Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[TagliatelliMonster]

All hypothesis are imaginary but ok

No.

Abiogenesis could have happened twice (agreeeeee? (yes)……………..

Sure. It could be happening right now at the bottom of the ocean in volcanic vents for example.

All I am saying is that NH do not get you universal common ancestor, if say humans and bacteria belong to a different” line” we would have the exact same observations related to NH that we currectly have.

NH is not an exclusive prediction for universal common descend, if there were 2 or 3 o4 or 5 different lines, we would expect to make the same observations.

We would not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you quote a single argument made by me in this thread that has been refuted? NO

The denial is strong in this one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well under what basis do you affirm that ne naturalistic hypotheiss are "right of the bat" always better than those that require a suspension of natural laws? (lets call them supernatrual )

Because they don't require the suspension of natural law.



In case you haven't noticed, the suspension of natural law simply doesn't happen.
Any claim that includes that as a requirement is so on the order of extra-ordinary that any other possible explanation that doesn't have such a requirement, is going to be more likely "straight out the gates".

As the famous statement goes:

"What is more likely? That the laws of nature were suspended in your favor? Or that someone made mistake?"

You haven’t supported that claim.

The fact that you even ask for support of that only shows your intellectually dishonest approach to the entire topic.

And I did refuted your claim with my ghost example

You did not. You made sh!t up instead.

It's like saying that "it's a trick" is not the most likely when David Copperfield seemingly walks straight through a wall and pointing at Harry Potter to make the point that "magic can happen".

It's retarded.

.................. my gohst example shows that alteast in principle a supernatrual hypotheiss could be better than naturalistic ones.

Your example is imaginary.
Try finding a real example.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why not?

I provided a hypothetical example where “ghost” (usually labeled as supernatural) would be a better examplanation than “hallucinations” (natural)………… and none of you have disagreed with the statement, so what happened? Did you change your mind?

It's not an example. It's a fantasy with no brearing on reality whatsoever.

It's like pointing to star wars to make the point that The Force possibly exists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe, I have not been keeping up with reading the posts.

That's okay. @leroy didn't either.

I am going on my experience of what seems to happen and of course whether @leroy was wrong or not is a matter of opinion.

No. It is a matter of fact, not opinion.

But you skeptics do have a habit of going on and on and on and on about the same things and making your posts longer and longer, even to the extent of breaking up sentences into parts and complaining about each part of the sentence and in the process, losing the whole gist of what was said and the reasoning behind it.

It's hard to keep bs unchallenged.

 

[leroy]

Maybe, I have not been keeping up with reading the posts. I am going on my experience of what seems to happen and of course whether @leroy was wrong or not is a matter of opinion.
But you skeptics do have a habit of going on and on and on and on about the same things and making your posts longer and longer, even to the extent of breaking up sentences into parts and complaining about each part of the sentence and in the process, losing the whole gist of what was said and the reasoning behind it.

agree

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because they don't require the suspension of natural law.



In case you haven't noticed, the suspension of natural law simply doesn't happen.
Any claim that includes that as a requirement is so on the order of extra-ordinary that any other possible explanation that doesn't have such a requirement, is going to be more likely "straight out the gates".

As the famous statement goes:

"What is more likely? That the laws of nature were suspended in your favor? Or that someone made mistake?"

I would suggest that you watch more Warner Brothers cartoons. As long as you don't look down gravity does not work:

 

[leroy]

That's logically possible. Why don't you investigate for yourself? Try the search function I showed you. You've got key words quoted and a date.

The reason I deleted that content was twofold. First, I told you that I would not do your job. If you won't go find it, then it's not for you to know.

Second, I'm no longer willing to discuss the subject with you, and I felt that giving you my answer would lead to you going into repeating yourself without acknowledgement of what is written to you. I have no interest in doing that with you any longer.

You ignore everything.

Yes, but why bother? Why refute you again and again just to have you write posts like that? As you said, it's boring and tedious. Up your game, and you might get some takers. To do that, you're going to need to begin paying attention to what is written to you and responding to it responsively.

There's a saying that if three different people at a party say you're too drunk to drive home, even if you disagree, you should give them your keys. Brian thinks people are ganging up on you because they all report the same problem, but maybe you should consider the possibility that they might be on to something.

Why do you think that you aren't understood? You're being disagreed with and told how, where, and why.

And do you think that applies to Leroy now? Do you think that he just isn't being understood? If so, you've got it backwards. Leroy doesn't understand or cannot assimilate the refutations of the OP. He hasn't understood or cannot remember seeing the alternative hypotheses to resurrection. He doesn't or won't understand the principle of parsimony in hypothesis formation.

