tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post7514586035958400960..comments2024-03-18T03:29:09.653-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Is the resurrection impossible? Response to Brad BowenUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-75498771173219467652012-05-03T12:33:54.355-07:002012-05-03T12:33:54.355-07:00JNR1: True, if by these he is giving the natural C...JNR1: True, if by these he is giving the natural Christian interpretation. If he means something different, then this may not be true.<br /><br />JNR2: I can tentatively hold to this. But is he really talking about what Jesus said, what one of the Apostles or Disciples said that Jesus said, or what some later Christian scribe could have put into the text? In other words, how would he know what Jesus said if he doesn't believe the Bible is true?<br /><br />JNR3: Unfortunately for the argument, each of the three is true, as would be commonly understood by Christians.<br /><br />JNR4: Not true, as JNR3 is false.<br /><br />JNR5: Not true all on its own. The Jews of Jesus' day looked forward to a Resurrection (at least of the righteous) in the Day of the Lord. He would have to indicate why God's raising Jesus would make Him God incarnate and not these others.<br /><br />JNR6: Since JNR4 and JNR5 are not true, JNR6 is also not true.Robert Lowrancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16630708561358342140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-40868241903307688732011-11-28T19:24:59.595-08:002011-11-28T19:24:59.595-08:00Sorry, I meant σημειον. Apparently I'm an eve...Sorry, I meant σημειον. Apparently I'm an even worse speller in Greek than I am in English.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-1082048105706078342011-11-28T19:22:25.814-08:002011-11-28T19:22:25.814-08:00Brad: Well, I can't accuse you of offering a g...Brad: Well, I can't accuse you of offering a glib answer. You may have even focused the microscope on a higher level of magnification than necessary, and missed some of the big picture. But maybe you'll pick that up later. <br /><br />Yes, I do think you were arguing in a circle a bit, but this was not the heart of my critique. You described the resurrection as "physically impossible," as cited. I took this to assume materialism, that miracles can't happen. Maybe I misread you on this. But I was responding briefly to what I took to be a throw-away line, so I didn't see the need to analyze it too closely.<br /><br />It seems to me you make three mistakes, here: <br /><br />(1) Semantic. I think you define "miracle" wrongly, as an event that must "violate a law of nature." That is not the Christian definition, that derives from the Greek term σημειν, or sign, the root for semiotics. A miracle does not need to violate a law of nature, it rather should give probatively significant reasons for faith. See my Jesus and the Religions of Man, chapter 10, for an in-depth description of what that may involve. <br /><br />(2) I agree that a miracle is an event caused by God. However, I do not agree that "physically impossible" means merely that an event "violates the laws of nature." A miracle is NOT physically impossible, because it happens. Even if it occurs in contradiction to the NORMS of nature, I wouldn't call that a "violation," for reasons discussed in Lewis, Miracles, as well as Jesus and the Religions of Man. And anything that physically happens, by definition cannot be physically impossible. (Unless by "physically" you mean, "with recourse only to the laws of physics," or something like that -- which I don't think is what we usually mean by the word.) <br /><br />Finally, I'd be careful about conflating "PIP" with "PIC." The latter does not imply the former. <br /><br />I may post this on my web site as well; I appreciate the meaty response.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-44749820098854510572011-11-28T19:21:12.492-08:002011-11-28T19:21:12.492-08:00Brad has responded at the Secular Outpost, and pro...Brad has responded at the Secular Outpost, and promises more, later. I cut some here to fit space limits. My words are in "'double quotes'" -- DM. <br /><br />"Does the reasoning in the passage quoted from my post on the resurrection involve the fallacy of begging the question?<br /><br />"'Yes, it can be assumed that miracles don't happen--if they don't.'"<br /><br />"Marshall clearly implies that my reasoning in the quoted passage makes the assumption that 'miracles don't happen'. However, nowhere in the passage do I assert that 'miracles don't happen'. In fact, the word 'miracles' does not occur anywhere in the passage that Marshall quoted. Nor does any synonym for 'miracles' occur, nor any phrase that could substitute for the word 'miracles'. Since there is no explicit claim made about 'miracles' in this passage, it far from obvious that my reasoning makes the assumption that 'miracles don't happen'.<br /><br />" . . . In looking over the claims I make in the quoted passage, I don't see any claims (or set of claims) that makes the assumption that 'miracles don't happen'. . . <br /><br />"'But if it is even POSSIBLE that God is real, then it is not 'physically impossible' that Jesus rose from the dead. "<br /><br />"Oddly enough, this statement by Marshall is not only false, but it commits the very same fallacy that Marshall is attempting to show my reasoning to have committed.<br /><br />"Now, I don't mean that Marshall has begged the question in favor of miracles, but rather that he has himself begged the question against miracles. This was unintentional, no doubt, but nevertheless, his statement, looked at objectively, implies that miracles never happen. <br /><br />"Marshall's statement above implies the following Physical Impossibility Claim:<br /><br />"(PIC) If it is possible that God exists, then Jesus rising from the dead was NOT physically impossible.<br /><br />"This particular claim about the alleged resurrection of Jesus is presumably based upon a more general Physical Impossibility Principle:<br /><br />"(PIP) If it is possible that God exists, then there are no events that are physically impossible.<br /><br />"But if (PIP) was true, then from the assumption that it is possible that God exists, one could infer that there are no events that are physically impossible. But if no events were physically impossible, then no events would be miracles. In other words, from the possibility that God exists it would follow that 'miracles don't happen'. Marshall's statement implies the very assumption that he accuses my reasoning of making.