Resurrection Evidence

[Resha Caner]

Can we both agree that a man, whom is deemed dead for 3 days, rising from the dead, IS an extraordinary claim? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Sure, it's an extraordinary claim, but that doesn't define what extraordinary evidence is or explain why it's required. I understand the emotional appeal of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", but that's all it is. It's an unworkable concept in practice.

I think extraordinarily evidence in the context of resurrection refers to actual resurrection. Absolutely everything in our experience testifies to the fact that death is final. Just read up on what death actually does to the body.

How would a resurrection actually work?

You've implicitly noted 2 different types of evidence here. "Resurrection refers to actual resurrection." I know I'm inferring a lot, but I take that to mean that if you saw the resurrection for yourself, you would believe it. The second kind is that you would have to understand how it was done before you believed it. That was the type of thing I wanted to discuss.

When I approach this type of thing for my engineering projects, I use a process called TRL. Why? Because if I don't, at the end of the project everyone argues about whether we were successful or not. In colloquial terms, if you don't use a TRL process, you poison the well. Or, in medical circles they will refer to double blind tests. It means people agree to the type of evidence they're seeking and what type of result will constitute confirmation before testing begins.

What that means is, I'm about to give you some information before we've even agreed on what type of evidence is acceptable and what constitutes confirmation. The well has been poisoned. As such, after I state the data, there is no point in discussing it. I already know what your reaction will be.

Religious have no answer other than “Godditit” or it was magic.

Not quite. Resurrection is a religious term. The medical term is autoresuscitation. You should be able to Google all the stats I'm about to give you. Further, in approaching this statistically, there is never a 0% answer. The answer will never be, Jesus' autoresuscitation was impossible. Rather, the answer will be, Jesus' autoresuscitation had an x% chance under the given conditions.

What you will commonly find from searching the Internet is that doctors will typically pronounce death about 10 minutes after all signs of brain function cease. At that point, decay begins and chances of resuscitation drop quickly. It is typically quoted that chances drop at about 7% per minute.

Jesus' time of death is variously quoted from 40 hours to 72 hours (a full 3 days). Given that range (40-72 hrs) and the above information, the chances of autoresuscitation would range from 1.450E-136 to 4.723E-76.

However, that information represents one extreme. I say that because there is a documented case of autoresuscitation occurring after 17 hours. If that data is added to the model, the chances for Jesus rise to anywhere from 8.590E-48 to 7.957E-27.

Further, it is known that as the temperature of the body drops (i.e. hypothermia), the chances of resuscitation rise dramatically. That 10 minutes of inactivity before body decay begins extends to about 6 hours when body temperature is dropped to 50 F. Hence the reason morgues are cold and the enthusiasm of some for cryonics. Also, aside from the extraordinary 17 hour case of autoresuscitation, there has been about one documented case of autoresuscitation per year over the last 40 years or so. There are many, many anecdotal claims of autoresuscitation over the millennia, hence the tradition of the wake where the body is left for observation for anywhere from a night to several days to make sure they're really dead. Regardless, given that rate of 1 case per year, and the typical estimate that 107 billion total people have lived on earth, that would mean about 2140 cases of autoresuscitation over the course of human history.

That data would raise Jesus' chances to between 1.169E-7 and 2.568E-17.

I didn't give any credit for all the anecdotal cases I mentioned, nor for the additional preservation effects typical of Jewish burial practices, etc. since I didn't have data for those parameters. Regardless, you can take the numbers I shared and compare it to the odds of getting struck by lightning, winning the lottery, evolution, etc. Check for errors. Have fun. I'm out.

 

[Halbhh]

That just seems to be an argument from divine hiddenness, like God has to be intentionally vague or you don't get "true" believers, which seems more like code for credulous people willing to believe and obey without real questioning or even "might makes right" because God is the supreme versus all those "lesser" gods, bordering on henotheism, which is pretty lame, like a comic book or such

If God is so nebulous you can make it have qualities that basically render it unfalsifiable and unable to genuinely be investigated apart from believing in the reliability of religious zealots, many of whom died for their beliefs, then how is it anything more than philosophical goalpost shifting to avoid considering that the entity is possibly just made up, ignotum per ignotius?

Looking for falsifiable? That's good.

Then test.

What is "faith"? As I think of it, faith is like trust, in the Good.

It's a deep level of trust.

Faith and love are the goals of this life we see in the scripture.

Faith means to trust enough to believe before the proof comes. (After faith then we get confirmation. )

But confirmation first would contradict that goal. Preempt. Preclude.

Prevent the goal.

It would defeat a key part of the purpose of this life here.

 

[Halbhh]

Then please acknowledge post #63. Again, verifying a 'moral philosophy', for which seems to work for [you], has absolutely no relevancy to the claims of this same person later rising from the dead.



I did that for decades. No luck. And please also re-address/re-acknowledge posts #19 and #23.

Many things I acknowledge, as I am forced to recognize as fact, regardless of getting mentally prepared.

