The Easter/resurrection rumble thread [warning: this is a free for all]

[BigJohn]

So this assumption that God probably does not exist because there is no direct physical evidence of him could be falsified by showing direct physical evidence of God. Then, atheists would say, "Wow!" and not "I don't believe that", IMHO.

That would be lovely. Unfortunately, as I have said more than once, there is no proof of God's existence; thus the positive claim is unfalsifiable, so the negative claim ('God probably does not exist'), cannot be proved untrue either.

How do you know that?

[BigJohn]

As I went on to explain:

Since atheists are already as predisposed against belief in the supernatural as Christians are to belief in it, it doesn't matter if I can demonstrate that Jesus really lived, really died, was really buried, and the tomb was really empty; for the atheist there is always an explanation for the empty tomb which has more credible explanatory power than a supernatural event.

Surely you wouldn't disagree with that?

No, but if an atheist saw a bright light descend from heaven and breathe life into the corpse of Jesus Christ, then he would at least take the supernatural theory more seriously.

If it's a bunch of hearsay and heavily edited books from millennia ago, promoted by a clergy that has proven itself venal and brutal on many occasions, then they would be quite right to look for alternative explanations to a miracle.

[Fortigurn]

No, I was not making an argument. Sorry if that was the impression I gave everybody. I was simply stating a position, I was not supporting them in any way, except in as much as some of them interrelated. For example, "The Bible is the Holy Book because people say it is" and "Christ rose from the dead because it said so in the Bible". Those are obviously connected. I did not offer evidence or logical proofs. I asserted things. That is very different from an argument.

BJ, you need to understand that assertions of fact (as yours were), especially in the logical form 'X because Y' (as yours were), are exactly what you claim they are not. This is a simple matter of language. When you say 'X because of Y', you are asserting a logical relationship between X and Y, such that X is the result of Y; you are claiming that Y is the cause of X. No one said you were offering any evidence or logical proofs; I have no idea why you keep saying 'I did not offer evidence or logical proofs'.

I was asking you to make a clear statement about how falsifiability relates to your argument, if you even have one, buried in all your references.

I gave it to you, twice. It then appeared that you didn't know what 'falsifiability' means, so I gave you a link to it. It then turned out that you 'don't do links', so I explained what falsifiability is. Are you now asking me to repeat my previous explanations of how falsifiability relates to my argument, or are you saying that you still don't know what 'falsifiability' means?

Can't you make a clear, simple statement, without always referring to something or someone or somewhere else?

I already have, several times.

How do you know that?

We have already been through this.

No, but if an atheist saw a bright light descend from heaven and breathe life into the corpse of Jesus Christ, then he would at least take the supernatural theory more seriously.

Or assume he was hallucinating, which would be a more likely explanation, would it not?

If it's a bunch of hearsay and heavily edited books from millennia ago, promoted by a clergy that has proven itself venal and brutal on many occasions, then they would be quite right to look for alternative explanations to a miracle.

Yes, I quite understand. I would feel the same way.

[urodacus]

fortigurn is a great dancer, I hear. Excellent footwork.

[heimuoshu]

fortigurn is a great dancer, I hear. Excellent footwork.

Hence him making every other poster here look like an amateur philosopher - which they are.

[bob]

You changed what I said and put and quotes around it. Is that not a misquote? Seems to me a lot like a misquote.

bob, unless I attribute it to you then I am not quoting or misquoting you. If it's not attributed to you, and it's clearly not what you wrote, then that's not a misquote. That's simply me writing something you didn't write.

But in "your" post it says "bob said...

Does that not attribute the words to me? This is all quite technical I realize. Try to concentrate, it's relaxing.

[antarcticbeech]

fortigurn is a great dancer, I hear. Excellent footwork.

Hence him making every other poster here look like an amateur philosopher - which they are.

I'll have a double hermeneutic with that, no ice.

I think the reason Fortigurn is 'winning' is that there is, fundamentally, no rumble. Fortigurn is wearing his Popperian hat and there is nothing to challenge. As a result, Big John and Fortigurn are now arguing about arguing. And bob and Fortigurn are sounding like a married couple.

