Impracticality of resurrection

[Willum]

That a man, or men were brought back from the dead is often trivialized, by saying “God can do anything.“

Resurrection, is practically, very difficult. It would be easier to blacken 1000 stars, have a married bachelor, create a triangle with angles whose sum exceeds 180, and so on, than it would be to resurrect a body three days dead.

I find the statement, “God can do anything,” intellectually lazy, and as a justification, poor, one any eight-year-old could come up with, and write it in a book.

Further, for all of its impossibility, it is not a very effective way to tell the truth. A reasonable man, even several reasonable eyewitnesses and several accounts of such an event, would explain it more reasonably as a large scale deception or magicians trick.

Certainly an omniscience deity could trivially discover a better way.

The topic for debate is twofold, why would an omniscient God use such an ineffective method for communicating the truth, and why, would any reasonable person to believe this method?

[brunumb]

[Replying to Willum in post #1]

It seems very circular to me. God is used to support the resurrection and the resurrection is used to support God.

[bjs1]

Resurrection, is practically, very difficult. It would be easier to blacken 1000 stars, have a married bachelor, create a triangle with angles whose sum exceeds 180, and so on, than it would be to resurrect a body three days dead.

On the surface this statement appears to be false. While one could argue about the nature of power required for such an act, a resurrection does not appear to violate the laws of logic. Can you explain what makes resurrection logically impossible?

[Willum]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #3]

I did not say LOGICALLY impossible.
But if it is impossible, it must also be logically impossible.
I suppose the logic is that there is absolutely no reason for a being of that description to perform the act, being aware of and able to create or modify all possible outcomes.

So, there is logical disproof of the resurrection by a god with necessary requirements/abilities to do it.
It is also a logically impractical gesture, for such a being, why would it do it? The investment is illogical.

But it is physically impossible as well. There are 37 trillion cells in the human body, Assuming these are all dead, oxidized and rotting a being would have to reverse this damage on a level sufficient to restore life. There is simply no mechanism to do this, even for a fraction of the cells that would be required for a resurrection.

[theophile]

That a man, or men were brought back from the dead is often trivialized, by saying “God can do anything.“

Resurrection, is practically, very difficult. It would be easier to blacken 1000 stars, have a married bachelor, create a triangle with angles whose sum exceeds 180, and so on, than it would be to resurrect a body three days dead.

I find the statement, “God can do anything,” intellectually lazy, and as a justification, poor, one any eight-year-old could come up with, and write it in a book.

Further, for all of its impossibility, it is not a very effective way to tell the truth. A reasonable man, even several reasonable eyewitnesses and several accounts of such an event, would explain it more reasonably as a large scale deception or magicians trick.

Certainly an omniscience deity could trivially discover a better way.

The topic for debate is twofold, why would an omniscient God use such an ineffective method for communicating the truth, and why, would any reasonable person to believe this method?

For the record, I don't think anyone ever actually came back from the dead. Not yet. Rather, we should take examples like Jesus' resurrection as the literary fulfillment (or literary first fruits) of the broader biblical narrative (/cosmic movement) that we're called to join and give our power to. There's no better passage for this than 1 Corinthians 15:24-26:

"Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

In other words, it's only at the end that death is destroyed and we have the power or even possibility of resurrection. Until then, you're right: it is completely impractical / impossible.

What we have to understand about the biblical narrative (/cosmic movement) is that it involves an opening up of possibilities over time. The conditions of possibility change, all the way to the eventual (/hopeful) state where all things are at last possible for God because all power is finally God's. Even the power to do things that are currently impossible.

(While not the same thing and orders of complexity lower, scientists are now confident that many of us will experience in our lifetime the ability to reverse aging. That wasn't in the realm of possibility decades ago, but is now. As such, science is one of the primary means by which we change the conditions of possibility over time and will (hopefully) fulfill this destiny of conquering death. But God knows how far in the future that will be. At the same time, what's billions of years waiting when you're dead? )

[Willum]

You’re alone in that view, and I don’t feel obligated or able to comment on what one individual imagines or “makes up” scriptures to say.

