Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?

[The Greater Fool]

Unless the meddling god didn't want you to know he was meddling.

That's just a bridge too far.

ETA: Actually... Isn't this why faith is required in spite of evidence, a meddling god (or a meddling demon) could make it appears as if they don't exist.

 

[Donn]

ETA: In my flavor of former Christianity, the future held a mass resurrection to life. We're talking millennia dead folks being resurrected. Damn the mechanics, its magic, don't think about it.

Ha. Damn the mechanics indeed! A busy heaven, that lot.

You are expecting the activity of meddling all powerful god must leave effects (other than "hey, you were dead!") in any way. I don't believe it necessarily follows. As the saying goes, nothing is impossible for a supernatural all powerful god. If such a god wanted to resurrect a person with no other detectable effect, it is so.

Ah, I see. Dim of me. Lemme think.

Okay, so here's my rub. If the meddler could poof it so without sign, and he kept it rare, then it would be as you say.
If the word got out, of numbers of dedeaths, there may be course for study of the events despite the poofing. We could learn of the matrix we live in if this god meddles too often.

An all powerful meddling god is not bound by small things like reality or nature or even science fiction.

<draws sword> Now ye've gone too far!

Okay, all goddidited out for the night!

 

[Leumas]

OK, thanks for the link, which made amusing reading.

So that is an example of what GreaterFool means by a “modern” miracle?

Seems to me the only “miracle” there is how otherwise intelligent people in the Catholic faith can seriously believe either that such things really are miracles, or that the “miracles” have genuinely been verified by real science, or that the previous Pope is actually “alive” in heaven and personally intervening to actually perform miracles on Earth. Perhaps the church would also swear that the existence of heaven has been scientifically verified too.

How intelligent can one be to believe that a metaphorical woman made from the spare rib of a metaphorical man got tricked by a metaphorical talking snake and in turn she tricked her metaphorical rib donator and both ate from the fruits of a metaphorical magical tree that endowed those metaphorical couple with such wisdom so as to anger their sky daddy to the point of holding a grudge against them and their descendants to the umpteenth generation?

How stupid does one have to be before they start believing that the aforementioned sky daddy decided to eventually let go of his festering grudge and could not just say ... ok you are forgiven?

How darned imbecilic does one have to be to believe that this sky daddy had no other way to forgive his grudge against those metaphoric spare-ribbed people than to split himself in three?

How moronic does one have to be to believe that this sky daddy then sent one of his other two thirds to rape and commit adultery with a 13 years old little virgin in the middle of nowhere and inject her womb with his other one third?

How retarded does one have to be to believe that this second one third sat for 9 months inside the womb of this little virgin, from the progeny of a family of incestually inbred pimps who pimped off their wives as a family business to make riches, and then oozed out through her birth canal?

How much of a cretin does one have to be to believe that this 1/3 of a god slithered out from between the legs of a virgin to pretend to be the son of himself and then waited doing absolutely nothing for thirty years except to misguide some apparently not so wise men so as to get lost and cause the deaths of thousands of little children all because he couldn't help lusting after some gold?

How outright insane does one have to become to believe that this sky daddy did all this so that he can become a human blood sacrifice of himself to himself so as to appease himself of the festering grudge he held against all humanity for millennia because of the metaphorical transgression of a metaphorical couple because there was no other solution than to have an ultimate bloodshed and torture and death of the ultimate scapegoat which is in fact himself pretending to be his own son... and there was no other way?

How darned devoid of all brain function does one have to get to believe that despite all of the above farcical insanity this sky daddy ACTUALLY FAILED and nothing changed... all that rape and adultery and gestating inside a virgin's womb and slithering out of that virgin's womb and hanging around for thirty years doing nothing and massacres of children and torture and bloodshed and magical tricks were for nothing ... for naught... NOTHING CHANGED and the world carried on as it has always done except perhaps for some more crazy insanities over which to kill each other and torture more humans and burn more books and enslave more people... ah and do not forget more reasons to kill more supposed descendants of that impossible family of incestual pimps because they were as useless as a fruitless fig tree?

