Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

yes

- Explanatory power - how well does the hypothesis explain the data

Very well

- Plausibility - is the hypothesis compatible with or implied by facts that are generally accepted as known

Yes

- Less ad hoc - does the hypothesis go beyond what is known and makes unevidenced assumptions

it doesn't. as said, 3 in 100 people experience at least 1 psychosis in their life.

I would say that resurection clearly wins in 3 of these points (in green)...................

An event that requires suspension of natural law does not win in any of these points from any explanation that doesn't require suspension of natural law.
On top of that, all you have as evidence that natural law was suspended, is the "say so" from the claims themselves.

This is pathetic Leroy, even for your low standards.

But I will allow you to develop your hypothesis and prove me wrong

I don't need to.
It doesn't require violation of natural law.
Your claim does. And you have no extra-ordinary evidence to support the ordinary claim. All you have are more claims.
The kind of claims we expect from psychotic people, in fact.

I win by default.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

That is not exactly true.

I already told you: horizontal gene transfer is well understood and accounted for.

You are grasping at straws, as usual.

You remind of Behe who, in order for his "intelligent design nonsense" to be valid as a scientific theory, he had to debate what a scientific theory is and reformulate it so that it could fit (and he made astrology a valid theory by doing that also).

It's akin to what you do. Trying to redefine what valid evidence is, just so you can lower the standards to an all time low so that your "evidence" of events that require the suspension of natural law seem plausible.

It's ridiculous. Have some dignity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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”

They always win unless you can provide extra-ordinary verifiable evidence that the suspension of natural law is even possible.
Good luck with that.

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

There are no "good supernatural hypothesis".
First, as per your own acknowledgement, you can't even define what "supernatural" means.
Second, any hypothesis that requires suspension of natural law is as weak as it gets. It doesn't get any weaker as it includes things that are understood as being IMPOSSIBLE.

So for such ideas to even be worth to only consider, you're going to have to show that suspension of natural can actually occur.
Good luck with that also.

Until then, they will ALWAYS be rejected at face value.

"magic happened" is never a "good" explanation. Regardless of the availability (or not) of alternative explanations.
"magic happened" is not an explanation at all. It is a ridiculous claim.

at the big bang, matter/energy was created (violating the fist law of thermodynamics)

false

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

It doesn't violate any laws.

Strawmanning and redefining words is really all you have, right?

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

Ok you win in your imagination.

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

It doesn't.

 

[Whateverist]

Just for keeping track in this context

Supernatural = suspension natural law

Why assume that “natural law” as currently conceived can only fail if something more powerful wills it to? Isn’t it more likely that when one expression of natural law fails that we have somewhat misconstrued that ‘law’?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am talking about logical possibility.

Logic requires proper reasoning.
Imaginary examples are not proper reasoning.

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

Do you agree?

No. And you have failed to demonstrate that claim.
Again, if we are going to allow fictionaly imaginary examples to make points, then we might as well just claim "magic happens" and be done with it.
This is a ridiculous argument leroy

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

I already did.
yet here you are, trying to define magic into existence with imaginary examples

Just for keeping track in this context

Supernatural = suspension natural law

Ok.
The supernatural doesn't happen then.

Show me otherwise. Show me a REAL verifiable example where natural law is suspended.

 

[leroy]

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.

Quote the relevant part of the article and quote the claim made by me that you think contradicts the information of the article

 

[leroy]

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?

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

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

you misunderstood the article/YouTube video/book or whatever you consulted………….yes the total energy is zero or close to zero, but it doesn’t mean what you think it means

the point is that the evidence shows that energy/matter has not always existed, implying that it began to exist, implying that at some point the first law of thermodynamics (as we understand it) was broken

 

[leroy]

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.

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.

As usualy you are moving the goal post.

All I am saying is that natural hypothesis do not necessarily win

Ether agree or refute that point

 

[leroy]

yes


Very well



Yes


it doesn't. as said, 3 in 100 people experience at least 1 psychosis in their life.



An event that requires suspension of natural law does not win in any of these points from any explanation that doesn't require suspension of natural law.
On top of that, all you have as evidence that natural law was suspended, is the "say so" from the claims themselves.

This is pathetic Leroy, even for your low standards.


I don't need to.
It doesn't require violation of natural law.
Your claim does. And you have no extra-ordinary evidence to support the ordinary claim. All you have are more claims.
The kind of claims we expect from psychotic people, in fact.

I win by default.

t doesn't. as said, 3 in 100 people experience at least 1 psychosis in their life.

Yes but 0 in 100 have concluded that someone resurrected because of psychosis.

It doesn't require violation of natural law.

We are back.

That argument would only be valid if you show that suspension of natural laws hypothesis are necessarily worst, otherwise you don’t win by default

yes

No it doesn’t have much explanatory power, people with psychosis are not expected to conclude that someone resurrected (that has never happened)

Very well

no it doesn’t have explanatory scope, Paul having psychosis doesn’t explain the appearances to the other disciples.

it doesn't. as said, 3 in 100 people experience at least 1 psychosis in their life.

It is completely adhoc, you are assuming a mental illness without any evidence,

Yes

it is inconsistent with previous knowledge, people do not conclude that someone resurrected, because they had a psychosis.

 

[leroy]

Logic requires proper reasoning.
Imaginary examples are not proper reasoning.



No. And you have failed to demonstrate that claim.
Again, if we are going to allow fictionaly imaginary examples to make points, then we might as well just claim "magic happens" and be done with it.
This is a ridiculous argument leroy



I already did.
yet here you are, trying to define magic into existence with imaginary examples



Ok.
The supernatural doesn't happen then.

