Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hans Blaster said that he is "unaware of anything physical outside the scope of physics.", there is no claim about what does not exist there.
You've confused my description of my limits of understanding for a metaphysical claim. If you can find some physical thing not subject to physics feel free to enlighten me.
I stopped reading at this point. Regardless of the seeming elegance of your arguments and the clarity with which they are presented, I can place zero credence upon the writing of anyone who can make this assertion with a straight face. (Critical words emboldened for identification)
Actually, your dismissal of the Resurrection of Christ--a priori--exposes your bias, certainly not the evidence. The Resurrection is the single most historically attested miracle in ancient history and is affirmed by skeptical scholars, such as atheist Bart Ehrman (The New Testament: A Historical Introduction): early creedal accounts (1 Corinthians. 15:3-8) date to within years of the event, not legends. Even atheist historian Gerd Lüdemann states, "The resurrection appearances cannot be denied" (What Really Happened to Jesus?).
I didn't reject the Resurrection of Christ in my post. I have rejected your assertion that there is "well documented" evidence for it.
If you are going to set the bar that low you merely justify my provisional conclusion.
Au contraire! As a Christian I accepted the Resurrection on faith. When, later, I concluded that faith was a poor servant, then I rejected the plausibility of the Resurrection based on the absence of evidence.
I don't. Thus far I have seen no historical testimony that would lead me to accept non-material claims. I would be delighted to find that there were some. So far I have seen none. However, we are drifting in apologetics and that is not the subject of this thread. If you wish to pursue this in a manner that is consistent with forum rules on a new thread, let me know.
Understood.
I didn't mention "non-physical realities" at all, just about the operative laws of physical realities.
Then those need to be demonstrated.
Paul wrote about a vision he had of Jesus after his death and Mark wrote a very theologically motivated book *40* years after the events in question without being a witness to any of it. The other gospels are clearly dependent on Mark's and therefore even later. We have plenty of evidence of people *believing* in a resurrection fairly early, but that is not the same as evidence of the event itself. The thinness of the evidence in the texts doesn't make the resurrection false, but it certainly is nothing to build a claim for something beyond physics for the physical world.
It really isn't. QM follows well defined and repeatable physical processes. It is the simplest and most fundamental QM processes that are the *most* directly tied to the laws of physics. (Indeed, that's what the fundamenal laws of physics mostly are. [Gravity excepted.]) That QM includes an element of probability has no impact on the the fundamental physical nature of it. In fact what you experience as touching a physical object at our scale is nothing more than an enormous amount of simple QM exchanges of photons between electrons in us and electrons in the other object.
The only thing atheists have to do with consciousness is that all of us are conscious beings, but then again, so are all of you non-atheists. As for the Mind-Body "problem", "mind" clearly interacts with brain and through it the rest of the body. Whatever "mind" is it interacts with the physical flesh of the body, so it must do so through a force/mechanism that interacts with flesh and the substance flesh is made of.
I think they are being called upon to explain their rejection of a literal Genesis. Since belief in the existence of God does not depend on either the literal truth of Genesis or the validity of the theory of evolution, the theist/atheist issue has no relevance whatever to the creation/evolution issue.
More often than not, so called "supernatural explanations" are nothing more than "religious beliefs" and have nothing to do with the supernatural.
Well since there is no believing in a literal Genesis without believing God, (God being the fourth word in there), I would simply take it that the non-belief in God explains the non-belief in Genesis.
Without proper definitions, that meme is nothing more than special pleading. The only way to understand it in a non-special pleading manner is if it is a statement about evidential support, in that claims for which there is more evidence that they are false require substantial evidence to overcome such evidence. But to assume that there is more evidence that the resurrection is false due to materialist/naturalist presuppositions is nothing more than begging the question. So no matter how you slice it, appealing to that mantra as a means of dismissing claims is nothing more thn engaging in fallacious reasoning more often than not.
Well, to aovid the time and trouble and subsequent disagreements relating to any definitions, let's go with the simpler more direct statment: There is no meaningful evidence for the Resurrection. Belief in the resurrection is a matter of faith. I try not to challenge those whose belief is based on faith. I do challenge those who claim adequate evidence for any hypothesis, or assertion that does not exist.
Again, definitions matter here. What, exactly, do you mean by "meaningful"? I certainly think there is historical evidence such that we can make a circumstantial argument from generally agreed upon facts and standard heuristic devices. Whether that qualifies as "meaningful" is a matter of subjective opinion, though.
Your qualification of it as a "extraordinary" claim presupposes as much, unless you are simply engaged in special pleading. As for "burden of proof", that's a whole other kettle of fish as it requires agreements within the discussion and not simply some magical requirement that exists distended in space. I certainly haven't engaged in a presentation of evidence, smply pointing out the fallacious nature of employing maxims such as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" as blanket statements.
You are side tracking. The central point is you made a claim that the resurrection of Christ was "well dcoumented". I basically responded: nonsense.
I didn't make that claim, though another poster did. I simply pointed out the fallacious nature of your invokation of a common "skeptical" canard by citing a maxim that involves either special pleading or begging the question in order to apply.
Who made that rule? Is testimony not documentation all of a sudden? Seems to me a form of special pleading since it is treating what is essentially a historical question as something other than a historical question by discounting the kinds of evidence that exist for historical questions.
And many believe in God, but not in a literal Genesis, so as I said, the two are not really related.
That I am agree with. Scientific theories are only accepted provisionally, not as absolute truth, so the current consensus is enough to be going on with.
Well, just so that you know, this Lover of God does not believe in the Creation story of some old ancient middle-eastern desert tribe.