So…

Good luck with it?

[We_Are_VENOM]

That a man, or men were brought back from the dead is often trivialized, by saying “God can do anything.“

That an organism, or organisms can evolve into a different kind of organism is often trivialized, by saying "over hundreds of millions of years, anything can happen".

Resurrection, is practically, very difficult.

Macroevolution, is practically, very difficult.

It would be easier to blacken 1000 stars, have a married bachelor, create a triangle with angles whose sum exceeds 180, and so on, than it would be to resurrect a body three days dead.

It would be easier to blacken 1000 stars, have a married bachelor, create a triangle with angles whose sum exceeds 180, and so on, than it would be for dead (inanimate) matter to suddenly or gradually come to life to life and begin to think, talk, and have sex.

I find the statement, “God can do anything,” intellectually lazy, and as a justification, poor, one any eight-year-old could come up with, and write it in a book.

I find the statement "Over the course of a hundred million years, anything can happen" intellectually lazy and a poor justification of how things work in the natural world.

Further, for all of its impossibility, it is not a very effective way to tell the truth. A reasonable man, even several reasonable eyewitnesses and several accounts of such an event, would explain it more reasonably as a large scale deception or magicians trick.

Mother nature can apparently conduct tricks as well.

Life from dead matter. Reptiles evolving into birds. Universes from nothing.

There is your God, right there.

Certainly an omniscience deity could trivially discover a better way.

Well when you become an omni-being, perhaps you can show us how its done.

The topic for debate is twofold, why would an omniscient God use such an ineffective method for communicating the truth, and why, would any reasonable person to believe this method?

When I can identify a problem, I will offer a solution.

[Willum]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #7]

Sadly, only if one is uneducated about how life is known to have formed, and how life is believed to have formed.

Please fail to review the episode of:
How the Universe Works, the Origin of Life.

That way you can continue to undermine the topic with non-sequitur comments, with the same level of confidence.

You can also see documentation of what you call macroevolution, since you haven't been following science for a few decades apparently, here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0467-9
And confirmation of testing here:
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... r-organism

Really, if your religion insists you be ignorant of OBSERVATION, not even science especially, you KNOW it is incorrect.

The statement you are failing to criticize is this: Given billions of years, a source of energy and an abundance of peptides and adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T), life will almost certainly arise.

I am both tired and annoyed at having to educate you.
Especially since you will deny and not learn from the post, and continue to insist on your right to not only be ignorant of them, but fail to learn from what is posted.

Which still leaves the statement, "God can do anything," childish and intellectually lazy, as your counter statements have been dismissed.

[oldbadger]

The topic for debate is twofold, why would an omniscient God use such an ineffective method for communicating the truth, and why, would any reasonable person to believe this method?

Willum....... I don't know.
I don't know why an omniscient God would bother with this tiny star system amongst trillions, in a universe (possibility) amongst trillions. That's got to be answered before we could think about God making self in to a recently evolved human that can resurrect itself., What a daft spin!

And we can forget the Lazarus story...... John's gospel just had to be better than the other stories....

But I can see why Christianity would spin this resurrection story for the purpose of convincing masses of people to do what they are told. If you do what you're told you can have this..'everlasting life'.. like your God, or if you don't do what we say you can have this..'everlasting torture never-ending'.... Now take your pick.....

The Romans could only produce a three day execution of self-driven torture. Christianity can manage torture for eternity. Hence the resurrection story is most important for them.

[oldbadger]

Can you explain what makes resurrection logically impossible?

That's easy.
If you read the Gospels you will find so many Christian insertions, edits, fiddles and changes in the story that there is so little credibility left that there's none to gulp down the final fib, that God bothered with humans on a tiny star system amongst trillions.

So we would first have to believe the Christian story, sieve out the contradictions and outright fibs, figure out 'why us, why here?' before we could even both with resurrection.

It's just not logical.