How stark raving mad does one have to be to believe that despite all of the above this sky daddy (or at least his 1/3 pretending to be his son) will come again TO TAKE A MULLIGAN... but only after more bloodshed and more impossible descendants from the impossible family of pimps die more horrible deaths getting killed by their neighbors while they themselves kill those neighbors over a hellhole of a worthless piece of dirt?

How great of a fool does one have to be in order to be fooled that the above is the sure way to eventually be resurrected so as to spend ETERNITY of gazillions upon gazillions of eons upon eons and for ever more doing nothing but genuflecting in front of bedazzled bejeweled thrones while singing hymnals for the glory of this sky daddy jumping so quickly between the thrones so as to appear to be himself as the sky daddy sitting on one of the thrones and his other third pretending to be his son sitting on the other throne while the other third is nowhere to be seen perhaps because it is a specter in the first place?

 

[The Big Dog]

How intelligent can one be to believe that a metaphorical woman made from the spare rib of a metaphorical man got tricked by a metaphorical talking snake and in turn she tricked her metaphorical rib donator and both ate from the fruits of a metaphorical magical tree that endowed those metaphorical couple with such wisdom so as to anger their sky daddy to the point of holding a grudge against them and their descendants to the umpteenth generation?

How stupid does one have to be before they start believing that the aforementioned sky daddy decided to eventually let go of his festering grudge and could not just say ... ok you are forgiven?

How darned imbecilic does one have to be to believe that this sky daddy had no other way to forgive his grudge against those metaphoric spare-ribbed people than to split himself in three?

How moronic does one have to be to believe that this sky daddy then sent one of his other two thirds to rape and commit adultery with a 13 years old little virgin in the middle of nowhere and inject her womb with his other one third?

How retarded does one have to be to believe that this second one third sat for 9 months inside the womb of this little virgin, from the progeny of a family of incestually inbred pimps who pimped off their wives as a family business to make riches, and then oozed out through her birth canal?

How much of a cretin does one have to be to believe that this 1/3 of a god slithered out from between the legs of a virgin to pretend to be the son of himself and then waited doing absolutely nothing for thirty years except to misguide some apparently not so wise men so as to get lost and cause the deaths of thousands of little children all because he couldn't help lusting after some gold?

How outright insane does one have to become to believe that this sky daddy did all this so that he can become a human blood sacrifice of himself to himself so as to appease himself of the festering grudge he held against all humanity for millennia because of the metaphorical transgression of a metaphorical couple because there was no other solution than to have an ultimate bloodshed and torture and death of the ultimate scapegoat which is in fact himself pretending to be his own son... and there was no other way?

How darned devoid of all brain function does one have to get to believe that despite all of the above farcical insanity this sky daddy ACTUALLY FAILED and nothing changed... all that rape and adultery and gestating inside a virgin's womb and slithering out of that virgin's womb and hanging around for thirty years doing nothing and massacres of children and torture and bloodshed and magical tricks were for nothing ... for naught... NOTHING CHANGED and the world carried on as it has always done except perhaps for some more crazy insanities over which to kill each other and torture more humans and burn more books and enslave more people... ah and do not forget more reasons to kill more supposed descendants of that impossible family of incestual pimps because they were as useless as a fruitless fig tree?

How stark raving mad does one have to be to believe that despite all of the above this sky daddy (or at least his 1/3 pretending to be his son) will come again TO TAKE A MULLIGAN... but only after more bloodshed and more impossible descendants from the impossible family of pimps die more horrible deaths getting killed by their neighbors while they themselves kill those neighbors over a hellhole of a worthless piece of dirt?

How great of a fool does one have to be in order to be fooled that the above is the sure way to eventually be resurrected so as to spend ETERNITY of gazillions upon gazillions of eons upon eons and for ever more doing nothing but genuflecting in front of bedazzled bejeweled thrones while singing hymnals for the glory of this sky daddy jumping so quickly between the thrones so as to appear to be himself as the sky daddy sitting on one of the thrones and his other third pretending to be his son sitting on the other throne while the other third is nowhere to be seen perhaps because it is a specter in the first place?

