The Resurrection is it provable?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

FT simply means that the parameters are narrow….FT by itself doesn’t imply a designer,

1 to say that a video game is FT to save the princes simply means that if you change the parametrs a tiny bit it would be impossible to save the princess…….(for example if you modify the code such that Mario jumps 1% less than before there would be obstacles impossible to overcome)

2 to say that the universe is FT for life simply means that if you change say gravity such that it becomes 1% stronger the universe would have been a life prohibiting universe.

So obviously the designers could have created the video game or the universe such that the parameters are not so narrow, but that would change the fact that 1 and 2 are examples of FT .. this is trivially true, I don’t understand why are you pushing that objection .

I guess that we're at an impasse here. Yes, [2] is a good definition of fine tuning. [1] is not. They describe two different states, one where the parameters can be varied and you still have a video game, albeit a different one, and one where a similar variation precludes life. Earlier, you said that the universe was like the video game, which is why you introduced the video game, and that God could have made it any number of ways. Then you state that it had to be this way or else one would have a life-prohibiting universe.

But we've covered all of this already, and you still don't see that the video game is not an apt metaphor for the universe. The video game variants are all still playable games, because programming, though constrained, allows for an infinite number of programs that generate a playable video game. The universe variants are all different from the fine tuned one in that they no longer support life and mind with any variation. That's the critical distinction between the universe and the video game.

You mentioned that fine tuning means the parameters to achieve any given outcome are narrow. That describes [2], not [1]. With [1], Mario can be 25% bigger or wearing a different colored hat, and you still have a video game that's equivalent to previous iteration. If the game is supporting life in a universe rather than saving the princess, with [2], make a change, and it's game over.

I think we need to let this go whether you're following this argument now or not. I can't explain this any better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's the explanation that you give that I don't agree with...

But I understand why you don't want to accept my explanation.

What was wrong with my explanation? You know that it was correct, now you apparently are just spouting claims that you cannot support.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not really....

When the spear pierced near his heart and water and blood flowed, it means that the water and the red corpuscles were already separating signifying death.

Well there is a "citation needed". I have never heard that red blood cells automatically separate from plasma at death.

 

[Kenny]

What was wrong with my explanation? You know that it was correct, now you apparently are just spouting claims that you cannot support.

Because it was just your personal viewpoint?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody knows the dates of the writing of the gospels but the evidence, without the naturalistic presumption that prophecy is not true, points to pre 70AD dating.

Sorry, but you are now trying to shift the burden of proof. If you want to claim "prophecy" you have a very heavy burden of proof to overcome.

 

[Kenny]

Well there is a "citation needed". I have never heard that red blood cells automatically separate from plasma at death.

A doctor on why "blood and water" gushed from Jesus' heart

In certain cases.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because it was just your personal viewpoint?

Wrong again. I supported that claim with a perfectly good soruce.

It is very hypocritical to demand sources and then refuse to read them when presented.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Other than the two gospel stories, is the virgin birth mentioned anywhere else in the NT? And I wonder when the legends of the virgin birth started to emerge? And when the infancy gospels got written?

The only two places I know of are in Matthew and Luke. And they tend to contradict each other rather strongly. Heck, Luke contradicts himself with the date of Jesus's birth.

 

[Kenny]

Wrong again. I supported that claim with a perfectly good soruce.

It is very hypocritical to demand sources and then refuse to read them when presented.

LOL... wiki, right? Of course, you didn't pay attention to mine... but I'm use to that.

b/c I understand where you are coming from.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A doctor on why "blood and water" gushed from Jesus' heart

In certain cases.

He may have gotten his facts wrong. When I searched for blood separating in a hemothorax or even a general statement about blood I cannot find claims of separation of red blood cells from plasma. If it happens it does not appear to happen quickly. A hemothorax is not just blood. It tends to be blood an fluids. Do you need a source on that?

I would tend to trust articles from medical sites quite a bit more strongly than an article supposedly written by a Bulgarian doctor. In fact all of the articles that I can find on blood separation all say that a centrifuge is needed.

Perhaps the doctor was confused. Or not even a doctor since I cannot find that doctor listed anywhere but in that article. A hemothorax is not just blood. It is blood and fluids. The body has more sources of "fluids" than just blood. From the literature a hemothorax is considered to be one when it is over 50% blood.

I knew about the hemothorax explanation, but this is the first time that I heard the claim that blood separated from plasma. You might want to try a little harder in the future. Your sources is likely to be very wrong. But that does not refute the "blood and water" claim. He is likely to have heard of that claim himself, but the made up his onw personal BS explanation for it.

Do you need any of my claims supported? I will gladly do so with a superior source than a Bulgarian Christian one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL... wiki, right? Of course, you didn't pay attention to mine... but I'm use to that.

b/c I understand where you are coming from.

There is nothing wrong with Wiki. It is a better source than any that you have used.

Unlike your sources Wiki is not biased. To be biased goes against its principles.

 

[Subduction Zone]

relevance of your comment?

It was there because someone tried foolishly tried to use the Nativity myths as part of the supposed evidence for God.
Oh wait! That was you creating another strawman. The apostles probably did not ever hear of the Nativity myths. Those appear to be inventions of the authors of Luke and Matthew.

 

[CG Didymus]

The only two places I know of are in Matthew and Luke. And they tend to contradict each other rather strongly. Heck, Luke contradicts himself with the date of Jesus's birth.

