Proving The Resurrection By the "Minimal Facts" Approach

[PRmerger]

Oh… I was not aware of such qualifiers for a god.

Another exhibit which limns your rather dismal exposure to arguments for God.

What we describe as God here is a rather well-known, classical, readily-accepted definition of God known through philosophy and reason.

Certainly, they need not apply to a simple creator god.

All-knowing, all-good and all-powerful… is that all?

No.

Also immaterial.

And transcendent.

And necessary (that is, not contingent).

And eternal.

The muslims go with most-high, most knowing, most good.

And they are absolutely right.

 

[PRmerger]

Don’t you think all-good is sort of at odds with all the evil we see in the world?

First you’d have to show that it is a logical contradiction for a good God to permit evil in the world.

Kind of like a circle with corners.

If you can show that it’s impossible for a good God to permit evil, then you would have made your point.

However, since you referenced a microcosm, and appealed to “extrapolation”, let me give another microcosm of my own and ask you to extrapolate.

Do you think a good gather allows his child to suffer pain?

I can think of a wonderful example that’s right in the context of our discussion here.

Vaccinations.

So if you can see how a good daddy would permit suffering, (sometimes even assisting the medical assistant in holding down his child!), then you ought to be able to extrapolate to this:

A daddy can be good even while inflicting pain upon his child.
And God can be good even while permitting pain upon his creation.

NB: Please don’t go to “How dare you say vaccinations are the same thing as a tsunami that kills thousands of people!”

No one is saying vaccinations are the same. No one says it causes the same amount of suffering as a tsunami.*

It is only posited as an example that you can…extrapolate…to see that Good Beings Can Be Good even while Bad Things Occur To Their Loved Ones.

*The difference in quality between the pain of a vaccination and the suffering of a tsunami is indeed colossal. But it is finite.

However, the difference between a human father and God the Father is…infinite.

So, if anything, the analogy of vaccination to tsunami isn’t inadequate enough.

 

[pocaracas]

Yes, I think we agree life-reality may not be as you think it is.

I saw what you did there!

Yes, we agree again, but we can’t eliminate mystery, its the unknown that inspires and drives us to seek the answers. Its not a matter of seeking the answers we desire but the truth, we could say there’s a logical explainable theory yet to be confirmed rooted in unexplained mystery yet to be solved?

Perhaps… depends on how it goes with all the different strains of String Theory. If one of these turns out to be right…

Sometimes legends are based on factual reality too. I’ll tell you though, be they transmitted the truth they wouldn’t have had to add anything, but they would have taken time to discern the sequence of supernatural mystery that transpired. Think of it this way what if we seen the 1st day of the universe unfold, we would be left to explain what we witnessed and probably the truth would continue to be elaborated on?

Not far from where I live, there are a few animal footprints in a very inclined rock.
Legend has it that a couple of old people saw “Our Lady” being carried up the cliff on a while mule… sure enough, it happened, there are footprints, right?
waymarking.com/waymarks/WMDKHW_Santurio_de_Nossa_Senhora_da_Pedra_Mua_Cabo_Espichel_Portugal

Wrong, it turns out that those are dinosaur prints… -.-’
The legend is based on factual reality… but… but… come on!!
Great care must be taken with legends…

I’m not sure what you saying but I think its important!

Just that, sometimes, it’s important to know who was to be the original recipient of a particular text in the NT… that is usually simple enough for Paul’s letters… but what about the other texts?

No-one but I think its important to realize the Church plays an imperative role as from this community comes this book, so when we ask what is John saying we have to trust what they are saying. Just like what they are saying with the Gospel of Matthias is trusted. What are we saying with Matthias but. well the church said this existed so it must have. Well the Church said an Angel moved a Rock at the tomb too. Again we have a 1st day of creation mystery, no doubt some were astonished that anyone could verbalize such a concept. But then they couldn’t deny the factual truth to their witness.

“The church” doesn’t say anything.
People say things.
There are texts about which we have evidence only from the writings of people who were slandering them, in an attempt to favor of the orthodox view… and those writings survived exactly because they supported the orthodox view. The other texts didn’t.
Certainly, it is possible that these texts were only imagined and they were written about more as an academic exercise or to discourage the people from following such wrong ideals. But what difference does that make?

