Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?

[JoeMorgue]

Woo - Has never been right about anything. Routinely proven wrong by science.

Science - Routinely proven right. Only proven wrong by more science.

Yep. Both of those require equal "faith." That makes sense.

 

[tsig]

…but I’m not simply referring to ‘order’. The ‘order’ is manifest through the apparent fact that the entire universe subscribes to an all-but incomprehensibly complex range of metaphysical realities that we refer to as science. I seriously doubt that anyone here is going to dispute this conclusion…but it is just as certain that nobody here as the faintest idea how and why this is the case.




…only if you assume
A) we currently have a comprehensive understanding of the ‘order’ in question (we quite unconditionally do not) and that a miracle (whatever that is) indisputably contradicts everything that is possible
B) that whatever-a-god-is cannot change the ‘order’ to suit It’s intentions.

You seem to be operating from the premise that you are the only one on this forum.

 

[Pup]

…but I’m not simply referring to ‘order’. The ‘order’ is manifest through the apparent fact that the entire universe subscribes to an all-but incomprehensibly complex range of metaphysical realities that we refer to as science.

No, that's not what we refer to as science. Science is a method, not a type of reality.

I seriously doubt that anyone here is going to dispute this conclusion…but it is just as certain that nobody here as the faintest idea how and why this is the case.

But you just said you know it implicates some variety of intelligence, so you're apparently claiming some faint idea. I was the one claiming there was no such implication, meaning I quite literally do not know one way or the other. Edited to add: I don't know of any evidence that any god has meddled with miracles, and all the mundane human-developed gods like the Biblical ones certainly aren't true. What came "before" the beginning of the universe is currently only speculation.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

If the burden of proof does not apply to negative claims (propositions with a "not" in them), then please tell me which of the following claims require evidence:

1. Jesus did not stay dead after his death.
2. Evolution is not true.
3. It is not possible for the universe to exist without God.
4. Everyone knows there is a god, because atheists do not exist.
5. The Holocaust did not actually happen.

I know it's a bit late to go back to this one but, items 2 and 5 are correctly null hypothesis with "evolution is true" and "Nazi Germany committed a campaign of extermination against people considered undesirable" being the positive claims. It is only because in both these cases evidence exists that they are accepted. Indeed the evidence is of such quantity and quality for the positive claim and there is a complete absence of contrary evidence so that they are able to be considered true for all practical purposes. It is difficult to imagine what evidence could overturn the acceptance that the Holocaust occurred, but falsification of evolution has been widely discussed, for example the 'pre-cambrian rabbit'.

Surely the key to the null hypothesis is falsifiability.

 

[skeptichaggis]

The "pre Cambrian rabbit" may have been a problem at one time if it had happened but not now. Science is a mosaic,a rabbit found in pre Cambrian strata would be a anomaly today-not a problem for evolution. Just because something can't be explained is NEVER enough to invoke the supernatural.
Ultimately while this imaginary rabbit would undoubtedly become a young earth cretanists new sound bite that would be it.
In corner one-fossil rabbit pulled from pre Cambrian strata
In corner two-almost two centuries of scientific scrutiny of evolution
DNA
Every other fossil
DNA
Genetics
DNA
Comparitive anatomy
DNA
Radiometric dating
DNA
I could go on but I think you get the picture. Based on what we KNOW about life,a pre Cambrian rabbit would be assumed(correctly)to have a currently unknown reason, fully compatible with evolution for being there.
Occams razor.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Things don't have to be proven to be of importance. I think it can be said faith and belief are outside of science...and that makes them superior.

(Religious) faith is outside of science. In fact, (religious) faith is in spite of science (and reality).

Belief may or may not be outside of science. Belief informed by examination of reality is not outside of science, while belief informed by fiction is outside of science (and reality), such belief ranging from benign at best, and horribly destructive at worst.

Neither faith nor belief is superior to science (and reality). Faith or belief that elevates itself above reality is hubris.

There may be (I believe there are) ideas that are superior to science. Neither faith nor belief are among these.

 

[The Greater Fool]

How do you prove that something outside of science exits?

Exactly.

Only by ignoring the definitions of words and employing sophistry can this be achieved.

"Science proves that supernatural entities do not exist" is a logically self-conflicting statement.

 

[skeptichaggis]

Things don't have to be proven to be of importance. I think it can be said faith and belief are outside of science...and that makes them superior.

So a belief that blowing yourself up in a crowded train gets you 72 hundred foot tall,hymen repairing virgins is superior?
What about the belief that snakes talk,or horses fly,are those superior beliefs too?
Are you serious?

Those beliefs are not superior,they are obscene. Its 2015 and the fact that a single human being gives the supernatural ANY credence is a horrific indictment of our species.

 

[Donn]

Not to pile-on, but this caught my eye: "(Religious) faith is outside of science."