What you don’t seem to understand is that as a debater your “job” is to support your claims…..your job is not to “educate me” or “teach me lessons”

If your claim is that you already answered to a question your job is to show that to be true by quoting the question and the answer.

If your claim is that I made a mistake your job is to quote my comment and explain why is it wrong

If your claim is that I made logical fallacies, your job is to quote my comments and explain why are they fallacious. (as I do repeatedly with your posts)

That is your job regardless if I will ignore your comments or not………this is not about me….. External readers might beneficiate from your contribution.

You are not the judge, your role in this thread is being a debater, your job is to support your claims regadless if I will ignore them or not…………. This is for the benefit of external readers.

for example @Brian2 wouldnt you be interested in @It Aint Necessarily So quoting one of my mistakes or falacies followed by a justification for why he thinks that is a mistake or a fallacy?

aren´t you interested in @It Aint Necessarily So explainig and developing a hypothesis and expalining why is that a better hypotheiss that the resurection?


So @It Aint Necessarily So do you really think that external observers will beneficiate form answers such as "I already answered to that, but I will not tell you where, nor I will quote the post where I wrote that answer" ?

 

[leroy]

Paul had a psychosis

3 in 100 people experience psychosis at least once in their life. So it's not rare.
Contrary to the OP, psychosis doesn't require natural law to be suspended. Not only is natural law suspension "rare", it is pretty much akin to "impossible".
When we call something "impossible", most of the time we mean that it would require suspension of natural law.

So, hypothesis one is a common occurence in humans and a perfectly valid possible explanation
Hypothesis 2 is akin to being impossible.

Guess which one is "better".

Done.

Ok, sow that your hypothesis is better according to these criteria do the complete job.

- Explanatory scope - does the hypothesis account for all the data
- Explanatory power - how well does the hypothesis explain the data
- Plausibility - is the hypothesis compatible with or implied by facts that are generally accepted as known
- Less ad hoc - does the hypothesis go beyond what is known and makes unevidenced assumptions

I would say that resurection clearly wins in 3 of these points (in green)...................But I will allow you to develop your hypothesis and prove me wrong

 

[leroy]

No.




Sure. It could be happening right now at the bottom of the ocean in volcanic vents for example.



We would not.

We don’t see a NH pattern when we compare humans and bacteria anyway, so weather if we share a common ancestor with them or not, that cannot be determined by NH

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Huh?

Captain Jack Sparrow told Davy Jones that he paid his debt by dying and Jones retorted that he didn’t stay dead. In a sacrificial death, resurrection is bouncing the check.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I believe God exists. I don't show it,,,,,,,,,,, especially to people who just want to say I have no reason to believe and no evidence.

You should not have to. That’s what God gets paid for.

 

[Whateverist]

Historically, there was a radical Jew named Jesus who was one helluva teacher. But how that gets you to resurrection, God and heaven/hell I don’t see. Some people saw some stuff and interpreted it a certain way. So?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We don’t see a NH pattern when we compare humans and bacteria anyway, so weather if we share a common ancestor with them or not, that cannot be determined by NH

You need to demonstrate that claim. I have never heard this claim from a scientist. We have far less in common with the because the split would have happened very early, but we have too many shared genes for us not to have a common ancestor and therefore a nested hierarchy shared with them:

Link Between Human Genes and Bacteria Is Hotly Debated by Rival Scientific Camps (Published 2001)

Finding by academic consortium that decoded human genome comes under attack from camp of consortium's rival, Celera Genomics; finding, one of most surprising in consortium's report in February, was that 223 of the 30,000 human genes appear to have been acquired directly from bacteria; critique...

www.nytimes.com

And that is an old article. We have known of this relationship for over twenty years.

 

[leroy]

Because they don't require the suspension of natural law.



In case you haven't noticed, the suspension of natural law simply doesn't happen.
Any claim that includes that as a requirement is so on the order of extra-ordinary that any other possible explanation that doesn't have such a requirement, is going to be more likely "straight out the gates".

As the famous statement goes:

"What is more likely? That the laws of nature were suspended in your favor? Or that someone made mistake?"

Yes, that shows that hypothesis that require the suspension of natural laws (lest call them supernatural explanations) are intrinsically less likely …………. But it doesn’t show that “natural and hypothesis always and necessarily win”

A bad naturalistic hypothesis is worst than a good “supernatural hypothesis”


at the big bang, matter/energy was created (violating the fist law of thermodynamics) but it is still the best theory we have for the origin of the universe. ... my point is that sometimes a theory/hypotheiss could be the best alternative even if it violates current laws

Your example is imaginary.

