Do You Believe In Literal Resurrection?

[Doveaman]

Wow. Did someone in a Christian forum actually agree with me?

I'm shocked!

Hey speaking of being shocked I read that's how you bring the DNA to life once its inside the egg, by passing an electric current through it...

That makes sense since we live in an electric universe:

 

[sjastro]

That makes sense since we live in an electric universe:

I see the spirit of the electric universe is still alive despite one of its main adherents been given his marching orders.

Care to explain if electromagnetic forces predominate how a 3-body system can even be remotely stable?
It doesn't take much insight to realise a repulsive force must exist between at least one pair of the bodies.
Needless to say if the electric universe can't it right for a 3-body system it doesn't bode to well for a more complicated Universe.

 

[MisterBlackEye]

I see the spirit of the electric universe is still alive despite one of its main adherents been given his marching orders.

Care to explain if electromagnetic forces predominate how a 3-body system can even be remotely stable?
It doesn't take much insight to realise a repulsive force must exist between at least one pair of the bodies.
Needless to say if the electric universe can't it right for a 3-body system it doesn't bode to well for a more complicated Universe.

I will be glad to go off topic to discuss an obvious observation which might bolster the argument for some kind of electric universe.

Consider... on a clear day...

when the sun is above you, at high noon the heat and light are intense

when the sun is at your eye level, at sunrise or sunset, the light is intense but you feel little direct heat from the sun.

Why is that?

 

[AirPo]

I will be glad to go off topic to discuss an obvious observation which might bolster the argument for some kind of electric universe.

Consider... on a clear day...

when the sun is above you, at high noon the heat and light are intense

when the sun is at your eye level, at sunrise or sunset, the light is intense but you feel little direct heat from the sun.

Why is that?

The light is not intense at sunset. For the same reason it's not naerly as hot. It's being scattered through much atmosphere before reaching your eye.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In observing the online chatter in various Christian forums over time, I have come to see that many claim the body of Jesus Christ did literally die and then ressurect back to life.

If this is literally a true or accurate claim, then do you think resurrection is a faith based conversation or a science based conversation?

It seems to me, if the claim is accurate, the conversation should shift from faith to science.

I am interested what people here might have to say...

I expect the scientific types will deny ressurection is possible, and the religious types will deny any scientific discussion about resurrection is possible...

I wonder why this is the case...

I fail to see how science could address something which, in Christian confession, is fundamentally contrary to the ordinary state of affairs of the observable universe. In our universe, when things die, they are dead--entropy happens.

The Christian faith claim is that fundamental laws of the natural universe (as we know them) were broken, when entropy ceased to happen for a very particular person; further the Christian confession is that ultimately this will be true for the universe itself. Christians don't stop after saying Christ rose, it is part of our central confession and hope that even as Christ was raised, so too we will be raised. That the course of history will reach its climax, and there will be a restoration and renewal of all things. There will be a time when death is no more--no more entropy. How things will work then, i.e. what will the "rules" of the universe be at that time is entirely unknown and unknowable.

Science operates with the rules that govern the universe as we experience and observe it. Something that is completely outside that rule set is outside the scope of science. I.e. if the supernatural exists, by definition it is beyond the natural and therefore naturalistic methodology has no explanatory power for it. It's not simply an anomalous thing that requires a reevaluation of our predictive models; it is wholesale beyond the capability of any predictive or explanatory model.

I like science, and I think science should be science. I'm also religious. I like both--I just don't think much good happens by conflating the two. There is space for dialogue between the two, but I think religion should stay religion and science should stay science. I've seen a lot of very zany things come out of trying to conflate the two, and the result is both pseudo-science quackery and really awful theology. I'm a fan of neither.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

If you can claim resurrection is nothing like cloning, does this mean you know the processes involved in resurrection well enough to make such a claim?

I know what cloning is, and that's not what Christianity believes occurred with Jesus. That is pretty sufficient in and of itself to make the claim that they are nothing alike.

I may not know what 18 Delphini b (an exoplanet) looks like, what kind of atmosphere it has, or any characteristics about it. But I know that it's not Gary Busey.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If God used the DNA from the dead body of Jesus to re-create the new living body of Jesus, then the resurrection would be similar to cloning in some way.

Superficially; but cloning gives you an individual that may be genetically identical, but is less alike than an identical twin (which has both duplicate DNA and shared uterine development). If you're going to need magic to make the clone identical in all respects (and you are), you might as well make the whole thing magical. The same argument applies to Noah's ark & the 'Great Flood' and other 'miraculous' stories...

 

[Doveaman]

Superficially; but cloning gives you an individual that may be genetically identical, but is less alike than an identical twin (which has both duplicate DNA and shared uterine development). If you're going to need magic to make the clone identical in all respects (and you are), you might as well make the whole thing magical. The same argument applies to Noah's ark & the 'Great Flood' and other 'miraculous' stories...

It's impossible to make such a distinction since everything God does is supernatural, whether it be cloning or Noah's ark.

 

[MisterBlackEye]

The light is not intense at sunset. For the same reason it's not naerly as hot. It's being scattered through much atmosphere before reaching your eye.