On the other hand, what difference does it make if Jesus didn’t resurrect?

Yeah same as with Hawking and others. I can think of no other with the authority to speak on the Church but themselves though, so, its a specific matter of discernment of their theory-history which for sure has continuity. And definitely in a comparative evaluation to other theories of supernatural-religion. I mean we want to solve mystery so we need to know of what path to follow and proceed.

Hawking gets peer reviewed… .and the peers are often not shy about their qualms with his notions.
The public only hears about those papers that pass muster.

I agree that we need to know the correct path to follow… I don’t think it leads through belief in the supernatural.
I mean, I think it would be great if we could have a two-way interaction with a supernatural being… provided that being didn’t have any bad things towards us… but it doesn’t seem to be happening… at least, as far as I see it.

Right, thats what I’m saying above its no doubt comparative and for sure looking at the entire ideal, in some case’s there’s bottomless unfounded myth which could quickly be eliminated others not so quick and time consuming. But what are we looking at in the end but factual supernatural based on a continuity of confirmation historically. But at the same time a comparative study doesn’t mean relevance in say, ah this is a bottomless pit so they all are myths, if you already presupposed supernatural can’t exist which imho seems illogical and narrow mined, then its easy to conclude the heck with all that.

I’d like very much for supernatural events to happen… but I see none.
I see many alleged supernatural events which turn out not to be so.
I hear of many in the distant past which we cannot parse, unless through the biased writings of old.
I see mankind as capable of fabricating reports of such events and feel cheated by them.

I base my “narrow mindedness” on what I see… and what I see other people seeing… heck, there are even believers who say that they have never seen any miracles… yet they simply believe those did happen as reported.
Forgive me for being critical of mankind…

[continued…]

 

[pocaracas]

[cont. damn, I write too much!]

In which case I see no supernatural to even be investigated just suggestion it exists. Everyone says they have supernatural revelation but there must be consistency and something to literally examine. Doesn’t the OT-NT provide the consistency of Gods prophets and the Church today has the artifacts with consistency of divine revelation. Who else has that?

Consistency does not imply reality.
Take all the consistent reports of UFO abductions as a counter-example. (didn’t Bradski already mention this?)

In fact in comparison they appear more moral to me. Which to me only indicates a flaw in mans secular thinking of good and bad not Catholics-Christ. There’s is higher bar than the rest we have to admit?

I’m sorry… who was more moral? The people from before writing was invented?
Which flaw in secular thinking of good and bad?

God doesn’t?

And thats the question inquiring minds want to know, omitting supernatural answers it for them but doesn’t really investigate the issue apparently presented. In fact it denies it?

Does God present its case?
Or is God just coasting idly, while the believers do all the work? Is that the same as God doing all the work?
Why rely on belief, then? It doesn’t work very well, seeing as many differing beliefs can sprout… not just for different gods, but for different interpretations of the same texts.

Peace pocaracas

Peace, Gary!

 

[pocaracas]

Then we can’t discount the anti-vacciners as “fringe minority” either, because 200 years ago most people were anti-vaccine. Edward Jenner was laughed at by the scientific community.

Are we agreed that we should have the same standard?

So let’s just acknowledge that we can dismiss all fringey things in the interest of a rational and fruitful discussion.

Otherwise, if you want to assert arbitrary microcosms–“let’s go back to the world of 3000 years ago”, then I’m going to assert aribitrary microcosms–“let’s go to well educated, wealthy homeschoolers where the anti-vaccine movement has a larger population.”

Just be consistent.

Try not to go across time with what is a “fringey thing”.

###################

The latter. With the correction that it’s not the Christian God but the God of the Philosophers that has no boundaries.

