Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Which is not existent, outside the claims of one book.

Only one book is needed.

Of course. But shouldn't be the other way round?

Believers are not the only ones that play the faith game. It takes faith to be an atheist/naturalist.

That does not matter. Muslims do not believe that, either. The question is why you picked Christianity.

Because I have more reasons to believe in Christianity.

Would you lose your faith is we managed to generate spontaneous life from no life?

No, but I would lose my faith if you could create life from nonlife and also demonstrate how infinity can be traversed.

I propose to choose the one with the hottest hell. If you pick the wrong one, you would be better off.

If I pick the wrong one, I may wind up in hell.

In other words, it is better to not know anything about Jesus. At least you have a requirement less to fulfill, by not knowing about Him. Maybe the Gospel is in reality the Badspel.

I propose to forbid missionary work. It is highly risky for those poor souls.

In the end, we shall see.

I argue that those reasons are not good enough.

Ciao

- viole

Hey, can't please everyone.

 

[Parsimony]

The key point is IF IT WERE TO HAPPEN, IT WOULD IMPLY INTELLIGENT DESIGN. So intelligent design is not negated, which is a problem for naturalists who maintain that there is no cosmic designer.

Right, as long as you admit that God put it in place.

Okay, now we are on the same page.

Yes we do, and we can draw that conclusion based on the law of identity which is the holy grail of the argument from consciousness.

Can you give me a run down of what this "law of identity" is?

Yeah but if you can prove that all space, time, energy, and matter (STEM) is contingent, then even these physical entities that you speak of are not contingent and therefore have a beginning.

I don't see how something necessarily having a beginning is a problem for the idea that consciousness can arise from a physical brain.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Then I’m puzzled to know why you want to make an exception in my case? In what way are my arguments to be awarded special consideration over the other 2000 plus postings?

On more than one occasion I offered the one of one dialogue with anyone on here...on another format, preferably instant messenger. That way we can have a real-time discussion. So the offer was to anyone, not just you.

Apart from the 3000 word critique of the Testimony of the Evangelists that I’ve previously posted on this forum, Bible inerrancy is new ground for me. So my approach is to do one at the time.

Oh ok.

What I’m saying is if people survived their own deaths, by whatever reason, then the world at large would have a very different view than it presently has on human bodily existence. But in both cases that does not happen because surviving bodily death is only a faith-based belief and not a fact.

Ok cot, I won't beat a dead horse on this issue.

‘Christians believe’…which is my argument exactly. A believers’ argument.

And unbelievers don't believe.

But that is to say the story is an argument for the story!

And based on the historicity surrounding the story, I believe the story is more plausibly true than not.

Not the same. When you spoke of Exodus where Moses appeared before Pharaoh and performed all of these miracles and showed "Jehovah's" superiority over the Egyptian gods you are making a circular claim to the supernatural to support your argument for the Resurrection as a supernatural event.

Yes it is the same. Someone could easily claim that the Ancient Egyptian empire never existed for whatever reason they may have, and if I say we know they existed based on writings that they left behind, that person could say I am using Ancient Egyptian writings to prove Ancient Egyptian historicity...the same thing you are claiming.

Then please name them? And by return I’ll give some examples that are absurdities within the proper meaning of the term.

We will get to this later.

Well yes, exactly that! The scientific community and the world at large do not set off to discover what believers cannot even prove to themselves.

Well, that reasoning is fallacious, since no one in the scientific community can prove that God doesn't exist.

Precisely the answer I expected. You’re not getting the essence of what I’m saying.

Of course Christians believe Christ was resurrected, and of course they may believe they too can look forward to an afterlife, but they don’t believe the dead spring out of their graves and walk off as Matthew insists. The general consensus is that in this life the dead remain dead.

What part of God RAISED THE MEN FROM THE DEAD don't you understand? The general consensus by Christians is that God created man, and every man will die one day, but if God chooses to raise someone back to life, then it can happen. So yes, the dead remain dead, unless God says otherwise. Now what part of that don't you understand here?

But a hypothesis cannot be given to support the conclusion; the object is to prove the hypothesis by means of the conclusion.

Right, and Christians believe that we have good reasons to believe in God, and that God has revealed himself with Jesus Christ. We believe that the disciples saw someone, and if they saw the Resurrected Jesus, then God raised Jesus from the dead.