Yes but my imaginary examples shows that natural hypothesis don’t necessarily win.

Try finding a real example.

ok, the big bang violates our current understanding of scientific laws

 

[leroy]

It's not an example. It's a fantasy with no brearing on reality whatsoever.

It's like pointing to star wars to make the point that The Force possibly exists.

I am talking about logical possibility.

“It is logically possible for a supernatural hypothesis to win”

Do you agree?

Or would you take the burden proof and show that it is necessarily impossible for a supernatural hypothesis to win?



Just for keeping track in this context

Supernatural = suspension natural law

 

[SkepticThinker]

What you don’t seem to understand is that as a debater your “job” is to support your claims…..your job is not to “educate me” or “teach me lessons”

If your claim is that you already answered to a question your job is to show that to be true by quoting the question and the answer.

If your claim is that I made a mistake your job is to quote my comment and explain why is it wrong

If your claim is that I made logical fallacies, your job is to quote my comments and explain why are they fallacious. (as I do repeatedly with your posts)

That is your job regardless if I will ignore your comments or not………this is not about me….. External readers might beneficiate from your contribution.

You are not the judge, your role in this thread is being a debater, your job is to support your claims regadless if I will ignore them or not…………. This is for the benefit of external readers.

for example @Brian2 wouldnt you be interested in @It Aint Necessarily So quoting one of my mistakes or falacies followed by a justification for why he thinks that is a mistake or a fallacy?

aren´t you interested in @It Aint Necessarily So explainig and developing a hypothesis and expalining why is that a better hypotheiss that the resurection?


So @It Aint Necessarily So do you really think that external observers will beneficiate form answers such as "I already answered to that, but I will not tell you where, nor I will quote the post where I wrote that answer" ?

Everyone has done all of this. Many times. We're tired of playing your silly games only to be told we weren't even playing to begin with.
It's tiring. And it gets us no where. In your world, we'd be spending our entire conversation going over and over and over things we've already said, because you seem to have forgotten all about it. Is it too much to ask you to keep up on your own?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, that shows that hypothesis that require the suspension of natural laws (lest call them supernatural explanations) are intrinsically less likely …………. But it doesn’t show that “natural and hypothesis always and necessarily win”

A bad naturalistic hypothesis is worst than a good “supernatural hypothesis”


at the big bang, matter/energy was created (violating the fist law of thermodynamics) but it is still the best theory we have for the origin of the universe. ... my point is that sometimes a theory/hypotheiss could be the best alternative even if it violates current laws

No, your claims about the Big Bang are incorrect. And you have only demonstrated that you do not understand it.

Do you realize that when it comes to energy (which according to some physicists is only bookkeeping) that there ae both positive and negative energies? Did you know that physicists, by more than one method, have measured the total energy of the universe? Can you guess what the measurement is?

Yes but my imaginary examples shows that natural hypothesis don’t necessarily win.

No, they do not. You seem to have forgotten the word in your sentence that refutes you.

ok, the big bang violates our current understanding of scientific laws

No, your strawman version does. So what? That is not the version used by scientists.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok, sow that your hypothesis is better according to these criteria do the complete job.

- Explanatory scope - does the hypothesis account for all the data
- Explanatory power - how well does the hypothesis explain the data
- Plausibility - is the hypothesis compatible with or implied by facts that are generally accepted as known
- Less ad hoc - does the hypothesis go beyond what is known and makes unevidenced assumptions

I would say that resurection clearly wins in 3 of these points (in green)...................But I will allow you to develop your hypothesis and prove me wrong

Why do you think the occurrence of something that has never been shown to occur before, of something that has not even been shown to be possible at all, is MORE likely than any other explanation, especially ones we know can occur, have occurred and are likely to have occurred, such as in natural explanations?

Your position on this is bizarre to me. And I think it has something to do with your misunderstandings of statistical probability (and/or your desire for the resurrection story in the Bible to be true).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am talking about logical possibility.

“It is logically possible for a supernatural hypothesis to win”

Do you agree?

Or would you take the burden proof and show that it is necessarily impossible for a supernatural hypothesis to win?

You are using a twisted argument again. Even if it were possible for an argument for a supernatural argument to win, you would still lose because you failed at supporting your claims properly and this has been shown to be the case countless times.

Just for keeping track in this context

Supernatural = suspension natural law

And that is something that we have not ever seen outside of cartoons. For your argument to even work you would need to be able to show that a violation of natural laws is possible. You cant seem to support that belief. That makes your argument less likely than almost any natural hypothesis. That has been the point. Your argument has failed.. You want to try to extend that to all such arguments.