Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

What description of something that does not exist are you talking about?

Your description of God.

TagliatelliMonster said: Also, you seem unaware that "to exist" and "to live" are BOTH temporal phenomenon. (post 529)
Subduction Zone said: Do you realize that the most popular version of the Big Bang Theory has time beginning with the Big Bang? That means that the universe has always existed. (post 519)
If these 2 statements agree that would mean that you are using "has always existed" to mean, "has always existed since there was time".
This is a deceptive statement as "has always existed" implies that the universe did not come into existence, but has always been there in some form even when there was no time.

Sorry, no. That is rather nonsensical. Now you are trying to put time into "no time". As long as time has existed so has the universe. I know, it is a rather difficult idea because humans cannot conceive of "No time" very easily.

Why would I, a creationist, want to say that there was no beginning. No beginning is something that science once said and then the Hubble Telescope helped to develop the BB idea, a beginning. The steady state theory was popular in the mid 20th century.

You are once again not reasoning properly. Both have the universe existing for ever. This may help, it is an analogy so it may not be perfect.

Do you remember number lines from high school or middle school math? One can represent the number line for all real numbers. It would stretch infinitely to the left and to the right. And then there is the number line for all positive non-zero real numbers. It would start infinitely close to zero and go to the right from there. It was nevver even at zero. That may be how our universe is. It could have had a beginning but there was no "before the Big Bang".

 

[Subduction Zone]

But nobody concludes that the person that they saw after death, resurrected after a hallucintation. Why assuming that James was different?

Besides and even more important, some of the appearances would have had to be “group hallucinations” which is impossible(or very very very unlikely) and would require even a greater miracle than a resurrection.

How do you know that? And your only source for your James claim comes from Paul. That is not exactly a reliable source. You keep forgetting about his Canadian girlfriend.

And what makes you think that group hallucinations are needed? It looks as if you are back to your strawman versions of what likely happened.

 

[leroy]

Perhaps it's time to leave Occam's Razor and parsimony behind. You still don't understand, I'd bet you've done no reading, and you keep making the same errors

I don’t understand your own personal definition of O.R……….. but the fact is that the resurrection requires less elements than other naturalistic hypothesis. (or atleast you havent shown the opposite to be true) Whether if you what to cal it O-R- or not is irrelevant.

I don't know the answer to that but will stipulate to it. I don't think that it is relevant to the question of whether the writings of those two men were independent. You ignored the comment that they had doctrine in common. That's either because they influenced one another, were both influenced by a prior source, or invented the same religion independently.

Almost certainly yes, Paul and the author of John knew the disciples, knew the witnesses and likely knew each other, but I see that as a positive point.

When I say that the sources are independent I simply mean that they didn’t copied form each other.

No. It means groups of people can be wrong about what they say they saw even when they agree.

Granted but I never said the opposite, the claim is that people can´t have the same hallucination, hallucinations are a personal mental state, you can´t share your hallucinations with other people.

The implication is that group hallucinations are not possible , unless you invoke a miracle………… but if you are going to invoke a miracle, why not the resurrection?

Will you ever stop it with the misidentification and turn to other naturalistic explanations such as my preferred one - mythmaking after the fact. That one is a bout 98% likely to be correct. Explanations that require witnesses of anything actually existing including mass hallucination and a magic trick are essentially all of the other 2%, and supernaturalism is 0+%. Please address that position.

Once again you are chaning your hypothesis, but ok, stick to it and explain and develop your hypothesis………… which are the facts? How did the become myth ? are paul letters inspired by myth?.............. explain and develop your hypohteis.

Otherwise I would have to “guess “ your hypothesis and later you will accuse me for refuttign a strawman.,

So mass hallucinations are impossible (or very very very unlikely), but supernaturalism isn't? That's backwards.

both woudl have to be miracles.

I'm discussing your belief that resurrection is possible, not whether Jesus was resurrected. The evidence of his dead body wouldn't be available to us today even if somebody found a body claimed to be that of Jesus then or now.

New tombs are found all the time, finding a tomb from a dead man named Jesus who died by crucifixion within the year 30 would be pretty convincing evidence against the resurrection. …………if this tomb has the details mentioned in the gospels that would be conclusive evidence agains the resurrection

So the claim in the OP is falsifiable,

 

[Subduction Zone]

well i missed the post where you did that

And whose fault is that? You "miss the point" with everyone. It is why I refuse to explain old lost arguments of yours again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

New tombs are found all the time, finding a tomb from a dead man named Jesus who died by crucifixion within the year 30 would be pretty convincing evidence against the resurrection. …………if this tomb has the details mentioned in the gospels that would be conclusive evidence agains the resurrection

So the claim in the OP is falsifiable,

Not even close. "Jesus" or its Aramaic equivalent was a common name back the. So was "Joe". A tomb from them saying "Jessie, Joe's son" would only tell us of a man named Jessie who's father was Joe that died around then. It does not even deal with the most likely way that his body would have been treated. You seem to have forgotten that.