This is what you are saying:
If God exists he can perform miracles
The Resurrection was a miracle, hence God exists
Therefore the Resurrection is true.

That is the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, and you need to prove a miracle occurred

I believe that the origin of the disciples belief is best explained by them seeing the risen Jesus. Plain and simple.

Well I have said ‘God does not exist’ many, many times. That’s the proposition to be tested, and I’ve not yet found myself contradicted. And it is utter false to say rejection of god-belief means belief in life from non-life. I believe no such thing, quite regardless of whether that state of affairs is actually the case – which may even be true! All we know is that life began, just as we know that the world began. And the world beginning with existent life is logically possible.

You've just contradicted yourself, and it is rather sad. On one hand you say it is utterly false to say the rejction of god-belief means the belief in life from non-life...and then you admit that "all we know is that life began".

If life began, and there is no god to give it its beginning, then that is LIFE FROM NON-LIFE.

SMH

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Can you give me a run down of what this "law of identity" is?

[youtube]WOTn_wRwDE0[/youtube]
Alvin Plantinga and the Modal Argument - YouTube


Let Plantiga talk to you

I don't see how something necessarily having a beginning is a problem for the idea that consciousness can arise from a physical brain.

Once again, let Plantiga talk to you.

 

[Parsimony]

[youtube]WOTn_wRwDE0[/youtube]
Alvin Plantinga and the Modal Argument - YouTube


Let Plantiga talk to you

Here is where the problem arises:

"If it's possible that I exist when B (his body) doesn't exist, then I am not identical with B".

He doesn't know that it's possible. He can suggest that it might be possible, but that's all. The ability to imagine oneself as a beetle does not mean that one can actually become a beetle in reality. I can suggest that antigravity devices might be possible, but I do not know that they actually are possible.

 

[cottage]

On more than one occasion I offered the one of one dialogue with anyone on here...on another format, preferably instant messenger. That way we can have a real-time discussion. So the offer was to anyone, not just you.

How are we to have a real time discussion, considering we’re on different time zones? Am I supposed to cancel my appointments and put my life on hold to answer trite one-liners. I think not! But I still don’t understand why you are on a public forum but seek to exclude the public on one specific debate.

Yes it is the same. Someone could easily claim that the Ancient Egyptian empire never existed for whatever reason they may have, and if I say we know they existed based on writings that they left behind, that person could say I am using Ancient Egyptian writings to prove Ancient Egyptian historicity...the same thing you are claiming.

I see nothing at all controversial in what you describe above, but then it’s nothing like the example you were using which presumed to argue from Moses performing a miracle over the ‘Egyptian gods’ as being argument to support the miracle of the Resurrection. Miraculous events in one part of the Bible cannot be put up as evidence for miracles in another part of the bible as if to establish its truth.

Well, that reasoning is fallacious, since no one in the scientific community can prove that God doesn't exist.

This isn’t about whether God exists, or proving God exists, but whether dead bodies can come to life. Let me remind you again, I’m arguing that the Resurrection isn’t an historical fact; it is only a faith based commitment to believe in miracles and the supernatural. If it were a historical fact the entire world would view bodily existence in an entirely different way, and it would be universally recognised, just as with any other fact, that the dead coming to life is not just possible but probable.

What part of God RAISED THE MEN FROM THE DEAD don't you understand? The general consensus by Christians is that God created man, and every man will die one day, but if God chooses to raise someone back to life, then it can happen. So yes, the dead remain dead, unless God says otherwise. Now what part of that don't you understand here?

Well, there is clearly one part of my reply that you do not understand. I said: ‘The general consensus is that in this life the dead remain dead’.

Right, and Christians believe that we have good reasons to believe in God, and that God has revealed himself with Jesus Christ. We believe that the disciples saw someone, and if they saw the Resurrected Jesus, then God raised Jesus from the dead.

And the ‘good reasons’ are what you should expound to make your argument, and not begin as you did with ‘If God exists he can do miracles’ (and the Resurrection was a miracle therefore true).

You've just contradicted yourself, and it is rather sad. On one hand you say it is utterly false to say the rejction of god-belief means the belief in life from non-life...and then you admit that "all we know is that life began".

