Is forgiveness without a price a virtue?

[Justin108]

Is it a good thing to be able to forgive without any price?

If so, is God imperfect for being unable to forgive sin without Jesus' sacrifice?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 336 by Justin108]

But it does not appear that you can take the resurrection away. You can only do so as a suggestion, not with evidence or proof to substantiate your claim. There is more evidence to suggest that it is possible than impossible.

If you equate NDE's with a resurrection, which your earlier post (329) did, than indeed, you are admitting that Jesus coming back to life is nothing remarkable or special.

If you are not saying that, then why the post? It seems to me the point was that people do not come back from the dead - as Jesus did, and you refuted it.

-all the best

[The Tanager]

It might not be your reason, but it is The Tanager's. And he was the one I was debating at the time when you stepped in to insist that people came back from the dead occasionally. Now I don't know what your argument is regarding the truth of Christianity, but The Tanager's falls flat once you take the resurrection away.

Well, it's not the only reason I place my faith in Jesus. We were talking about a rational reason why others should believe in the Christian God who have not had other reasons like a personal experience with God.

And whether these other people were dead and came back to life or not, Jesus' resurrection is a different thing than their dying and coming back to life.

I am saying that we should consider the possibility that they are irrational. It is more likely that someone is irrational than that someone came back from the dead. We have experienced irrational people countless times. We have never experienced someone coming back from the dead.

And if I was just saying "let's just assume they are being rational...therefore the resurrection makes sense" you would be making a rational point above. I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying let's not assume they are rational or irrational, but look at, if what they say explains the facts we agree on, actually fit those facts and compare them to the other theories out there, including the "I don't know, but it must have been something else than an actual resurrection" theory.

My point is it is more likely for someone to lie than for someone to come back from the dead.

People always look at priori probability when determining what most likely happened. If I said I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln this morning, you would also use priori probability to determine whether or not I'm likely to be telling the truth.

If all I had was you saying "this happened," I agree. But we have more than that with the Resurrection. Analogically, your scenario has your claim that you had breakfast and nothing else. The Resurrection has the disciples claims that Jesus resurrected and appeared to them and an empty tomb and a movement quite different from the Judaism of the time putting Jesus' resurrection as their centerpiece, as their message.

Paul lying also fits the facts.

Lying about what?

The facts of that specific case would be someone showing me their money, their new house, etc. If my friend told me he won the lottery, but a month later, he still worked a mediocre job, driving a mediocre car and living in a mediocre apartment, I would not believe his claim that he won the lottery. If, however, he showed up at my house in a Lamborghini, I would be far more likely to believe him. Can you offer something similar to the Lamborghini as supporting evidence for the resurrection?

Yes, the empty tomb and the Christian movement in what they teach including the lengths they go to spreading that message.

Common sense is enough to conclude that someone among the millions of people playing the lottery would guess the correct numbers. There is no common sense deduction, however, that would conclude a resurrection.

Yes, but not the point I was making or offering an alternative to. We are talking here about if a specific person won that first lottery. If working on prior probability alone, it would be more rational to conclude that the specific person didn't win it. But we don't rely on prior probability and actually look at if they show up at our house in a Lamborghini, etc.

The burden of proof is not on me to find facts to count against the resurrection. I don't need to disprove your theory. You're the one who needs to prove it.

If I had said "the resurrection is true" and then expected you to disprove it, then you would have a rational point here. But that was not my argument.

You agreed that best explanation was what we were going for, not 100% proof. So, I offer facts that point towards the resurrection being true, that are not explained by the other theories out there. Including the theory "I don't know, but it's gotta be something else." When we have one thing that fits the facts and everything else doesn't, then we have the best explanation of the facts.

So, to lessen it as 'best explanation' you need to positively support another theory that puts it higher on the list or show what counts against the view...just like I did with all the other theories. That is what I'm asking you to do, not shift the initial burden. I didn't say 'the resurrection is true' with offering no support and then ask you to disprove it. I offered facts that point to it being true and asked you to counter that argument.

What facts are there to prove Jesus was not a regular human?

The ones we've been talking about: the claims of post-resurrection appearances taken together with the empty tomb and the early Christian movement's message and actions.

I did. People do not typically come back from the dead. So why should I believe someone did in this instance?

Prior probability is not a rational reason. Things go against prior probability. If you could prove people logically can't come back from the dead, you'd have something here. But you don't seem to want to make that claim.

You should believe someone resurrected in this instance because it is the explanation that best fits the facts we are talking about, unless you can come up with other facts (and prior probability is not one) that cause it to not fit anymore.

[Justin108]

I am saying that we should consider the possibility that they are irrational. It is more likely that someone is irrational than that someone came back from the dead. We have experienced irrational people countless times. We have never experienced someone coming back from the dead.

And if I was just saying "let's just assume they are being rational...therefore the resurrection makes sense" you would be making a rational point above. I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying let's not assume they are rational or irrational, but look at, if what they say explains the facts we agree on, actually fit those facts and compare them to the other theories out there, including the "I don't know, but it must have been something else than an actual resurrection" theory.

