Re: A question for the group

On 2008-01-23, VBM <v.mcalister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:69ef5d3a-074d-46dd-9817-5cbe0179f099@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 23, 4:12 pm, "VBM" <v.mcalis...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"snex" <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message


news:4b2cd4de-947e-43c1-a2a0-a5d9132e105c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On Jan 23, 3:04 pm, "VBM" <v.mcalis...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"nmp" <addr...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:4797a442$0$85779$e4fe514c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

VBM wrote:

For example, with the resurrection, science definitely says
that, in
the natural course of events, such an event can not happen.
Period.
But science does not say that it has never happened,

That would be an unavoidable inference.

Not scientifically, since science can not confirm or deny the
supernatural.

at best it can say that if it happened, it would have to be
something
outside of the natural course of events.

If it ever did happen, it surely was within the natural course of
events,
ie. within observable nature. People would have seen it happen. It
would
therefore be a legitimate object of scientific inquiry.

Oh, yes, very much so. It would have been a legitimate object of
scientific
inquiry. In short, scientific analysis at the time could have
confirmed
that the miracle did NOT happen (ie, finding Jesus' dead body), but
it
could
not really confirm that it DID happen, since it would then fall
outside
of
science's perview. Science can only provide the best natural
explanation,
so it would be constrained to come up with the most likely
non-supernatural
scenario, and rightly so.

how could it not confirm it did happen? the guy was dead, and now hes
alive and walking around. what more confirmation do you need?

Would not science, as a discipline, simply have nothing to say about it
anymore? I am not talking about PEOPLE and their individual
conclusions,
but the methodological naturalistic discipline we call science. It
could
not conclude "the supernatural happens". All it could conclude is "that
person that was deemed to be dead, now is alive", stated as a fact.
What
would the scientific hypothesis be, at that point? It could not be "a
supernatural event happened". It would be obligated, according to every
scientist I have ever heard from, to determine what the best natural
explanation could be.

if that is your answer, then if you personally saw jesus rise from the
dead, you would still not be justified in believing he was the son of
god, or had some kind of supernatural power.

Oh, yes, I would believe, and I suspect you would believe that as well.

Actually, I would almost certainly conclude that I had been mistaken, and
that he was not really dead, or that some natural process was at work that
I didn't understand. I think leaping to the conclusion that the events
can _only_ or even _is best_ explained by some unobserved supernatural
agency is madness.

But it is not something that the discipline of science could confirm or deny,

So why bother believing it?

other than confirming the facts present and observable. Again, science, as
a methodological naturalistic discipline, could not posit that the
explanation of the data was that a supernatural event occurred. At least,
that is what scientists have told me over and over.

yet, even without a first hand witnessing of the event, you believe it
was supernatural. this goes to the very core of what you have been
arguing this entire time, about interpreting observed events only
through science. you have painted yourself into a corner where an
actual witnessing of the event would leave you less sure about its
supernatural origins than your current situation, where you did not
witness the event. do you not see the problem with this?

No, an actual witnessing of the event would make me *as sure* as I am right
now, which is entirely convinced.

But since no possible observation would make you *less sure*, that
hardly counts for anything, does it?

Since this is a faith issue for me, I do
not need the actual evidence of that event to believe it. But, if there was
hard and fast evidence that that particular event did NOT happen (let's say
I could travel back in time and see the actual body of Jesus rot away to
nothing), then I would no longer believe it.

So, absent time travel, you can't think of anything which might shake
your faith?

Mark

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A question for the group
    ... what more confirmation do you need? ... Would not science, as a discipline, simply have nothing to say about it ... an actual witnessing of the event would make me *as sure* as I am right ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A question for the group
    ... Would not science, as a discipline, simply have nothing to say about it ... person that was deemed to be dead, now is alive", stated as a fact. ... would the scientific hypothesis be, ... yet, even without a first hand witnessing of the event, you believe it ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Explain Little Lucys deposition?
    ... even the history of science. ... slow moving flood waters covered the bones, ... their dead. ... Fire is a _difficult_ technology. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against IDs Theology
    ... person is irrevocably dead. ... science-denier, science disproves the resurrection. ... different than calling racists' beliefs absurd and demanding ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against IDs Theology
    ... If you knew anything about science, ... If you really think that science requires that events obey the laws ... nature, then you simply don't understand the nature or method of how ... people how are considered "dead" do in fact "come back ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading