Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?

The Pixie

Well-known member
I note that once again Martin is responding to me without using the forum "Post reply" feature to ensure I do not get a notification, in the mistaken hope I will not notice he has posted. It is interesting the various tactics creationists (including those who self-identify as IDists) are reduced to.


Evolution Is Ongoing Science - ID Is Not Even Science​

A couple years old but a good read about why Evolution Fails:


From that article:

"presenters ignored, dismissed, or mocked the theory of intelligent design"

And:

"the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution"

As far as I know, the purpose of the conference was to create a modified version of the theory of evolution that encompasses new findings. It was in no way about discarding evolution altogether. It was in no way supportive of ID.


The Definition Of Species Is Fuzzy​

The Pixie and 'Fuzzy' logic -er no logic actually
I have said nothing whatsoever about fuzzy logic. I would guess Martin has no clue what fuzzy logic actually is - he has just linked together two words and made a phrase he heard somewhere, with no idea what that phrase is about.

The Pix flips and flops and squirms about like a worm on the road.... says 'fuzzy' things about species that she/he can't explain besides saying well ummmm it's fuzzy so I get a pass....
So what is Martin's point here?

He claims I flip and flop, but why does he not present evidence of that? If it is true, he should be able to quote me saying one thing in one post and then something else in another post. Why can he not do that?

Well, the reality is that I have consistently said the definition of species is fuzzy. Anyone can do a search of CARM for "fuzzy" and "The Pixie" and you will see I have said the same thing again and again ands again. About twelve times so far, and I am guessing that will be over twenty in a week or so!

No flip-flopping by me, Martin.

... she/he can't explain besides saying well ummmm it's fuzzy so I get a pass....
Is he saying I get a pass or that he gets a pass? I am the one who has always had an answer. He is the one who repeatedly dodges the question.

What is your definition of species Martin?

Do you think you should "get a pass" on that?


Humans And Chimps​

Question for you The Pixie: Humans have features that no other species have. consciousness is just one... reason and many others I have stated are purely only a human trait... it makes us unique to any other. Your crumbling theory can't account for this.. nor even explain how they exist.
If you look out the window onto a city street, it is easy to see a huge gulf between humans and chimps, but suppose we wind back time 10,000 years... How many of those differences disappear? People back then were still human, but they had no writing, no agriculture, only the most rudimentary tools. Were they closer to us or to chimps?

But humans can reason! Yeah, but so can chimps. Not as well as a typical human, to be sure, but this is not unique to humans.

But humans have consciousness! Yeah, but so do chimps. Again, this is not unique to humans.

Humans have some things that make them special, but these are things chimps have too, just not as much. Evolution has given us more reasoning power, not new reasoning power. Evolution has given us better language skills not new language skills.


Projection...​

(of course the Pix just runs away from complex thinking questions... claiming that it is just an un-informed opinion). Run Pixie Run....
Of the irony!

The reality, of course, is that it is Martin who consistently runs away. Every topic we have discussed has ended because Martin dropped it, and he dropped it because he lost.

I mean, this is the guy who is so clueless about evolution he thinks it says people are descended from dolphins! And he is no more informed about his own beliefs - he is still unable to tell us what front-loading actually is, and still does not realise that front-loading implies common descend!

Further, he accuses me of running away after a set of posts where he avoids using the "Post reply" feature on the forum in the hope I will not notice he posted. His hope - pretty clearly - is that I will not notice his posts and will not respond, and so he can pretend to himself that I ran away. Kind of pathetic, but the best ID can do.

Another failure for Martin.


Still Obsessed With SETI​


Obviously we could not go another day without Martin blathering on about SETI!

The Pixie makes silly claims that the scientific study for the search for life outside our planet Uses Science but is not science..... LOL I wish she/he would write to the 100's of scientists working on SETI why they are not really involved in 'science' just too funny to let that (self-proclaimed PhD) comment go. pretty embarrasing
And obviously Martin still cannot present a counter argument.