Ok I compared them and the theory that Jesus came back from the dead doesn't fit because people do not normally come back from the dead.

If all I had was you saying "this happened," I agree. But we have more than that with the Resurrection.

What else do we have? An empty tomb? So we have testimony and an empty tomb. Not enough to make me believe someone came back from the dead.

If all I had was you saying "this happened," I agree. But we have more than that with the Resurrection. Analogically, your scenario has your claim that you had breakfast and nothing else. The Resurrection has the disciples claims that Jesus resurrected and appeared to them and an empty tomb and a movement quite different from the Judaism of the time putting Jesus' resurrection as their centerpiece, as their message.

That's completely beside the point. My point is that, in both my scenario and yours, people make a priori probability judgments. I don't care how many details you add, the a priori probability judgments is that people coming back from the dead is very very unlikely. If people did not make a priori probability judgments, my claim that I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln would be no different from my claim that I had breakfast with my girlfriend.

Paul lying also fits the facts.

Lying about what?

The 500 witnesses.

The facts of that specific case would be someone showing me their money, their new house, etc. If my friend told me he won the lottery, but a month later, he still worked a mediocre job, driving a mediocre car and living in a mediocre apartment, I would not believe his claim that he won the lottery. If, however, he showed up at my house in a Lamborghini, I would be far more likely to believe him. Can you offer something similar to the Lamborghini as supporting evidence for the resurrection?

Yes, the empty tomb and the Christian movement in what they teach including the lengths they go to spreading that message.

Why do you keep pointing to the Christian movement as though that proves Christianity somehow? You realize there are thousands of different religions? Every one of them started somewhere. Do all of them have a supernatural origin? The same applies to the lengths they go spreading their message. Many religions go to great lengths to spread their beliefs. There have been cults committing suicide, religions committing war... are all religions whose followers are prepared to die necessarily true?

All you have is an empty tomb and claims of a resurrection. The fact that this resulted in a religion is utterly irrelevant.

Common sense is enough to conclude that someone among the millions of people playing the lottery would guess the correct numbers. There is no common sense deduction, however, that would conclude a resurrection.

Yes, but not the point I was making or offering an alternative to. We are talking here about if a specific person won that first lottery. If working on prior probability alone, it would be more rational to conclude that the specific person didn't win it. But we don't rely on prior probability and actually look at if they show up at our house in a Lamborghini, etc.

Ok I was having breakfast with Abraham Lincoln this morning. Now without using a priori probability, give me a good reason why you would doubt me.

The fact that I asked to see his Lamborghini in the first place expresses a priori doubt. If he said he bought a new microwave oven, I wouldn't demand to see it before I believe him because that claim is rather mundane. The fact that I ask for proof of his lottery winning means I doubt his lottery winning. I doubt it because it is less likely than buying a new microwave. In one case, I demand proof. In the other, I take his word for it. Everyone does this. This is not just me. Everyone demands greater proofs for less likely claims.

The burden of proof is not on me to find facts to count against the resurrection. I don't need to disprove your theory. You're the one who needs to prove it.

If I had said "the resurrection is true" and then expected you to disprove it, then you would have a rational point here. But that was not my argument.

You agreed that best explanation was what we were going for, not 100% proof. So, I offer facts that point towards the resurrection being true

Your argument relies on a dead man coming back to life. You offer nothing but an empty tomb and the sincere believe of followers. This is not enough.

When we have one thing that fits the facts and everything else doesn't, then we have the best explanation of the facts.

Except it doesn't fit the facts. The fact is, people do not come back from the dead. Your theory ignores this fact.

So, to lessen it as 'best explanation' you need to positively support another theory that puts it higher on the list or show what counts against the view...just like I did with all the other theories.

"I don't know, something else" does not rely on the dead coming back to life. In my books, it makes it a better explanation. Maybe not in details, but in probability.

Suppose there was a serial killer. No one knows who it is. One day, someone suggests the serial killer is Michael Jackson who came back from the dead. To which I would respond (as I expect most will) "I don't know who the serial killer is, but it has to be someone else." Is my claim rational? Or would I need to explain who the serial killer is before rejecting the notion that a risen Michael Jackson did it?

If all you have to go on is prior probability, then it is reasonable. And you turn to it being a regular human. But then if facts come up that discredit that theory you are no longer rational to believe it was a regular human in spite of your history with past serial killers (i.e., prior probability).

What facts are there to prove Jesus was not a regular human?

The ones we've been talking about: the claims of post-resurrection appearances taken together with the empty tomb and the early Christian movement's message and actions.

Earlier, you claimed that Jesus' resurrection was the best explanation because there were no alternate explanations. My Michael Jackson theory, in this scenario, is also the best explanation because we have no other explanations for who killed the victim. Going by your logic, Michael Jackson coming back from the dead is just as valuable an explanation as Jesus coming back from the dead.

