Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?

[Donn]

…I am really just suggesting the above line of argument as a counter to the common theist argument which claims there are "other ways of knowing" that are "outside of, and beyond, science". That’s just a theist way of trying to claim that God can really exist (i.e. physically exists somewhere), because he is miraculously beyond any possible scientific investigation or explanation. I'm just suggesting that such a theist claim is probably invalid for the sort of reasons given above.

I hear you. This thread has tightened some of the loose screws in my own thinking.

It's rather bracing to perform a mental pause after one hears, "blah blah miracle blah," and just raise the old eyebrow.

There's no need to let such conversation continue because all rules of sense are now floating-free; words' tethers to the pier of meaning have been loosed. The short-sharp facts are thus useful to reground: there is no supernatural, there are no miracles, there are only claims without form or substance aside thought-stuff painted in flashes upon meat.

 

[Leumas]

Do I want to discuss other things in other posts from BobTheCoward? No, not especially.

As I said to you before (and as I just repeated in the post above) - my reason for replying to you in the first place when you said that claims of miracles are outside of science, was mainly to counter the very common theist argument which claims there are other non-scientific “ways of knowing" such that God can really exist and can perform supernatural miracles, because such actions from God are inherently "outside of science".

I'm keen to avoid atheists (yourself perhaps), inadvertently saying things which appear to support that claim of real physically occurring events (e.g. "miracles") that are truly "beyond and outside of scientific understanding". I don't want to encourage theists (or philosophers) to think or say they are right to make that claim, if in fact they are not right to make the claim.

And what I have being saying to you, is that I don't think that sort of claim is actually correct. I don't think there are actually any truly occurring events that are inherently "outside of science". I do not think that sort of claim is actually valid, for all the reasons I've explained in the previous posts.

But you are forgetting about atheists who have arrived at their atheism through gut feelings alone and personal revelations.

What you are forgetting is that there are many paths to atheism, as there are many paths to theism.

So you see science and scientific understanding and scientific evidence is not the path through which some gastrointestinal thinkers managed to arrive at their personal revelations that there are no sky daddies... which of course is as valid or invalid a position to hold as those who got their personal revelations that there is indeed a sky daddy.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Do I want to discuss other things in other posts from BobTheCoward? No, not especially.

I was responding to Bob, so when you respond my response, you are opting into that conversation.

As I said to you before (and as I just repeated in the post above) - my reason for replying to you in the first place when you said that claims of miracles are outside of science, was mainly to counter the very common theist argument which claims there are other non-scientific “ways of knowing" such that God can really exist and can perform supernatural miracles, because such actions from God are inherently "outside of science".

1) Again, I am done with banging my head against that wall;
2) Again, argue with theists that make claims about "ways of knowing." I did not make such claims;

I'm keen to avoid atheists (yourself perhaps), inadvertently saying things which appear to support that claim of real physically occurring events (e.g. "miracles") that are truly "beyond and outside of scientific understanding". I don't want to encourage theists (or philosophers) to think or say they are right to make that claim, if in fact they are not right to make the claim.

Not being sucked back into this.

You can spend all the time you want "disproving" gods and miracles. Being supernatural are by definition outside of nature and science. Want to argue? Go to Dictionary.com.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Welcome back Leumas, we missed you.

Hey The Greater Fool... don't you think that you are the one who is using too much sophistry trying to avoid answering the questions?


You made the claims that
1. Miracles performed by a meddling god, are outside of science, and the rules of science.

How is that possible... if the meddling of this meddling god had any effects on reality... how could it be outside of science?​

​

Miracles and Gods being supernatural are, by definition, outside of science and nature.

Since the thread is about resurrection: Science (correctly) indicates, for various reasons that resurrection is impossible. If a middling god resurrects a person, what about science changes? Nothing. All the rules and understandings that existed before the resurrection are still true.

Again, there are no meddling gods, so no meddling miracles.​

2. Imagination is a superior method for investigating things than science.

How is that possible... is that the same thing as gastrointestinal atheism?​

​

Here we go again. Lying for atheism is so cool.

 

[Donn]

If a middling god resurrects a person, what about science changes? Nothing. All the rules and understandings that existed before the resurrection are still true.