I'm not wholly convinced that you have a solid understanding of what metaphor means, although I was pretty convinced when you started calling people stupid...

 

[Leumas]

I'm not wholly convinced that you have a solid understanding of what metaphor means, although I was pretty convinced when you started calling people stupid...

So do you believe in an actual Adam and Eve who were real people in 3759 BCE and that their real sky daddy really kicked them out of the garden of Eden because they really were tricked by a real talking snake into eating a real magical fruit from a real magical tree?

And all this happened despite the Catholic Church claiming that evolution is true but that their sky daddy had infused souls in humans at some stage during the evolutionary process?

Can you explain what Adam and Eve and the talking snake would become if there was no Adam and Eve and no talking snake since humans evolved?

What do you think of people who believe that cutting the throat of a chicken and letting it cluck and bleed its life out slowly and then sprinkling its blood over their fetishes and talismans is one way they can effect desired changes to reality and to exercise influence over demons and ghosts and spirits to make them perform their bidding?

What do you call people who believe in Human Blood Sacrifice of their children as the only way redemption and atonement can be achieved?

 

[IanS]

I don't know why, but your posts don't quote on this computer...


OK, whatever it is you are arguing, your issue is not with me, it is with the dictionary.


Again, go argue the dictionary. It says supernatural is outside of science.


I am stating definitions.

The dictionary says these are claimed events that are attributed to some force beyond our scientific understanding.

They are only claims of such things. The supernatural events themselves can only be "beyond or outside of science" if they actually exist.

But you said the claim itself was "outside of science and outside the rules of science".

My first reply to you was just to say that the "claim" is not outside science. And that all we actually have is the claim. There are no actual supernatural miracles to ever be "outside of science"; all that is actually known to exist is the claim.

The theories and the evidence that we have discovered from science actually exclude any supernatural miracles - if science is correct, then supernatural miracles cannot happen, they are excluded by theories of science that explain how almost everything works in this universe - there are no such miracles according to what we now know from science. And instead the entire origin of any notion of such things as miracles and the supernatural, was exactly what anyone today might expect as the very VERY obvious explanation - it was only ever a mistaken superstition in an age of monumental scientific ignorance. Here again (6th time) is the quote of what you originally said -

Being a religious claim about a miracle performed by a meddling god, it is outside of science, and the rules of science. In fact, it's a rather useless argument either way. If you believe in meddling god(s), you don't need scientific proof, by definition. If you don't believe in god(s), you don't need scientific proof, by definition.

However, after I pointed all that out to you, showing that the claim was not outside science, you went much further and claimed that "Modern miracles" are in fact known, because you told me this -

Modern miracles certainly can and have been examined rationally.

But they were not actually miracles, were they! So your wording there is actually wrong again. No actual miracles were "examined rationally". It was still only an untrue ignorant superstitious claim of a miracle.

And then you went ever further still and said this -

(Religious) faith is outside of science. In fact, (religious) faith is in spite of science (and reality).
.
.
There may be (I believe there are) ideas that are superior to science. Neither faith nor belief are among these.

And when I questioned that above statement from you, asking what are those "ideas that are superior to science"?, you replied saying that it was "imagination" that may be superior to and outside of science. Again, here is your quote -

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

And I answered, and answered again above.

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

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

But you were being asked about all of that specifically in the context of your statement saying " ... a religious claim about a miracle performed by a meddling god, it is outside of science, and the rules of science", i.e. specifically in the context of the subject being discussed in this thread. And here you are offering "imagination" as a "superior" way to science for investigating and explaining claims of supernatural miracles such as the claimed resurrection of Jesus.

I'm simply disagreeing with you and saying that -

1. "Imagination" is not a "superior" method than science for the purpose of what is under discussion here. Namely; investigating and explaining physically occurring events in the universe, such as claims saying that a true miracle such as the supernatural resurrection of Jesus actually happened.

2. In all cases of claimed miracles, no actual miracle ever did occur (despite the previous Pope now being called a "Saint"), and all that did occur was a mere claim about something where the claim could very easily be investigated and explained by science.

