Some supernatural claims

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1. The universe is it's own sufficient reason
2.God raised Jesus from the dead
3. The universe popped out of No where
4. God is the sufficient reason for the universe
5. The Dalai Lama is a reincarnated person
6.Anybody can encounter the risen Christ

Please leave an evaluation on each e.g. the likelihood of each or your emotional reaction to each or whatever.

[Nearly Sane]

1. The universe is it's own sufficient reason
2.God raised Jesus from the dead
3. The universe popped out of No where
4. God is the sufficient reason for the universe
5. The Dalai Lama is a reincarnated person
6.Anybody can encounter the risen Christ

Please leave an evaluation on each e.g. the likelihood of each or your emotional reaction to each or whatever.

Probability is a naturalist concept. Given the lack of a methodology to evaluate supernatural claims, your use of the term in the above post is meaningless.

I have no idea what you mean when you refer to an 'emotional reaction' to the claims. It's not clear that any of the claims are meaningful due to the lack of definition and agreement of terms.

[Gordon]

1. The universe is it's own sufficient reason
2.God raised Jesus from the dead
3. The universe popped out of No where
4. God is the sufficient reason for the universe
5. The Dalai Lama is a reincarnated person
6.Anybody can encounter the risen Christ

Please leave an evaluation on each e.g. the likelihood of each or your emotional reaction to each or whatever.

Smashing - now all you need do is provide a methodolody that covers the above 6 points, and then we can get on with the evaluating bit. If you can't then all you've succeeded in doing is demonstrating your trademark impulsive naivity: try thinking before posting, Vlad.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Probability is a naturalist concept. Given the lack of a methodology to evaluate supernatural claims, your use of the term in the above post is meaningless.

I have no idea what you mean when you refer to an 'emotional reaction' to the claims. It's not clear that any of the claims are meaningful due to the lack of definition and agreement of terms.

Thank you but you never left an evaluation. Strange from someone purportedly interested in the evaluation of supernatural events.
I only invite people to put anything down and put some examples of what they could.

If emotional responses aren't satisfactory for you and you demand a more academic approach I would you recommend you consult the plethora of web info on academic theology.

A word of warning though, miracles form but a  part of the stock of christianity and I would move, other religions as well and thus you have little warrant to make it a ''big thing''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Smashing - now all you need do is provide a methodolody that covers the above 6 points, and then we can get on with the evaluating bit. If you can't then all you've succeeded in doing is demonstrating your trademark impulsive naivity: try thinking before posting, Vlad.
 

You never left an evaluation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That you refuse to evaluate rather points out that an evaluation can be made.

[Gordon]

That you refuse to evaluate rather points out that an evaluation can be made.

Stop being stupid: if you've concluded that an evaluation can be made in respect of the proposition that "5. The Dalai Lama is a reincarnated person" then you should set out the steps required.

[Outrider]

1. The universe is it's own sufficient reason

The universe, so far as we can tell, had a start point and so it seems likely that there was a cause - the broader reality in which our universe sits could be infinite, I don't see a logical or philosophical problem with that.

2.God raised Jesus from the dead

Seems unlikely to me. None of the other claims of magic from antiquity are borne out, why should this one be different?

3. The universe popped out of No where

It emerged from something, it's not just not something that we have the current capacity to adequately describe or define.

4. God is the sufficient reason for the universe

Given that I don't see a justification for the claim of 'God' I'd have to say I think that's unlikely.

5. The Dalai Lama is a reincarnated person

The idea that something of us exists separate from our physical form to be reincarnated isn't something that I see any rational justification for.

6.Anybody can encounter the risen Christ

Seems unlikely.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The universe, so far as we can tell, had a start point and so it seems likely that there was a cause - the broader reality in which our universe sits could be infinite, I don't see a logical or philosophical problem with that.

Seems unlikely to me. None of the other claims of magic from antiquity are borne out, why should this one be different?

It emerged from something, it's not just not something that we have the current capacity to adequately describe or define.