All you have is a strawman and poor reasoning again. The OP is far from falsifiable.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So you have no idea what evidence means, and no idea what supernatural means………… but you still have the intellectual dishonesty of claiming that there is no evidence for the supernatural?

I think what he's saying is that he's rejecting unfalsifiable claims whatever they are. Someone says there's a god and it is supernatural, and I don't know the precise nature of his god or all the ways he claims it transcends nature, but if the claims are unfalsifiable, they can be disregarded without rebuttal.

deal with the OP and spot the logical fallacies.

Already done multiple times by multiple posters including me.

i missed the post where you did that

And you said the same to me. It's time for you to begin to understand that you will not be learning anything from anybody who doesn't accept the likelihood of resurrection. It's time for you to see that despite all of the explanatory words written to you, you will never understand what either parsimony or falsification and falsifiability mean. You should be aware that you are incapable of discussing either those or burden of proof without being told that you still don't understand and realizing that that means or might mean something.

From the pen of the poet: "I've got a plan. Give it up, just don't try to understand."

Besides and even more important, some of the appearances would have had to be “group hallucinations” which is impossible(or very very very unlikely) and would require even a greater miracle than a resurrection.

Still with this? That claim has been rejected for the reasons given, although you probably didn't understand them since you recently claimed that resurrection is a parsimonious hypothesis. Same advice as above: you've made you opinion known repeatedly, it's been rejected by every critical thinker commenting, and you keep making the same rejected arguments unchanged. You say the same thing you said last time, get the same answer you did last time, say you never saw it, and then repeat your rejected claims. So give it up. You are unable to see and understand the answers written to you, and that won't change.

How do I know? You lack the critical thinking skills, and although told so many times by many posters, that too has zero impact on you as continue merrily along committing the same fallacies. You lack the ability to benefit from constructive criticism like this post, which will have zero impact on you even though I believe that these would among the most valuable words written to you if they could impact you, but you don't allow it. You don't have any interest in what others tell you.

The best thing anybody can do for a Duning-Kruger victim is to show him what he doesn't know and convert him to somebody who understands that there is such a thing as expertise, and he's not an expert. This would convert a vaccine denier who believes that all opinions on the relative safety of the vaccine and virus are equivalent because he doesn't know better, to somebody who knows to go to such people for their opinions. Knowing what you don't know is the next best thing to knowing it, as it leads you to seek the counsel of those who do, but I don't think I can do that or anything else for you.

That's being locked in. You can't get from your world of faith-based, motivated thinking to the world of open-mindedness and critical thought. I never lost that skill when I became a Christian, and it allowed me to see that the religion was false and tunnel out of it - a Herculean effort tantamount to quitting cigarettes.

Here are other people who are locked in - absolutely unable to be corrected even when there is evidence that they are wrong. These people have no path back any longer:

[1] "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

[2] The moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

[3] “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

[4] “When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” –creationist Henry Morris

 

[sayak83]

But nobody concludes that the person that they saw after death, resurrected after a hallucintation. Why assuming that James was different?

Besides and even more important, some of the appearances would have had to be “group hallucinations” which is impossible(or very very very unlikely) and would require even a greater miracle than a resurrection.

Because James existed in a religious cult culture where resurrection was being preached as a sign of coming end times. That is why he would certainly have interpreted his bereavement hallucinations that way.
The story of group visions is constructed post-hoc, like many other stories (like empty tomb etc) to make the claims of the new religion more believable. It is a typical case of exaggeration from a basic set of experiences by an ardent believer in order to convince others of the truth. We can see many examples like this in witnesses for Big Foot, Loch Ness etc. The set of events is very simple:-
1) Jesus, instead of heralding a new revolutionary age of god, is imprisoned and executes. His fanatical follower group disperses in fear and dismay.
2) His most ardent believers continue to hope that a miracle has happened and reports of his execution are untrue. Because of their state of mind they begin experience "sightings" of Jesus a-la Elvis. Several sightings happen and the rumor spread that Jesus is not dead.
3) Some like James and some women family members perhaps suffer bereavement hallucinations as well.
4) Given the general eschatological expectations they start to regather and the conviction spreads that, as prophesized, the end times have begun and Jesus has been resurrected. Maybe some people also "see" long dead prophets as well which crystalizes this conviction.
5) The news of more sightings come and they who have seen Jesus start to gather and a new leadership emerges that begins to consider Jesus as a resurrected messiah and a worship culture begins to form around him.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don’t understand your own personal definition of O.R

Did you mean parsimony? If you don't know what I mean by parsimony in hypothesis formation yet, you never will. Did you do any independent investigating as I suggested?