3. If you are going to say, as you certainly did (see your own quotes above and in all my replies to you), that miracles, the supernatural or mere claims of such things, are "outside of science", then you must first show how any such miracle could actually exist. Because according to all known theories of science, miracles and the supernatural do not exist at all.

If you say they might still be possible somehow, despite being completely excluded by all known theories in science, then if you make that proposal you certainly have an obligation to show how, contrary to science, any such miracle could possibly exist. Can you explain how a supernatural miracle such as Jesus rising from the dead, could possibly ever happen? If you cannot give a credible explanation, then any such suggestion is completely redundant and worthless.


Look, lets try this from a different direction - suppose I ask you this question -

Q1. Do supernatural miracles actually exist?

If your answer is “No, they do not exist”, then it’s completely redundant for you to keep claiming that something that does not even exist, cannot be studied by science.

If on the other hand you say that you don’t know if miracles might be possible or not, then I am going to ask you the same question I have already asked you half a dozen times, namely

Q2. How could a supernatural miracle possibly ever happen in what we call a “natural” universe? How does the miracle actually happen?

Can you give any credible explanation of how a supernatural miracle might happen?

If you cannot give any credible explanation of how a supernatural miracle might happen, then it’s again totally redundant & worthless semantics to keep claiming that something which you cannot show as even possible, and which has never been known, and which would defy all that mankind has now learned from science, could somehow nevertheless be possible “outside of science”.

 

[Tassman]

Can one not only effectively question proofs of Jesus' resurrection, but also "prove a negative" and disprove that event?

No one cannot. Nor can one disprove the unlikely existence of Russell's orbiting celestial teapot either. In both instances, it's a futile exercise to even try.

To return to the question about Christianity, are there actually strong proofs that successfully prove that the Resurrection was not just extremely scientifically unlikely/miraculous, but also clearly did not happen?

There are no such strong proofs that it didn't happen. But given these things have never been known to happen and that the only accounts of the resurrection are based upon anecdotal hearsay, why would you seriously consider the possibility that it did.

With that in mind, are there still more proofs that the Resurrection didn't occur?

Why would you even ask the question? There are no good reasons to suppose it did.

 

[IanS]

If this meddling god is supernatural, and resurrects a person (Jesus, say) by miraculous means, such as merely wishing or commanding Jesus to rise from truly being dead and rotting under the ground for 3 days, then that would be in contradiction of everything we have learnt from science.

Yes. Yes it would.

Yes, it’s not merely in contradiction of the theories of science. But in fact the theories of science explain the universe with no part being played by any supernatural miraculous element. In the theories, which we believe are “true"/correct, miracles and the supernatural do not exist at all.

You cannot have a theory, e.g. QM, which is written so as to allow the possibility that a miracle might happen at any point between any of the equations. That would contradict the theory entirely and completely. IOW - the theory says that miracles and the supernatural are not the correct explanation ... instead the correct explanation is what is given in the theory.

If you are going to propose, as I believe you have, that God might intervene so that the established Theory explanations of science, are rendered wrong so that a miracle of resurrection happens instead, then you absolutely must explain how that could ever be possible. Because what the scientific explanation says is that your miracle proposal is wrong and untrue. And to back that up science produces all it's billions of pages of evidence and all of its underlying mathematical "proofs", and all of it's trillions of billions of tested examples showing how & why the converse of the theory never happens.

It's absolutely no use at all for you to claim that the miracle might happen. That's just like you claiming that a cat might instantaneously change into a dog ... if you make any claim like that, then you have to show how your claim is possible ... because science shows how that is actually not possible.

It would mean that all scientific theories are actually wrong (see below), and that although science shows a billion times every day that the predictions from it's theories are precisely correct to as many decimal places as we can measure (e.g. in QM), that would have all been just pure coincidence .... a trillion billion times out of a trillion billion times, across thousands of different areas of science, all just turn out to be right every time by sheer fluke.