Given that I don't see a justification for the claim of 'God' I'd have to say I think that's unlikely.

The idea that something of us exists separate from our physical form to be reincarnated isn't something that I see any rational justification for.

Seems unlikely.

O.

And there you have it. A systematic evaluation of supernatural claims.

[Outrider]

And there you have it. A systematic evaluation of supernatural claims.

No, that's a systematic rejection of supernatural claims, largely on the basis that you've not provided a system by which they can be evaluated.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

That you refuse to evaluate rather points out that an evaluation can be made.

Piffle, not even making it to drivel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, that's a systematic rejection of supernatural claims, largely on the basis that you've not provided a system by which they can be evaluated.

O.

No...They were all supernatural claims, impervious to naturalistic methodology and yet you managed an evaluation.
I might disagree with terms but you have evaluated with a system and shown your methods...well done you.

[Outrider]

No...They were all supernatural claims, impervious to naturalistic methodology and yet you managed an evaluation.
I might disagree with terms but you have evaluated with a system and shown your methods...well done you.

So we've learnt, what? That you can refute supernatural claims... we knew that, anyway. What we've not seen is a reason to accept them.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

So we've learnt, what? That you can refute supernatural claims... we knew that, anyway. What we've not seen is a reason to accept them.

O.

You can't refute supernatural claims because you can't evaluate supernatural causes. You can refute methodological naturarist claims.

[Nearly Sane]

You can't refute supernatural claims because you can't evaluate supernatural causes. You can refute methodological naturarist claims.

I should add for clarification that if I make a claim to read minds in some supernatural fashion but can be found to be doing it by chearing natiralistically that would refute the claim. If I could not be shown to be doing it naturalistically then it would not be evidence of the supernatural claim.

If I was to claim God chooses the time of death of every living creature, there is no way to refute that.

[jeremyp]

1. The universe is it's own sufficient reason

What does that mean? Why does everything need a reason?

2.God raised Jesus from the dead

Seems unlikely

3. The universe popped out of No where

It's a possibility

4. God is the sufficient reason for the universe

What is the sufficient reason for God?

5. The Dalai Lama is a reincarnated person

Nope.

6.Anybody can encounter the risen Christ

Certainly anybody can come to believe they have encountered the risen Christ. But how can they tell the encounter was was real?

[ProfessorDavey]

1. The universe is it's own sufficient reason

Why should anything require a reason?

2.God raised Jesus from the dead

Presumes that Jesus was dead and then not dead, which isn't proven, so this point it completely moot until the premise on which it is based is proven.

3. The universe popped out of No where

For something to have 'popped' out from somewhere or 'no-where' implies that time and space exist outside of that entity. Until or unless it is demonstrated that time and space can and do exist beyond the universe this is a non question.

4. God is the sufficient reason for the universe

See answer to question 1.

5. The Dalai Lama is a reincarnated person

Without defining reincarnation this question cannot be answered.

6.Anybody can encounter the risen Christ

In a subjective 'true for me' manner - sure, why not. However in an objective manner this question is moot until or unless you first demonstrate that Jesus was dead and then not dead, which isn't proven - see question 2.

So overall Vlad - a mish-mash of poorly defined question which, in many cases require you to prove something else before the questions become even relevant. You presumptive bias that these unproven things are somehow proven or self evident is very telling Vlad.

[jeremyp]

Without defining reincarnation this question cannot be answered.

Are you kidding? Reincarnation is the rebirth of a dead person in another person (or animal according to some religions). The answer Vlad's question is unequivocally no.

[ProfessorDavey]

Are you kidding? Reincarnation is the rebirth of a dead person in another person (or animal according to some religions). The answer Vlad's question is unequivocally no.

It depends upon whether we are talking about a physical reincarnation or a metaphorical one. Of course the answer to the former is 'no', but unless what is meant by reincarnation then we can get into definitional issues. So there are plenty of examples where reincarnation is used to mean a rejuvenation of a spirit or attitude rather than a physical reincarnation. So we might describe the spirit of the recent BLM movement to be the reincarnation of the black power movement of the 60s.