Almost certainly yes, Paul and the author of John knew the disciples, knew the witnesses and likely knew each other, but I see that as a positive point. When I say that the sources are independent I simply mean that they didn’t copied form each other.

Then perhaps you should have said that that is all you meant.

the claim is that people can´t have the same hallucination, hallucinations are a personal mental state, you can´t share your hallucinations with other people.

You have a wrong conception of how groups of people can come to mistakenly agree that they saw the same thing:

"A mass hallucination is a phenomenon in which a large group of people, usually in physical proximity to each other, all experience the same hallucination simultaneously. Mass hallucination is a common explanation for mass UFO sightings, appearances of the Virgin Mary, and other paranormal phenomena. In most cases, mass hallucination refers to a combination of suggestion and pareidolia, wherein one person will see, or pretend to see, something unusual (like the face of Jesus in the burn-marks on a tortilla, or the face of a kidnapped girl on a blank billboard) and point it out to other people. Having been told what to look for, those other people will consciously or unconsciously convince themselves to recognize the apparition, and will in turn point it out to others." Mass hallucination.

Once again you are changing your hypothesis

No, I am not. Previously I listed candidate hypotheses into these three groups and ordered them. Now, I've quantified it a bit more. And I have always put myth at the top of the list

explain and develop your hypothesis

Not again. You need to do your part and pay attention. Take notes if necessary. Do you know how to do a search on RF?

Otherwise I would have to “guess “ your hypothesis

That can't be changed.

New tombs are found all the time, finding a tomb from a dead man named Jesus who died by crucifixion within the year 30 would be pretty convincing evidence against the resurrection. …………if this tomb has the details mentioned in the gospels that would be conclusive evidence agains the resurrection. So the claim in the OP is falsifiable,

Not convincing to me. You couldn't connect that finding to scripture. Do you know how many people named Jesus died and been buried? How would you date the death of that cadaver to a the year 30 AD? Not with carbon isotopes.

 

[leroy]

Not even close. "Jesus" or its Aramaic equivalent was a common name back the. So was "Joe". A tomb from them saying "Jessie, Joe's son" would only tell us of a man named Jessie who's father was Joe that died around then. It does not even deal with the most likely way that his body would have been treated. You seem to have forgotten that.

All you have is a strawman and poor reasoning again. The OP is far from falsifiable.

But crucified people are usually not buried, this is why such a tomb would have been strong evidence against the resurrection strong enough to drop the hypothesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But crucified people are usually not buried, this is why such a tomb would have been strong evidence against the resurrection strong enough to drop the hypothesis.

What? No, First off, your example was of bones. There was nothing about crucifixion in it. Second, Jesus most likely never made it to a tomb. That is appears to be part of the Gospel myths. You seem to forget that it was a Roman crucifixion. They were usually left up to rot.

Your test fails basic falsifiability. Everything that is required to even find such a tomb is highly unlikely in the first place. And as I pointed out, the names were common. It would not refute the myth because Christians would just insist that you would need to prove that it was their Jesus and they would be for once right to make that claim.

 

[leroy]

I think what he's saying is that he's rejecting unfalsifiable claims whatever they are. Someone says there's a god and it is supernatural, and I don't know the precise nature of his god or all the ways he claims it transcends nature, but if the claims are unfalsifiable, they can be disregarded without rebuttal.

Luckily the argument in the OP is falsifiable

But still this is not an excuse, you cannot claim that there is no evidence for X if you are not willing to define “evidence” nor “X”

Already done multiple times by multiple posters including me.

Really, so why don’t you quote the sentence in the OP (or any claim made by me) and star your sentence with

“you made the logical fallacy of xxxxx because xxxxx”

, you will never understand what either parsimony or falsification and falsifiability mean. You should be aware that you are incapable of discussing either those or burden of proof without being told that you still don't understand and realizing that that means or might mean something.

