September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Links Mentioned on the 8/21/15 Show | Main | Don’t Trust God to Protect You from Pain »

August 21, 2015

Comments

We have stories about the disciples’ experiences.

These experiences themselves we do not have.

Why believe an explanation of a story that proposes to overturn this: When you're dead, you're dead.

@ RonH

I am still waiting for your response on the other post:

Is the fact that you support (both morally and financially) the murder/dismemberment of infants and the sale of their body parts meant to shock me? Is that why you directed your comment specifically to me? Is the fact that you boldly post your support for infanticide on a Christian website supposed to shock us? If so, why? If not, then why bother?

Ron-

While I agree that you still kind of owe Mo some sort of reply in the other thread, I'm going to confine my reply to you to the subject of this thread.

We never have the experiences of witnesses. We only ever have the testimony of witnesses.

Now, it seems to me that either the tomb was empty and the witnesses had all sorts of interesting post resurrection experiences, or they made it all up.

If you think they made it all up then you are stuck saying that all of them died horrible deaths rather than admit that a story they made up was false (except John...who never recanted...he just wasn't killed for it). A story that could be easily falsified just by going to the tomb where Jesus was buried.

But if you think that they didn't make it all up, then you have to explain the empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances. None of that is easy.

Indeed, there is no good explanation.

But, I grant you, without God in the picture, and without God taking a special interest in this man, the resurrection isn't a great explanation either. As you note, we've got really good evidence that dead bodies stay dead...especially dead bodies that died Friday afternoon and were still dead until sometime after sunset on Saturday.

But the existence of God is a necessary truth. So God is in the picture.

So it really comes down to whether God took a special interest in this man.

We don't have testimony.

We have stories about testimony.

We don't have anybody dying horrible deaths rather than admit...

We have stories about that.

And, we don't know the story wasn't falsified.

Look around: Folk love to believe the easily falsified.

Ron:

It could be falsified, the testimonies of a crucified Jesus. Jesus could be made up. Caesar could be made up. George Washington could be made up. Did you meet George Washington?

That's not how we approach history though. We approach it through the lens of evidence, and whether the evidence adds up. If it was so falsifiable, then how come no one has done it yet?

Here is the issue:

First, let's be serious here. The fact that Jesus was crucified and claimed he was Messiah is a historical certainty. Most people in historical Jesus studies don't argue otherwise. Actually, most historians in general don't argue otherwise.

The disciples, in the context of second temple Judaism, on their own, if they made it up, would have never claimed that since their Rabbi was resurrected, that he was Messiah if they would not have seen Jesus alive. The kind of belief that the Messiah had to die and resurrect in the middle of time was complete madness in the context of their day. It's impossible the disciples would have come up with this idea on their own. It's even more unlikely that different people would have come to this conclusion on their own in different parts of Jerusalem that were not even together.

These stories are not testimonies of testimonies alone, as we have John's gospel, which is written by John, Jesus' disciple, who saw Jesus with his own eyes.

You may think that when someone is dead, they are dead. The disciples knew that truth, too, all too well. Ancient people are not stupid. If Jesus was not resurrected, then you need to give us an idea on how the disciples came to the conclusion that he was Messiah in the context of first temple Judaism. In fact, if your position is correct, then you should not have such a hard time doing so. You would also have to give us a motivation for them creating this lie. Some people have attempted to do this, which Amy addressed in her post. There are a few feeble attempts at doing this. But they all are absolutely terrible arguments.

If your only argument is that dead people stay dead, then all I can say to you is that I truly feel sad for you. It's sad to see individuals who are so skeptical they will only believe whatever they want to, no matter how much evidence is presented otherwise.

That's not how we approach history though. We approach it through the lens of evidence, and whether the evidence adds up.
After you throw out this: When you're dead, you're dead.
You may think that when someone is dead, they are dead. The disciples knew that truth, too, all too well.
The guys in the stories, you mean.
It's sad to see individuals who are so skeptical they will only believe whatever they want to, no matter how much evidence is presented otherwise.
What you are calling 'evidence' is apologetics.