I hate to admit it, but we I was first told about the gospel stories I assumed they were true. I trusted the preachers and pastors and friends that guaranteed the Bible stories were the absolute truth. Virgin births, rising from the dead, ascending into heaven, all those things, it didn't even occur to me to doubt that they really happened. My Christian friends still make me feel as if it is me with the problem for even questioning the validity of all those things. So, what must it have been like 2000 years ago to have someone tell a person that Jesus had been born of a virgin and had risen from the dead? And if you believe all this stuff, you will have eternal life... If not, you'll go straight to hell and burn for eternity.

Ironically, it was other Christians in other sects that first got me to question the beliefs of the Christians I was with. Then people in other religions got me to question all of Christianity. And finally, listening to atheists, I realized the basic assumptions of Christianity, and so many other religions, weren't based on anything other than what was in the religious writings.

It was easy to see the contradictions in the NT and the Bible when I no longer assumed it was the truth. It's like what believers say, except in reverse, I was blind to the truth. I was seeing what I wanted to see in those stories... And believed the interpretations that were given that explained away those contradictions. And that's what makes it hard to argue... Each side is seeing and believing different facts.

Like with the facts about the resurrection... He was dead and came back to life? That's already unbelievable, but then this body of his has flesh and bone but can go through walls and float off into the clouds? Some religious people say he didn't die. Some say it was just a symbolic story. I agree more with the borrowing the myths from other religions and embellishing the Jesus story with those myths about virgin births and resurrecting from the dead. They are the perfect touches needed in the story to make Jesus into a God. And they worked.

 

[leroy]

I guess that we're at an impasse here. Yes, [2] is a good definition of fine tuning. [1] is not. They describe two different states, one where the parameters can be varied and you still have a video game, albeit a different one, and one where a similar variation precludes life. Earlier, you said that the universe was like the video game, which is why you introduced the video game, and that God could have made it any number of ways. Then you state that it had to be this way or else one would have a life-prohibiting universe.

But we've covered all of this already, and you still don't see that the video game is not an apt metaphor for the universe. The video game variants are all still playable games, because programming, though constrained, allows for an infinite number of programs that generate a playable video game. The universe variants are all different from the fine tuned one in that they no longer support life and mind with any variation. That's the critical distinction between the universe and the video game.

You mentioned that fine tuning means the parameters to achieve any given outcome are narrow. That describes [2], not [1]. With [1], Mario can be 25% bigger or wearing a different colored hat, and you still have a video game that's equivalent to previous iteration. If the game is supporting life in a universe rather than saving the princess, with [2], make a change, and it's game over.

I think we need to let this go whether you're following this argument now or not. I can't explain this any better.

FT simply means that the parameters are narrow, the video game was just an example,

If something has narrow parameters then it is FT……………………weather if things could have been different or not is irrelevant, if something has narrow parameters then it is FT.

 

[leroy]

It was there because someone tried foolishly tried to use the Nativity myths as part of the supposed evidence for God.

Oh wait! That was you creating another strawman.

No I have never used the nativity stories to support anything please apologize for your false accusation

The apostles probably did not ever hear of the Nativity myths. Those appear to be inventions of the authors of Luke and Matthew.

Maybe, so what?

 

[PearlSeeker]

I hate to admit it, but we I was first told about the gospel stories I assumed they were true. I trusted the preachers and pastors and friends that guaranteed the Bible stories were the absolute truth. Virgin births, rising from the dead, ascending into heaven, all those things, it didn't even occur to me to doubt that they really happened. My Christian friends still make me feel as if it is me with the problem for even questioning the validity of all those things. So, what must it have been like 2000 years ago to have someone tell a person that Jesus had been born of a virgin and had risen from the dead? And if you believe all this stuff, you will have eternal life... If not, you'll go straight to hell and burn for eternity.

Ironically, it was other Christians in other sects that first got me to question the beliefs of the Christians I was with. Then people in other religions got me to question all of Christianity. And finally, listening to atheists, I realized the basic assumptions of Christianity, and so many other religions, weren't based on anything other than what was in the religious writings.

It was easy to see the contradictions in the NT and the Bible when I no longer assumed it was the truth. It's like what believers say, except in reverse, I was blind to the truth. I was seeing what I wanted to see in those stories... And believed the interpretations that were given that explained away those contradictions. And that's what makes it hard to argue... Each side is seeing and believing different facts.

Like with the facts about the resurrection... He was dead and came back to life? That's already unbelievable, but then this body of his has flesh and bone but can go through walls and float off into the clouds? Some religious people say he didn't die. Some say it was just a symbolic story. I agree more with the borrowing the myths from other religions and embellishing the Jesus story with those myths about virgin births and resurrecting from the dead. They are the perfect touches needed in the story to make Jesus into a God. And they worked.

If there were no stories of Jesus after death sightings, Jesus would be forgotten as one of the many failed Messiahs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I have never used the nativity stories to support anything please apologize for your false accusation



Maybe, so what?

You brought it up in your strawman.

 

[leroy]

You brought it up in your strawman.

Or maybe (just maybe) you just made a random and unrelated comment because you have this annoying tendency of responding to quotes that you don’t even reed

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or maybe (just maybe) you just made a random and unrelated comment because you have this annoying tendency of responding to quotes that you don’t even reed

Dud! You can use the back arrows. That was how I found that it was your strawman in the first place.

 

[paarsurrey]

You and all the other 45k different Christian sects and denominations*, do you see the problem?

Does one means?:
* " Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Apostolic, Methodist — the list goes on. Estimations show there are more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. and a staggering 45,000 globally, according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity. So why does Christianity have so many branches? "
Why does Christianity have so many denominations?

Right?

Regards
____________
5*43