See in the absence of alternate explanations, any explanation, no matter how absurd, becomes the best by default. If we found a dead man and we have no explanation for what happened, we can come up with literally anything and it will automatically be the best explanation because it has no competition. If I cared enough about what happened to a man named Jesus 2000 years ago, I would probably be able to come up with a comprehensive theory about what happened. The thing is... I don't. To me, he is just a man who died 2000 years ago. I don't care to investigate his life and death any more than I care to investigate the life and death of Genghis Khan. So if you were to tell me that Genghis Khan came back from the dead, will I need to extensively research his life and death in order to doubt your claim? Will I need to come up with an alternate explanation in order to doubt your claim?

I did. People do not typically come back from the dead. So why should I believe someone did in this instance?

Prior probability is not a rational reason.

Ok. Without any a priori probability judgment, give me one reason why you would doubt my claim that I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln?

Things go against prior probability.

And when they do, we expect proof. Not just claims, but proof.

If you could prove people logically can't come back from the dead, you'd have something here.

So unless we can prove something is impossible, all things should be believed? If I said I am actually a time traveler from the year 5000, you would have to believe me unless you can prove that time travel is impossible?

Which is more likely? That I was born in the year 1990? Or that I was born in the year 5000 and traveled back in time? And how did you come to this conclusion if not through a priori probability judgment?

[Dave Skummie]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

What a great paradox Justin. Maybe the way to look at this is why. It seems the type of clientele this God was getting before the sacrifice was much more in line to what he preferred. Then suddenly there was a get out of jail free card. Did this God suddenly think he was losing too many souls and needed to change the rules of the game he invented? I would think that would drastically change the dynamic of your soul population. That doesn't seem fair to the ones that were there prior. So yes maybe this God is imperfect in more ways then one.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 336 by Justin108]

But it does not appear that you can take the resurrection away. You can only do so as a suggestion, not with evidence or proof to substantiate your claim. There is more evidence to suggest that it is possible than impossible.

If you equate NDE's with a resurrection, which your earlier post (329) did, than indeed, you are admitting that Jesus coming back to life is nothing remarkable or special.

If you are not saying that, then why the post? It seems to me the point was that people do not come back from the dead - as Jesus did, and you refuted it.

-all the best

Thank you for your response. I do not equate NDE's with a resurrection. I pointed out cases where individuals were recorded as dead, and when they came back to life, the record was changed to near death. Imagine if this same thing occurred with the many cases of spontaneous healing of cancer recorded around the world. There are numerous cases where a person was confirmed to have cancer, and then before operating on the tumor or affected area, tests on the day of surgery show the tumor is gone spontaneously.

I am sure you will intimate that the initial test was more than likely wrong. If you would like I can provide numerous links where it was confirmed through multiple tests that these individuals had cancer. Their spontaneous healing, did not change the original diagnosis to "near cancer."

Instead of following this same process, it is easier to describe a patient as near death rather than dead. There are even instances where people came back to life in the morgue or after being dead for multiple days.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/28/us/dead-m ... index.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/642 ... unced-dead
https://express.co.uk/news/uk/629193/mi ... 1503346019

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... orgue.html

These are posted to show that the claim by Justin108 and other self proclaimed non-theists, that people do not come back to life after being dead, is not correct.

Once this claim or argument is proven false, then we can begin to move on to why a person can have a justified faith in Christ. This is not the only or sole reason, but just a proof that the argument against the resurrection as being impossible is mute.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 336 by Justin108]

But it does not appear that you can take the resurrection away. You can only do so as a suggestion, not with evidence or proof to substantiate your claim. There is more evidence to suggest that it is possible than impossible.

If you equate NDE's with a resurrection, which your earlier post (329) did, than indeed, you are admitting that Jesus coming back to life is nothing remarkable or special.

If you are not saying that, then why the post? It seems to me the point was that people do not come back from the dead - as Jesus did, and you refuted it.

-all the best

Thank you for your response. I do not equate NDE's with a resurrection. I pointed out cases where individuals were recorded as dead, and when they came back to life, the record was changed to near death. Imagine if this same thing occurred with the many cases of spontaneous healing of cancer recorded around the world.

Cancer going into remission, is a far cry from a "miracle" resurrection.

There are numerous cases where a person was confirmed to have cancer, and then before operating on the tumor or affected area, tests on the day of surgery show the tumor is gone spontaneously.

And this proves what? Why are there no recorded cases of limbs growing back? An eye? Even a finger? Because a very mundane explanation of human error is the most likely explanation. It simply is not miraculous (as is the resurrection of Christ).

We are fallible humans, after all. No miracle explanation necessary.

I am sure you will intimate that the initial test was more than likely wrong. If you would like I can provide numerous links where it was confirmed through multiple tests that these individuals had cancer. Their spontaneous healing, did not change the original diagnosis to "near cancer."

Understood. But your analogy falls short. Cancer has been shown to go into remission after all, especially if the cancer is being treated. So, I'm not sure your point. Being incorrectly pronounced dead (ignoring the blurry definition of what that truly and practically means) still doesn't equate to a 3 day old resurrection.

Instead of following this same process, it is easier to describe a patient as near death rather than dead.

Well yes, because they currently aren't dead, and they were obviously not resurrected. Or are you contending they were?

