The Resurrection

[The Grand Nudger]

The resurrection narrative is famous for not being in the myths. It stands as a later addition in the historical development of the text.

[John 6IX Breezy]

We don't even understand memory. So your entire claim is that, presumably, we can reduce all elements of cognition and self, neither of which we truly understand, to something else we don't actually understand. Are you an expert in these fields? If you feel what you said is not speculation than demonstrate that it is not.

I have expertise in these fields; whether that makes me an expert is up to you.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say we don't understand memory. Just because we haven't maximized our understanding doesn't mean we haven't reached a sufficient amount.

https://youtu.be/IV4nDxG-nfc?feature=shared

[Paleophyte]

The conclusion I'm driving towards is something like:  You can say God doesn't exist and therefore he didn't resurrect anyone, but not that resurrections aren't possible therefore God doesn't exist.

Then you appear to be making a most peculiar argument, a weird little strawman that I don't think many atheists would ever attempt to make. God can do whatever he likes, possible or not. It's part of the whole omnipotence package. God can simply boss the constituent atoms around and order them back into the desired positions. Reducing it down to mere biochemistry doesn't make that any more convincing. You're talking about miracles regardless of whether thermodynamics favours the process.

Your god doesn't exist because he was cobbled together from Yaweh and El during the Bronze Age Collapse and is no more believable than any of the other deities from that era. We have the receipts.

The Resurrection is a laughable mistake in Christian theology that negates any sacrifice that your Savior may have made. Jesus Died Slept In On The Weekend For Your Sins!

[John 6IX Breezy]

Then you appear to be making a most peculiar argument, a weird little strawman that I don't think many atheists would ever attempt to make.

A strawman?

[The Grand Nudger]

In the greatest possible sense. Both in misrepresentating the countervailing information and the christian theological narrative. You aren't speaking accurately of your own beliefs or the beliefs of others in conversation.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Okay lol. Well if nobody believes resurrections are impossible, or that their mention in the Bible makes God fictional, then what has everyone been arguing over for the past seven pages?

[The Grand Nudger]

Whether or not a technological or biological possibility was evidence for or supportive of a theological event or miracle - just as you asked us to.

If you want these things to be informative then fine..but it's going to backfire from a theological perspective. As I asked before, in instances where a thing turns out to be technologically or biologically impossible it would then be god impossible. In instances where magic book said only god could do this or that then people find a technological or biological solution it show that magic book was wrong-in-fact. More broadly, it suggest that what is alleged to be a complicated and nuanced discussion on how to live ones life in a proper manner, and deeply and genuinely believed in by so many people, is just a carrot dangled on a ghost story...etc.etc.etc

Is christianity false if christs resurrection is technologically or biologically impossible?

[Paleophyte]

Okay lol. Well if nobody believes resurrections are impossible, or that their mention in the Bible makes God fictional, then what has everyone been arguing over for the past seven pages?

This vvvvv

And so, do you believe resurrections are possible in theory or even probable in practice?

ps. My question is not about the historicity of the Resurrection but rather about the theory and science of it (hence why this is posted in philosophy not religion).

And this vvvvv

My point was about the plausibility of technological advances, not about proving a specific religious claim.

You asked if it was theoretically possible or technically conceivable. The answers are hell no, and fuck no. Bring god into the equation and you can do anything except iron chariots.

[Belacqua]

ps. My question is not about the historicity of the Resurrection but rather about the theory and science of it (hence why this is posted in philosophy not religion).

As I recall there are Silicone Valley types who think they'll soon be able to upload their consciousness into a computer, and live on that way after their body dies. 

I'm skeptical about this, as it sounds a lot like the mind/body dualism that we're not supposed to believe in any more, but of course they know more about computers than I do.

(And if you've read Iain M. Banks' "Culture" novels you'll remember that the characters will upload themselves into computers before they go on dangerous missions, so that if they die the robots can grow them a new body and they can start again at the point where they uploaded before. Or they carry little recording devices that continually download their consciousness in case of accident. Naturally this is wild science fiction, but close enough to the Silicone Valley guys that we can imagine some far advanced technology to do this.)

So this is different from a full resurrection of the body which the Bible seems to describe. Although Paul says that the post-Resurrection body will be different, and Jesus's noli me tangere episode seems to indicate that he also may be in a new and improved physical structure. 

Anyway, if the discussion is about the technological feasibility of living on after the death of the body, that's the kind of tech I would look to.

[Ravenshire]

The abiogenesis argument alone seems to settle the debate. You cannot hold the position that life was able to emerge from a non-living environment, but reject that life is able to re-emerge in a structure with all the components of life present. You also can't hold the position that in the first case life emerged through an unguided process, but that it would not be able to emerge through a guided process.

Holding the first position seems to commit everyone to the second. Pessimism over how hard it is to do with today's technology seems beside the point.

This might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It certainly exposes a deep ignorance of abiogenesis and evolution to conflate the processes with the arbitrary reanimation of dead flesh.