The Resurrection

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

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.

A rose is a good deal more than 50% flower. That aside, there is no conflict in calling an appropriate object ‘a red rose’. But that object is neither entire red nor entirely a rose - part of it is red, part of it is a rose, If it were entirely red, it would not be a rose. If it were entirely a rose, it would not be red.

Similarly, Jesus of myth is partly god, partly man. Either part prevents his being entirely one thing or the other.

Boru

[Sheldon]

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

What does that even mean lol.

It means that as well as being wrong, and irrelevant to my post, the biblical claim was irrational.

[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.

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.

A rose is a good deal more than 50% flower. That aside, there is no conflict in calling an appropriate object ‘a red rose’. But that object is neither entire red nor entirely a rose - part of it is red, part of it is a rose, If it were entirely red, it would not be a rose. If it were entirely a rose, it would not be red.

Similarly, Jesus of myth is partly god, partly man. Either part prevents his being entirely one thing or the other.

Boru

Er, COUGH! Magic COUGH!

[John 6IX Breezy]

But that object is neither entire red nor entirely a rose - part of it is red, part of it is a rose, If it were entirely red, it would not be a rose. If it were entirely a rose, it would not be red.

That's such an incoherent argument lol.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But that object is neither entire red nor entirely a rose - part of it is red, part of it is a rose, If it were entirely red, it would not be a rose. If it were entirely a rose, it would not be red.

That's such an incoherent argument lol.

Translation: I can’t refute it, so I’ll take refuge in scoffing at it.

Well played, treacle.

Boru

[John 6IX Breezy]

Yeah I'm not going to attempt to refute that lol. If you think an orange ball is not entirely a ball because it is also orange, then I'm just going to let you be right.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yeah I'm not going to attempt to refute that lol. If you think an orange ball is not entirely a ball because it is also orange, then I'm just going to let you be right.

Straw man. Keep going, you’re doing very well.

Boru

[John 6IX Breezy]

And I quote, "If it were entirely red, it would not be a rose. If it were entirely a rose, it would not be red."

Where's the straw man?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

And I quote, "If it were entirely red, it would not be a rose. If it were entirely a rose, it would not be red."

Where's the straw man?

Every rose is more than one colour. Therefore, anything of a single colour is not a rose.

The straw man is that I did not mention an orange ball.

Boru

[Belacqua]

And I quote, "If it were entirely red, it would not be a rose. If it were entirely a rose, it would not be red."

Where's the straw man?

There's no straw man there. 

Somebody needs to learn the difference between essence and accident.