Parsimony refers to the phylosophical principle that states that when you have 2 competing hypothesis you should prefer the one that involutes less elements or makes less assumptions (assuming that the hypothesis are equal in terms of other criteria)

falsifiability refers to the property of a hypothesis that could hypothetically be proven wrong

falsification is the act of falsifying a hypothesis (to show that it is wrong)


See how easy is to define terms?

I don’t understand these “atheist” attitude of “not defining terms” it is almost as if you want to keep things ambiguous and undefined, so that people can´t prove you wrong

Still with this? That claim has been rejected for the reasons given,

You rejected the claim on hallucinations with a straw man, as you usually do

1 Said that mass/groopup hallucinations don’t happen

2 you showed that mass delusions can happen

so obviosuly you didnt refute my claim

although you probably didn't understand them since you recently claimed that resurrection is a parsimonious hypothesis.

Because it is, (at least more parsimonious than the naturalistic rivals)……… I am only adding one element “that miracles are possible” (specifically the miracle of the resurrection.)

Naturalistic hypothesis, add much more elements.

Same advice as above: you've made you opinion known repeatedly, it's been rejected by every critical thinker commenting, and you keep making the same rejected arguments unchanged.

Because you are expected to refute the argument (not just reject it)

Here are other people who are locked in - absolutely unable to be corrected even when there is evidence that they are wrong. These people have no path back any longer:

[1] "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

Nothing in that qupte imples that WLC can not be corrected,

[2] The moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

agree ham is wrong.

But atheist from this fórum would answer the same. (not sure if you are one of these people)

and Bill Nye is also being disingenuous, “evidence” is not an answer ether, you need to explain what you mean by evidence and what would count as evidecne

[3] “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

I disagree , if the bible says that 2+2=5 then the bible (that paragraph) is wrong

[4] “When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” –creationist Henry Morris

This is too general, each case should be evaluated individually. But I agree with the general principle, if the evidence suggests that the bible is wrong then it´s wrong

 

[SkepticThinker]

Really, so why don’t you quote the sentence in the OP (or any claim made by me) and star your sentence with

“you made the logical fallacy of xxxxx because xxxxx”

We all have. Countless, endless times.
This is clearly just a method of obfuscation on your part. Please refrain. It's tiring.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Luckily the argument in the OP is falsifiable

But still this is not an excuse, you cannot claim that there is no evidence for X if you are not willing to define “evidence” nor “X”



Really, so why don’t you quote the sentence in the OP (or any claim made by me) and star your sentence with

“you made the logical fallacy of xxxxx because xxxxx”



Parsimony refers to the phylosophical principle that states that when you have 2 competing hypothesis you should prefer the one that involutes less elements or makes less assumptions (assuming that the hypothesis are equal in terms of other criteria)

falsifiability refers to the property of a hypothesis that could hypothetically be proven wrong

falsification is the act of falsifying a hypothesis (to show that it is wrong)


See how easy is to define terms?

I don’t understand these “atheist” attitude of “not defining terms” it is almost as if you want to keep things ambiguous and undefined, so that people can´t prove you wrong


You rejected the claim on hallucinations with a straw man, as you usually do

1 Said that mass/groopup hallucinations don’t happen

2 you showed that mass delusions can happen

so obviosuly you didnt refute my claim



Because it is, (at least more parsimonious than the naturalistic rivals)……… I am only adding one element “that miracles are possible” (specifically the miracle of the resurrection.)

Naturalistic hypothesis, add much more elements.



Because you are expected to refute the argument (not just reject it)


Nothing in that qupte imples that WLC can not be corrected,


agree ham is wrong.

But atheist from this fórum would answer the same. (not sure if you are one of these people)

and Bill Nye is also being disingenuous, “evidence” is not an answer ether, you need to explain what you mean by evidence and what would count as evidecne


I disagree , if the bible says that 2+2=5 then the bible (that paragraph) is wrong


This is too general, each case should be evaluated individually. But I agree with the general principle, if the evidence suggests that the bible is wrong then it´s wrong

I have a question. What group of people are being referred to with this "mass delusion" talk? How many people are we supposedly talking about here? I asked a while back but don't recall a response.

 

[leroy]

What? No, First off, your example was of bones. There was nothing about crucifixion in it. Second, Jesus most likely never made it to a tomb. That is appears to be part of the Gospel myths. You seem to forget that it was a Roman crucifixion. They were usually left up to rot.

That supports my point, the chances that there were 2 persons named Jesus that where crucified and then buried within the year 30 are low. So finding one would strongly indicate that he is Jesus Crist.

