity was a legal investigation of the evidence.

A different way in from my experience.

[Nearly Sane]

YES We know what methodological naturalism entails, we'll,  kind of. Experience, of anything, is non transferable however experience can help us in DECIDING what is or is not authentic about others experience.

As a new Christian I was recommended a book called Evidence that demands a verdict by an eminent lawyer.His route to Christianity was a legal investigation of the evidence.

A different way in from my experience.

Note I've seen 3 books that might fit this, recommended on here:


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict-Mcdowell/dp/1401676707 - not by a lawyer - not read it


https://www.davidlimbaugh.com/books/jesus-on-trial/

Not called Evidence, by a lawyer, read it. Not based on a legal approach, despite what it says.


https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00A71Y7I8/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0

Not called Evidence, not by a lawyer, but a detective. Read it. Laughable.

[Maeght]

The Roman governors and the Jewish hierarchy had contrived to ensure that the threat imposed by the Christian following would be quashed by executing their leader.  They had the body.  All but one of His disciples had fled in fear of their own lives.  Job done.

So what happened?

A momentous event which changed the course of human history.  It defined the datum from which history is measured.  It inspired His disciples to regroup and spread His word to the extent that they were willing to be executed for doing so, and most of them were.  The combined efforts of the Roman and Jewish leaders were unable to find evidence to falsify the claim of the resurrection.  The rest is history.

Had it been a mere story it would have been an easy task to trace the culprits and quash all traces of Christianity within days or weeks.  And we would not be in the year 2022.  It would have remained just a tiny fragment of past history unknown to the vast majority.  Yet here we are 2000 years later still contemplating this event.

Alan, I was wondering where you were with finding the evidence that most of the disciples were executed for spreading the word of Jesus. I know that that is church tradition but do you have any actual evidence? Thanks.

[Enki]

Nobody takes the word of one person.
All I'm saying is someone with experience is often able to discern the authenticity of an account or otherwise.
e.g. experienced teachers know when a pupil is trying to pull the wool over their eyes or a detective will recognise when someone's story does or doesn't add up.
That is why we recognise the value of exper-ience and exper-tise.

None of which has much bearing on whether the resurrection is an historical fact. As I said before,'the historical evidence for the resurrection is greatly lacking, and even the gospel accounts are beset by glaring inconsistencies. Indeed their anecdotal nature is not exactly an acceptable standard for viable evidence'. To which I would add that the fact that someone's experiences can convince them(or others) that the resurrection happened is a pretty poor standard for ascertaining whether it is factual or not, and, as the Wearside Jack hoax showed, detectives too can be completely fooled by being blinkered into thinking that they were listening to the Ripper.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

None of which has much bearing on whether the resurrection is an historical fact. As I said before,'the historical evidence for the resurrection is greatly lacking, and even the gospel accounts are beset by glaring inconsistencies. Indeed their anecdotal nature is not exactly an acceptable standard for viable evidence'. To which I would add that the fact that someone's experiences can convince them(or others) that the resurrection happened is a pretty poor standard for ascertaining whether it is factual or not, and, as the Wearside Jack hoax showed, detectives too can be completely fooled by being blinkered into thinking that they were listening to the Ripper.

Experience of conversion may allow that person to analyse conversion claims in the bible. Of course there is a risk of bias but that could be true of a philosophical naturalist.
Given the professionalism of historians it is no wonder that the
Consensus is that Jesus life and death gave rise to resurrection believing communities across the Middle East within a couple of decades.
There is insufficient evidence for history running another way.

Now, philosophical naturalists have little or no experience of being part of a small converted community and I would move lack understanding of them.

[Nearly Sane]

Experience of conversion may allow that person to analyse conversion claims in the bible. Of course there is a risk of bias but that could be true of a philosophical naturalist.
Given the professionalism of historians it is no wonder that the
Consensus is that Jesus life and death gave rise to resurrection believing communities across the Middle East within a couple of decades.
There is insufficient evidence for history running another way.

Now, philosophical naturalists have little or no experience of being part of a small converted community and I would move lack understanding of them.

Leaving aside the veneration of a specific subjective experience, what is the relevance of 'philosophic naturalists' here?