So… this God of the philosophers is the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good that Gorgias mentioned?
I think there’s a leap in here, somewhere…
From capable of creating a Universe to all-powerful is a considerable jump, if you ask me… I can conceive of a god capable of doing much more than creating a Universe.
All-good seems unrelated… so I have nothing on how this may come about.
All-knowing is also not a necessary trait of such a god… he may know all within the Universe he created (though that can’t be taken for granted)… but all beyond it as well?

 

[Bradski]

Someone lied, and you just magically believe it could have happened, despite…

not a single shred of evidence to support this.

Not sure why you keep pursuing this line. No-one has to specifically and with malice aforethought tell lies for all sorts of stories that bear a limited relationship to what actually happened to emerge from the most banal of events. In fact, given enough time, limited education, minimal communication (oral mostly), and rife superstition, it would be perverse to claim that it didn’t happen. Add to that a desire for a story to be told in a particular light and it is a rock solid certainty that it would happen.

You are correct in that many a professed believer hasn’t really examined the evidence.

Indeed. Calling yourself a Christian and knowing enough about that religion for that description to have any meaning are two different things.

But then, again, many a professed atheist hasn’t really examined the evidence either.

Then he or she would indeed be an atheist (or, at best, an agnostic, depending on how you would answer certain questions). Atheism is the default position and it doesn’t have to be used in a positive sense (as in: ‘I have examined the evidence and have not been convinced’). If you are not brought up within a religious society then you may know about gods and be aware of various religions, but you would need to make an active decision before being able to say: ‘I believe in X’. Everyone is an atheist until they have enough information to make that decision.

Hence my complaint against your Sagan-esque ‘billions and billions’. It is exceptionally rare to have anyone make an active decision to become a member of one religion or another. The vast majority tick a particular box because they were brought up that way.

We’ll bring up the snot-nosed teenage boy who suddenly decides to announce he’s an atheist at Thanksgiving because, well, he’s a rebel, ya know?

He’s no more an atheist than anyone is a Christian who just pays lip service to his or her beliefs.

 

[pocaracas]

See what I mean? Pithy, blithe… and non-responsive.

NB: I see that you have no response to my correction of your mathematical analogue. I’ll take that as an “oh, yeah… I get it, now”…

No, I don’t see… I’m thick that way, it seems…

The mathematical analogue you outlined does seem to apply adequately to the God you described, yes. Sorry for not pointing it out earlier.

Why? It seems to be the tenor of your response here, over and again. Just calling a spade a spade…

If it is, it’s not on purpose. I just try to explain things as I see them.
My explanations may be faulty, they may be lacking… but I try.

By refusing to accept God’s gift of forgiveness and grace, when one knows that it’s real and necessary.

I’m confused…
What does that mean?.. to refuse to accept a gift of forgiveness and grace?

How would one know that it’s real?

 

[pocaracas]

Another exhibit which limns your rather dismal exposure to arguments for God.

What we describe as God here is a rather well-known, classical, readily-accepted definition of God known through philosophy and reason.

Not for the deist god I’ve been exposed to…
You need to take a few baby steps with me… please?

No.

Also immaterial.

And transcendent.

And necessary (that is, not contingent).

And eternal.

wow… how do you reason those out?

Immaterial? How does that work?

Transcendent… meaning what, exactly? No human can ever hope to reach him? No human can ever hope to understand him?

Necessary? Certainly necessary for the creation of the Universe, huh?

Eternal? Only within the Universe’s temporal realm. One can conceive of an entity which creates Universes, but is bound to some temporal limits within its own frame of reference (that may even be multi-dimensional time, for all we know! - whatever multi-dimensional time may be… I can’t even imagine it beyond a mathematical construct).

Do remember that we only defined god as the creator of the Universe.
Baby steps.

 

[pocaracas]

First you’d have to show that it is a logical contradiction for a good God to permit evil in the world.

Kind of like a circle with corners.

If you can show that it’s impossible for a good God to permit evil, then you would have made your point.

However, since you referenced a microcosm, and appealed to “extrapolation”, let me give another microcosm of my own and ask you to extrapolate.

Do you think a good gather allows his child to suffer pain?

I can think of a wonderful example that’s right in the context of our discussion here.

Vaccinations.