Apologetics bolsters the confidence of Christians much more than it convinces anyone of Christianity.

The kind of stuff you find in apologetics doesn't convince Christians of anything (other than Christianity).

you need to give us an idea on how the disciples came to the conclusion that he was Messiah in the context of first temple Judaism.

Only in the world of apologetics (where I assume I know the minds of these characters) do I need to do such a thing.

Yeah, Ron, so did the guys who wrote the stories.

I admit that we have excellent evidence that dead bodies remain dead. I don't think the evidence for that is much better than it was back when those stories were written.

Yet the stories were written.

And don't bother saying that they're myths like the Iliad or the Mahabharata. They don't read like that.

What exactly is it you find unbelievable (other than the resurrection itself)?

  1. That Jesus existed at all?
  2. That Jesus was crucified, dies and was buried?
  3. That the tomb was empty?
  4. That Jesus had disciples?
  5. That the disciples believed Jesus rose?
  6. That the disciples were killed for their belief?
  7. That the presence of an occupied tomb would have ended the disciples; teaching?
See, cause if you doubt any of those (and I mean serious doubt here), then your view is kind of marginal and goofy like 9/11 truth or moon-landing denial. If you doubt any of those, chances are that you really have no principled way to accept historical claims based on written testimony alone.

If you accept all of those, but then say you still can't see how Jesus could have risen, because dead is dead, then OK. That's at least reasonable.

The kind of stuff you find in apologetics doesn't convince Christians of anything (other than Christianity).
So, for example, we only have stories that there ever was such a thing as the Colossus of Rhodes.

Scientific minded people, of course, dismiss these. We really have no evidence at all for such a claim.

Got it.

The kind of stuff you find in apologetics doesn't convince Christians of anything (other than Christianity).
Shocking!

Christian apologetics convinces people (who are Christian, perhaps in virtue of having been convinced) of Christianity.

I would have though that it would convince them of Islam!

Who knew?

Seriously, Ron, why not just admit that you are not convinced by historical arguments. The kind of arguments that are used all the time to establish all sorts of claims because you are ardently anti-Christian, and for no other reason.

You'll just have to excuse RonH...you see, he doesn't believe anything unless he has seen it for himself...in which case he still might decide it's not true. I suppose that we can throw out the entire recorded history of the world, since Ron evidently believes non of it is provable. What a sad life he must lead.

Whoa

Notice the difference between 'Christian apologetics' and 'The kind of stuff you find in apologetics'.

Then respond again if you like.

(I'm just merely pointing out that the points in the original post can be stated in a more memorable way:
1) The Essence of the Resurrection(Physical) 2) The Essentialness of the Resurrection (to Christianity)
3) The Experience of the Disciples
4) The Explanations of the Deniers
Hope that helps!
(NOTE: Thesaurus.com recognized essentialness as a word)

So, you can remember these with E's!

No, Jim, no.

Alliteration is the bane of clear preaching. May it end forever.

Seriously?

Apologetics bolsters the confidence of Christians much more than it convinces anyone of Christianity.

The kind of stuff you find in apologetics doesn't convince Christians of anything (other than Christianity).
.
.
.
Whoa

Notice the difference between 'Christian apologetics' and 'The kind of stuff you find in apologetics'.

So, Ron, are you saying any that the kind of stuff you find in any apologetics only convinces Christians of Christianity?

So, for example, the kind of stuff you find in Muslim apologetics only convinces Christians of Christianity.

Is that what you are saying?

Or is the scope of your comments limited to Christian apologetics?

And what is this 'kind' of the stuff that you find in apologetics? In the context of this thread, I think historical argument is an instance of this 'kind'. Isn't that right?

So historical argument only convinces Christians of Christianity?