Seen backwards: We learn of concrete evidence that shows a human was returned from putrefaction. There is no doubt, the evidence is solid. That would certainly change science. It would change the facts of reality, all else would follow.

One may even follow the evidence to this meddling god, and so on.

How else?

 

[Leumas]

And everybody outside of a mental institution understands this, which is why this whole "I'm just gonna pretend I don't understand how evidence works" routine believers pull grew old some time ago.

Everybody understands the difference between ruling something out on a practical level and ruling it out on some manufactured philosophical hair splitting level of special pleading. Whenever they demand that the conversation happens on the later level instead of the former, it's because they want to hide the fact that they don't have an intellectual leg to stand on.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Seen backwards: We learn of concrete evidence that shows a human was returned from putrefaction. There is no doubt, the evidence is solid. That would certainly change science. It would change the facts of reality, all else would follow.

One may even follow the evidence to this meddling god, and so on.

How else?

OK, if a meddling god demonstrably meddled we would know there is a meddling god. As such, a meddling god can meddle in virtually any place, in any way, acting in opposition to any natural law.

How does that change science (other than we know gods meddle)?
What rules change? (other than knowing that gods meddle)?

Specifically, what changes about what we know scientifically about death and putrefaction? (other than meddling gods meddle)

ETA: Again, this is supposition. There are no gods, no miracles, no resurrections.

 

[IanS]

I hear you. This thread has tightened some of the loose screws in my own thinking.

It's rather bracing to perform a mental pause after one hears, "blah blah miracle blah," and just raise the old eyebrow.

There's no need to let such conversation continue because all rules of sense are now floating-free; words' tethers to the pier of meaning have been loosed. The short-sharp facts are thus useful to reground: there is no supernatural, there are no miracles, there are only claims without form or substance aside thought-stuff painted in flashes upon meat.

Yep.

 

[Donn]

OK, if a meddling god demonstrably meddled we would know there is a meddling god. As such, a meddling god can meddle in virtually any place, in any way, acting in opposition to any natural law.

How does that change science (other than we know gods meddle)?
What rules change? (other than knowing that gods meddle)?

Specifically, what changes about what we know scientifically about death and putrefaction? (other than meddling gods meddle)

ETA: Again, this is supposition. There are no gods, no miracles, no resurrections.

There is the state of the art now, the accrued knowledge since coherent science began, and then there is this meddling. After that, the state of the art would have to be updated. Radically.

Science itself, as an algorithm, would not change — it may adapt new techniques like chanting or prayer, in this new world order of The Meddler.

Death and its grim company would perforce be other than what they seemed. All the many and complex interchanges of chemistry would have to be overhauled to make sense of reversible death. I do not see how a single stone could remain upon another, post meddling.

Am I misunderstanding you?

 

[IanS]

You can spend all the time you want "disproving" gods and miracles. Being supernatural are by definition outside of nature and science. Want to argue? Go to Dictionary.com.

I don’t think I have ever said that I am trying to "disprove" any gods or miracles. Where did I ever say I could prove or disprove any such thing? So I think that's what you like to call a Strawman.

But if you are going to keep arguing, as you just did above yet again, that "gods and miracles" are by definition outside of nature and science.", then I will continue to point out the mistake of you assuming that it's valid to write as if there are any such possible gods or miracles ever to be "outside" the remit of scientific investigation.

If you going to make that statement saying that miracles are outside science, meaning that miracles are inherently beyond any capacity of science to investigate or explain such a proposed event, then I am going to keep saying to you that you must first show that what you call a miracle either does actually exist or that it could possibly exist .... how can a miracle happen in what we observe as a “natural” universe?

If you cannot show how miracles are truly possible, then you are just claiming that science cannot physically study things that don’t even exist.

 

[IanS]

If a middling god resurrects a person, what about science changes? Nothing. All the rules and understandings that existed before the resurrection are still true.

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.

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.

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.

Of course some theists and nutcases like Deepak Chopra have actually tried to use exactly that argument to invoke the supernatural, by claiming that because at the smallest subatomic scales (roughly below the Plank Length) particle-Fields behave in a far less predictable and random way, that is somehow evidence of a supernatural god-like underlying fabric of this universe.