So in terms of the question Vlad asked - it could be that the Dalai Lama is a reincarnated person means that the person in that role now adopts the spirit and approaches of their predecessors - i.e. metaphorical reincarnation. Or it could mean a physical reincarnation. Without being clear it isn't possible to answer and in a metaphorical sense a new Dalai Lama may well be the reincarnation of their predecessors, being considered to be a continuity in spirit and approach. However in a physical sense they aren't reincarnated.

[jeremyp]

It depends upon whether we are talking about a physical reincarnation or a metaphorical one.

You mean whether we are talking about reincarnation or some other process that is being compared as an analogy?

Of course the answer to the former is 'no'

So why didn't you just say no?

but unless what is meant by reincarnation then we can get into definitional issues. So there are plenty of examples where reincarnation is used to mean a rejuvenation of a spirit or attitude rather than a physical reincarnation. So we might describe the spirit of the recent BLM movement to be the reincarnation of the black power movement of the 60s.

People use "resurrection" in similar contexts. Would you have any hesitation in denying Vlad's claim that Jesus was resurrected?

So in terms of the question Vlad asked - it could be that the Dalai Lama is a reincarnated person means that the person in that role now adopts the spirit and approaches of their predecessors - i.e. metaphorical reincarnation. Or it could mean a physical reincarnation. Without being clear it isn't possible to answer and in a metaphorical sense a new Dalai Lama may well be the reincarnation of their predecessors, being considered to be a continuity in spirit and approach. However in a physical sense they aren't reincarnated.

A metaphorical reincarnation is not reincarnation. The clue is in the word "metaphorical".

You don't half make it hard for yourself sometimes. We are talking about the Dalai Lama: the context is actual reincarnation, not some metaphor.

[ProfessorDavey]

You mean whether we are talking about reincarnation or some other process that is being compared as an analogy?
So why didn't you just say no?

People use "resurrection" in similar contexts. Would you have any hesitation in denying Vlad's claim that Jesus was resurrected?

A metaphorical reincarnation is not reincarnation. The clue is in the word "metaphorical".

You don't half make it hard for yourself sometimes. We are talking about the Dalai Lama: the context is actual reincarnation, not some metaphor.

Actually defining things clearly is incredibly important, and those wanting to make claims often hide behind imprecise definitions.

So we are talking about reincarnation here - but also people have claimed that someone having a vision of Jesus is evidence of resurrection, which might be the case if we aren't talking specifically about physical resurrection.

And actually many definitions of reincarnation include the 'metaphorical' as well as the 'physical' hence:

"embodiment again in a new form, as of a principle or idea"
"a new version of something from the past"

[Udayana]

None of these claims are falsifiable, mainly due to definitional or linguistic problems that render them meaningless.

Is the Dalai Lama a person? How can you decide if the next Dalai Lama the same "person" or not?

[Nearly Sane]

None of these claims are falsifiable, mainly due to definitional or linguistic problems that render them meaningless.

Is the Dalai Lama a person? How can you decide if the next Dalai Lama the same "person" or not?

Indeed, and was Phineas Gage the same 'person' pre and post railway spike?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

Are we all just Trigger's Brooms from second to second? Is there such a thing as a person? Did you write the Book of Love? And do you have faith in God above?

[ProfessorDavey]

Indeed, and was Phineas Gage the same 'person' pre and post railway spike?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

Are we all just Trigger's Brooms from second to second? Is there such a thing as a person? Did you write the Book of Love? And do you have faith in God above?

Interesting story.

Neurological cognitive continuity does seem important in defining a person.

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting story.

Neurological cognitive continuity does seem important in defining a person.

And 'we' take a lot for granted on what that means. Alan Burns often talks on here that 'his' experience is of being a unitary consistent continuous personality, and argues that is evidence for such a thing being real. 'My' experience is nothing like that - how do 'we' even talk of that coherently?