It can't convince classicists of the existence of the Colossus of Rhodes, for example.

You could just ask What kind of stuff do you mean?

I'll point to the kind of stuff by asking a question:

To be convinced by the available evidence (whatever that is) of the existence of the Colossus of Rhodes (whatever that is), do classicists have to give up When you're dead, you're dead?

Another pointer to the kind of stuff I mean

You'll just have to excuse RonH...you see, he doesn't believe anything unless he has seen it for himself...in which case he still might decide it's not true. I suppose that we can throw out the entire recorded history of the world, since Ron evidently believes none of it is provable. What a sad life he must lead.

To be convinced by the available evidence (whatever that is) of the existence of the Colossus of Rhodes (whatever that is), do classicists have to give up When you're dead, you're dead?
But Ron, you're not just blocking based on "When you're dead, you're dead". You don't believe that the disciples died horrible deaths rather than giving up the resurrection claim, in spite of the history. The most atheistic, naturalistic, historian in the history of the world could decide, on the evidence, that that claim is true.

But you dub it a story.

You deny that an occupied tomb would have been a problem for early Christians. That denial is not implied by "When you're dead, you're dead". You don't have to give up the claim that when you're dead, you're dead in order to honestly admit that, yeah, that would have been a serious problem.

But you won't do that.

There are all sorts of mundane historical facts about the death and resurrection of Christ that can be gleaned from the available evidence that do not require that you give up the claim that "when you're dead, you're dead".

But it's become pretty clear to me that even that's a bridge too far for someone so deeply in the grips of atheism as you.

There are all sorts of mundane historical facts about the death and resurrection of Christ that can be gleaned from the available evidence that do not require that you give up the claim that "when you're dead, you're dead".

These are individually un-extraordinary enough that the NT is enough to accept them on, yes?

The NT isn't the only source for many. For some the NT isn't even a source.

Alright then, these are individually un-extraordinary enough that we have sufficient reason to accept them, yes?

Harvard Law Professor Simon Greenleaf originally intended to disprove the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ,but when he studied the evidence from the testimony of the evangelists he found it trustworthy.

There's another example of the kind of stuff, WL.

An intelligent opponent to the proposition-A sets out to disprove A, but ends up endorsing A instead.

I should think that, no matter what proposition-A is, this is some reason to accept that A is true.

Is it decisive?

Of course not.

What would you think if, for example, it came out that Microsoft used only Linux servers and workstations in their corporate offices, and Android phones and tablets? Wouldn't that be a kind of indictment against the quality of Windows offerings?

Does that prove that Windows is sub-standard?

Hardly.

But it does speak volumes.

I think courts call this sort of thing a statement against interest. And it's a very convincing argument is many contexts.

So, I think, 'that kind of stuff' is good for more than convincing people of Christianity.

As for whether the mundane claims have sufficient support, if you mean logically sufficient, then of course not. Precious few things, including things I have clear and direct evidence of, have logically sufficient support.

Do they have enough support to warrant belief? Sure a lot do. Some may be more contentious. As I think I already indicated in the words "if you doubt any of those (and I mean serious doubt here), then your view is kind of marginal and goofy like 9/11 truth or moon-landing denial", the ones I listed above have support strong enough that reasonable people should agree with them.

Alright then, these are individually un-extraordinary enough that we have sufficient reason to accept them, yes? - See more at: http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/08/the-resurrection-was-a-real-event-in-history.html#sthash.oGo4L1dB.dpuf

RonH:

Really silly response.

First of all, arguments made from history are not apologetics. I am terrible at apologetics. But I have in fact read and studied a lot of scholars that have researched over the historical person of Jesus. Scholars that do this include people like Albert Schweitzer, Rudolph Bultmann, Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrman, and N.T. Wright.

This is a two hundred year field that has changed and morphed as texts have become more and more available.

Of late, who is the most accepted, or has made the best arguments for, a portrait of Jesus?

The answer is N.T. Wright. He has written four volumes, the first regarding second temple Judaism, the second a book about Jesus himself, the third a book about the death and resurrection of Jesus, and a fourth about Paul.

In his works, he gives arguments for all of the points Amy is making. This work is not an apologetic, but a scholarly inquiry. Scholars make theses and ask questions, and Jesus scholars work through a hug swath of literature from the ancient world, such as the Masoretic text, Septuaigint, Josephus, ancient Greek literature, Philo, the New Testament in Greek, Coptic translations of the NT, apocalyptic gospels, Maccabeus and other second temple literature, the Talmud, etc. etc. etc.

Using these works, Wright constructs an argument and a full picture of Jesus. His final conclusion in book three is that the resurrection is historical. He mounts an entire argument for this.

So when you say, "No one cares about these arguments, because, APOLOGETICS," what do you think I think about that statement?

Do you think I am likely to take you seriously, having read through many of these sources, some in the original language, and having worked through people's works like Ehrman or Wright? What do you think I am going to think when all you can muster is that dead people stay dead and APOLOGETICS?

I am finding that you are an incredibly unreasonable and illogical person. You in fact a are willing to confirm that there is no such thing as objective morality. You dismiss massive research and call it apologetics. And you refuse to look at actual arguments and dismiss them continually.

I'm not sure why I am even responding to your post.

"Apologetics doesn't convince anyone but Christians" is one of those things that atheists like to say.

The claim is that theists aren't using their reason, they're just finding ways to shut their ears against reason.

But the argument from the resurrection is no such thing. It might not be a good argument in the end. But it is an argument with at least some plausibility. It's an effort to engage rationally with the evidence.

Similar remarks go for the other apologetic arguments as well. Some of the arguments in the history of apologetics are surely not good. But even the bad arguments are an effort to engage rationally with the evidence at hand. None is aimed at simply shutting one's ears to reason.

There are some Christians who think we should shut our ears to reason, but these Christians are marked by their opposition to apologetics.

But consider the atheist's statement "Apologetics doesn't convince anyone but Christians".

Is it an argument?

No.

Is the claim some sort of conceptual truth?

Hardly.

Does the atheist propose to argue for it?

Good luck with that.

How would you argue for it?

Massive survey? That's the only way I could think of attempting it. And then it would be subject to all the, almost insuperable, methodological criticisms that argument by survey faces.

And, as far as I know, the atheist hasn't conducted any such survey anyway...at least none that has managed to get past an initial methodological smell test. He'd probably be afraid to. What if he found out that a measurable number of non-Christians are convinced to become Christians by apologetics?

The statement is usually uttered with considerable verve and a fair amount of bluster so that people naturally lapse into head-nodding motions before they've actually thought it through.

When you do think it through though, I think you come to the conclusion that the statement is actually a massive projection on the part of the atheist. Because it is the very intellectual dishonesty of which the atheist is accusing Christian apologists.

It's just a statement with no argument that makes it easier, for atheists, to shut their ears to argument.

"I don't have to answer the resurrection argument, because apologetics (which is only convincing to Christians)."

"I don't have to answer the cosmological argument, because apologetics (which is only convincing to Christians)."

"I don't have to answer the fine-tuning argument, because apologetics (which is only convincing to Christians)."
.
.
.

The statement is a classic example of what some atheists have called an ex recto assertion, and it is made in an attempt to bluff their way to the intellectual high ground.

------------------------------------------------------

Just for the record, convincing people who are already Christians of the truth of Christianity is good and noble work.

People do have a way of changing their minds. If I believe X, but all I ever hear are arguments against X, there's a good chance I'll come to believe not-X. So even though I already believe X, I may still need to be convinced of X.

So, let's say that the atheist did his survey and found out that very few non-Christians are convinced to become Christians by apologetic argument...that apologetics only convinced people who are already Christians of Christianity.

Even supposing all that, that's no reason at all to dismiss it.

This is what I'm getting at, WL.

If I tell you I ate breakfast in Christchurch, NZ, last Nov 3 at 1800 GMT, you believe me. This is a mundane claim.

OR

If I tell you I set out for my morning constitutional in Corunna, Spain, last Nov 3 at 1810 GMT, you believe me. Another mundane claim.

BUT

If I tell you I did both of those things, on that day, and at those times, then you no longer take my word for it.

I'd have to average about 150,000 mph to get between these towns in 10 minutes. Not mundane at all.

_____

The apologist offers his individual 'facts'.

Perhaps they are individually accepted by his secret super-majority of historians.

Anyway, you best accept them or you're illogical!

So let's accept them.

What happens next is interesting.

The apologist asks for a naturalistic explanation for the conjunction of the individual facts.

While the individual 'facts' might be mundane, the conjunction is not.

The conjunction requires you to give up When your dead, you're dead.

This is a bit hard to spot. But there it is.

In fact, I bet users of this apologetic don't spot it.

___

Suppose the probability of A is high.

Suppose the probability of B is high also.

You cannot, in general, assume/conclude/infer that the probability of the conjunction, A&B, is high.

If it is historians that put this kind of stuff forward, then there is something I want to know.

Do they teach mathematical reasoning in history classes?

"The conjunction requires you to give up When your dead, you're dead."

No it does not.

It does require that you give up a lot of unsatisfactory explanations of the facts (like the swoon theory, the Passover plot and others).

You could hold this view:

  1. I don't have any explanation for all the mundane facts of the case.
  2. I do believe that there is an explanation for the mundane facts.
  3. I do not believe that the claim that that Jesus was raised is such an explanation (because dead is dead).
  4. I do not believe that the Passover Plot is such an explanation (because of the Roman guard and because not all the disciples would die for a known lie).
  5. I do not believe the swoon theory is such an explanation (because of the Roman guard, and the stone on the tomb).
  6. Indeed, I do not believe that any theory that has been advanced to date is such an explanation...it is, thus far, an unsolved mystery"
This is not my view, but I recognize that it is a reasonable view. The only other sort of view that is reasonable is to embrace one of the theories and try to answer the objections. Perhaps by showing how misguided the objection is, or perhaps by taking a focused look at one or more of the presumed facts of the case with an aim at undermining those facts.

What is not a reasonable alternative is the simple dismissal of the facts of the case as stories.

What is also not a reasonable alternative is the simple rejection of the argument, because apologetics.

"The conjunction requires
you to give up When your dead, you're dead.

No it does not."

OK, it does not.

__

Still...

If I say I flipped a coin and got heads, it's reasonable for you believe me.
If I say I flipped a coin and got tails, it's reasonable for you believe me.

But my claim to have flipped a coin and got heads and tails, puts you under no obligation to explain it.

Furthermore, it's wrong for me to call you illogical if you refuse to believe me.

oops

Allowing (for discussion) that it's reasonable to believe the mundane 'facts' individually doesn't obligate one to even address in any way the conjunction.

I agree with you, more-or-less*, about your heads-and-tails example.

But there is no heads-and-tails claim in any of the evidence given in the resurrection argument.

So your point, while more-or-less true, is moot.

------------------------------------------------------

*I say "more-or-less" here just because the remarkable nature of the heads-and-tails claim calls for a bit more context. I generally assume people don't go about contradicting themselves in a single breath.

BTW 1-6 above is the no-explanation alternative that, I agree, is quite reasonable.

Simple dismissal of facts and arguments, because reasons, is not.

Being dead and then being alive is heads/tails.

No. It is not.

Heads/Tails...taken just at face value...is a logical incompatibility.

Being dead, then being alive, is quite another matter.

For one thing, it is one of those mundane facts that it actually has happened.

Now, no one is saying that the resurrection of Jesus is like that...well, OK, I guess that that's more or less what the swoon theory does say.

