Resurrection Evidence

[Resha Caner]

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

@BigV asked much the same question in post 167. I don't believe all autoresuscitation cases have been explained, therefore one can't automatically assume they all had natural causes. Regardless, nature seems to me the atheist's version of "goddidit". Hence my thread, "What is Nature?"

Given that, are you asking for a spiritual explanation, ceding the right to charge
me with appealing to a goddidit argument?

 

[muichimotsu]

@BigV asked much the same question in post 167. I don't believe all autoresuscitation cases have been explained, therefore one can't automatically assume they all had natural causes. Regardless, nature seems to me the atheist's version of "goddidit". Hence my thread, "What is Nature?"

Given that, are you asking for a spiritual explanation, ceding the right to charge
me with appealing to a goddidit argument?

Argument from ignorance is faulty inference. Nature is things we can both observe and measure in terms of reliable behavior, whereas our abstract thoughts would fall into it as a subset of human conceptions, that aren't held to the same precise empirical standards, but can still be challenged and fine tuned in regards to their reliability

Just because we can't explain them doesn't mean we go to an explanation that doesn't fit into a reasonable explanation that could happen again, however uncommon it may be. If I just stop breathing and then come back, that's hardly autoresucitation of a significant fashion, but even my brain nearly ceasing to function and me coming back from that is not indication of substance dualism being true and my "soul" somehow bringing me back from the brink, it's something that explanations at present are insufficient for that are subject to falsifiability (versus God, the soul, other things that, by general idea of the supernatural, are "beyond nature" and thus are as helpful as saying leprechauns fixed my shoes when I was sleeping because I can't discern another explanation

"Spiritual" is painfully and nebulously defined based on particular metaphysical presuppositions that are often unfounded and speculative in the first place. I don't ask for explanations based in subjective and unsubstantiated claims rooted in uncritical inference of "facts" to a particular conclusion.

 

[Resha Caner]

"Spiritual" is painfully and nebulously defined based on particular metaphysical presuppositions that are often unfounded and speculative in the first place. I don't ask for explanations based in subjective and unsubstantiated claims rooted in uncritical inference of "facts" to a particular conclusion.

OK.

 

[muichimotsu]

OK.

Well, that was a productive discussion

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, that was a productive discussion

I agree with your sentiment, but I also interpreted you to say you didn't want a spiritual explanation. So … OK.

 

[Halbhh]

faith is unreasonable insistence

heh heh.... With a definition like that, then of course you must think it's all nonsense. Faith isn't even slightly like that though, I can say. For me, faith is highly reasonable. But at first it's a kind of leap of trust in the Good. Or a realization, practically. None of that is 'unreasonable' but more like....a quest or a seeking.

At first. Then later one finds out that faith is profoundly reasonable and justified.

But it's not 'faith' in men or a church or some people you knew that said X or Y, but instead the 'faith' here I'm discussing is based on the things Jesus said, and of course, one wouldn't even know about that -- not even 1% -- without learning what He said.

 

[muichimotsu]

If spiritual isn't properly defined, then any explanation I get is going to vary by how the person defines it: I have a book I want to reread called The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality and that was probably the most compelling definition. Albeit it basically defined spirituality in the sense of introspection rather than anything looking to the supernatural (and it made sense, though it's been a while since I read over it, the idea is rooted more in ancient etymology of spirit as being synonymous with psyche and thus the mind)

 

[muichimotsu]

heh heh.... With a definition like that, then of course you must think it's all nonsense. Faith isn't even slightly like that though, I can say. For me, faith is highly reasonable. But at first it's a kind of leap of trust in the Good. Or a realization, practically. None of that is 'unreasonable' but more like....a quest or a seeking.

If your leap of trust is in something that feels reasonable to you, then you've already shown your standards are insufficient, because it's purely subjective and continues to reinforce preconceptions rather than challenging the beliefs as being warranted or falsifiable

 

[Halbhh]

If your leap of trust is in something that feels reasonable to you, then you've already shown your standards are insufficient, because it's purely subjective and continues to reinforce preconceptions rather than challenging the beliefs as being warranted or falsifiable

I'd not believe at all unless all the confirmations came. I'm the 'doubting Thomas' type possibly. It required a lot of proof for me, but...I was willing to take the initial risk, the 'leap of faith' -- why not? -- and that was metaphorically for me akin to jumping off a cliff (on one level, but that was only in terms of the emotional risk side only) without quite seeing the other cliff I'd be able to land on, but trusting it could be there. In other words, it wasn't merely an intellectual exercise.

 

[Halbhh]

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

Perhaps we can best just leave it at where I already directly answered your OP in the simple clear way many posts ago, and you responded that it was like Hebrews chapter 11.

That may be all we'd ever be able to agree on until you find out more. The only advice I have for you or anyone, and everyone, is that the main help for anyone is to listen to hear more that Jesus said.

 

[Halbhh]

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

No, in context of the previous discussion, I'm saying here is a way to begin to find out whether or not Jesus knew what he was talking about in general -- by first testing some of the easy to test instructions he gave, as a beginning way to find out if he knows what he is saying.

And if one succeeds, as it did so well for me (repeatedly in repeated tests), then to try another instruction.

And then another.

So, that one gains real experience of what He said, and whether it works.

That's only for someone objective and interested enough to take that path, which only some people might be. Not for everyone. Many only prefer to just keep their old ideas, and not learn new things, of course, and I'm not talking to those people in these kinds of posts.