So if you can see how a good daddy would permit suffering, (sometimes even assisting the medical assistant in holding down his child!), then you ought to be able to extrapolate to this:

A daddy can be good even while inflicting pain upon his child.
And God can be good even while permitting pain upon his creation.

NB: Please don’t go to “How dare you say vaccinations are the same thing as a tsunami that kills thousands of people!”

No one is saying vaccinations are the same. No one says it causes the same amount of suffering as a tsunami.*

It is only posited as an example that you can…extrapolate…to see that Good Beings Can Be Good even while Bad Things Occur To Their Loved Ones.

*The difference in quality between the pain of a vaccination and the suffering of a tsunami is indeed colossal. But it is finite.

However, the difference between a human father and God the Father is…infinite.

So, if anything, the analogy of vaccination to tsunami isn’t inadequate enough.

I see…
Why are you saying that God the Father is infinite?
Hadn’t we only agreed upon a creator god?

Also, (just going along with your God, for now) shouldn’t some “all-good” god concern himself also with providing the maximal (ideally, ALL) good to the people? Is the suffering of tsunamis the maximum good?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Also, (just going along with your God, for now) shouldn’t some “all-good” god concern himself also with providing the maximal (ideally, ALL) good to the people? Is the suffering of tsunamis the maximum good?

Well, if what “good to the people” means is strictly limited to providing for the biological needs of “the people,” then I can see your point.

However, it appears that if “the people” are made for much more than limited biological existence in space and time, then “good to the people” may not necessarily be inconsistent with “the suffering of tsunamis.”

Socrates figured this out more than a couple of millennia ago and even without the need for revelation from God regarding the “good” for the people. This is why he insisted that no person can have evil done to them, only that they can do evil to themselves. I’ve never heard of a person inflicting a tsunami on themselves.

Was Socrates wrong, do you suppose?

 

[pocaracas]

Well, if what “good to the people” means is strictly limited to providing for the biological needs of “the people,” then I can see your point.

However, it appears that if “the people” are made for much more than limited biological existence in space and time, then “good to the people” may not necessarily be inconsistent with “the suffering of tsunamis.”

Socrates figured this out more than a couple of millennia ago and even without the need for revelation from God regarding the “good” for the people. This is why he insisted that no person can have evil done to them, only that they can do evil to themselves. I’ve never heard of a person inflicting a tsunami on themselves.

Was Socrates wrong, do you suppose?

Well then, a question arises: How can we tell “if people are made for much more than limited biological existence in space and time”?

 

[PRmerger]

This seems to be how the “problem of evil arises”: iep.utm.edu/evil-log/
How to solve it, then?

I am interested in the atheist’s answer to this.

What is your solution to your child’s question, “Daddy, why did my cousin die of cancer?” and “Why did that tsunami kill thousands of innocent children?”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well then, a question arises: How can we tell “if people are made for much more than limited biological existence in space and time”?

There are rational arguments in classical theism and Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics) for the immortality of the soul.

The three-part blog post (Some Questions on the Soul) on Feser’s site might provide a starting point.

All three are found here (along with other relevant articles.)

edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/search?q=Some+questions+on+the+soul

 

[pocaracas]

I am interested in the atheist’s answer to this.

What is your solution to your child’s question, “Daddy, why did my cousin die of cancer?” and “Why did that tsunami kill thousands of innocent children?”

There are things in the world outside our control.
Cancer is a problem in our cells which can affect some crucial bodily functions, leading to death. Sort of like a disease created by the body itself.
Some people are more prone to having it than others. Luckily, the majority is not so prone to it.

The tsunami killed them because they were in its way. Tsunamis just happen… one of them was quite famous around our parts a few centuries ago, the year was 1755… a tsunami washed up our shores… came in through Lisbon downtown… many people died… many buildings were destroyed.
Life goes on - downtown got rebuilt, this time following a plan, a geometric plan, imposing some wide streets, people resettled the area… and now it’s full of old buildings.

As for the “why”… no reason… things are as they are.

 

[pocaracas]

There are rational arguments in classical theism and Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics) for the immortality of the soul.