But Jesus wasn't only revived, he was fully functional after the scourging and crucifixion...though he did have scars from the event. Medically unlikely? Of course. Logically impossible? Not even close.

OK, I guess that that's more or less what the swoon theory does say.
Everything says it.

Well, ok, it's not logically impossible.

You got me!

So, there's your argument for the Resurrection: it's not logically impossible.

Finishing up here.

Just want to point out that (correct me if I'm wrong) Habermas quotes you: 90-95 percent of scholars believe this 'fact' and that 'fact, individually.

He doesn't give you the data - though, presumably it is not to protect privacy being based on what they've published - and he doesn't quote you the conjunction of this and that.

So, there's your argument for the Resurrection: it's not logically impossible.
Nice distortion Ron.

You point out that you'd be entitled to reject at least one member of a set of claims if they have a logically impossible consequence, and you'd be under no particular obligation to figure out which one of those claims is false.

I agree with you. After doing so, I note that you don't have a logically impossible conclusion on the table. So that's not situation we face.

Then you snap back with the witty rejoinder above.

At least you didn't use the dreaded !!!APOLOGETICS!!! to bolster your own confidence...you stuck with the traditional logical fallacies (beginning with red herring and ending with straw man) instead.

Well done!

As for Habermas, or any other proponent of the resurrection argument, or anyone else for that matter, affirming a bunch of propositions individually is to affirm the conjunction. I'm sure Habermas is also well aware that a conjunction of independent propositions has a lower probability than any of the individual propositions.

Here's your problem, you believe that all the members of a set of facts, F, taken together provide strong inductive reason to believe that a resurrection occurred.

You do not like this conclusion...in all the cases you are aware of, resurrections don't happen. Because of this, and not because of any particular problem you have with any of the members of F, or even with the conjunction of F (apart from their having this conclusion), you reject F as containing at least one false claim.

I wonder how it would come to pass that any unique event could be proven to you from evidence? For any evidence set that provides inductive support for the unique event, your fixed policy seems to be reject as false at least one piece of evidence from any evidence set precisely because that evidence set provides inductive support for the unique event (in every case you are aware of the unique event has not occurred...if it had, it wouldn't be unique).

This is an a priori policy to reject unique events, not one that is based on evidence. Why should anyone hold such a policy to reject anything (other than an a priori falsehood)?

"I wonder how it would come to pass that any unique event could be proven to you from evidence? For any evidence set that provides inductive support for the unique event, your fixed policy seems to be reject as false at least one piece of evidence from any evidence set precisely because that evidence set provides inductive support for the unique event (in every case you are aware of the unique event has not occurred...if it had, it wouldn't be unique)."

Poppycock and a strawman. That isnt what Ron is saying and you know it.

First your use of loose language doesnt help - what does 'proven' mean to you in your first sentence.

It's likely here that you want to reason to a conclusion - i.e. that the resurrection happened and are prepared to find evidence which fits that bias.

What you should be doing is looking at the evidence at face value without any bias.

However, it's impossible for godists to do the latter - you have too much vested in your faith - so you are stuck in your intellectual cul de sac.

BTW I love this line from Amy which rather proves the point: "Naturalistic explanations fail"
can someone tell me what a supernatutral explanation looks like? What is the definition of "naturalistic explantion" here? If someone can help me with that, then maybe we could discuss how one would select between supernatural explanation and a 'naturalistic' explanation.

Poppycock and a strawman. That isnt what Ron is saying and you know it.
I'm sorry guest, but I don't know any such thing.
First your use of loose language doesnt help - what does 'proven' mean to you in your first sentence.
Oh yeah! That's just impossible to figure out from context! (Though in the next sentence, in a completely unrelated comment, I do mention inductive support.)
It's likely here that you want to reason to a conclusion - i.e. that the resurrection happened and are prepared to find evidence which fits that bias.
And you inferred that from what evidence, O Unbiased One?