If life began, and there is no god to give it its beginning, then that is LIFE FROM NON-LIFE.

No! Read that last sentence of mine in the passage you’re responding to, I’m saying the world could begin with life (no contradiction).

And you are begging the question by presupposing God as its cause (highlighted in red).

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The dead whether entire or dismembered do not live again in reality

Now who is begging the question?

We can conceive of the man blown to atoms after which all the constituent parts are pieced together to give the man back his original form; no contradiction is implied.

Then you have problems. First off, we can certainly conceive of that happening, but only if there exists a being which has the power to allow it to happen. There isn't anything natural about a man being pieced back together to his original form after being blown to atoms. This would have to be described by the laws of nature, and there are no known laws of nature that allows such a thing.

So you can conceive of it happening, but not naturally, and if you can conceive of it happening naturally, then you should be able to explain how this can occur naturally...because if you can conceive of it happening naturally, then what you should be able to simulate the right circumstances and conditions which can allow such a thing to occur. But you can't, because it is unnatural.

Based on what I’ve explained to you in that passage and the full argument I’ve given you in the past. Am I to post it again?

Yes please.

Began to exist and 'began to form' is the same thing.

The point is before it began to exist or form, it didn't exist.

Yes, and 'it began with animate matter'. Nothing contradictory about that.

There was a point in time at which not even matter existed, cot.

No, not ‘which is it’. ‘Either they believed it, or they were lying.’

What are you talking about, cot?

I think the problem is that you see things in an extremely simplistic way and rooted in the dogma of your belief system, which leads you to make assumptions. Also you forget or misconstrue what has been said; so I have to keep repeating myself. My view concerning the Bible is that it is fundamentally a work of fiction interspersed with some facts in a contemporary time frame.

Ok, so as the bible authors were writing the narratives, were they writing it as works of fiction? Were they lying when the wrote it? Or did they believe what they wrote? Now which is it?

600 year-old Noah, talking snakes and donkeys, the parting of seas, and people climbing out of their graves is intermingled with characters that existed or might plausibly have existed. And as I’ve said previously I also agree with Hume, who said of the Evangelists that they promoted a holy cause, believing it to be true.

Ok, so you don't believe that they were lying. So therefore, if they believed what they claimed to be true, and they weren't lying, why would they believe it? Merely saying they "promoted a holy cause" is not saying much of anything, because the holy cause could be based on truth value. So if you admit that they weren't lying, and they believed what they claimed, then what would be the origin of their belief? Why would they believe it? You can't say they were believing what they were told, because that isn't the case...so why would they believe it if they didn't have reasons to believe it?

If you’re presenting the historicity of the Resurrection as the proof for God’s existence then you don’t presuppose God’s existence to find for that conclusion.

I am using the historicity of the Resurrection as evidence to demonstrate WHICH God, not "a" god. Even if I weren't a Christian, I would be a theist.

You haven’t answered the question of probability, which Greenleaf put so succinctly. Miracles such as the dead coming to life are highly improbable or impossible.

Miracles are highly improbable or impossible if they were claims of natural occurences. But they aren't, the claim is that God raised Jesus from the dead, and if God exists, that makes miracles very much probable and very much possible.

I will. But what’s that you say…only ‘half’? I thought the Bible was supposed to be the inerrant Word of God?

My point is that half of the contradictions would have already been answered, so you won't be giving me anything new. The other half may not have already been answered, so I may have reach in my bag of tricks.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Here is where the problem arises:

"If it's possible that I exist when B (his body) doesn't exist, then I am not identical with B".

He doesn't know that it's possible.

He said it is possible because it is conceivable. Anything that you can conceive must be logically possible.

He can suggest that it might be possible, but that's all. The ability to imagine oneself as a beetle does not mean that one can actually become a beetle in reality.

But the point is if his mind is identical to his body, then he shouldn't be able to imagine himself as a beetle. The very fact that he can imagine "himself" in the body of a beetle means that "he" and his body are not identical.

If you woke up one morning and found yourself in the body of your dog, and you realized "Holy smokes, I am in the body of my dog!!! And you looked in the bed and saw your lifeless body in the bed, who are you? Are you the dog, or are you the body in the bed?

See? What is true of your body is not true of your mind, so they can't be the same thing/identical.