In truth, there's not a meta-scientific particle in those bodily organs that sustain religious faith. What happens in our meat minds, to become dreaming, imagination, fantasy and religious experience, is not supernatural; is not beyond the reach of science bent to chart it.

The thoughts — the faith, the associated ideas — themselves are temporarily cordoned-off from easy study; this may not always be so. They have the habit of influencing sinew and muscle to bleed across into action. A faith never communicated is as untouchable as it gets; but few contain themselves so.

No, this sacrosanct pale of faith is a last redoubt, a final twitching decoy. It is only held from dissection by loud protest, bombast and too many bombs.

Nothing is outside of science for science is an algorithm. Step by step, each placed on solid ground, fills the map. As air pressure and diffusion deflates a balloon over time, so this algorithm will squeeze all privilege from faith. (Assuming the course of civilized history holds.)

 

[IanS]

There may be (I believe there are) ideas that are superior to science. Neither faith nor belief are among these.

What do you mean by saying you believe in certain "ideas" that are "superior" to science? What does that statement mean?

"Superior" means above and of greater authority. An "idea" is a thought or mental impression of a belief or opinion.

What thoughts or beliefs do you say are of greater authority than scientific explanations for actual events occurring in the observed & detectable universe around us (as distinct from you merely having thoughts, ideas or beliefs about other mental or imagined notions in your mind)?

Are you saying there are (to use a phrase commonly employed by theists and some philosophy students) "other ways of knowing"?

Are you saying that you believe there are better (more successful, more accurate), or even any different, ways of investigating & explaining "real" physically occurring events anywhere in this universe, by some method which is not actually science?

What are these other better ways?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Faith and belief are types of human action and can and have been studied by science.

The objects of faith and belief either manifest themselves in this reality and can be studied or they do not exist.


Do you always give importance to things you cannot see, hear or touch?

If so I have some invisible coins I'd like to sell you.

I don't. I am an atheist. I limit my acceptance of ideas to what can be supported by evidence. That is why I will gladly concede the philosophic value arguments to believers. You say it is outside and beyond science? Fine. That doesn't alter me.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Not to pile-on, but this caught my eye: "(Religious) faith is outside of science."

In truth, there's not a meta-scientific particle in those bodily organs that sustain religious faith. What happens in our meat minds, to become dreaming, imagination, fantasy and religious experience, is not supernatural; is not beyond the reach of science bent to chart it.

The thoughts — the faith, the associated ideas — themselves are temporarily cordoned-off from easy study; this may not always be so. They have the habit of influencing sinew and muscle to bleed across into action. A faith never communicated is as untouchable as it gets; but few contain themselves so.

No, this sacrosanct pale of faith is a last redoubt, a final twitching decoy. It is only held from dissection by loud protest, bombast and too many bombs.

Nothing is outside of science for science is an algorithm. Step by step, each placed on solid ground, fills the map. As air pressure and diffusion deflates a balloon over time, so this algorithm will squeeze all privilege from faith. (Assuming the course of civilized history holds.)

Yeah, I was obviously talking about how thoughts are formed.

 

[The Greater Fool]

What do you mean by saying you believe in certain "ideas" that are "superior" to science? What does that statement mean?

"Superior" means above and of greater authority. An "idea" is a thought or mental impression of a belief or opinion.

Superior
adjective
1. higher in station, rank, degree, importance, etc.: a superior officer.
2. above the average in excellence, merit, intelligence, etc.: superior math students.
3. of higher grade or quality: superior merchandise.
4. greater in quantity or amount: superior numbers.
5. showing a consciousness or feeling of being better than or above others:
superior airs.
6. not yielding or susceptible (usually followed by to): to be superior to temptation.
7. higher in place or position: We moved our camp to superior ground.

What thoughts or beliefs do you say are of greater authority than scientific explanations for actual events occurring in the observed & detectable universe around us (as distinct from you merely having thoughts, ideas or beliefs about other mental or imagined notions in your mind)?

Example: Science is a better tool for understanding reality than is fiction.
Example: Imagination.

Thanks for at least assuming I'm not talking about the act of thinking.

Are you saying there are (to use a phrase commonly employed by theists and some philosophy students) "other ways of knowing"?

No.

Are you saying that you believe there are better (more successful, more accurate), or even any different, ways of investigating & explaining "real" physically occurring events anywhere in this universe, by some method which is not actually science?

No.

What are these other better ways?

Straw man.

 

[IanS]

Example: Science is a better tool for understanding reality than is fiction.
Example: Imagination.

Thanks for at least assuming I'm not talking about the act of thinking.


No.


No.


Straw man.

Well I'm perfectly prepared to say I have no idea what that sort of reply is supposed to mean.

