The Resurrection

[John 6IX Breezy]

The resurrection often gets touted as the point at which Christians depart from reality. Atheists may, for example, be open to most points about Jesus' existence up until the resurrection. Together with the virgin birth, these are the famous miracles which are traditionally seen as bending credulity and reality.

However, I've never had issues believing they could happen regardless of whether they did. Reality is often more mind-bending than theory. For example, prior to IVF technology, intercourse was the only rational route for pregnancy; and as such the virgin birth had to be believe on faith alone. Today, we have growing technology that can produce embryos from two males and no mother.  On a scale of incredulity, the virgin birth should rank lower than double-father-no-mother births, and yet the latter is reality, and the former is stigmatized as irrational.

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).

[The Grand Nudger]

IVF doesn't make magic book possible or more likely. There is still..in case you were unaware, a human father involved. That's never seemed like the most hilarious miracle in christianity to me, though. The one where stringing up some poor palestinian covers you for jacking your dick too much. That's the real fun one.

[brewer]

False equivalence fallacy comparing resurrection/miracles to realities of technology, no matter how emotionally fulfilling it may be for you.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yeah this massive false equivalency on par with people who believe in psychic powers insisting quantum mechanics backs their drivel

[Mister Agenda]

The resurrection often gets touted as the point at which Christians depart from reality. Atheists may, for example, be open to most points about Jesus' existence up until the resurrection. Together with the virgin birth, these are the famous miracles which are traditionally seen as bending credulity and reality.

However, I've never had issues believing they could happen regardless of whether they did. Reality is often more mind-bending than theory. For example, prior to IVF technology, intercourse was the only rational route for pregnancy; and as such the virgin birth had to be believe on faith alone. Today, we have growing technology that can produce embryos from two males and no mother.  On a scale of incredulity, the virgin birth should rank lower than double-father-no-mother births, and yet the latter is reality, and the former is stigmatized as irrational.

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).

If it's science, it's not a miracle is it? Dead three days not on life support, that's not resuscitation, it's like uncooking an egg to bring someone back to life in those conditions. But if you're gonna go with aliens with much more advanced technology than ours instead of real angels, who knows? Are you considering Raelism?

[John 6IX Breezy]

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

So, what I gather from these responses is that you guys concede to the argument that "miracles" like resurrections are, or will be, technologically possible endeavors, that they are not inconsistent with broader reality, and that your only objection is whether they happened in the Bible.

[John 6IX Breezy]

If it's science, it's not a miracle is it?

Agreed; I think the concept of miracles describes a subjective appraisal rather than an actual category of things. One person's science is another person's miracle.

Edit: Consistent with this point, I did a quick search and couldn't find the word miracle in the Bible. You'll find terms such as wonders and signs, but the idea of a miracle appears to be external the Bible itself.

[The Architect Of Fate]

So trying desperately to make your empty fables possible by invoking modern science .....Yeah no

[Mister Agenda]

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

So, what I gather from these responses is that you guys concede to the argument that "miracles" like resurrections are, or will be, technologically possible endeavors, that they are not inconsistent with broader reality, and that your only objection is whether they happened in the Bible.

Not sure we'll ever be able to uncook an egg, but never say never, right?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The resurrection often gets touted as the point at which Christians depart from reality. Atheists may, for example, be open to most points about Jesus' existence up until the resurrection. Together with the virgin birth, these are the famous miracles which are traditionally seen as bending credulity and reality.

However, I've never had issues believing they could happen regardless of whether they did. Reality is often more mind-bending than theory. For example, prior to IVF technology, intercourse was the only rational route for pregnancy; and as such the virgin birth had to be believe on faith alone. Today, we have growing technology that can produce embryos from two males and no mother.  On a scale of incredulity, the virgin birth should rank lower than double-father-no-mother births, and yet the latter is reality, and the former is stigmatized as irrational.

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).

(Bold mostly mine)

No. No.

Boru