Just out of curiosity, do you find it more likely that people did come back from being dead (like Christ), or that they were incorrectly assumed to be dead?

There are even instances where people came back to life in the morgue or after being dead for multiple days.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/28/us/dead-m ... index.html

The first one on your list proves my point. The article states that the coroner only checked for a pulse. That was it. And in this case it was less than 24 hours, btw.

So, do you believe the man came back from the dead, or that the coroner made a mistake?

The others I grant you are surprising, but by no means imply Christ-like miracle resurrections. To me, they are clearly the result of errors made by the doctors and nurses.

These are posted to show that the claim by Justin108 and other self proclaimed non-theists,

Does that make you a self proclaimed theist?

that people do not come back to life after being dead, is not correct.

Ok, but if I grant you this argument (which I don't), then resurrections aren't all that miraculous, and it cheapens the miracle of Jesus' resurrection.

Once this claim or argument is proven false, then we can begin to move on to why a person can have a justified faith in Christ. This is not the only or sole reason, but just a proof that the argument against the resurrection as being impossible is mute.

Understood, but I maintain that human error is far more likely an explanation than the dead spontaneously coming back to life.

Do you contend otherwise?

And no, you have not proven it false. None of those cases rule out human error. Which is a far more likely explanation. I'd love to hear an argument why it isn't.

All the best,

[KingandPriest]

Cancer going into remission, is a far cry from a "miracle" resurrection.

Notice I did not indicate or imply remission. A person being healed, and cancer going into remission are two different things.

There are numerous cases where a person was confirmed to have cancer, and then before operating on the tumor or affected area, tests on the day of surgery show the tumor is gone spontaneously.

And this proves what? Why are there no recorded cases of limbs growing back? An eye? Even a finger? Because a very mundane explanation of human error is the most likely explanation. It simply is not miraculous (as is the resurrection of Christ).

We are fallible humans, after all. No miracle explanation necessary.

It proves that people can be healed with no known natural cause or support. This is the beginning of the definition of a miracle. Rather than accept the truth, you state it is not necessary. Image if everything in the natural sciences used this method of thinking. What ever we don't understand, an explanation is deemed unnecessary.

There are cases of people growing back limbs, there are just not good records to support it. Even if there were good evidence, you would probably shift and ask why miracle X does not appear to be happening. This is a weak strategy to attempt to shift the goal post, when one's initial claim is proven incorrect, to shift and demand another one.

Matthew 4:1-4
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.

4 Jesus answered, It is written: Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.

Even when satan attempted to demand a miracle from Jesus, Christ did not submit his authority to the will of another just to prove who He is.

I am sure you will intimate that the initial test was more than likely wrong. If you would like I can provide numerous links where it was confirmed through multiple tests that these individuals had cancer. Their spontaneous healing, did not change the original diagnosis to "near cancer."

Understood. But your analogy falls short. Cancer has been shown to go into remission after all, especially if the cancer is being treated. So, I'm not sure your point. Being incorrectly pronounced dead (ignoring the blurry definition of what that truly and practically means) still doesn't equate to a 3 day old resurrection.

There are well documented instances of people being healed of cancer with no treatment. Remission is a diminution of the seriousness or intensity of disease. This occurs over time. A sudden healing will eliminate any trace of the disease, and is a totally different thing.

Instead of following this same process, it is easier to describe a patient as near death rather than dead.

Well yes, because they currently aren't dead, and they were obviously not resurrected. Or are you contending they were?

I do not understand this statement. Please restate or reword.

Just out of curiosity, do you find it more likely that people did come back from being dead (like Christ), or that they were incorrectly assumed to be dead?

I think both are likely. In some cases the doctors were initially wrong. In other cases, the evidence of a person being in the morgue for multiple days, dead cold, is enough to substantiate that they did in fact die.

There are even instances where people came back to life in the morgue or after being dead for multiple days.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/28/us/dead-m ... index.html

The first one on your list proves my point. The article states that the coroner only checked for a pulse. That was it. And in this case it was less than 24 hours, btw.

So, do you believe the man came back from the dead, or that the coroner made a mistake?

The others I grant you are surprising, but by no means imply Christ-like miracle resurrections. To me, they are clearly the result of errors made by the doctors and nurses.

Which substantiates the point I made above. In some cases, the doctor made an error. In others, the evidence provided is sufficient to believe they were dead. If the medical expert affirmed it, and with multiple procedures or staff to confirm it, my conviction can rest assured.

These are posted to show that the claim by Justin108 and other self proclaimed non-theists,

Does that make you a self proclaimed theist?

Sure, I am not ashamed of the Gospel. I affirm my belief in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and that He is the only way to everlasting life.

that people do not come back to life after being dead, is not correct.

Ok, but if I grant you this argument (which I don't), then resurrections aren't all that miraculous, and it cheapens the miracle of Jesus' resurrection.

If that were the only argument for the Lordship of Christ, or that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, or God in the flesh, then this point could be argued, but it is not the only thing the bible points to.