Imaginary examples are used to show logical possibility……. This is how logic works
All I showed is that there are at least some scenarios that are logically possible where “supernatural wins”

This means that “natrure” doesn’t win by default

Show me otherwise. Show me a REAL verifiable example where natural law is suspended.

i did, the big bang woudl be an example

 

[Whateverist]

Yes but 0 in 100 have concluded that someone resurrected because of psychosis.

Psychosis is irrelevant here. The real question is how could ever know that natural law had been set aside? How do you rule out the incompleteness of your understanding of natural law?

Who ever suggested that psychosis resulted in the resurrection of a dead person? Smells like red herring to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes but 0 in 100 have concluded that someone resurrected because of psychosis.

Huh? How did you come to that conculsion?

We are back.

That argument would only be valid if you show that suspension of natural laws hypothesis are necessarily worst, otherwise you don’t win by default

No, Leroy. You're shifting the burden of proof again.

No it doesn’t have much explanatory power, people with psychosis are not expected to conclude that someone resurrected (that has never happened)

Huh? "Not expected?" People with psychosis are "expected" to make claims that are not attached to reality.

no it doesn’t have explanatory scope, Paul having psychosis doesn’t explain the appearances to the other disciples.

You mean the claim of the appearance that Paul makes on behalf of other people?

It is completely adhoc, you are assuming a mental illness without any evidence,

A person making a claim that is detached from reality could be considered evidence of mental illness.

it is inconsistent with previous knowledge, people do not conclude that someone resurrected, because they had a psychosis.

It is consistent with previous knowledge. Human beings are known to suffer from psychosis. On the other hand, resurrections are not known to occur.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quote the relevant part of the article and quote the claim made by me that you think contradicts the information of the article

LOL! No, you lose when you make that sort of claim. You need to admit that you do not understand first.

Remember, your own actions put you on "corrections only".

 

[Subduction Zone]

you misunderstood the article/YouTube video/book or whatever you consulted………….yes the total energy is zero or close to zero, but it doesn’t mean what you think it means

the point is that the evidence shows that energy/matter has not always existed, implying that it began to exist, implying that at some point the first law of thermodynamics (as we understand it) was broken

Sorry, you just indicated that once again that you are the one that did not understand.

You used a false claim in your post. Did you mist it? If you want more than what was posted to you you have to admit to your own shortcomings again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As usualy you are moving the goal post.

All I am saying is that natural hypothesis do not necessarily win

Ether agree or refute that point

Oh my! More false claims.

Sorry, but until you can debate properly it is corrections only for you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

you misunderstood the article/YouTube video/book or whatever you consulted………….yes the total energy is zero or close to zero, but it doesn’t mean what you think it means

the point is that the evidence shows that energy/matter has not always existed, implying that it began to exist, implying that at some point the first law of thermodynamics (as we understand it) was broken

Give it a rest already.
Big bang theory does not violate conservation laws.
It just doesn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Huh? How did you come to that conculsion?

No, Leroy. You're shifting the burden of proof again.

Huh? "Not expected?" People with psychosis are "expected" to make claims that are not attached to reality.

You mean the claim of the appearance that Paul makes on behalf of other people?

A person making a claim that is detached from reality could be considered evidence of mental illness.

It is consistent with previous knowledge. Human beings are known to suffer from psychosis. On the other hand, resurrections are not known to occur.

I tend to put him on corrections only at times because he is constantly doing what he accuses others of doing. It does not help since his denial is incredibly strong, but it does irritate the heck out of him.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Imaginary examples are used to show logical possibility……. This is how logic works

No. A logical possibility for someone who claims to have seen a ghost is that that someone is somehow mistaken or delusional.

An illogical "possibility" would that said person actually saw an actual ghost.

Illogical, because ghosts have never been shown to be possible.
Quotes, because saying it is a "possibilty" tries to sneak in that it is actually possible. Which it isn't. At least, it hasn't been shown to be. So far, these things only seem to exist in people's imagination.

We have plenty of examples of people making mistakes.
We have zero examples of "ghosts". Ghosts defy natural law.

All I showed is that there are at least some scenarios that are logically possible where “supernatural wins”

An imaginary scenario. In which one even has to simply "accept" that supernatural things exist.
It's like "assuming ghosts are actually real and we could interact with them, then surely it's a possible explanation".

Yes leroy. But we don't live in such a world.

This means that “natrure” doesn’t win by default

It does in reality. Not in your imagination, no. Apparently.

i did, the big bang woudl be an example

Your strawman version of the big bang is.

 

[leroy]

No. A logical possibility for someone who claims to have seen a ghost is that that someone is somehow mistaken or delusional.

An illogical "possibility" would that said person actually saw an actual ghost.

Illogical, because ghosts have never been shown to be possible.
Quotes, because saying it is a "possibilty" tries to sneak in that it is actually possible. Which it isn't. At least, it hasn't been shown to be. So far, these things only seem to exist in people's imagination.

Back to the beginning,

A few days ago a provided an example of a supernatural theory would be preferred over a natural.



Consider this counter example.

1 You go to your house, and the drawers start to open and close

2 then you see a nebulous image of a friend of your that passed away few days ago

3 he talks to you and he explains to you that he is a ghost.

4 you have a conversation with him about a football game that you had with him in 3rth grade

5 other witnesses where with you and saw the same thing. and it was rcorded in a camera.

¿Which hypothesis would be better.?

1 i´ts a ghost (something that is typically labeled as supernarual)

2 it´s a hallucination (natrual).....................

............

Do you agree that hypothesis 1 would better than hypothesis 2 answer yes or no.

 

[leroy]

Your strawman version of the big bang is.

Why? Because you say so?

Please stop acting like a child and support your claims………..