In the case for a resurrection, what is the evidence for such a claim?

Evidence in physics is from observation -- outcomes of experimental tests for example.

See?

Want evidence? Then test the exact thing(s), and observe the outcome(s). If your test doesn't work, get peer review of experimental setup, from someone like me, where it did work.

 

[BigV]

Regardless, you can take the numbers I shared and compare it to the odds of getting struck by lightning, winning the lottery, evolution, etc. Check for errors. Have fun. I'm out.

Thanks for the laugh. I respect your engineering but, with respect, you have no clue about resurrections.

Lets look the documented case that I found online.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/crim/2015/724174/

Notice the work that was performed on the 67 year old man. Compare that to what allegedly happened to Jesus.

Secondly, please consider what happens to us when we die.

What Happens to Your Body After You Die?

And then ask yourself if we are talking resurrection or resuscitation. Whether the process of death even started in the cases you are thinking about.

Again, if you want to believe there is no science fiction and everything is probable, then more power to you. In my opinion, you are simply taking off your engineering hat off when you start believing claims such as a resurrection.

Let me ask you though. Lets say I make a claim that I raised myself from the dead. I can prove it by offering gospel like tails written by anonymous sources. Would you be convinced? What would it take for you to believe in my resurrection?

 

[Tone]

Let me ask you though. Lets say I make a claim that I raised myself from the dead. I can prove it by offering gospel like tails written by anonymous sources. Would you be convinced? What would it take for you to believe in my resurrection?

Don't you do that with everything else? Where did you get your knowledge from if not books and hearsay and from experience? This is what believers have...a book that we may believe or not believe (why do we choose to believe certain books over others?), and our experiential encounter with His Person. It took me all kinds of things that spoke to the multifaceted nature of my being.

 

[Resha Caner]

Thanks for the laugh. I respect your engineering but, with respect, you have no clue about resurrections.

Too late. As I said, the well is already poisoned. This thread went 160 posts without a single person mentioning autoresuscitation. I mentioned it in post 161, and suddenly you're an expert because of one case you found online. I did my best to give everyone a chance to come to the table and talk about the nature of the various types of evidence starting in post #2. You waited until here. Too late.

So this is my question for you, but I don't want to know your answer. Think about it. Then keep it to yourself. After you read post #161, what was your reaction? Was it: "This must be wrong. How can I refute it?" or "Interesting, maybe I'll look into this."

 

[BigV]

Don't you do that with everything else? Where did you get your knowledge from if not books and hearsay and from experience? This is what believers have...a book that we may believe or not believe (why do we choose to believe certain books over others?), and our experiential encounter with His Person. It took me all kinds of things that spoke to the multifaceted nature of my being.

How do we know the difference between fiction and reality? Because the knowledge we receive is (hopefully) filtered through our mind and experience.
Here is one claim we can test about Jesus. Lets test Jesus' promises that apply to this life. Promises such as John 14:12 and others like it. When those are brought up, Christians, almost without exception, become the experts in ancient Greek, and Hebrew/Aramaic and Palestinian culture to understand those words don't mean what they say.

When you test Jesus' promises that apply to this life, they work the same as my promises had I repeated Jesus' words verbatim. And it's not because I have divine powers.

So this is my question for you, but I don't want to know your answer. Think about it. Then keep it to yourself. After you read post #161, what was your reaction? Was it: "This must be wrong. How can I refute it?" or "Interesting, maybe I'll look into this."

Why ask a question if you don't want an answer? My reaction was... I will look into it. I was the one who dug up a case study, remember?

But you have a problem. Because if it can be shown that Jesus naturally came back to life, then your religion no longer requires a miracle. It comes down to Jesus being struck by lightning or something of this sort, where it happens very rarely, but doesn't require supernatural agent.

 

[Resha Caner]

But you have a problem. Because if it can be shown that Jesus naturally came back to life, then your religion no longer requires a miracle. It comes down to Jesus being struck by lightning or something of this sort, where it happens very rarely, but doesn't require supernatural agent.

You're funny.

 

[BigV]

Want evidence? Then test the exact thing(s), and observe the outcome(s). If your test doesn't work, get peer review of experimental setup, from someone like me, where it did work.

Is this what Christians do when they claim Jesus rose from the dead?

 

[BigV]

You're funny.

Well, at least I have one thing going for me, I guess.

 

[Tone]

When you test Jesus' promises that apply to this life, they work the same as my promises had I repeated Jesus' words verbatim. And it's not because I have divine powers.

John 14:12
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto the Father."

True.

 

[cvanwey]

Sure, it's an extraordinary claim, but that doesn't define what extraordinary evidence is or explain why it's required.

Since we both agree it is an extraordinary claim, then I gather you also agree that such a claim requires evidence, above and beyond, the ordinary. Do you find such a claim produces such evidence? If so, I'd love to hear of it? If not, then what you instead may be doing is 'attempting to throw off the scent.' Meaning, getting me to chase a rabbit trail to conclude that there exists 'no true standard between what constitutes ordinary from extraordinary.'