Once this claim or argument is proven false, then we can begin to move on to why a person can have a justified faith in Christ. This is not the only or sole reason, but just a proof that the argument against the resurrection as being impossible is mute.

Understood, but I maintain that human error is far more likely an explanation than the dead spontaneously coming back to life.

Do you contend otherwise?

Yes, I contend otherwise. Even above you admitted that the other links I provided were "surprising". The fact that these cases could affirm my belief surprised you but did not convince you, shows that there is more to what occurred than the human error you suppose above.

I agree that in some cases their could be human error, but when you have instances of review and confirmation by multiple medical professionals, to ignore all of these experts as a matter of choice shows me that you will reject new evidence if it does not comport with your pre-held belief or lack there of.

And no, you have not proven it false. None of those cases rule out human error. Which is a far more likely explanation. I'd love to hear an argument why it isn't.

Just because an explanation is more likely, that does not make it true. In the past, Einstien's theory of relativity was deemed highly unlikely by his peers and the experts of the day. In medicine, we know the healing property of certain herbs and plants, but since these are less profitable, it is a synthetic drug which is touted as the medicine of choice.

There are many cases where the most likely explanation ended up being incorrect. On one hand, you desire to rely on modern science and technology, but on the other hand when modern science (modern medicine in this case) gives a result you don't like, you choose to ignore the facts and pick a more likely explanation. I wish it were that simple for the rest of us.

[KenRU]

Cancer going into remission, is a far cry from a "miracle" resurrection.

Notice I did not indicate or imply remission. A person being healed, and cancer going into remission are two different things.

And remission can lead to no traces of said cancer, and thus healed.

There are numerous cases where a person was confirmed to have cancer, and then before operating on the tumor or affected area, tests on the day of surgery show the tumor is gone spontaneously.

And this proves what? Why are there no recorded cases of limbs growing back? An eye? Even a finger? Because a very mundane explanation of human error is the most likely explanation. It simply is not miraculous (as is the resurrection of Christ).

We are fallible humans, after all. No miracle explanation necessary.

It proves that people can be healed with no known natural cause or support.

No it doesnt. It proves that a person can be healed by no known method. You throw in the word natural to suit a preconceived bias.

This is the beginning of the definition of a miracle.

Sure, once you unnecessarily start eliminating natural explanations. No need to do so.

Rather than accept the truth, you state it is not necessary.

I did no such thing. Your conclusion is not necessarily the truth here. I will even admit that my explanations may not be the truth. I would need more evidence and data to claim I have the truth.

Image if everything in the natural sciences used this method of thinking. What ever we don't understand, an explanation is deemed unnecessary.

To me, that seems what you are doing: the doctors said the person is dead, now he isnt. It must be a miracle!

I say another answer is far more likely and more info is needed.

Imagine if the medical profession followed your advice? We dont know what happened, therefore god did it. Next patient.

There are cases of people growing back limbs, there are just not good records to support it.

I wonder why that is?

Even if there were good evidence, you would probably shift and ask why miracle X does not appear to be happening.

What do you consider good eviudence?

And, Im glad you are judging me and my critical thinking skills, based on nothing more to go on then a few posts here in this thread. Perhaps you should be more openminded?

This is a weak strategy to attempt to shift the goal post, when one's initial claim is proven incorrect, to shift and demand another one.

Nothing was proven false, and no, I am not demanding another answer. I asked you what point you were trying to make. I did not see where your point was going.

I am sure you will intimate that the initial test was more than likely wrong. If you would like I can provide numerous links where it was confirmed through multiple tests that these individuals had cancer. Their spontaneous healing, did not change the original diagnosis to "near cancer."

Understood. But your analogy falls short. Cancer has been shown to go into remission after all, especially if the cancer is being treated. So, I'm not sure your point. Being incorrectly pronounced dead (ignoring the blurry definition of what that truly and practically means) still doesn't equate to a 3 day old resurrection.

There are well documented instances of people being healed of cancer with no treatment. Remission is a diminution of the seriousness or intensity of disease. This occurs over time. A sudden healing will eliminate any trace of the disease, and is a totally different thing.

Once remission is complete, there is no trace of the disease.

Instead of following this same process, it is easier to describe a patient as near death rather than dead.

Well yes, because they currently aren't dead, and they were obviously not resurrected. Or are you contending they were?

I do not understand this statement. Please restate or reword.

Do you contend that the dead in the articles you provided were resurrected? Like Christ? If not, what are you contending then?

Just out of curiosity, do you find it more likely that people did come back from being dead (like Christ), or that they were incorrectly assumed to be dead?

I think both are likely.

Why?

In some cases the doctors were initially wrong. In other cases, the evidence of a person being in the morgue for multiple days, dead cold, is enough to substantiate that they did in fact die.

Human error (either in the reporting of the story, or the doctors diagnosis) is still more likely, imo.

If your argument is that it was a miracle, and that the dead came back to life, then one must necessarily ask why? Saying God Did It, is no explanation, because you dont know why god did it. And that makes it no different than chance, or human error. Because you are still no closer to knowing what happened, how and why.