My argument can be found here:



ID's Just-So Story​


How does ID explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve? This runs from the brain to the larynx - a distance of about a foot. But it goes via the heart, so a round trip of around 15 foot for a giraffe. Evolution explains it just fine. We are all evolved from fish, with virtually no necks, where looping round the heart was no problem. Because evolution works stepwise, it is not possible to go back and re-do it, so all descendant species have the same arrangement.

Some real science:

The recurrent laryngeal nerve is an often cited example of “unintelligent design” in biology, especially in the giraffe. The nerve appears early in embryonic development, before the pharyngeal and aortic arches are separated by the development of the neck. The recurrent course of the nerve from the brain, around the great vessels, to the larynx, is shared by all extant tetrapods. Therefore we may infer that the recurrent laryngeal nerve was present in extinct tetrapods, had the same developmental origin, and followed the same course.
As I also point out in WEIT, this poor design reaches ludicrous heights, so to speak, in giraffes, whose long neck makes the RLN take a 15-foot detour



A new complete giraffe genome is beginning to shed light on which view has more empirical support. Published by Chang Liu et al. in Science Advances (open access), it gives biologists a fresh start in discerning links between genotype and phenotype for this unique iconic animal.

Most summaries of the paper, including those in Science magazine and The Scientist, fail to account for the long neck — the very trait that most interested the early evolutionists. Instead, they focus on one particular gene named FGFRL1. In humans and mice, this gene is associated with bone strength and with blood pressure.
We know size is not that difficult for evolution - just look at the difference in size between different breeds of dogs. What interests real scientists is the infrastructure to support that size - that is, the special systems that evolution has produced to allow the long neck.

Besides that, your article is essentially free of any content. The simple fact is that giraffe evolution is being investigated by real scientists, and that the findings so far fit the evolutionary view.

Where is the ID explanation? There is none. IDists have done absolutely zero here.

Why is that? Because ID is not science. It is just a paper-thing disguise over creationism.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?
I wonder how you could prove the Resurrections false with empirical data? I can think of no testable hypothesis. There is just nothing physical that remains from that event. It is not right or wrong - it is just the nature of empirical evidence. It is very hard - almost impossible - to really prove something that left no mark actually happened in antiquity.

We might as well try to prove that Nero played the violin while Rome burned.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
I wonder how you could prove the Resurrections false with empirical data? I can think of no testable hypothesis. There is just nothing physical that remains from that event. It is not right or wrong - it is just the nature of empirical evidence. It is very hard - almost impossible - to really prove something that left no mark actually happened in antiquity.

We might as well try to prove that Nero played the violin while Rome burned.
Sure. My question was of course, a hypothetical.
 

Algor

Well-known member
I wonder how you could prove the Resurrections false with empirical data? I can think of no testable hypothesis. There is just nothing physical that remains from that event. It is not right or wrong - it is just the nature of empirical evidence. It is very hard - almost impossible - to really prove something that left no mark actually happened in antiquity.

We might as well try to prove that Nero played the violin while Rome burned.
One can ask: "If Jesus was a human, given what we know of human physiology, is it more likely that the story is in error, or that the resurrection occurred? " Test specific hypotheses against each other.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
Sure. My question was of course, a hypothetical.
Yeah - sorry. I am a little obsessed with proving something is real before any discussion. And that does not always fit.

I wonder...

What if the Resurrection could be proven true? Would atheists convert to Christianity? I know I would. If we could prove that Jesus rose from the dead and he was the son of God then I'd believe it and convert.

And we could prove it. Jesus could come to Earth today, explain the Resurrection, and perform miracles as he had to do many times in The Bible to convince people he was the son of god.

Anyhoo, its something I think abut from time to time. And if Ganesh the elephant headed god shows up and gives a speech on live TV to the UN then I will be Hindu by sunset.