I have not in one sentence in this thread reasoned that the resurrection happened. I happen to think that the resurrection argument, at least by itself, has some serious problems. What I have done is criticize Ron's misguided objections. Which are in order:

  1. The key facts cited by the supporters should be dismissed as stories, not facts.
  2. Apologetics is stupid.
  3. At least one of the key facts...not sure which...must be false, because taken together the facts support the resurrection hypothesis.
Ron dropped the first two without comment as they were shown to be misguided. He hasn't done that yet with the last (though, pie-eyed optimist that I am, I'm hopeful)
What you should be doing is looking at the evidence at face value without any bias.
So, just as a for instance, I shouldn't just assume that the facts don't obtain because they lead to a conclusion I don't like.

Got it.

However, it's impossible for godists to do the latter - you have too much vested in your faith - so you are stuck in your intellectual cul de sac.
Project any?
BTW I love this line from Amy which rather proves the point: "Naturalistic explanations fail"
can someone tell me what a supernatutral explanation looks like? What is the definition of "naturalistic explantion" here? If someone can help me with that, then maybe we could discuss how one would select between supernatural explanation and a 'naturalistic' explanation.
Amy can answer for herself, but I'm guessing she might have some questions for you first, just for purposes of clarification.
  • What point do you think Amy's quote proves?
  • What on earth do you mean by "proves", O Enemy and Scourge of Loose Language?
  • What do you think an explanation, naturalistic or otherwise, is?

(To whoever attacked alliteration, please realize alliteration is everywhere. At the beginning of this page we have the title: The Resurrection was a Real Event. At the bottom of this page, we have these alliterative words: Typepad, Twitter and Google. Reminds me of the words online, internet, and World Wide Web. And by the way, some preachers used alliteration well (like Martin Luther King!) My whole goal was to make an "easy to memorize" argument easier, by using alliteration, and according to Science Daily, there's scientific support for alliteration aiding memorization. Now, back to more substantive discussions- my apologies).

In the real world:


The syntax of "X brought Y back to life" is coherent “out of hand”. Physicians do not violate the laws of nature as they morph - inside of Time and Knowledge - the very definition of the word "death". Infusing molecules and energy, and what have you, into dead bodies violates no "laws" (whatever laws of nature means) - but only serves to morph the definition of death to that which is contingent upon the physician's / person(s) ability(s) and not upon the body proper.


The definition of Death is non-static - ever in flux vis-à-vis the Mind(s) which surround the Body in question.


It happens every day.


And the definition keeps changing, fluxing, the reach of said Person(s) around said body ever reaching farther.


How odd that death itself should turn out to be such a contingent state of affairs where Persons/Minds/Physicians are concerned.


The Skeptic is left without observational reality, without science, and even without the definition of death in his favor – rather – the only item he has left IF he means to reject the syntax of "X brought Y back to life” in any sort of “out of hand” fashion turns out to be his own a priori of what sort(s) of Person(s) exist / what sorts of technical abilities said Person(s) bring to the table. Period. Given that the definition of death is clearly, obviously, *not* housed in the body proper, but in the sorts of Person(s) surrounding said body, their capabilities to infuse molecules and energy - and so on - well then of course it is all very simplified.


The only key variable left is the sorts of persons involved, as observational reality, science, the ever changing definition of death, and no need to mess with the laws of nature (whatever they are) all affirm the coherence “out of hand” in syntax of the form "X brought Y back to life”.

Clarification / Jim,

The opening of the my last post, "In the real world" referenced the coherence of "X brought Y back to life" (in the real world) and was *not* a (sarcastic) comment about Jim's post or working off of his post. From what I gather Jim makes a valid point on said memory tool. And memory tools are different than preaching, so I can appreciate Jim's creativity. Besides, it's not like that is the entirety of preaching. Etc.

My apologies if this wasn't obvious the way my comment "read" right after J's comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.