There are even instances where people came back to life in the morgue or after being dead for multiple days.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/28/us/dead-m ... index.html

The first one on your list proves my point. The article states that the coroner only checked for a pulse. That was it. And in this case it was less than 24 hours, btw.

So, do you believe the man came back from the dead, or that the coroner made a mistake?

The others I grant you are surprising, but by no means imply Christ-like miracle resurrections. To me, they are clearly the result of errors made by the doctors and nurses.

Which substantiates the point I made above.

Nope, it shows I am willing to consider more likely scenarios than farfetched ones. I have no confirmation bias. I would love to be wrong and believe that god randomly resurrects the dead. Kind of like playing the lottery. But that belief is a leap of logic that is unwarranted.

The confirmation bias comes in when one does not have an explanation, and assumes magic. No different than assuming thunder is the work of Thors hammer, or that the devil possesses a person when in reality it is a mental illness. Absence of evidence does not mean the supernatural is at play.

In some cases, the doctor made an error. In others, the evidence provided is sufficient to believe they were dead. If the medical expert affirmed it, and with multiple procedures or staff to confirm it, my conviction can rest assured.

Do you know where these hospitals were? What credentials the doctors have? There are a lot of factors to consider before we discard the laws of nature.

And yes, I would examine every possible explanation before I assumed the laws of nature were subverted. That seems a wise course of action to me.

These are posted to show that the claim by Justin108 and other self proclaimed non-theists,

Does that make you a self proclaimed theist?

Sure, I am not ashamed of the Gospel. I affirm my belief in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and that He is the only way to everlasting life.

I meant no disrespect. But I am curious why you choose to include the words self-proclaimed in your post above.

that people do not come back to life after being dead, is not correct.

Ok, but if I grant you this argument (which I don't), then resurrections aren't all that miraculous, and it cheapens the miracle of Jesus' resurrection.

If that were the only argument for the Lordship of Christ, or that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, or God in the flesh, then this point could be argued, but it is not the only thing the bible points to.

So, in your view, it does cheapen it? I never said anything about other evidence, Im just curious if you are willing to admit that if this happens more often than we know (as your posts and links indicate) then it does indeed lessen the impact of Christs resurrection.

If it doesnt, why?

Once this claim or argument is proven false, then we can begin to move on to why a person can have a justified faith in Christ. This is not the only or sole reason, but just a proof that the argument against the resurrection as being impossible is mute.

Understood, but I maintain that human error is far more likely an explanation than the dead spontaneously coming back to life.

Do you contend otherwise?

Yes, I contend otherwise.

Please explain how human error is LESS LIKELY an explanation than spontaneous or godly resurrections.

Even above you admitted that the other links I provided were "surprising". The fact that these cases could affirm my belief surprised you but did not convince you, shows that there is more to what occurred than the human error you suppose above.

No, not even close. I can be surprised by many things that I am unfamiliar with. That doesnt mean one should leap to the least likely (a supernatural) explanation. Im baffled by this leap of logic you just made.

I find some card tricks amazing and surprising, but because I am poor at math, does it mean I should believe the person is a real magician? No, of course not.

If you dont know how a card trick is done, do you then leap to the conclusion real magic is at play? I hope not.

I agree that in some cases their could be human error, but when you have instances of review and confirmation by multiple medical professionals, to ignore all of these experts as a matter of choice shows me that you will reject new evidence if it does not comport with your pre-held belief or lack there of.

You would be wrong. Like I said above, I would need more data.

Yes, if any expert says something incredulous, I become skeptical. So should you. Its one thing for an expert to say, we found microbial life on mars. I would be mildly skeptical, but might believe it.

But if that same expert says we found golden cities created by aliens, then yes, I become very doubtful. You seem to be saying I shouldnt be.

Lets forget the fact that these same doctors (experts) have a vested interest in showing that they didnt mess up and incorrectly pronounce the patients death.

That is a pretty serious motive to lie, fabricate or otherwise blur the truth, wouldnt you say?

And no, you have not proven it false. None of those cases rule out human error. Which is a far more likely explanation. I'd love to hear an argument why it isn't.

Just because an explanation is more likely, that does not make it true.

Agreed.

In the past, Einstien's theory of relativity was deemed highly unlikely by his peers and the experts of the day. In medicine, we know the healing property of certain herbs and plants, but since these are less profitable, it is a synthetic drug which is touted as the medicine of choice.

There are many cases where the most likely explanation ended up being incorrect.

I agree that this occurs. But it doesnt mean that we suddenly stop trusting the laws of nature, just because an explanation isnt obvious.

On one hand, you desire to rely on modern science and technology, but on the other hand when modern science (modern medicine in this case) gives a result you don't like, you choose to ignore the facts and pick a more likely explanation.

Im not ignoring the facts, Im saying the facts are in dispute. Big difference.

I wish it were that simple for the rest of us.

It is. Simply dont invent an explanation when you dont have one.

I am quite willing to say that I do not know what happened to those individuals from your links. I have an opinion, but I dont know.

Can you say the same?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 348 by KenRU]

Wow, you really dissected my prior post. I wont respond to every single statement, but I will cover the major points and points of disagreement.