The three-part blog post (Some Questions on the Soul) on Feser’s site might provide a starting point.

All three are found here (along with other relevant articles.)

edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/search?q=Some+questions+on+the+soul

Very well… It’s time for bed, around here, so I’ll read that in the morning.

Cheers!

 

[meltzerboy]

There are things in the world outside our control.
Cancer is a problem in our cells which can affect some crucial bodily functions, leading to death. Sort of like a disease created by the body itself.
Some people are more prone to having it than others. Luckily, the majority is not so prone to it.

The tsunami killed them because they were in its way. Tsunamis just happen… one of them was quite famous around our parts a few centuries ago, the year was 1755… a tsunami washed up our shores… came in through Lisbon downtown… many people died… many buildings were destroyed.
Life goes on - downtown got rebuilt, this time following a plan, a geometric plan, imposing some wide streets, people resettled the area… and now it’s full of old buildings.

As for the “why”… no reason… things are as they are.

Was that the earthquake (tremblement de terre) which Voltaire speaks of to illustrate the unsolvable problem of evil?

For Judaism, it does not really matter whether our souls and/or bodies have immortality or not although many Jews do believe in a World to Come. G-d has provided us through His Law with the means to lead a meaningful life of substance and purpose right here on earth, in which we can help others as well as ourselves. This kind of life is its own reward.

 

[PRmerger]

Not for the deist god I’ve been exposed to…
You need to take a few baby steps with me… please?

Oh, but of course.

wow… how do you reason those out?

Using logic and reason, hon.

Immaterial? How does that work?

Think about it.

If God is the creator of the universe, of all that is material…then he cannot be material and have created it.

That makes him…

immaterial.

Transcendent… meaning what, exactly?

Outside the universe. Existing apart from, or beyond, the universe.

How can God be transcendent then? That seems self explanatory once you know what it means.

No human can ever hope to reach him? No human can ever hope to understand him?

That would be true until the Incarnation happened.

Necessary? Certainly necessary for the creation of the Universe, huh?

That is, he cannot fail to exist.

We, however, are NOT necessary. We could fail to exist and the universe wouldn’t fail to exist.

Eternal? Only within the Universe’s temporal realm. One can conceive of an entity which creates Universes, but is bound to some temporal limits within its own frame of reference (that may even be multi-dimensional time, for all we know! - whatever multi-dimensional time may be… I can’t even imagine it beyond a mathematical construct).

That’s nonsense, poca.

An entity that creates time but is bound by time?

 

[PRmerger]

Such is the nature of these discussions…

Er…no.

If an argument can be refuted, it is refuted.

When an argument can’t be refuted, and the poster doesn’t want to acknowledge this, he simply says, “Well, your argument fails”.

#nebulous

I think we should discuss according to the time period under discussion.

If you say so.

And the time period under discussion is modern day western civilization.

For that’s what you live in. That’s what I live in.

I suppose if there’s anyone from 3000 years ago, he can offer his (name removed by moderator)ut about shamanism and animism…

Unreported? are you that desperate?

We are talking about Truth here. Reality.

And even one miracle—just one–is proof of God’s existence.

So if there’s one miracle–reported…OR unreported, it matters not—God exists.

 

[PRmerger]

Evidence is more than written texts.

Egg-zactly!



So we can agree that the fact that Jesus rose from the dead doesn’t ever have to have been written down! (The fact that it is…by at least 6 different authors…is just icing on the cake).

Present day “Human nature” is evidence of the same “human nature” from 2000 years ago. People haven’t changed that much! Can we agree on this?

Indeed.

So if I know of at least 1 person who would never lie about seeing her teacher, her master, her beloved rise from the dead…we can …*.extrapolate *…from that to…

there are people in history also who would never lie about such a thing.

 

[PRmerger]

Two bodies are mutually attracted in a direct proportion to their masses and an inverse proportion to the square of the distance between their centers.

That rule was written by a…man. Newton, right?

That makes it man-made.

It’s so man-made that a man’s name is attached to it.

How about you try again to give us an example of something that doesn’t sound like a man-made rule?