 

[Halbhh]

I don't follow what you are saying, but I do think it is good that you are trying to love your neighbors. We all need to do that.

Are you are saying that the reward you perceive for loving your neighbors is always a surprise? In other words you don't know what you are going to receive and you don't know how soon? If so, then you need to be careful you are not imagining a connection between the action of loving and the reward. Of course it is great for us to try to love each other, so I am not opposing your thinking.

It was more unpredictable to me than that. I didn't know whether these random people would like me. I already had love in my life and had already had close friends in high school, and various friends in college, and plenty of love from family and such. Why should I risk myself emotionally with total random strangers I didn't even screen ahead of time to pick out? In order to test what Jesus said, in the most direct way possible. (My background from university was engineering physics, and I liked the idea of a simple direct outright test, that could be repeated) The results were not only that they did like me, and in fact loved me back. Not only that. Instead, the results were quite a bit more surprising. (much more like getting really lucky (or so I thought at first)) But no 2 the same. You can find out by trying it.

 

[BigV]

No, in context of the previous discussion, I'm saying here is a way to begin to find out whether or not Jesus knew what he was talking about in general -- by first testing some of the easy to test instructions he gave, as a beginning way to find out if he knows what he is saying.

Wonderful. Lets test Jesus' instructions on how prayer was supposed to work and test it. What we'll find is Jesus' promises to answer prayer work just as well as my promises to answer the same prayers.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If your leap of trust is in something that feels reasonable to you, then you've already shown your standards are insufficient, because it's purely subjective and continues to reinforce preconceptions rather than challenging the beliefs as being warranted or falsifiable

I think the whole issue of what makes for "epistemological warrant" is somewhat DIFFERENT for the Christian faith than it is when any us might want to undertake either scientific or technological activities.

So, I'm not sure why I should be badgered by others when I apply a different epistemological praxis to my faith than the one I'd apply if I was to build a rocket ship.

Besides, as far as I'm concerned, the whole process of justification in ANY activity is a difficult and imprecise one to handle. Yet, I hear both atheists and fellow Christians implying that I only think this because I'm somehow "uninformed" (read: ignorant). Frankly, I kind of get sick of it.

 

[BigV]

I think the whole issue of what makes for "epistemological warrant" is somewhat DIFFERENT for the Christian faith than it is when any us might want to undertake either scientific or technological activities.

There may be some confusion. I'm not aware of any Atheist who is accepting miraculous claims of Islam/Hinduism/Non-Christian religion but has a special standard for Christianity.

On other hand, how many Christians accept miraculous claims of non-Christian religions?

Projections?

 

[BigV]

So, I'm not sure why I should be badgered by others when I apply a different epistemological praxis to my faith than the one I'd apply if I was to build a rocket ship.

I do am not understanding why there seem to be a different epistemological praxis for rocket ships vs teleportation capsules vs time travel machines.

It's baffling to me!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There may be some confusion. I'm not aware of any Atheist who is accepting miraculous claims of Islam/Hinduism/Non-Christian religion but has a special standard for Christianity.

On other hand, how many Christians accept miraculous claims of non-Christian religions?

Projections?

Don't conflate what I've said. In comparing the various conceptual matrices that reside within different religions with one another, you're comparing apples and oranges.

By contrast, in comparing the Christian Faith with the various activities of science and technology, I am comparing apples and enemas.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I do am not understanding why there seem to be a different epistemological praxis for rocket ships vs teleportation capsules vs time travel machines.

It's baffling to me!

I didn't imply there was; all three items you mention above involve technological feats rather than being cognitive acts in response to some semi-fathomable Transcendence.

As for the Christian Faith, and as I've explained elsewhere--and you're free to continue to ignore what I'm saying as you've heretofore been doing all along--the substance of biblical epistemology is fairly different in nature from that of any epistemological framework we might choose to incorporate into our praxis when handling either science or technology.

The epistemology involved within the process of Christian faith is structurally different in form and partially in kind from that of human endeavors of measuring and building.

If there are people who think the 'truth' of Christianity can only come and only be built layer upon justified logical layer, moving up in Lego by interlocking Lego fashion until a proposition is finally justified within a chosen framework, then by their thinking this, they'd be wrong, and they'd be wrong whether they were Christian or an ex-Christian/atheist.

 

[Halbhh]

Wonderful. Lets test Jesus' instructions on how prayer was supposed to work and test it. What we'll find is Jesus' promises to answer prayer work just as well as my promises to answer the same prayers.

I did.

They do.

I am doing all 6, not just 1 or 2.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I'd not believe at all unless all the confirmations came. I'm the 'doubting Thomas' type possibly. It required a lot of proof for me, but...I was willing to take the initial risk, the 'leap of faith'

I think you might have misunderstood the story of Doubting Thomas. Thomas didn't take a leap of faith. With admirable reason he said he wouldn't believe that Jesus was alive again unless Jesus appeared to him; and Jesus appeared to him.
It's rather funny, then, to hear you say that you're a doubting Thomas kind of person who took a leap of faith.

Why won't Jesus appear to us? Because he's a character in a story. He can do amazing things - but only in stories. That's why you never see Jesus doing amazing things in real life; you only hear people tell you stories about him doing amazing things. That's how it always has been, and that's how it always will be. And faith is what prevents you from thinking critically about it and saying, "Funny, Jesus could appear to me; I hear that he does appear to others - but never in verifiable situations. Almost as if..."