To begin, my initial post was in response to something stated by Justin108 where he stated that people do not come back to life, as if it has never occurred. I refuted his point, and provided additional links to support why I disagreed.

I will agree that it does not happen often, but I will not agree that it is impossible or does not happen.

Now, on you your comments

No it doesnt. It proves that a person can be healed by no known method. You throw in the word natural to suit a preconceived bias.

I could say the same of you, that you removed the word natural to suit a preconceived bias. Easy to accuse, hard to substantiate.

Sure, once you unnecessarily start eliminating natural explanations. No need to do so.

I have not done so. I agreed that in some cases the human error was the cause. In others it was not.

I did no such thing. Your conclusion is not necessarily the truth here. I will even admit that my explanations may not be the truth. I would need more evidence and data to claim I have the truth.

So although you do not have sufficient evidence to reject the results of medical professionals, you still seem to insist that a person cannot die and come back to life.

You espouse multiple references to the law of nature. Can you please stipulate the law which says a person that has died cannot come back to life. Please state your source for this law and corroborating evidence that this law has been generally accepted.

To me, that seems what you are doing: the doctors said the person is dead, now he isnt. It must be a miracle!

Nope. It goes more like this:

The doctors said person X is dead. Some days later, person X comes back to life and gives an account of what they experienced postmortem. (I have even read instances where the person describes the procedure the doctor was performing at the time they died, which they could not have known). The doctor then searches for how this could have occurred. The doctor even ask's colleagues to review. None of the experts can explain how the person knows what took place in the operating room, nor how the person could be alive. The doctors themselves declare it impossible.

At this point I recognize a miracle, because it is beyond the possibilities of man.

Do you contend that the dead in the articles you provided were resurrected? Like Christ? If not, what are you contending then?

No, there is a difference between being brought back to life and being resurrected. Even the bible makes a clear distinction between Lazarus who was brought back to life and Jesus who was resurrected.

This is not the appropriate forum to engage in a lecture on what the resurrection is, and what a person in a resurrected body will entail.

The point I was trying to make was to refute Justin108's statement that people do not come back to life, as if it never occurs.

Just out of curiosity, do you find it more likely that people did come back from being dead (like Christ), or that they were incorrectly assumed to be dead?

I think both are likely.

Why?

I believe I already answered this. I stated "In some cases the doctors were initially wrong. In other cases, the evidence of a person being in the morgue for multiple days, dead cold, is enough to substantiate that they did in fact die."

If your argument is that it was a miracle, and that the dead came back to life, then one must necessarily ask why? Saying God Did It, is no explanation, because you dont know why god did it. And that makes it no different than chance, or human error. Because you are still no closer to knowing what happened, how and why.

This assumes that everything is knowable and the cause is determinable by us. This is not the case. There are things which we can understand, and an honest person would realize that there are some things we just don't know.

Ask most doctors and they will agree, because unlike a laboratory environment, there is no control or ability to replicate the same thing 100%. Most science that we rely on assumes that things will remain the same. Once something changes the rules typically no longer apply. Medical professionals experience this more than other fields which is why they are more comfortable with the miraculous than other branches of science. (please don't think i am arguing against science or knowledge, I am just pointing out what sometimes takes place)

Nope, it shows I am willing to consider more likely scenarios than farfetched ones. I have no confirmation bias.

This statement in and of itself shows bias. You bias is to try and remain as unbiased as possible. A person who remains neutral has in fact chosen a side. They have chosen their own side.

Do you know where these hospitals were? What credentials the doctors have? There are a lot of factors to consider before we discard the laws of nature.

And yes, I would examine every possible explanation before I assumed the laws of nature were subverted. That seems a wise course of action to me.

I provided some links. There are more available if you would like to find out. If you want to examine all information, go ahead. Since you are the skeptic, the floor is yours to research.

I meant no disrespect. But I am curious why you choose to include the words self-proclaimed in your post above.

I did so to show that each person is making a decision. Often, some proclaim that they didn't choose to be a non-theist. I believe Justin108 was one of these in a prior thread where we discussed is belief a choice. So by writing self-proclaimed it was to demonstrate the willful action required.

If that were the only argument for the Lordship of Christ, or that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, or God in the flesh, then this point could be argued, but it is not the only thing the bible points to.

[So, in your view, it does cheapen it? I never said anything about other evidence, Im just curious if you are willing to admit that if this happens more often than we know (as your posts and links indicate) then it does indeed lessen the impact of Christs resurrection.

If it doesnt, why?/quote]
No it does not cheapen it. It instead strengthens it because since people coming back to life does occur even in our present day and age, then the records of a resurrected Christ are not far fetched or impossible. Some try to argue that Christ could not have been resurrected because we don't see people coming back to life today. I refuted that thought, and provided links to support.

In addition, if one were truly unbiased as you stated earlier, then why would there be any effort in trying to "lessen the impact" of Christ's resurrection. There is a bias already present which desires to repudiate any information that may support the resurrection. If not, why try and lessen it?