But you should think about your own statements in the light of replies you are receiving. Because the fact that by your own statement you believed that a supernatural event (a supernatural resurrection in this case) would not change anything about the “laws” of science (they are not really “laws” in any sense of literal certainty), probably shows why you entire thinking on this issue is faulty.

 

[The Greater Fool]

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

I don’t think I have ever said that I am trying to "disprove" any gods or miracles. Where did I ever say I could prove or disprove any such thing? So I think that's what you like to call a Strawman.

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

But if you are going to keep arguing, as you just did above yet again, that "gods and miracles" are by definition outside of nature and science.", then I will continue to point out the mistake of you assuming that it's valid to write as if there are any such possible gods or miracles ever to be "outside" the remit of scientific investigation.

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

If you going to make that statement saying that miracles are outside science, meaning that miracles are inherently beyond any capacity of science to investigate or explain such a proposed event, then I am going to keep saying to you that you must first show that what you call a miracle either does actually exist or that it could possibly exist .... how can a miracle happen in what we observe as a “natural” universe?

I am stating definitions.

If there were meddling gods, and science is investigating a miracle of said meddling god, what could the conclusion be? "This miracle breaks the rules of physics." Great, science just proved that in a universe with a meddling god, meddling gods meddle.

Science is such a world would have to have as the first rule, "Science is forced to ignore that a meddling god can break all the rules. Since we can't count on a meddling god to meddle in any specific situation, we must learn all that is possible as if no meddling god could break the rules."

If you cannot show how miracles are truly possible, then you are just claiming that science cannot physically study things that don’t even exist.

I have repeated and repeated: No gods or miracles exist. In our universe, those are fictions. Fictions are outside of science.

OBVIOUSLY, we are discussing a hypothetical universe in which meddling gods do exist. In such a discussion, in such universe, for the purposes of the hypothetical, gods exist.

Again, in our universe of reality, no gods exist. In a hypothetical world where gods may exist, gods would still be outside of science, because they are not bound by the rules of science, by definition.

 

[The Greater Fool]

There is the state of the art now, the accrued knowledge since coherent science began, and then there is this meddling. After that, the state of the art would have to be updated. Radically.

Science itself, as an algorithm, would not change — it may adapt new techniques like chanting or prayer, in this new world order of The Meddler.

We are positing a meddling god, that is all. The meddling god does what it does for reasons of it's own that are indecipherable to mere humans.

As with our universe, science would study prayer and chanting. The result would be the same as it is now.

Death and its grim company would perforce be other than what they seemed. All the many and complex interchanges of chemistry would have to be overhauled to make sense of reversible death. I do not see how a single stone could remain upon another, post meddling.

Why? Death and dying would remain unchanged. Reversible death still is contrary to all natural laws. Just because a meddling god resurrects a person every couple millennium, on whim, doesn't change every other death or the rules thereof.

Am I misunderstanding you?

You seem to understand, you are just adding features beyond "meddling god."

 

[Donn]

I'm thinking I have no idea what outside means.

 

[Donn]

We are positing a meddling god, that is all. The meddling god does what it does for reasons of it's own that are indecipherable to mere humans.

I get that. I so posited. Here we are with no meddling. Now a meddle. Here we are post-meddling. The three states are not the same.

If you postulate a different universe with said god, then, sure, all would be as it is there — and as they conceive it to be.

Why? Death and dying would remain unchanged. Reversible death still is contrary to all natural laws. Just because a meddling god resurrects a person every couple millennium, on whim, doesn't change every other death or the rules thereof.

Again, post-meddling, then no. Our conception would have to include reversible death because it's been observed and evidenced. If it has not, then how can it be usefully said to have happened?

You seem to understand, you are just adding features beyond "meddling god."

I'm only trying to align to what you're saying.

 

[The Greater Fool]

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.

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.

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.

Of course some theists and nutcases like Deepak Chopra have actually tried to use exactly that argument to invoke the supernatural, by claiming that because at the smallest subatomic scales (roughly below the Plank Length) particle-Fields behave in a far less predictable and random way, that is somehow evidence of a supernatural god-like underlying fabric of this universe.