You say, " Example: Science is a better tool for understanding reality than is fiction. " - who said "fiction" was a good "tool" for understanding "reality"?

And then you just added, "Example: Imagination." - are you trying to say that "imagination" is an example of "fiction", so that "imagination" is not a good "tool" for understanding "reality"? Is that what you intended to say?

I was asking you about this -

There may be (I believe there are) ideas that are superior to science. Neither faith nor belief are among these.

What are these "ideas" that are "superior" to science?

And I also asked you about this -

(Religious) faith is outside of science. In fact, (religious) faith is in spite of science (and reality).

How is "faith" outside of science?

In what way are things "outside" of science?

Where or what is this "outer" side of science?

 

[The Greater Fool]

Well I'm perfectly prepared to say I have no idea what that sort of reply is supposed to mean.

It's likely because the questions have exceptionally little to do with my comments.

You say, " Example: Science is a better tool for understanding reality than is fiction. " - who said "fiction" was a good "tool" for understanding "reality"?

Let's refresh what my reply was in response to:

What thoughts or beliefs do you say are of greater authority than scientific explanations for actual events occurring in the observed & detectable universe around us (as distinct from you merely having thoughts, ideas or beliefs about other mental or imagined notions in your mind)?

This original question was very much of the "When did you stop beating your wife" sort, as it starts with an incorrect supposition, then runs with it.

You are the one that brought 'greater authority' and 'explaining the universe' into this. However, you asked "What thoughts or beliefs..." about your imposed suppositions, so I gave examples of the types of things *I* am talking about.

As for "who said 'fiction' was a good 'tool' for understanding 'reality'? Uh, every practicing member of religion, perchance? This, greater than anything else, highlights how rabid is your desire to disagree with me.

And then you just added, "Example: Imagination." - are you trying to say that "imagination" is an example of "fiction", so that "imagination" is not a good "tool" for understanding "reality"? Is that what you intended to say?

I am trying to say what I said, that Imagination is an example of something that may be superior to science.

I was asking you about this -

There may be (I believe there are) ideas that are superior to science. Neither faith nor belief are among these.

What are these "ideas" that are "superior" to science?

And I answered, and answered again above.

And I also asked you about this -

(Religious) faith is outside of science. In fact, (religious) faith is in spite of science (and reality).

How is "faith" outside of science?

How is it within science? As I said, faith is in spite of science. It ignores science.

In what way are things "outside" of science?

Where or what is this "outer" side of science?

I gave examples of things outside of science. Do you claim imagination or fiction is scientific?

 

[Donn]

I am trying to say what I said, that Imagination is an example of something that may be superior to science.

… Do you claim imagination or fiction is scientific?

In what way could imagination be superior to the process we call science? Imagination is a part of that process. Surely?

Imagination and fiction, etc., are certainly scientific — in the sense they are products/functions of meat. They do not float above the brain, they ooze within it.

 

[The Greater Fool]

In what way could imagination be superior to the process we call science? Imagination is a part of that process. Surely?

Imagination and fiction, etc., are certainly scientific — in the sense they are products/functions of meat. They do not float above the brain, they ooze within it.

Of course every thought is the result of physical processes. Shall we really pursue this useless path?

Imagination is a thought process;
Science is a thought process;
Religion is a thought process;

Imagination = Science = Religion. Really?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Not to mention that the mere fact that everything seems to function according to some vast ‘order’ implicates some variety of intelligence.

More accurately, the mere idea that mechanistic function implies intelligence implicates some variety of humor.

Pure speculation though.

Agreed.

 

[Donn]

Of course every thought is the result of physical processes. Shall we really pursue this useless path?

How does that help the argument that imagination is greater than science? For that matter, what does greater mean?

Imagination is a thought process;
Science is a thought process;
Religion is a thought process;

Imagination = Science = Religion. Really?

In a way, yes. They are all similar products of the same system. Science, I argue, is a set of thoughts and deeds that feed back to alter the inputs and refine the outputs. Imagination is part of that, but it's constrained to a role.

Religion is also a thought and deed system, but it does not bother to verify against surrounding reality.

 

[The Greater Fool]

How does that help the argument that imagination is greater than science?

I don't know. I am trying to understand why you seem to be connecting the concept of meat bag thought processes to the value of those thought processes.

For that matter, what does greater mean?

The post that spawned this part of the thread was very broad. Imagination may be superior to logic in specific ways, while the converse may be true in other ways.

In a way, yes. They are all similar products of the same system. Science, I argue, is a set of thoughts and deeds that feed back to alter the inputs and refine the outputs.

Agreed.

Imagination is part of that, but it's constrained to a role.

Agreed.

Religion is also a thought and deed system, but it does not bother to verify against surrounding reality.

Agreed.

Though, in this context, science, imagination, and religion are each constrained roles.