Please explain how human error is LESS LIKELY an explanation than spontaneous or godly resurrections.

In some cases, where human error was guarded against by following established procedures, one can deem human error to be a less likely cause. In addition, when the facts of how much time passed after the person was declared dead and the state of their body, all add up to more than human error.

A human can make an error and declare a person dead. That error does not result in a person's body becoming cold, pale and cessation of organ activity. A time of death on a chart does not impact bodily function. When you have the corroborating evidence of what was recorded as bodily function or lack there of, this can lead to an acknowledgement that human error was not the cause of the death.

Yes, if any expert says something incredulous, I become skeptical. So should you. Its one thing for an expert to say, we found microbial life on mars. I would be mildly skeptical, but might believe it.

But if that same expert says we found golden cities created by aliens, then yes, I become very doubtful. You seem to be saying I shouldnt be.

Lets forget the fact that these same doctors (experts) have a vested interest in showing that they didnt mess up and incorrectly pronounce the patients death.

That is a pretty serious motive to lie, fabricate or otherwise blur the truth, wouldnt you say?

This is why I do not believe human error to always be more likely. The same vested interest can also prefer to declare a person "near death" than actually died and come back to life.

Imagine you are a heart surgeon and you have to give an account of how a patient you were operating on died during surgery and a couple days later came back to life. After review, the doctor has no explanation, but realizes if he writes the patient was near death, it will be accepted more than if he wrote what actually took place.

Subsequent human error or ego's can also lead to the conclusion I am stating is possible.

Im not ignoring the facts, Im saying the facts are in dispute. Big difference.

If that is your position, I cannot argue with you. I can only implore you to look for yourself.

I am quite willing to say that I do not know what happened to those individuals from your links. I have an opinion, but I dont know.

Rather than invent my own theory, in certain cases I accept the testimony of the individuals in which these events occurred.

[The Tanager]

That's completely beside the point. My point is that, in both my scenario and yours, people make a priori probability judgments. I don't care how many details you add, the a priori probability judgments is that people coming back from the dead is very very unlikely. If people did not make a priori probability judgments, my claim that I had breakfast with Abraham Lincoln would be no different from my claim that I had breakfast with my girlfriend.

My point is that a priori judgments are not enough when talking about what historically happened. That's not beside the point at all. If you stick with a priori probability judgments you would conclude in every specific case that Person X did not win the lottery. But then you add details that should change that judgment in some cases. Not taking account of the details added to a priori probability is irrational.

Ok I was having breakfast with Abraham Lincoln this morning. Now without using a priori probability, give me a good reason why you would doubt me.

You have given me no evidence to back it up. Without more than just your unsupported claim, then I am rational to doubt you based on a priori probability. With the resurrection, we have evidence supporting the claim: the empty tomb, the teachings/actions of the Christian movement. Therefore, it is no longer rational to turn to a priori probability.

"I don't know, something else" does not rely on the dead coming back to life. In my books, it makes it a better explanation. Maybe not in details, but in probability.

Unfortunately for your theory, rational beliefs about history are concerned with the details and will only result to probability if there are no details.

Earlier, you claimed that Jesus' resurrection was the best explanation because there were no alternate explanations. My Michael Jackson theory, in this scenario, is also the best explanation because we have no other explanations for who killed the victim. Going by your logic, Michael Jackson coming back from the dead is just as valuable an explanation as Jesus coming back from the dead.

I claimed the resurrection actually occuring was the best explanation because it fit the facts whereas the alternate explanations do not fit (or just ignore) the facts.

In your Michael Jackson scenario all you have is a claim with no other facts. Therefore, the rational belief rests on prior probability between at least two theories: a resuscitated King of Pop or a human serial killer. The rational person chooses the human serial killer UNLESS facts come into play that change the balance. You don't have additional facts in your scenario; the history of Jesus' death and possible resurrection does.

So unless we can prove something is impossible, all things should be believed? If I said I am actually a time traveler from the year 5000, you would have to believe me unless you can prove that time travel is impossible?

Which is more likely? That I was born in the year 1990? Or that I was born in the year 5000 and traveled back in time? And how did you come to this conclusion if not through a priori probability judgment?

Do you really think I am claiming something as ridiculous as this? Nothing I said should make you think that.

A priori probability is not enough to base a rational historical conclusion on when we have evidence concerning the specific event to take into account. At that point you either need to [1] make sense of the specific facts or [2] show that a specific theory is logically impossible so that you don't have to look at the specific facts. That was my point.

Your time traveler scenario is playing the same role as your Michael Jackson and breakfast scenarios. Without evidence we can rely on a priori probability. But give me evidence (knowledge of future-to-me events, crazy technology, whatever) to sway the balance of rationality and I should no longer rely on a priori probability. To rationally maintain my belief that you are lying I would need to come up with an explanation (specific or general) that fits the evidence or facts you bring to light...OR...I could argue that time travel is logically impossible.

In our discussion you are taking neither of these approaches (explain the facts or prove the resurrection actually occuring is logically impossible) and falling back on a priori probability. I think that is an irrational move.