They are indeed nutcases. There is no god.

But you should think about your own statements in the light of replies you are receiving. Because the fact that by your own statement you believed that a supernatural event (a supernatural resurrection in this case) would not change anything about the “laws” of science (they are not really “laws” in any sense of literal certainty), probably shows why you entire thinking on this issue is faulty.

Appeal to popularity.

A SUPERNATURAL resurrection... SUPERNATURAL = OUTSIDE OF NATURE. Back to the dictionary we go.

There are no gods, no miracles, no resurrections.

 

[The Greater Fool]

This is really tough not having the quote function working...

I get that. I so posited. Here we are with no meddling. Now a meddle. Here we are post-meddling. The three states are not the same.

If you postulate a different universe with said god, then, sure, all would be as it is there — and as they conceive it to be.

Again, post-meddling, then no. Our conception would have to include reversible death because it's been observed and evidenced. If it has not, then how can it be usefully said to have happened?

Do we not now have a concept of what a resurrection is, and how that would affect a corpse, what would need to change to return the corpse to a living state? Not to open a can of worms, but is this not the current state for Christians? After all, if the last resurrection was 2k years ago, you really think the current state of science would be dramatically changed?

Perhaps that's the difference, you see everything changing. I see virtually nothing changing. Since you can't rely on a meddling god, I think science would have to operate under the current premise: It can discern how things work naturally.

 

[Donn]

This is really tough not having the quote function working...

This is weird, but you're doing well. I didn't notice. Try restart your browser. Mine goes senile now and then.

Do we not now have a concept of what a resurrection is, and how that would affect a corpse, what would need to change to return the corpse to a living state? Not to open a can of worms, but is this not the current state for Christians? After all, if the last resurrection was 2k years ago, you really think the current state of science would be dramatically changed?

Perhaps that's the difference, you see everything changing. I see virtually nothing changing. Since you can't rely on a meddling god, I think science would have to operate under the current premise: It can discern how things work naturally.

*if* this meddling god *actually* *did* reverse death at any time, then *that* would be a fact and science would include it.

Even if no human was there to witness it: All of reality would scream it. The chemicals would reveal it. The cycle of energy would demand it. The raw material of reversion would be apparent.

(Even if time's determined arrow never bent, there would be some underlying mechanism to enable reversion. Nanobots, or some strange plastic storage of vital cell state that defeats decay. Or decay is selective. Or our states are faxed to an anemone on the sea-floor which doubles us. Or, or, or. Many topics of knowledge touch here.)

The Christians have predicated their hopes on absurdity and anecdote.

 

[The Greater Fool]

*if* this meddling god *actually* *did* reverse death at any time, then *that* would be a fact and science would include it.

Even if no human was there to witness it: All of reality would scream it. The chemicals would reveal it. The cycle of energy would demand it. The raw material of reversion would be apparent.

(Even if time's determined arrow never bent, there would be some underlying mechanism to enable reversion. Nanobots, or some strange plastic storage of vital cell state that defeats decay. Or decay is selective. Or our states are faxed to an anemone on the sea-floor which doubles us. Or, or, or. Many topics of knowledge touch here.)

The Christians have predicated their hopes on absurdity and anecdote.

Thanks, btw, for the reasonable back and forth. And, yes, Christians are deluded, but I think you understand the point, that they're belief is based on a 2k old event. The concept is real to them, even though it is based on fantasy. 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.

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.

You also seem to be trying to fit how such a thing as a resurrection could happen within nature (or better still, within science fiction, cool!) and what those methods or effects might be. An all powerful meddling god is not bound by small things like reality or nature or even science fiction.

In such a universe, science would work exactly the same (* Except when Goddidit).

 

[tsig]

OK, if a meddling god demonstrably meddled we would know there is a meddling god. As such, a meddling god can meddle in virtually any place, in any way, acting in opposition to any natural law.

How does that change science (other than we know gods meddle)?
What rules change? (other than knowing that gods meddle)?

Specifically, what changes about what we know scientifically about death and putrefaction? (other than meddling gods meddle)

ETA: Again, this is supposition. There are no gods, no miracles, no resurrections.

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