BDS

Perhaps Toto isn’t as reasonable as I thought he was. He says, “science and logic say that people do not rise from the dead after three days.� This is incorrect. “Logic� has nothing whatsoever to say on the matter, and “science� makes no such assertions.

Toto says, “In today's world, with our experience of the scientific method, saying that people do not rise from the dead is like saying that the sun cannot stand still in the sky. It just doesn't happen.� But this statement defies the “scientific method�, rather than supporting it. The scientific method would suggest that the statement, “People do not rise from the dead� is potentially falsifiable, and that IF someone rose from the dead, it would, in fact, be falsified. You appear to misunderstand the nature of science, and the nature of logic, Toto.

I imagine Toto and Ty, had they lived 100 years ago, would have claimed that, “Anyone who doesn’t recognize that Time is a constant, the same throughout the universe, is defying science and logic.� Their claims about the impossibility of someone rising from the dead are based on the same “faith� in their preconceived and intuitive notions that would have led them to assert that time is a constant.

p.s. Intuitive faith in universal laws (like "people don't rise from the dead") is what "defies logic". Anyone who understands the distinction between induction and deduction recognizes that the former draws conclusions that are NOT logically "valid" (however much they conform to reality), while the latter derives conclusions that are.

Toto

If you peel that onion, you will find nothing at the center. Please try. Where does Eusebius even say that he heard from X that the resurrection happened?

The argument may not be the most effective at converting believers, but it is not erroneous or useless.

Toto

. . . and we have thousands of years of experience with people not rising from the dead, and we understand the biochemistry of what happens when people die and why it can't be reversed. This is our modern scientific understanding, and this is why we can say with confidence (with 99.99.. percent probability) that people do not rise from the dead. There's no "faith" in "universal intuitive laws" needed, just a little bit of modern medical knowledge.

BDS

We had thousands of years of experience with time (seemingly) behaving like a constant.

Don't get me wrong, I'm just as skeptical as you are about Jesus rising from the dead. The difference is that I'm also skeptical about other things, in which you appear to have unfounded faith. The "laws of science" are not created by nature -- they are invented by humans to DESCRIBE nature. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than you have dreamt of in your philosophy (to quote Hamlet).

pharoah

The statement “People do not mutate into unicorns after death� is potentially falsifiable, and that IF someone mutated into a unicorn after death, it would, in fact, be falsified. Therefore we should ignore all contrary evidence because this could conceivably happen one day. :banghead:

Toto

And in the 20th century, we gained more data, after a better understanding of the underlying physics.

What medical or biochemical advances do you see that would allow a reversal of the process of death?

It's good to have an open mind, but don't let your brains fall out.

TySixtus

I've figured BDS out. He's willing to entertain that, just because there has been no verifiable case of somone rising from the dead, ever, that we still shouldn't dismiss the idea.

I guess because I do, I'm "closed-minded" or "Fundamentalist" in my thinking. I can handle that type of retort, coming from BDS. After all, he believes it's possible for people to come back from the dead.

I wish he would've just come out and said this in the beginning. Quite frankly, I'm not keen on wasting my time and electrons arguing with someone who has abused the word "possible" to such a degree.

You've claimed that my saying "People don't rise from the dead" is illogical and unscientific? My friend, this is dumbest thing I've read all day long. Am I to suppose that your position of "I don't know if people can rise from the dead, but I'm not going to discount it!" is somehow more scientific and logical than my statment? Excuse me while I smash my head against the wall. I think some brain damage is in order to understand this argument.

A couple thousand years of medical science, a couple billion documents, a couple billion doctors. Nope, none of that matters to BDS. Rising from the dead is still "possible" in his book. And that's fine. This is rightfully categorized as "faith".

You can have your faith, BDS, and I'll have my reason.

Ty

BDS

And in the 22nd century, we'll gain more data, and believe in a bunch of things that we see as ridculous and unbelievable today, and learn that some of what we "believe" today is ridiculous and mistaken. That much we can learn from the past.

In addition, although we TEND to gain data, we also LOSE data. Suppose (purely hyptohetically) you were Doubting Thomas. Or even someone who knew and trusted Doubting Thomas. Suppose events happened as the gospels say they did. "Feel the holes in my hand," said Jesus. Surely that's (hypothetically, of course) "data" to consider, is it not? Is the Gospel account untrustworthy because it ISN'T a first hand, eye witness account? Would the evidence it presents still be untrustworthy if you were a contemporary of Doubting Thomas? He is your trusted friend, and he tells you what he saw? Not enough? OK. Then you see Jesus yourself? Is that enough?

Is there any evidence that could possibly be "valid"? If so, how does it differ from the evidence of the gospels? Degree of separation?

Headline:

Ted Williams leads the American league in hitting.

Boston. May 12, 2137. Ted Williams climbed to the top of the American League batting-leaders list today, for the first time in 180 years. Williams had been cyrogenically frozen in the year 2001, and was recently reborn through new technology.......

OK. Maybe that's as whacky as Jesus rising from the dead. But I can imagine thousands of potential ways (that we don't know about now) in which people could appear to rise from the dead. So can anyone else who uses his imagination, with or without referring to the obvious one – the miraculous intervention of a supernatural being.

Toto

The events in which of the inconsistent gospels, all of which were written - anonymously - at least a generation after the alleged events? The gospel that has Jesus rising immediately into heaven? Or the one written much later that has Jesus hanging out, eating a piece of fish, showing his wounds even though earlier theology required that Jesus have a new pristine body? You're not dealing with a report, you're dealing with a theological piece of fiction that has no indication of being based on what we now call reality.

These obvious literary creations just have no value as evidence, even if your hypothetical case might have some evidentiary value.

As for a cryogenic restoration - that requires that the person not actually start to decompose, unlike Jesus who was dead three days in the grave.

BDS

Toto, you want to argue about whether Christ was Resurrected. I don't know and I don't care. I assume he wasn't.

Nor do I know much about the gospels (I've read 'em, but that that's about it). However, this much I do know: they are not "pieces of fiction" if one uses literary terms with even the slightest modicum of precision.