(February 9, 2025 at 4:25 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

Quote:John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

Well, yeah. The resurrection of Jesus was neither the first nor the only resurrection in the Bible. Hence why I'm more interested in the concept of resurrections as such than any particular event.

(February 9, 2025 at 4:13 pm)Sheldon Wrote: Then your title should have been Resurrections, not The resurrection.

You would have said false dichotomy no matter what the title was lol.

How can a one or two word title represent a dichotomy, false or otherwise?

Sure, and so the set of god-possibility might contain within in the set of technological possibility. As a christian, do you think the set of god-possibility contains additional content, or is it limited to, and thus identical with, the set of technological possibility.

I can only ask the question so many ways, and in the absence of an answer just move on.

In the question of whether or not one x raises the probability or possibility of another - we refer to content quality and kind. They are persuasive insomuch as they are alike. There have been many examples of how what we are considering to be technologically possible resurrections are of a different quality than god resurrections. All the ways in which each example falls short of the specific resserruction in question..and which may be not be possible through the manipulation of technological levers. None of that speaks to what a god might do, if that god were meaningfully free of those barriers. But that's the ballgame.

If the set of what is possible for a god is different in content quality and kind than the set of what is technologically possible, no technological possibility reliably speaks to god possibility. Theists realize this when they want to claim that their god has done or can do the impossible...and forget it when they want to claim the credit some doctor or scientific process deserves to manufacture credibility for their silly gods who allegedly work by other means.

(February 9, 2025 at 4:41 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: You can be 100% a man and 100% European because not every category excludes another.

Then I must assume that you're confused about what it means to be human.

Quote:This is especially true in those interpretations that view Jesus' divinity as something like a role or title, such as king.

Divinity, much like any office that can be filled by whatever nincompoop happens to wander along.

(February 9, 2025 at 2:07 pm)Angrboda Wrote: So empiricism is confirmed using the methods of empiricism which demonstrates that empiricism is sound if empiricism is sound.

Circular logic much, bro?

Philosophers keep insisting the world should be logical. Empiricists describe what they see, whether it seems to make sense or not. That is a kind of knowledge of the world.

(February 9, 2025 at 6:45 pm)Alan V Wrote:

(February 9, 2025 at 2:07 pm)Angrboda Wrote: So empiricism is confirmed using the methods of empiricism which demonstrates that empiricism is sound if empiricism is sound.

Circular logic much, bro?

Philosophers keep insisting the world should be logical.  Empiricists describe what they see, whether it seems to make sense or not.  That is a kind of knowledge of the world.

Empiricists describe what they see, and they know that the evidence of the senses is far from reliable. So to get to anything like science or useful engineering, "what they see" must be analyzed and interpreted through logical and theoretical frameworks. 

If you say simply that they describe what they see, and this is knowledge, you're still doing the circular logic bit. Empiricists hold that knowledge BEGINS in the evidence of the senses but if it stopped there it wouldn't be knowledge. 

As a well-known philosopher said, "Nothing in the mind that was not first in the senses." So what you're arguing here, that empiricism is the best way of knowing, is a philosophical argument. You are doing philosophy.

(February 9, 2025 at 6:07 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Then I must assume that you're confused about what it means to be human.

What matters isn't what human means, but it's level of classification. Human is a species, but God isn't.

What matters is that you're taking the properties of the subset to be indicative of the properties of the larger set. Let's rephrase your question in your european men example.

Would european men doing something be indicative of all men doing something? Is what's true of european men true of all men? If european men do some particular thing does that increase the probability of all men doing that thing? Is what's possible for a european man to do possible for all other men to do? Reverse the principals in each question and ask them all again.

So..no, technological possibility does not present a proof of concept for god-possibility. We know, even though you refuse to say as much, even though we had bel in here babbling about it..that you don't limit your god-possibility to the set of the technologically possible. Whenever we discover some new technology we broaden the set of the technologically possible..but it doesn't move the gods chains one inch. Gods will have to do their own work and show it, whatever that work is, however they accomplish it. Then, perhaps, we could logically surmise that gods having pulled off one bit of magic may pull off another.

(February 9, 2025 at 7:32 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(February 9, 2025 at 6:07 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Then I must assume that you're confused about what it means to be human.

What matters isn't what human means, but it's level of classification. Human is a species, but God isn't.

It's one of the many facets of Christian theology that never made sense to me. If you're human you're human and if you're divine you're divine, and never the twain shall meet. Famously portrayed by that tiny gap that Michelangelo left between the fingers of God and Adam.

They had to square a circle because they thought it made them sound stupid.