:)
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
One can ask: "If Jesus was a human, given what we know of human physiology, is it more likely that the story is in error, or that the resurrection occurred? " Test specific hypotheses against each other.
Occam's Razor does not work with Christians I am afraid. There are so many of these that it boggles the mind:

e.g.

- Is it more likely that The Bible is the same as the thousands of other texts or that The Bible is really from God and the thousands of other texts are made up?

- Is it more likely that you spoke to God or just had a strong emotion?

- Is it more likely that the chemo and millions of dollars in medical care cured your cancer or that one prayer you did in the chapel cured it?

:)
 

Algor

Well-known member
Occam's Razor does not work with Christians I am afraid. There are so many of these that it boggles the mind:

e.g.

- Is it more likely that The Bible is the same as the thousands of other texts or that The Bible is really from God and the thousands of other texts are made up?

- Is it more likely that you spoke to God or just had a strong emotion?

- Is it more likely that the chemo and millions of dollars in medical care cured your cancer or that one prayer you did in the chapel cured it?

:)
This is not Occam's razor (which does work with Christians, but only for a specific idea of parsimony). This is hypothesis testing. How many people being called dead have not been dead: you can give an estimate, a number. It is small but non- zero. How many people have been claimed to be saviors by their followers, who continue to have unsupported ideas about them after the death of said savior? A still small number, but non-zero.

Now, how many bodies have been documented to be dead (absent heart rate, absent brainstem reflexes, absent respiration, not in hypothermic coma) and have come back to life three days later? Zero.

Ergo, what is more likely, given the evidence?
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
This is not Occam's razor (which does work with Christians, but only for a specific idea of parsimony). This is hypothesis testing. How many people being called dead have not been dead: you can give an estimate, a number. It is small but non- zero. How many people have been claimed to be saviors by their followers, who continue to have unsupported ideas about them after the death of said savior? A still small number, but non-zero.

Now, how many bodies have been documented to be dead (absent heart rate, absent brainstem reflexes, absent respiration, not in hypothermic coma) and have come back to life three days later? Zero.

Ergo, what is more likely, given the evidence?
Ah - interesting. I see it now - thank you. Great post.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Yeah - sorry. I am a little obsessed with proving something is real before any discussion. And that does not always fit.

I wonder...

What if the Resurrection could be proven true? Would atheists convert to Christianity? I know I would. If we could prove that Jesus rose from the dead and he was the son of God then I'd believe it and convert.

And we could prove it. Jesus could come to Earth today, explain the Resurrection, and perform miracles as he had to do many times in The Bible to convince people he was the son of god.

Anyhoo, its something I think abut from time to time. And if Ganesh the elephant headed god shows up and gives a speech on live TV to the UN then I will be Hindu by sunset.

:)
Ok.

If Christianity were proven true would I convert to Christianity? Well obviously I would think Christianity the true worldview but would I worship God? I think that worship is unhealthy for both parties, and I wouldn't think He deserves it anyway what with all the bad stuff He doesn't stop. I wouldn't be able to hide my feelings from Him either, so I don't know where that would leave me as far as He was concerned.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
Ok.

If Christianity were proven true would I convert to Christianity? Well obviously I would think Christianity the true worldview but would I worship God? I think that worship is unhealthy for both parties, and I wouldn't think He deserves it anyway what with all the bad stuff He doesn't stop. I wouldn't be able to hide my feelings from Him either, so I don't know where that would leave me as far as He was concerned.
Great point!

Like you I would accept that God and The Bible are true. But I would never worship or praise a god that is so cruel. I'd be terrified but not loving. And I cannot fake it and act like I am OK with god drowning every infant on Earth or sending all Hindus to burn because God would know I am faking it.

So I think I'd be in quite the pickle.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Yeah - sorry. I am a little obsessed with proving something is real before any discussion. And that does not always fit.

I wonder...

What if the Resurrection could be proven true?
It is proven: a lifeless body produced 7.7 billion souls and counting. It only took 13.8 billion years to get that first pickle out of the jar, but now the rest come out easy. Ha ha!

Seriously, you are not thinking big enough. Your little brain has tunnel vision. You only see what is happening right in front of you. Expand your consciousness of things across time and space and you will just begin to see what God sees.

Would atheists convert to Christianity? I know I would. If we could prove that Jesus rose from the dead and he was the son of God then I'd believe it and convert.

And we could prove it. Jesus could come to Earth today, explain the Resurrection, and perform miracles as he had to do many times in The Bible to convince people he was the son of god.

Anyhoo, its something I think abut from time to time. And if Ganesh the elephant headed god shows up and gives a speech on live TV to the UN then I will be Hindu by sunset.

:)
 

docphin5

Well-known member
@Lighthearted Atheist

I know the following reference is a bit long but it so eloquently expounds on what I touched on in the previous post about expanding one’s consciousness. The key to knowing or seeing God is to think, conceive, and contemplate, for it is knowledge of things or understanding that grows our capacity to think as God thinks.

(excerpt from Poemandres, the Shepherd of Men)

Think, [then,] of Him who doth contain them all [all things]; and

think, that than the bodiless [intelligible things] naught is more comprehensive, or swifter, or more potent, but it is the most comprehensive, the swiftest, and most potent of them all.
And, thus,

think from thyself, and bid thy soul go unto any land, and there more quickly than thy bidding will it be. And bid it journey oceanwards; and there, again, immediately ‘twill be, not as if passing on from place to place, but as if being there. And bid it also mount to heaven; and it will need no wings, not will aught hinder it, nor fire of sun, nor auther, nor vortex-swirl, nor bodies of the other stars; but, cutting through them all, it will soar up to the last Body [of them all]. And shouldst thou will to break through this as well, and contemplate what is beyond - if there be aught beyond the Cosmos; it is permitted thee.


20. Behold what power, what swiftness, thou dost have! And canst thou do all of these things, and God not [do them]? Then, in this way know God; as having all things in Himself as thoughts, the whole Cosmos itself. If, then, thou dost not make thyself like unto God, thou canst not know Him. For like is knowable unto like [alone].

Make, [then,] thyself to grow to the same stature as the Greatness which transcends all measure; leap forth from every body; transcend all time; become Eternity; and [thus] shalt thou know God. Conceiving nothing is impossible unto thyself, think thyself deathless and able to know all - all arts, all sciences, the way of every life. Become more lofty than all height, and lower than all depth. Collect into thyself all senses of [all] creatures - of fire, [and] water, dry and moist.

Think that thou art at the same time in every place - in earth, in sea, in sky; not yet begotten, in the womb, young, old, [and] dead, in after-death conditions. And if thou knowest all these things at once - times, places, doings, qualities, and quantities; thou canst know God.

21. But if thou lockest up thy soul within thy body, and dost debase it, saying: I nothing know; I nothing can; I fear the sea; I cannot scale the sky; I know not who I was, who I shall be - what is there [then] between [thy] God and thee? For thou canst know naught of things beautiful and good so long as thou dost love thy body [alone] and art bad. The greatest bad there is, is not to know God’s Good;

but to be able to know [Good], and will, and hope, is a Straight Way, the Good’s own [Path], both leading there and easy. If thou but settest thy foot thereon, ‘twill meet thee everywhere, ‘twill everywhere be seen, both where and when thou dost expect it not - waking, sleeping, sailing, journeying, by night, by day, speaking, [and] saying naught. For there is naught that is not image of the Good.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
It is proven: a lifeless body produced 7.7 billion souls and counting.
How did you prove this actually happened? The only evidence I know of is the story in Genesis. That is from an anonymous copy of unknown original documents. I do not see how that is sufficient evidence for a miracle that is in conflict with all of known science and reality.