I can suggest that antigravity devices might be possible, but I do not know that they actually are possible.

Can you conceive of a possible world at which it is possible?

 

[idav]

And based on the historicity surrounding the story, I believe the story is more plausibly true than not.

I believe that the origin of the disciples belief is best explained by them seeing the risen Jesus. Plain and simple.

Just cause the put the story in real cities doesnt make it history especially when historical details in the bible have to be ignored.

It is most probable they made the story as a complete allegory and some believers took it literally. The resurrection is being reborn in spirit. Jesus acted out the metaphysical views, so it is a character created specifically to portray it. Jesus is a parable.

 

[Parsimony]

He said it is possible because it is conceivable. Anything that you can conceive must be logically possible.

If that's true then my ability to conceive of a world where mind and body are the same means that is also logically possible.

But the point is if his mind is identical to his body, then he shouldn't be able to imagine himself as a beetle. The very fact that he can imagine "himself" in the body of a beetle means that "he" and his body are not identical.

That's not true at all. Just because I can imagine myself teleporting to the Andromeda Galaxy in an instant or walking through walls doesn't mean it can actually happen.

If you woke up one morning and found yourself in the body of your dog, and you realized "Holy smokes, I am in the body of my dog!!! And you looked in the bed and saw your lifeless body in the bed, who are you? Are you the dog, or are you the body in the bed?

"If" being the big operator here.

Can you conceive of a possible world at which it is possible?

I can conceive of a world where any number of crazy things happen that don't happen in our own world. My ability to imagine the theoretical properties of a parallel universe has no bearing on what is actually true of the universe we inhabit.

 

[viole]

Only one book is needed.

What about Homer's Odyssey? There are historical claims of cyclops, and Zeus in there.

Believers are not the only ones that play the faith game. It takes faith to be an atheist/naturalist.

Yeah. About the same faith it takes to be a-leprechaunists, a-santaclausists and a-fairitailists.

Because I have more reasons to believe in Christianity.

Which are?

No, but I would lose my faith if you could create life from nonlife and also demonstrate how infinity can be traversed.

Infinity can be traversed? What does that mean?

If I pick the wrong one, I may wind up in hell.

Only if God is very vain.

In the end, we shall see.

i don't think we shall.

Hey, can't please everyone.

Nope, I guess.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If that's true then my ability to conceive of a world where mind and body are the same means that is also logically possible.

We are talking whether the two are identical (the same). You may be able to conceive of a world where the mind and body are identical, but the mere fact that I can conceive of a world where they are NOT identical mean that they are not NECESSARILY identical. So in other words, we could be more than just a physical body.

That's not true at all. Just because I can imagine myself teleporting to the Andromeda Galaxy in an instant or walking through walls doesn't mean it can actually happen.

Yeah, it may not be possible in THIS world. That only proves that it is not possible in this world, but it may be possible in other worlds, since we can conceive of circumstances at which it COULD happen. If it weren't possible in any world, then we wouldn't be able to conceive of it happening in other worlds. But we can.

"If" being the big operator here.

Right, and "if" I can describe a circumstance at which both are not identical then it follows that those two objects are not identical. If they were identical, then there would be no way for me to describe a circumstance at which they are not identical.

I can conceive of a world where any number of crazy things happen that don't happen in our own world. My ability to imagine the theoretical properties of a parallel universe has no bearing on what is actually true of the universe we inhabit.

So let me ask you this; can you think of a world at which a married man is also single? Yes or no.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What about Homer's Odyssey? There are historical claims of cyclops, and Zeus in there.

When did believers and skeptics alike ever state that they saw Zeus or cyclops as an actual person in history?

Yeah. About the same faith it takes to be a-leprechaunists, a-santaclausists and a-fairitailists.

Faith is faith.

Which are?

The historicity of the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Infinity can be traversed? What does that mean?

Meaning if you are traveling to a location that is an infinitely many miles away, you would never reach the location.

Only if God is very vain.

Well, if he died on the cross for your sins, I wouldn't call that vain, I would call that love.

i don't think we shall.

I know you don't.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Just cause the put the story in real cities doesnt make it history especially when historical details in the bible have to be ignored.

Ignored based on what?