But you already agree this claim constitutes the extra. Hence, what extra evidence supports the claim?

I understand the emotional appeal of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", but that's all it is. It's an unworkable concept in practice.

No emotion here. Just in search for any/all evidence to support the claim of a man, whom was rendered dead for 3 days, coming back to life. Do you have anything worthy to provide?

 

[cvanwey]

Evidence in physics is from observation -- outcomes of experimental tests for example.

See?

Want evidence? Then test the exact thing(s), and observe the outcome(s). If your test doesn't work, get peer review of experimental setup, from someone like me, where it did work.

You either are purposefully not addressing my responses, or continue to not understand them. If you do not start engaging, then I will not answer your replies associated with this thread. I'm not going to repeat my prior responses for you, yet again.

Thanks

 

[Tone]

Because the knowledge we receive is (hopefully) filtered through our mind and experience.

How do you receive that knowledge, is it a conscious/subconscious choice...is it rooted in some kind of deep seated trust?



*Trust in what?

 

[Resha Caner]

Since we both agree it is an extraordinary claim, then I gather you also agree that such a claim requires evidence, above and beyond, the ordinary.

Sure, it's an extraordinary claim, but that doesn't define what extraordinary evidence is or explain why it's required.

 

[BigV]

How do you receive that knowledge, is it a conscious/subconscious choice...is it rooted in some kind of deep seated trust?

Probably rooted in conscious/subconscious trust that I experience reality accurately. However, can I prove that I am not hallucinating? Probably not, but I think had I been hallucinating my experience would have been different from what it is today.

What are you trying to get at with the question? I'm not sure if I'm answering it.

 

[BigV]

No emotion here. Just in search for any/all evidence to support the claim of a man, whom was rendered dead for 3 days, coming back to life. Do you have anything worthy to provide?

What makes Christian resurrection of Jesus claims even more challenging, is that the Gospels record an allegedly erroneous belief in John the Baptists' resurrection.

Luke 9:18 Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say I am?”
19 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life.”
20 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “God’s Messiah.”

John was Jesus' contemporary and the fact that people could believe he rose from the dead in the person of Jesus makes 'evidence for the resurrection' even shakier.

 

[Tone]

Probably rooted in conscious/subconscious trust that I experience reality accurately. However, can I prove that I am not hallucinating? Probably not, but I think had I been hallucinating my experience would have been different from what it is today.

What are you trying to get at with the question? I'm not sure if I'm answering it.

As long as you are able to honestly search for it, the answer will become clear.

 

[muichimotsu]

Looking for falsifiable? That's good.

Then test.

What is "faith"? As I think of it, faith is like trust, in the Good.

It's a deep level of trust.

Faith and love are the goals of this life we see in the scripture.

Faith means to trust enough to believe before the proof comes. (After faith then we get confirmation. )

But confirmation first would contradict that goal. Preempt. Preclude.

Prevent the goal.

It would defeat a key part of the purpose of this life here.

Faith and trust are not qualitatively the same even if their general goal is the same: trust is warranted by evidence, even if not absolutely, faith is unreasonable insistence on the reliability of something in spite of contrary evidence or events

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is not the same as assuming the best of them, those are 2 entirely different conclusions to make: my best friend could still do something that betrays my trust, but I trust him not to do that because they've consistently shown they care about my wellbeing even over their own (and with others, they have a strong work ethic)

You're practically advocating fideism: that you must make the leap of faith for the incoherent to be comprehensible, which is question begging, among other potential related fallacies of thinking. It's not that the conclusions are impossible, it's that they're incoherent in the supposed evidence for them, given that a major portion of the world finds Christianity unconvincing or even outright blasphemous in the case of most Jews and Muslims

 

[muichimotsu]

Too late. As I said, the well is already poisoned. This thread went 160 posts without a single person mentioning autoresuscitation. I mentioned it in post 161, and suddenly you're an expert because of one case you found online. I did my best to give everyone a chance to come to the table and talk about the nature of the various types of evidence starting in post #2. You waited until here. Too late.

So this is my question for you, but I don't want to know your answer. Think about it. Then keep it to yourself. After you read post #161, what was your reaction? Was it: "This must be wrong. How can I refute it?" or "Interesting, maybe I'll look into this."

Autoresucitation would assume there is still remote possibility of life rather than complete and utter death in all senses. People back then would've assumed because Jesus wasn't breathing, he was dead, but the swoon theory could have some validity, however unlikely, even granting the extra unlikely situation of taking a crucified man down from the cross rather than letting him rot there as an example to criminals (supposedly the dominant practice)

If you grant autoresucitation as an explanation for Jesus' supposed resurrection, then aren't you just reducing it to a natural, if uncommon, phenomenon? That seems far less impressive or worthy of worship than the unfalsifiable supernatural claims of divine resurrection by whatever method involved with hypostatic union or other bizarre concepts