<br /><br />"In order for an event to be a miracle, it must satisfy at least the following two conditions:<br /><br />"1. The event must involve the violation of a law of nature.<br /><br />"2. The event must be brought about by God.<br /><br />"But an event is physically impossible if and only if it involves a violation of a law of nature. Therefore, if there are no physically impossible events, then there are no events involving a violation of a law of nature. And if there are no events involving a violation of a law of nature, then there are no miracles. <br /><br />"Since Marshall clearly believes that the existence of God is possible, his acceptance of (PIP) commits him to the logical implication that 'miracles don't happen'. As soon as Marshall realizes this implication of (PIP), I am confident that he will quickly reject (PIP) as being false, and then we will both agree that the assumption upon which his fallacy charge was based, was a false assumption."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-91028076956397777022011-11-22T14:09:22.460-08:002011-11-22T14:09:22.460-08:00JSA: Looking at the Wikipedia article on the condi...JSA: Looking at the Wikipedia article on the condition, it does not look like it could potentially apply to Jesus' case, even assuming many errors in the NT reports: <br /><br />"Lazarus syndrome or autoresuscitation after failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation, is the spontaneous return of circulation after failed attempts at resuscitation. Its occurrence has been noted in medical literature at least 25 times since 1982. Also called Lazarus phenomenon, it takes its name from Lazarus who, in the New Testament account, was raised from the dead by Jesus.<br /><br />"Occurrences of the syndrome are extremely rare and the causes are not well understood. One theory for the phenomenon is that a chief factor (though not the only one) is the buildup of pressure in the chest as a result of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The relaxation of pressure after resuscitation efforts have ended is thought to allow the heart to expand, triggering the heart's electrical impulses and restarting the heartbeat. Other possible factors are hyperkalemia or high doses of epinephrine."<br /><br />Very little in this description seems to match anything in Jesus' case history. <br /><br />The cases detailed in the article also seem quite different from the crucifixion, both in cause of "death," and in condition after "revival." These cases do not seem to explain how Jesus could be walking (on land, let alone water), fishing, cooking meals, etc. There is, of course, no explanation for removed body casts, misplaced boulders, absent guards, let alone Jesus' more miraculous activities after the resurrection. <br /><br />I agree with you, though, that a miracle should not be defined as a "violation of nature." The Greek word is σημειον, often translated as "sign," which I take to mean, "an event in the natural world that points to divine activity in a probatively significant manner."David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-36650544062236107282011-11-22T13:50:26.895-08:002011-11-22T13:50:26.895-08:00Brad: Sorry for the confusion. Let me plead jet l...Brad: Sorry for the confusion. Let me plead jet lag. I've corrected the error.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-21408738798632236702011-11-22T13:37:54.569-08:002011-11-22T13:37:54.569-08:00Well, my grandfather was clinically dead after a t...Well, my grandfather was clinically dead after a traumatic injury, and medically documented cases of Lazarus Syndrome require the person to be clinically dead. So I don't think it raises or lowers the probability that the execution of Christ was "botched". <br /><br />I think it raises the probability that Christ was clinically dead and came back to life. It speaks against the claim that it's "physically impossible" to die and come back to life. It's emphatically <b>not</b> physically impossible, according to modern medicine. Some religious people believe that the cases of Lazarus Syndrome are all miracles, while most doctors will claim that they aren't miracles at all -- just natural occurrences we don't yet fully understand. Both sides seem to be confused into thinking that "miracle" is synonymous with "violation of the laws of nature" (it's not, and never was).<br /><br />Now, the timeframes involved might militate against the "Lazarus Syndrome" explanation, since Christ was supposedly dead for 3 days, and we've never seen anyone go much longer than a day before. But if we're willing to bend theology and go with just the reported historical details, we only have to account for 6 hours, and that's not at all unthinkable.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-17716030122853178222011-11-22T13:15:53.748-08:002011-11-22T13:15:53.748-08:00JSA: Does that experience make the "botched c...JSA: Does that experience make the "botched crucifixion" hypothesis seem more likely to you? Because I'm still finding it pretty hard to swallow.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-71987028919565313942011-11-22T11:04:25.267-08:002011-11-22T11:04:25.267-08:00David,
Thank you for your comments on my argument...David,<br /><br />Thank you for your comments on my argument against the resurrection of Jesus. Please note that Jeff Lowder did not present this argument and he has expressed some of his own objections and reservations about the argument.<br /><br />http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2011/11/argument-against-resurrection-of-jesus.html<br /><br />-Bradley BowenBradley Bowenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05211466026535549638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-1929939780406580882011-11-22T10:25:39.274-08:002011-11-22T10:25:39.274-08:00My grandfather was pronounced dead after a car acc...My grandfather was pronounced dead after a car accident and placed in the morgue for well over 6 hours before coming back to life. It's not *that* uncommon; there is even a name for it: "Lazarus Syndrome".JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.com