It is most probable they made the story as a complete allegory and some believers took it literally.

According to the narrative in the book of Acts, the disciples themselves took it literally.

The resurrection is being reborn in spirit. Jesus acted out the metaphysical views, so it is a character created specifically to portray it. Jesus is a parable.

Jesus never existed as a person in history and is just a character in a parable?

 

[viole]

When did believers and skeptics alike ever state that they saw Zeus or cyclops as an actual person in history?

The same amount of the ones that saw Jesus. All described in a book. That is all you need to prove historicity. One book, as you said.

Faith is faith.

Yeah. I go on my knees every night to worship the absence of leprechauns.

The historicity of the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

All in a book. Like Zeus.

Meaning if you are traveling to a location that is an infinitely many miles away, you would never reach the location.

And how does the fact that this might be impossible corroborate your faith?

Well, if he died on the cross for your sins, I wouldn't call that vain, I would call that love.

Let's put this in perspective. He just took the weekend off for my sins.

I know you don't.

I know, nobody will.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The same amount of the ones that saw Jesus.

Provide sources of individuals that claim that they saw Zeus in history.

All described in a book. That is all you need to prove historicity. One book, as you said.

Greek mythology is not verifiable beyond Ancient Greek. Christianity actually has history surrounding it. Actual people...actual events...from both skeptics and believers. Not even close in comparison.

 

[Parsimony]

We are talking whether the two are identical (the same). You may be able to conceive of a world where the mind and body are identical, but the mere fact that I can conceive of a world where they are NOT identical mean that they are not NECESSARILY identical. So in other words, we could be more than just a physical body.

Indeed, they are not necessarily identical. They are also not necessarily different. "Not necessarily" and "could be" are terms of uncertainty. If there is uncertainty, then there is not proof.

Yeah, it may not be possible in THIS world. That only proves that it is not possible in this world, but it may be possible in other worlds, since we can conceive of circumstances at which it COULD happen. If it weren't possible in any world, then we wouldn't be able to conceive of it happening in other worlds. But we can.

Which means that what is true of another world has no bearing on what is true of this world.

Right, and "if" I can describe a circumstance at which both are not identical then it follows that those two objects are not identical. If they were identical, then there would be no way for me to describe a circumstance at which they are not identical.

Not true. If I think that two things are different, but they are actually the same, I can come up with a world where they are different even if that means that I am mistaken. I can imagine, for example, a world where magnetic fields and electric fields are different and one can exist independently of the other. At one point in time it was believed that they were distinct from one-another. In reality, magnetic fields arise from the effects of Relativity on electric fields. They are the same thing viewed from two different frames of reference. What looks like a magnetic field in one frame of reference looks like an electric field in another. So even though I can imagine a world where magnetic fields and electric fields are separate, my ability to imagine it stems from ignorance of the true nature of the fields. In reality, separating the two is not logically possible.

So let me ask you this; can you think of a world at which a married man is also single? Yes or no.

In a world where the definitions are different, yes. In a world where they are the same, no.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The Bible: The Holy Word of God​

God is just and impartial
Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25

God is unjust and partial
Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12

Gen 9:25: That isn't God speaking, but Noah, so I don't know where you are going with that.

Ex 20:5: Is obviously speaking in terms of wicked generations that follow in the footsteps of their parents, particularly in this case where parents influenced their childrens religious positions, and even in the following verse 6 it states "....BUT showing love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments". If there is a "but", then whatever was before the "but" had to be contrary to what was said after the "but".

Rom 9:11-13: Don't see what the problems is there.

Matt 13:12: This is taken out of context. Admittedly I had to re-read it a few times to understand what Jesus meant....

In verse 12 he states "Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, evne what he has will be taken from him".

That doesn't seem fair at first, until you read further to verse 19 when he explains; "When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away whath was sown in his heart."

So it isn't Jesus taking away, it is the evil one that is taking away...and as you read down to verse 23 it appears as if the central message is that people who are slow to understand are the most vulnerable...because the little that they do understand may not be enough for their faith to be strengthened, so they may be more easily influenced to completey turn away from the faith than someone who does understand and is stronger in faith.

God is to be found by those who seek him. Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17

Is talking about honest, genuine seekers.