Not sheer fluke. By the fluke, unpredictable action of an all powerful meddling god. It's not an algorithm. If the god chooses not to act nature would operate as it does now.

No! You are wrong lol!

Look; you cannot have a theory in science explaining how the universe works, QM or GR say, and claim as you are claiming, that the theory is correct until such a time as an unknown God decides to change the theory! If that were to be the case then the theory would be completely wrong and would be subject to total failure at any time at all.

What you seem to be trying to do is to claim that because the claimed resurrection of Jesus happened 2000 years ago, therefore the theories of science are only very occasionally overturned by very rare interventions by this imaginary God. But that is not a credible proposal from you. It does not matter how frequently you think or propose that such miraculous interventions have actually occurred. If you propose, as you have, that they have occurred or could occur, then there is noting to stop the miracle interventions happening at absolutely any and every moment in time and space.

And nor is it credible for you to say that our experience is that the claimed intervention only happened once 2000 years ago. Because our actual experience, explained fully by everything in science, is that it never actually happened at all!

The reason that the supernatural resurrection would render ALL scientific theories completely wrong, is because it would mean that whereas the theory says that X will be the result of a certain action, in fact if the supernatural was possible then not only X but absolutely anything could be the result of any interaction ... nothing could ever be predicted by science at all. The mathematical explanations of theories such as QM and GR would have to include terms which specified supernatural interventions at every single point in every equation ... you could in effect have no coherent mathematical statement of any theory in science...

No. If the meddling god does not act, nature operates without interruption. All theories remain unchanged. Though, if you insist every theory would now have an Asterisk (* Unless the meddling god meddles) on every principle..

No! This is the same mistake that I have just tried to explain to you above.

You are trying to claim that the theory is correct and acts without interruption, until you decide it should be interrupted by something for which you have no credible explanation! Anybody could make that sort of claim about absolutely anything! A claim like that is completely worthless unless you can show how it can possibly happen (and thereby show why all of science is wrong).

 

[Donn]

Try this:

A true magician can tear a sheet of paper in half and then rejoin the two halves so that — and here's the postulate — there is no physically possible way to find where the tear was.

The moment of magic suspends reality and all it's operations. Anything goes in that moment.

It's proper rubbish; special pleading on a gob-smacking scale, but it is proposed as the way god operates.

IanS is saying that allowing that argument is a slippery slope, and he's not wrong. It's a tired old used pair of holey underpants by now; utterly gross and only fanatics want to slip them on.

GF is agreeing, while pointing out the magic part.

I think we're simply talking past each other. I agree with both sides. It's a moment to pick one's tools per fight, really. Both of these approaches are useful.

Détente, people.

 

[The Big Dog]

So do you believe in an actual Adam and Eve who were real people in 3759 BCE and that their real sky daddy ...

No, and from what i understand neither do Catholics.

Do you think that mocking terms like "sky daddy" and calling people stupid makes your arguments stronger?

protip: they don't, quite the opposite in fact. In fact, I assume many people come to your first insult and roll their eyes and stop reading, like I did here.

 

[The Greater Fool]

The dictionary says these are claimed events that are attributed to some force beyond our scientific understanding.

The #1 definition of supernatural and miracle have no hedge or weasel words.

As such, much of the rest of your post is addressed by that fact.

Q1. Do supernatural miracles actually exist?

If your answer is “No, they do not exist”, then it’s completely redundant for you to keep claiming that something that does not even exist, cannot be studied by science.

No, they do not exist. Here's a hint, I've said so repeatedly. However, if they did exist (they don't), but if they did (they Don't!), yeah, but if they did (they DON'T), whatever, they would be outside of science, as the definition of the words clearly say.

If you cannot give any credible explanation of how a supernatural miracle might happen, then it’s again totally redundant & worthless semantics to keep claiming that something which you cannot show as even possible, and which has never been known, and which would defy all that mankind has now learned from science, could somehow nevertheless be possible “outside of science”.

SUPERNATURAL MIRACLE by definition are outside science. I can say it almost as long as you can ignore it.

Supernatural, gods, miracles, resurrections, and all other things that don't exist don't exist.

