The Resurrection

[Sheldon]

If (hypothetically) the resurrection (of the Jesus character) in the gospel myths, were objectively demonstrated to have happened, this would still not in and of itself represent sufficient objective evidence he was a deity, rather it would represent something we could not explain.

If in the future science were to (hypothetically), demonstrate that resurrecting someone after they had been (brain) dead, for three days, then this would not in any objective way suggest the story of the (Jesus) resurrection in the gospel myths, was factually true or even possible, and of course, even were that not the case, it would make the claim it needed a deity to resurrect someone demonstrably false. Put simply, something touted as defying natural or scientific explanation (a miracle) would have a natural scientific explanation. 

Does this about sum it up so far, or have I missed something?

For the record, roses are not entirely flowers, and red roses are not entirely red.

[John 6IX Breezy]

If (hypothetically) the resurrection (of the Jesus character) in the gospel myths, were objectively demonstrated to have happened, this would still not in and of itself represent sufficient objective evidence he was a deity, rather it would represent something we could not explain.

Does this about sum it up so far, or have I missed something?

It certainly sums up this verse:

"If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead " Luke 16:31.

[Sheldon]

If (hypothetically) the resurrection (of the Jesus character) in the gospel myths, were objectively demonstrated to have happened, this would still not in and of itself represent sufficient objective evidence he was a deity, rather it would represent something we could not explain.

Does this about sum it up so far, or have I missed something?

It certainly sums up this verse:

"If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead " Luke 16:31.

No not really, and that doesn't honestly address anything in my post at all, it's also ironically a pretty obvious slippery slope fallacy. What's worse it is demonstrable nonsense, since my criteria for credulity would not require an a priori belief, or disbelief in any other supernatural claims, each claim is judged on its own merits, and held to the same critical standard. 

If you disagree with any or all of my post, why not explain why, that's generally the best way to debate something.

Lets frame them as simple questions then:

@John 6IX Breezy

1. Do you agree that if we could (hypothetically) objectively demonstrate that the gospel resurrection story of Jesus were possible, it would not in and of itself represent objective evidence that a deity exists / is possible?
2. Do you agree that if (hypothetically), in the future science demonstrated it was possible to resurrect a human after they had been brain dead for three days, this would not objectively demonstrate the gospel resurrection story was true / possible?
3. Do you agree that is (hypothetically), in the future science demonstrated it was possible to resurrect a human after they had been brain dead for three days, this would demonstrate objective evidence that such a resurrection does not require a deity?

If you disagree you can then say why.

[The Grand Nudger]

More credo absurdum.

[arewethereyet]

Comes to an atheist forum and uses Bible verses to prove a point.

Seems to be a lack of understanding the audience.

[Sheldon]

Comes to an atheist forum and uses Bible verses to prove a point.

Seems to be a lack of understanding the audience.

And of logic, as that biblical verse was a slippery slope fallacy.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

A botanist or a horticulturalist might. And people with the ability to, you know, see colours.

Another non-issue I'll happy concede to.

It’s exactly the issue. One cannot say that a rose is ‘completely red’ when it isn’t - bits of it are green and bits of it are brown, yellow, and red. So, we cannot call it completely green (for example) AND completely red, since green and red are not the same.

Following your analogy, we likewise cannot claim that Jesus is completely human and completely divine. The closest you can probably get is to call him ‘a semi-divine human’.

But don’t feel badly about it - mythology is chock-a-block with demigods. Yours is just one myth among many.

Boru

[John 6IX Breezy]

And of logic, as that biblical verse was a slippery slope fallacy.

What does that even mean lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

Christian mysteries are supposed to be illogical. That's the god stamp. Whether it's prophetic magic or christ's resurrection, christianity can never escape it's fundamental claims about the nature of reality and the forces therein. The biblical author had it right, for all that's worth. People who don't believe in superstitious shit like prophecy are also, likely, not going to believe in superstitious shit like christ's resurrection. This, ofc, betrays the christian understanding that god stuff is not technological stuff...which we have to memory hole to wonder why a technological possibility does not speak to a god possibility.

[John 6IX Breezy]

It’s exactly the issue. One cannot say that a rose is ‘completely red’ when it isn’t - bits of it are green and bits of it are brown, yellow, and red. So, we cannot call it completely green (for example) AND completely red, since green and red are not the same.

Yeah, that's a given. Green and red are equal members of the color category, and as such can only co-occur in additive form. If one comprises 60% of the whole, then other comprises 40%. But nobody would say that a rose was only 50% flower on account of being 50% red. These exist at non-conflicting levels of classifications; they're members of separate categories.