So - how do you prove it happened? Do you have evidence from the Garden that I do not know of?
Seriously, you are not thinking big enough. Your little brain has tunnel vision. You only see what is happening right in front of you. Expand your consciousness of things across time and space and you will just begin to see what God sees.
I believe what I can prove. You have chosen to believe one of the 10,000 stories about gods and miracles for no reason that I can see.

But if you think you can see what a god sees then I hope it brings you peace.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
@Lighthearted Atheist

I know the following reference is a bit long but it so eloquently expounds on what I touched on in the previous post about expanding one’s consciousness. The key to knowing or seeing God is to think, conceive, and contemplate, for it is knowledge of things or understanding that grows our capacity to think as God thinks.

(excerpt from Poemandres, the Shepherd of Men)

Think, [then,] of Him who doth contain them all [all things]; and

think, that than the bodiless [intelligible things] naught is more comprehensive, or swifter, or more potent, but it is the most comprehensive, the swiftest, and most potent of them all.
And, thus,

think from thyself, and bid thy soul go unto any land, and there more quickly than thy bidding will it be. And bid it journey oceanwards; and there, again, immediately ‘twill be, not as if passing on from place to place, but as if being there. And bid it also mount to heaven; and it will need no wings, not will aught hinder it, nor fire of sun, nor auther, nor vortex-swirl, nor bodies of the other stars; but, cutting through them all, it will soar up to the last Body [of them all]. And shouldst thou will to break through this as well, and contemplate what is beyond - if there be aught beyond the Cosmos; it is permitted thee.


20. Behold what power, what swiftness, thou dost have! And canst thou do all of these things, and God not [do them]? Then, in this way know God; as having all things in Himself as thoughts, the whole Cosmos itself. If, then, thou dost not make thyself like unto God, thou canst not know Him. For like is knowable unto like [alone].

Make, [then,] thyself to grow to the same stature as the Greatness which transcends all measure; leap forth from every body; transcend all time; become Eternity; and [thus] shalt thou know God. Conceiving nothing is impossible unto thyself, think thyself deathless and able to know all - all arts, all sciences, the way of every life. Become more lofty than all height, and lower than all depth. Collect into thyself all senses of [all] creatures - of fire, [and] water, dry and moist.

Think that thou art at the same time in every place - in earth, in sea, in sky; not yet begotten, in the womb, young, old, [and] dead, in after-death conditions. And if thou knowest all these things at once - times, places, doings, qualities, and quantities; thou canst know God.

21. But if thou lockest up thy soul within thy body, and dost debase it, saying: I nothing know; I nothing can; I fear the sea; I cannot scale the sky; I know not who I was, who I shall be - what is there [then] between [thy] God and thee? For thou canst know naught of things beautiful and good so long as thou dost love thy body [alone] and art bad. The greatest bad there is, is not to know God’s Good;

but to be able to know [Good], and will, and hope, is a Straight Way, the Good’s own [Path], both leading there and easy. If thou but settest thy foot thereon, ‘twill meet thee everywhere, ‘twill everywhere be seen, both where and when thou dost expect it not - waking, sleeping, sailing, journeying, by night, by day, speaking, [and] saying naught. For there is naught that is not image of the Good.
Thank you. But none of this convinces me that thinking of God or looking in my soul is a better way to prove what is real than empirical evidence. I could swap Allah or Zeus or Brahma in for God in the above and it would still work. So I do not see how this could possibly prove God to be real.

"Think that thou art at the same time in every place - in earth, in sea, in sky; not yet begotten, in the womb, young, old, [and] dead, in after-death conditions. And if thou knowest all these things at once - times, places, doings, qualities, and quantities; thou canst know Lord Brahma."

I see no difference in that statement and yours so I cannot decide whose god is real.

:)
 

Martin23233

Active member
Thank you. But none of this convinces me that thinking of God or looking in my soul is a better way to prove what is real than empirical evidence. I could swap Allah or Zeus or Brahma in for God in the above and it would still work. So I do not see how this could possibly prove God to be real.

"Think that thou art at the same time in every place - in earth, in sea, in sky; not yet begotten, in the womb, young, old, [and] dead, in after-death conditions. And if thou knowest all these things at once - times, places, doings, qualities, and quantities; thou canst know Lord Brahma."

I see no difference in that statement and yours so I cannot decide whose god is real.

:)
Would you be able to even know what truth/real is? Atheists can't comprehend truth - it is confusing to them to have an absolute as they all want to believe in their own truth ...yet deny others truth... and not allow for a way forward of objective truth. the lazy atheist will typically just say they are agnostic... or they just don't know ... pretty weak. as it it only takes a little intellectual honesty to understand a path forward that points to an all loving God. And answers how life could of possibly began (instead of guessing at unproven hypothesis)
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Would you be able to even know what truth/real is? Atheists can't comprehend truth - it is confusing to them to have an absolute as they all want to believe in their own truth ...yet deny others truth... and not allow for a way forward of objective truth. the lazy atheist will typically just say they are agnostic... or they just don't know ... pretty weak. as it it only takes a little intellectual honesty to understand a path forward that points to an all loving God. And answers how life could of possibly began (instead of guessing at unproven hypothesis)
Atheists believe the Earth orbits the Sun. Is that not truth?
 

Martin23233

Active member
This is not Occam's razor (which does work with Christians, but only for a specific idea of parsimony). This is hypothesis testing. How many people being called dead have not been dead: you can give an estimate, a number. It is small but non- zero. How many people have been claimed to be saviors by their followers, who continue to have unsupported ideas about them after the death of said savior? A still small number, but non-zero.

Now, how many bodies have been documented to be dead (absent heart rate, absent brainstem reflexes, absent respiration, not in hypothermic coma) and have come back to life three days later? Zero.

Ergo, what is more likely, given the evidence?
How in your opinion does Occam's Razor not work for a belief in God? ...v.s a beliefe in in any other thing... say like a belief in the the Big Bang for example?
 

Algor

Well-known member
How in your opinion does Occam's Razor not work for a belief in God? ...v.s a beliefe in in any other thing... say like a belief in the the Big Bang for example?

Why do you think that I do not think that Occam's razor does not "work for a belief in God"?
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
Would you be able to even know what truth/real is?
Yes. I know the moon is real because of empirical evidence. I know tacos are real because of empirical evidence. I know gravity is real because of empirical evidence.

I know lots of things are real. I cannot say if anything supernatural is real because I do not see any empirical evidence to support claims of God, Allah, ghosts, horoscopes, or any other claims.
Atheists can't comprehend truth - it is confusing to them to have an absolute as they all want to believe in their own truth ...yet deny others truth... and not allow for a way forward of objective truth. the lazy atheist will typically just say they are agnostic... or they just don't know ... pretty weak. as it it only takes a little intellectual honesty to understand a path forward that points to an all loving God. And answers how life could of possibly began (instead of guessing at unproven hypothesis)
So...do you have any objective evidence to prove your claims about God are real? Or just this personal, emotional, and subjective view of atheists?
 

Martin23233

Active member
Atheists believe the Earth orbits the Sun. Is that not truth?
Yeah... so did the atheists (and others) believe that the earth was flat too. your point is lost on your attempt to grasp truth....it is not what one wants it to be in the moment... it is lasting and never changing. Atheists have no moral grounding to which they can even attempt to univer-silly state that this it true... or 'good'.. they only have a personal perspective of it...as they have no God... no guiding priciple... Heck it is easy to fib out things like "I am a PhD" .. maybe so ... maybe not (likely not) so that is an example of no moral guiding priciple ..just say what one wants to ... no filter... no guilt... say what one wants to in the moment.
 
Top