If you are disinterested in "what if..." scenarios, you know, propositions that begin with "if...", then you should move on. Insisting that I prove the 'if' in a 'what if' rather misses the point.

Again, I'll give you the last word, as I tried not to get sucked back in, but failed. If you're busy, I could miss all the points for you, just let me know.

Again, thank you for time and sharing your viewpoint.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Try this:

A true magician can tear a sheet of paper in half and then rejoin the two halves so that — and here's the postulate — there is no physically possible way to find where the tear was.

The moment of magic suspends reality and all it's operations. Anything goes in that moment.

It's proper rubbish; special pleading on a gob-smacking scale, but it is proposed as the way god operates.

IanS is saying that allowing that argument is a slippery slope, and he's not wrong. It's a tired old used pair of holey underpants by now; utterly gross and only fanatics want to slip them on.

GF is agreeing, while pointing out the magic part.

I think we're simply talking past each other. I agree with both sides. It's a moment to pick one's tools per fight, really. Both of these approaches are useful.

Détente, people.

Close enough for government work.

I can see that my argument could be the first step theists use to claim gods and miracles exist. However, this is not a reason to reject a (by definition) true statement. Literally, supernatural = outside science.

Just because theists may use it as a jumping off point doesn't mean it's wrong. Heck, it's because it's true that they use it as a jumping off point.

How irrational is it to deny a truth because we don't like the argument that may comes after?

But, yes, we are talking past each other.

Thanks Donn, for at least trying to understand my point.

 

[The Big Dog]

How intelligent can one be...

How stupid does one have to be...

How darned imbecilic does one have to be ...

How moronic does one have to be...

How retarded does one have to be...

How much of a cretin does one have to be....

How outright insane does one have to become....

How darned devoid of all brain function does one have to get...

How stark raving mad does one have to be...

How great of a fool does one have to be...

Ladies and Gentlemen, what passes for argument in the International "Skeptics" Forum.

/How darned imbecilic does one have to be spend a couple of minutes formatting this post? Guilty as Charged!

 

[Donn]

Ladies and Gentlemen, what passes for argument in the International "Skeptics" Forum.

And, here, what passes for counter argument.

 

[The Big Dog]

And, here, what passes for counter argument.

"counter" suggests that there is an argument to "counter" and while calling people "stupid" and "retards" may certainly satisfy some, I respectfully beg to differ.

 

[Donn]

"counter" suggests that there is an argument to "counter" and while calling people "stupid" and "retards" may certainly satisfy some, I respectfully beg to differ.

Yes, you do. It's clear, really, that you dislike Leumas and his posts. Can you move your sign along to some other corner, or try a new approach?

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, you do. It's clear, really, that you dislike Leumas and his posts. Can you move your sign along to some other corner, or try a new approach?

Ummmm, can but won't.

Feel free to assume his arguments, can you please start with the argument that starts, and I'll quote it for you:

"How retarded does one have to be to believe that this second one third sat for 9 months inside the womb of this little virgin, from the progeny of a family of incestually inbred pimps who pimped off their wives as a family business to make riches, and then oozed out through her birth canal?"

How retarded does one have to be Donn? the question is squarely presented and seeks a champion to take up the task of answering the skeptical question: How retarded does one have to be?

 

[tsig]

No, and from what i understand neither do Catholics.

Do you think that mocking terms like "sky daddy" and calling people stupid makes your arguments stronger?

protip: they don't, quite the opposite in fact. In fact, I assume many people come to your first insult and roll their eyes and stop reading, like I did here.

Why is sky daddy an insult? Have you ever heard of a prayer that starts "Our Father who art in heaven"?

 

[Donn]

Ummmm, can but won't.

Pity. You miss the chance to share your opposition and insights for heckling instead.

I'm done.

 

[tsig]

Ladies and Gentlemen, what passes for argument in the International "Skeptics" Forum.

/How darned imbecilic does one have to be spend a couple of minutes formatting this post? Guilty as Charged!

How darned imbecilic does one have to be to object to the form and ignore the content?