"Anyone who claims the resurrection occurred is doing exactly that. [claiming textual criticism trumps the scientific method]."

Which scientific method application decided that Jesus did not rise from the dead? Was it published by a biologists? A physicist? A chemist?

"2. Your second claim is nonsense. It is patently obvious that any argument that says "certainty of fact is only possible with the sicentific method" is an argument supported by the selfsame scientific method."

And you accused me of using a tautology. Okay. Prove it. Use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method is the only means of producing certainty. And throw in some stuff on quantum mechanics while you are at it.

Why don't you start by enumerating the items that you think we have strong forensic, archaeological, etc. support for. Tell me why you think they are supported. And then we will see if we have areas of agreement.

[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 21, 2001).]

"If they were based solely on a desire to avoid deterioration of evidence, THEN they would all be the same. Since evidence deteriorates at the same rate."

I never claimed they were based solely on deterioration of evidence. In fact, I said just the oppossite.

"However, statute of limitations is also based upon a desire to avoid clogging the court system with old claims, thus grinding the courts to a halt. And, also upon the legal principle that a claimant has to take an aggressive stance in standing up for his/her rights. If they have not filed within a certain time frame (or if the crime has not
been discovered within a given time frame) it is deemed that the matter was too trivial to bother with."

I agree with all of the above. But it is also based on the deterioration of evidence.

You almost brought yourself to admitting it earlier, but then decided to fudge the meaning of "usefulness."

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Omnedon1:

Quote:

Me Again: The concern I have is that you seem to be implying that an area is "unknown" merely because there is no archeological discovery right on point. And I'm curious, which gaps and I filling in and papering over? Are you saying that applying the commonly accepted criteria of multiple attestation, coherence, dissimilarity, embarrassment, etc. is per se filling in the gaps? [w/quote] Why don't you start by enumerating the items that you think we have strong forensic, archaeological, etc. support for. Tell me why you think they are supported. And then we will see if we have areas of agreement.

You made the assertion. Can't you defend it?

Not just Jesus - ANYONE. NO ONE rises from the dead. NOBODY. It violates the law of entropy. It has never been observed before, there is no documented or scientifically observed case of it ever happening, in spite of many claims to the contrary even today.

So by Occam's Razor, it is far more likely that all such events were the product of imaginations, confused crowds, or deliberate fraud. And in no case did anyone rise from the dead. If you think otherwise, the burden of proof is on you. And the evidentiary bar for this claim is quite high - in keeping with the extraordinary nature of such a claim. Mere texts will not do.


This is the same proof as that for 2+2=4: proof by lack of contrary example. Show me another way of producing certainty of data, as defined by the scientific method. Note that I am not talking about certainty in the mathematical sense of proving a geometry theorem.

I thought you might want constructive discussion, instead of constant tit-for-tat banter. I was wrong; fine.

But before I go defending this statement, you have some loose ends to work on yourself. And since you asserted first, you can also prove first.

You said:

Okay, so dazzle me. I'm waiting.


And, for extra credit:

Let's see the evidence that "strongly indicates that he did."

[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 20, 2001).]

"Not just Jesus - ANYONE. NO ONE rises from the dead. NOBODY. It violates the law of entropy. It has never been observed before, there is no documented or scientifically observed case of it ever happening, in spite of many claims to the contrary even today."

How do you know it has never been observed before? Is that a conclusion arrived at by the scientific method?

"So by Occam's Razor, it is far more likely that all such events were the product of imaginations, confused crowds, or deliberate fraud. And in no case did anyone rise from the dead. If you think otherwise, the burden of proof is on you. And the evidentiary bar for this claim is quite high - in keeping with the extraordinary nature of such a claim. Mere texts will not do."

I wasn't aware that the scientific method have proven Occam's Razor. And that part about "in no case did anyone arise from the dead" sounds suspiciously conclusory. And what, precisely, does the scientific method say the "high" standard should be. Have you done the probability math?

"This is the same proof as that for 2+2=4: proof by lack of contrary example. Show me another way of producing certainty of data, as defined by the scientific method. Note that I am not talking about certainty in the mathematical sense of proving a geometry theorem."

I agree that 2 + 2 = 4, but isn't that just another tautology? And how does the scientific method prove that the scientific method is the only way to really know something?

I refer you to the Jesus, Miracle Worker thread. It is down there somewhere. It is, however, a work in progress. But it would be a good place to begin the discussion.

"I thought you might want constructive discussion, instead of constant tit-for-tat banter. I was wrong; fine.

But before I go defending this statement, you have some loose ends to work on yourself. And since you asserted first, you can also prove first."

Coward. Once again you fail to come through to defend one of your own assertions. It shouldn't be to hard, I was just asking for examples of something you accused me of doing.

I originally said: "What makes you think I am uncomfortable with our degree of "forensic" evidence?"

You then said: "The fact that you are trying to fill in the gaps and paper over the unknown areas."

The scientific method says that people do not rise from the dead, and that events do not violate the laws of entropy. Such things are impossible. Basic logic says that people do not observe, or participate in, impossible events. By definition.

If I say, "all crows are black", then it only takes one exception to prove me wrong. But if I say "there are no white crows at all", then the only way to be sure of that is to round up every single crow in the universe and verify that statement, one crow at a time.

I'm saying that all crows are black here (i.e., all dead people stay dead).

If you think it has been observed before, then provide the evidence. So if you think that there is a white crow out theer (i.e, someone who rose), then by all means - get the proof and fetch it for us.

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
"So by Occam's Razor, it is far more likely that all such events were the product of imaginations, confused crowds, or deliberate fraud. And in no case did anyone rise from the dead. If you think otherwise, the burden of proof is on you. And the evidentiary bar for this claim is quite high - in keeping with the extraordinary nature of such a claim. Mere texts will not do."

I wasn't aware that the scientific method have proven Occam's Razor. And that part about "in no case did anyone arise from the dead" sounds suspiciously conclusory.

See the above.

Not required. I made no probability statements, nor did I claim that the scientific method quantified things in the form of a stack-ranked standard. Thanks for the strawman again.

And I have previously offered what I personally consider to be a strong set of proofs: objective data, derived from the scientific method, coming from multiple independent discplines.

No. The proof for this in the textbook was to set out the question thusly: demonstrate that, in all areas of science and in all parts of the universe, and in all ages and eons, that 2+2=4. We spent awhile trying to come up with situations (relatavistic situations, etc.) where the normal understanding of mathematics might fail. The proof, however, was relatively simple: lack of any contrary example. The demonstration was to prove that 2+2 might equal 5. Or 20 - or any other number. Of course, we couldn't do that.


Proof by lack of contrary example.