God is not to be found by those who seek him. Prov 1:28

Read the context!!! This is talking about those that are seeking him only as a result of there discontent with his wrath of judgment. Start at verse 22 and take it from there.

God accepts human sacrifices. 2 Sam 21:8,9, 14

Um, that is not a human sacrifice. The people that were killed were executed before the Lord, which is not the same as sacrificing a human life.

Because of man's wickedness God destroys him. Gen 6:5, 7
Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him. Gen 8:21

So God decided not to destroy man because of man's wickedness like he previously done? How is that a contradiction?

Killing commanded. Ex 32:27
Killing forbidden. Ex 20:13

There are right reasons to kill someone, and there are wrong reasons to kill someone. Ex 32:27 was ordered as an act of judgment by God. Ex 20:13 is talking about unjustifiable homicides, obviously.

Marriage or cohabitation with a sister denounced. Deut 27:22/ Lev 20:17
Abraham married his sister and God blessed the union. Gen 20:11, 12/ Gen 17:16

So God blessed sister/brother unions at one point in history and outlawed it at another point in history. What is the contradiction?

Seed time and harvest were never to cease. Gen 8:22
Seed time and harvest did cease for seven years. Gen 41:54, v56/ Gen 45:6

Obviously Gen 8:22 is talking about the world as a whole, as it was said after he had just flooded the entire earth with water. That did not mean that there would not be famine in at least some parts of the world.

God is satisfied with his works. Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works. Gen 6:6

God was satisfied with his works at FIRST, until some of his creation began to sin, which resulted in the flood. Cmon now

God is tired and rests. Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests. Is 40:28

Obviously "rests" means to cease from working. It says nothing about being tired, so to make it seem as if the scripture implies that God was tired is disingenuous.



Is that the best you've got?

 

[Ingledsva]

...


So let me ask you this; can you think of a world at which a married man is also single? Yes or no.

As an avid Science Fiction reader, I can.


I see a future where people whom are living far longer, and both make plenty of money to live on, hence no need for the patriarchal trappings of marriage, leads to a population decline - - (already actually happening in Northern Countries.)


The government steps in and says 25 is the perfect parent age, finds you a compatible mate, and calls you both to the petri dish.


The marriage contract is just that - a contract protecting both parents, giving inheritance rights to the TWO replacement children, and allows the government to collect a percentage of the parent's earnings, so as to raise and educate the offspring, while the married couple go back to their SINGLE lives.


If something happened to that pair's children, the marriage document would let the government know whom to call back in to produce more replacement children, keeping the population from declining further. LOL!



*

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Indeed, they are not necessarily identical. They are also not necessarily different.

Then the burden of proof is on the naturalist to explain how consciousness can come from unconsciousness. If God doesn't exist and the universe is started with a big bang, then there would be nothing but dead matter. There wouldn't be consciousness floating around the cosmos. You can't get consciousness from matter that isn't conscious.

If God doesn't exist, then the naturalist would have to explain how life could have originated from nonlife, and how consciousness came from unconsciousness.

"Not necessarily" and "could be" are terms of uncertainty. If there is uncertainty, then there is not proof.

But it is enough to say that naturalism may be false. Even if the mind and brain are identical, that would not be a defeater of theism. But if the mind and the brain and not identical, then that would be a defeater of naturalism, and that is all I need.

Which means that what is true of another world has no bearing on what is true of this world.

But this world may be one of the worlds at which it is true.

Not true. If I think that two things are different, but they are actually the same, I can come up with a world where they are different even if that means that I am mistaken. I can imagine, for example, a world where magnetic fields and electric fields are different and one can exist independently of the other.

Makes no sense. Something cannot be the same and different at the same time.

At one point in time it was believed that they were distinct from one-another. In reality, magnetic fields arise from the effects of Relativity on electric fields. They are the same thing viewed from two different frames of reference. What looks like a magnetic field in one frame of reference looks like an electric field in another. So even though I can imagine a world where magnetic fields and electric fields are separate, my ability to imagine it stems from ignorance of the true nature of the fields. In reality, separating the two is not logically possible.

Yet, you can imagine it. If you can imagine it, then it is possible. If you can't, then it isn't possible.

In a world where the definitions are different, yes. In a world where they are the same, no.

Ok, how about this; can a man be married and unmarried at the same time? Yes or no