Your test fails basic falsifiability. Everything that is required to even find such a tomb is highly unlikely in the first place. And as I pointed out, the names were common. It would not refute the myth because Christians would just insist that you would need to prove that it was their Jesus and they would be for once right to make that claim.

Yes but that is only one of Manny potential falsifications, there are many artifacts and documents that could be found, that would falsify the resurrection hypothesis.

 

[leroy]

leroy said:
Really, so why don’t you quote the sentence in the OP (or any claim made by me) and star your sentence with

“you made the logical fallacy of xxxxx because xxxxx”

We all have. Countless, endless times.
This is clearly just a method of obfuscation on your part. Please refrain. It's tiring.

Why is it that atheist always run away from this challenge?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why is it that atheist always run away from this challenge?

I just told you.

 

[leroy]

I have a question. What group of people are being referred to with this "mass delusion" talk? How many people are we supposedly talking about here? I asked a while back but don't recall a response.

The 12 disciples (except for Judas)



The apostles (not sure about the number)

The woman that visited Jesus´s tomb (perhaps 3 or so women)

The 500

These are the 4 group appearances that are reported in the new testament. (perhaps I missing one or two more)

All I am saying is that they could have not been hallucinations because group hallucinations don’t happen.

(if you whant to say that these are lies, or legends or myths, ) then it´s an other issue, but likely they were not hallucinations.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The 12 disciples (except for Judas)



The apostles (not sure about the number)

The woman that visited Jesus´s tomb (perhaps 3 or so women)

The 500

These are the 4 group appearances that are reported in the new testament. (perhaps I missing one or two more)

All I am saying is that they could have not been hallucinations because group hallucinations don’t happen.

(if you whant to say that these are lies, or legends or myths, ) then it´s an other issue, but likely they were not hallucinations.

The supposed "500" can be dismissed right off the bat as hearsay. We don't have any testimony from a single one of them. Just somebody saying "500 people saw such-and-such" which is a claim anybody can say about anything.

 

[Colt]

Another day at work for the Atheists trying to undermine Jesus Christ and yet another swing and a miss! The sheer amount of effort that they put into discrediting faith says everything about their lives!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Really, so why don’t you quote the sentence in the OP (or any claim made by me) and star your sentence with “you made the logical fallacy of xxxxx because xxxxx”

I told you that I'm not interested in relitigating all of that. I've already done that twice. You said you didn't see it. I can't help you see.

Did you look into how to search RF? Go to your home page and click Search:

That takes you to this screen. Enter your search parameters and hit Search again:

That gets you this:

I'll bet you can find what you say doesn't exist in one of those posts. I could have opened those links, reviewed them, and copied my answers, but it was your job to focus on them the first time enough to understand and remember what you read, and if that didn't happen then, I don't expect going through it all again would matter. You'd still be telling me you never saw it.

If you don't find it there, try other search parameters. If you consider that too much work, that's fine. So do I.

Parsimony refers to the phylosophical principle that states that when you have 2 competing hypothesis you should prefer the one that involutes less elements or makes less assumptions (assuming that the hypothesis are equal in terms of other criteria)

You don't understand where the word applies. You wrote this: "Because it is, (at least more parsimonious than the naturalistic rivals)……… I am only adding one element “that miracles are possible” (specifically the miracle of the resurrection.) Naturalistic hypothesis, add much more elements"

falsifiability refers to the property of a hypothesis that could hypothetically be proven wrong

falsification is the act of falsifying a hypothesis (to show that it is wrong)

Yes, that's falsifiability (and falsification), but the complaint is the same. You don't know where to apply these terms. You said that finding a body thought to have died in 30AD and thought to be named Jesus falsifies the claim that the Jesus of the Gospels was resurrected. It doesn't. I agree that that never happened, but if I didn't, somebody digging up a body and claiming that that was the same person shouldn't be believed, since we would have no way of identifying whose body it actually was.

You rejected the claim on hallucinations with a straw man, as you usually do

1 Said that mass/groopup hallucinations don’t happen

2 you showed that mass delusions can happen

so obviosuly you didnt refute my claim

Group "hallucinations" aren't actually hallucinations as occurs with psychoses and hallucinogens. People see what is there but are later deluded into believing that they saw something else through suggestion and a desire to believe.

Because you are expected to refute the argument (not just reject it)

You are expected to look at my refutation, read it, and remember what you saw. Until you show interest and skill at that, your about what was posted are unpersuasive.

Nothing in that quote implies that [William Lane Craig] can not be corrected

Disagree.