You changed what I said and put and quotes around it. Is that not a misquote? Seems to me a lot like a misquote.

bob, unless I attribute it to you then I am not quoting or misquoting you. If it's not attributed to you, and it's clearly not what you wrote, then that's not a misquote. That's simply me writing something you didn't write.

But in "your" post it says "bob said...

Does that not attribute the words to me? This is all quite technical I realize. Try to concentrate, it's relaxing.

Not much about the resurrection in this thread.

[bismarck]

fortigurn is a great dancer, I hear. Excellent footwork.

Hence him making every other poster here look like an amateur philosopher - which they are.

I have to admit, I don't understand WTH he's on about half the time, but I agree with him, because we're on the same side.

Like Caesar, the man's a genius.

But I still don't get why non-believers give enough of a shit to even argue about it. If they're right, we all go into nothingness and the resurrection etc etc is all moot. They 'win" but no one really knows that they did.
If the Christians are right, we go to Heaven, you (the general non-believing crowd) go to Hell and we (presumably) get to laugh, point and say, "Told you so, motherf***ers!"

[MikeN]

No, the whipping, the thorns, the cross, the via deloroso, the tears and sweat of blood in the garden--all that and more were just the appetizers. The three days--from Good Friday to Easter Sunday--Christ spent in hell, suffering for the sins of all mankind. And being simply given over to Satin--who, of course, inflicted every horror possible while he had the chance.

Going way back into the thread here, but I've never come across this belief before. Is it held in some denominations? I was always taught that the three days were Jesus going down into the basement and unloading a can of whup-ass on Satan- the Harrowing of Hell. Jesus broke open the Gates of Hell and led the righteous of the Old Testament out of captivity and up to Heaven.

[BigJohn]

No, I was not making an argument. Sorry if that was the impression I gave everybody. I was simply stating a position, I was not supporting them in any way, except in as much as some of them interrelated. For example, "The Bible is the Holy Book because people say it is" and "Christ rose from the dead because it said so in the Bible". Those are obviously connected. I did not offer evidence or logical proofs. I asserted things. That is very different from an argument.

BJ, you need to understand that assertions of fact (as yours were), especially in the logical form 'X because Y' (as yours were), are exactly what you claim they are not. This is a simple matter of language. When you say 'X because of Y', you are asserting a logical relationship between X and Y, such that X is the result of Y; you are claiming that Y is the cause of X. No one said you were offering any evidence or logical proofs; I have no idea why you keep saying 'I did not offer evidence or logical proofs'.

You are talking but you're not saying anything, really. I did not give logical proofs in my first post, only in later posts to defend positions taken. There was some logical interconnectedness among my original statements but it was not a formal logical argument. If you say it is, then show my first post and how it is a logical argument. Bring it to the present here and now, and show what you mean. Otherwise you are just being long-winded.

I was asking you to make a clear statement about how falsifiability relates to your argument, if you even have one, buried in all your references.

I gave it to you, twice. It then appeared that you didn't know what 'falsifiability' means, so I gave you a link to it. It then turned out that you 'don't do links', so I explained what falsifiability is. Are you now asking me to repeat my previous explanations of how falsifiability relates to my argument, or are you saying that you still don't know what 'falsifiability' means?

I knew that back in high school, about 30 years ago. Your assumption that I don't is frankly insulting, as you seem to feel that you are more aware of the material than other posters, yet you are strangely unable to make a coherent argument.

Yes, I am asking you to give me the Cliff Notes version of your argument, including falsifiability.

Can't you make a clear, simple statement, without always referring to something or someone or somewhere else?

I already have, several times.

Not really. Your argument is very unclear. Why not organize it into few simple sentences?

How do you know that?

We have already been through this.

That is not an acceptable answer.

No, but if an atheist saw a bright light descend from heaven and breathe life into the corpse of Jesus Christ, then he would at least take the supernatural theory more seriously.

Or assume he was hallucinating, which would be a more likely explanation, would it not?

I said he would take it more seriously.

If it's a bunch of hearsay and heavily edited books from millennia ago, promoted by a clergy that has proven itself venal and brutal on many occasions, then they would be quite right to look for alternative explanations to a miracle.

Yes, I quite understand. I would feel the same way.

Well,that's why many people don't believe in the resurrection.