Perhaps I was not clear.

I mean to say at the time when the sun is barely above the horizon, and can be seen, just after sunrise, or just before sunset.

The brightness of the sun is still very intense at this time. It appears slightly brighter just after sunrise than just before sunset, but it is extremely bright at both times.

But at these specific times, you feel little direct heat from the sun, even though you can still see intense bright light.

The direct blast of heat that hits you is mostly gone, but the light stays. Why is that?

 

[MisterBlackEye]

It's impossible to make such a distinction since everything God does is supernatural, whether it be cloning or Noah's ark.

Hey Doveaman.

You say you are recreated, not evolved.

What does that mean?

 

[MisterBlackEye]

I fail to see how science could address something which, in Christian confession, is fundamentally contrary to the ordinary state of affairs of the observable universe. In our universe, when things die, they are dead--entropy happens.

The Christian faith claim is that fundamental laws of the natural universe (as we know them) were broken, when entropy ceased to happen for a very particular person; further the Christian confession is that ultimately this will be true for the universe itself. Christians don't stop after saying Christ rose, it is part of our central confession and hope that even as Christ was raised, so too we will be raised. That the course of history will reach its climax, and there will be a restoration and renewal of all things. There will be a time when death is no more--no more entropy. How things will work then, i.e. what will the "rules" of the universe be at that time is entirely unknown and unknowable.

Science operates with the rules that govern the universe as we experience and observe it. Something that is completely outside that rule set is outside the scope of science. I.e. if the supernatural exists, by definition it is beyond the natural and therefore naturalistic methodology has no explanatory power for it. It's not simply an anomalous thing that requires a reevaluation of our predictive models; it is wholesale beyond the capability of any predictive or explanatory model.

I like science, and I think science should be science. I'm also religious. I like both--I just don't think much good happens by conflating the two. There is space for dialogue between the two, but I think religion should stay religion and science should stay science. I've seen a lot of very zany things come out of trying to conflate the two, and the result is both pseudo-science quackery and really awful theology. I'm a fan of neither.

-CryptoLutheran

This sounds like ignorance is bliss. Have a nice day.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This sounds like ignorance is bliss. Have a nice day.

Not ignorance, just preserving the scientific method.

-CryptoLuthearn

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's impossible to make such a distinction since everything God does is supernatural, whether it be cloning or Noah's ark.

Yet you still haunt the sciences forums discussing science...

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps I was not clear.

I mean to say at the time when the sun is barely above the horizon, and can be seen, just after sunrise, or just before sunset.

The brightness of the sun is still very intense at this time. It appears slightly brighter just after sunrise than just before sunset, but it is extremely bright at both times.

But at these specific times, you feel little direct heat from the sun, even though you can still see intense bright light.

The direct blast of heat that hits you is mostly gone, but the light stays. Why is that?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, it's the angle of the light that makes the difference.

At the horizon the angle is 45°, but overhead the angle is 0° and you're getting the full intensity of the rays hitting you.

The smaller the angle, the greater the heat.

I think.

 

[MisterBlackEye]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, it's the angle of the light that makes the difference.

At the horizon the angle is 45°, but overhead the angle is 0° and you're getting the full intensity of the rays hitting you.

The smaller the angle, the greater the heat.

I think.

Sure feels that way.

But the question is why is the heat much less, but the light pretty much the same at the different angles?

 

[MisterBlackEye]

Not ignorance, just preserving the scientific method.

-CryptoLuthearn

Shouldn't the scientific method attempt to reach a conclusion about resurrection?

Or would you prefer that this history that was supposedly observed remain blissfully ignored?

 

[Doveaman]

Yet you still haunt the sciences forums discussing science...

Just because it's natural doesn't mean it didn't have a supernatural origin.

The OP is questioning if the resurrection could have been a natural event such as cloning.

Even if the resurrection was a natural event it would still be of a supernatural origin.

The supernatural God would have done the cloning.

There may then be scientific evidence for the cloning, but not for the supernatural God who did it.

 

[Doveaman]

Hey Doveaman.

You say you are recreated, not evolved.

What does that mean?

It means that I was re-created from the DNA of a prehistoric hominid (Re-Creation with Modification), and not evolved from a prehistoric hominid (Descent with Modification).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Just because it's natural doesn't mean it didn't have a supernatural origin.

The OP is questioning if the resurrection could have been a natural event such as cloning.

Even if the resurrection was a natural event it would still be of a supernatural origin.

The supernatural God would have done the cloning.

There may then be scientific evidence for the cloning, but not for the supernatural God who did it.

Including events of supernatural origin or cause is an interesting definition of 'natural'...

 

[AirPo]

Perhaps I was not clear.

I mean to say at the time when the sun is barely above the horizon, and can be seen, just after sunrise, or just before sunset.

The brightness of the sun is still very intense at this time. It appears slightly brighter just after sunrise than just before sunset, but it is extremely bright at both times.

But at these specific times, you feel little direct heat from the sun, even though you can still see intense bright light.

The direct blast of heat that hits you is mostly gone, but the light stays. Why is that?

Perhaps I was not clear. THe premis that the sun is intensely bright at sunset is incorrect.