Discussing ideas to do with The Resurrection

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #81]

In short then, I am approaching these not knowing they are a matter of fact but believing that they are, and saying why I have said belief.

Thus - for the sake of this discussion - I believe as a matter of fact that a resurrection happened, but I do not KNOW as a matter of fact that a resurrection happened.

Does that help clarify for you how I am approaching this?

I think that clarifies things, but always feel free to correct any misunderstandings of mine that crop up.

Agreed and please do likewise with anything you feel requires correction re any misunderstandings of mine that crop up.

You are saying let's assume Jesus resurrected and talk about how that came to happen and the implications thereof?

Yes - moreso, the possible ways in which this might have come to happen. In that, we are not trying to convince each other so much as discuss. I think if we approach it that way we can avoid the debating reflex while still agreeing or disagreeing with the logical aspect we each might present.

I would offer that God brought it about by supernaturally transforming a real, dead body into a glorified, alive body as a public and divine confirmation of Jesus' claims about being the divine Messiah.

I agree that Jesus' claims prior to the event purports he claimed to represent what he regarded as the divine and that he referred to this entity as his "Father" specifically and "our Father" generally.

I would offer that this entity "Father" is not to be regarded by me as a "supernatural" entity until such a time as I know for sure what it is you are meaning by that.

Do you mean the following

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
supernatural
/ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l/
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
"a supernatural being"

If so, then I can agree with that definition. Otherwise you will need to explain what definition you are using.

In support of this, I would say that we have no evidence that natural resurrections can occur.

Given the definition of supernatural as I have agreed to (which may differ from yours) I can agree that resurrections do not appear in the natural world and need to be attributed beyond current scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
In that use of the word "current" I have changed the definition to include the idea that Scientific understanding is not static.

God, as the Creator of all of life, has the authority and power to overturn death.

I do not agree or disagree on that at this point.

Jesus also taught that God would raise Him (also that He would raise Himself) from the dead prior to His death and resurrection.

In that, it would need to be explained then which happened. Did God raise Jesus or did Jesus raise himself from the dead? Did Jesus say after the event? If so, we can go along with whatever it is he said, as it may not matter WHO did it.

What alternative(s) would you offer and what support of that?

None at present until I can understand what what you mean by 'support'?

What support have you offered re your understanding of the story, given we both are coming from the position of belief in said stories, we can agree that the stories themselves support the resurrection - thus I need to know why support is needed for any alternate explanation. Perhaps you mean "extra" support? If so, what extra support have you offered with your explanation?

To clarify - we both already agree that the bible stories support the belief that Jesus was alive then dead and then alive again.

Since we have yet to agree with the definition of "supernatural" re you explanation as to how this phenomena occurred, we probably cannot move to what support we have for this being or not being the case.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #1]

Yes - moreso, the possible ways in which this might have come to happen. In that, we are not trying to convince each other so much as discuss. I think if we approach it that way we can avoid the debating reflex while still agreeing or disagreeing with the logical aspect we each might present.

What all do you mean by the “debating reflex”? Are you wanting to have no discussion of the merits or reasons for and against either of our positions, for example?

Given the definition of supernatural as I have agreed to (which may differ from yours) I can agree that resurrections do not appear in the natural world and need to be attributed beyond current scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
In that use of the word "current" I have changed the definition to include the idea that Scientific understanding is not static.

I do agree with the definition you gave, but not as you seem to be understanding it. You seem to focus on the “attributed” part in that it is currently attributed to a force beyond scientific understanding, but that someday it won’t be. Supernatural, as traditionally understood, is not a synonym of “unknown”.

In that, it would need to be explained then which happened. Did God raise Jesus or did Jesus raise himself from the dead? Did Jesus say after the event? If so, we can go along with whatever it is he said, as it may not matter WHO did it.

They are both true if God is a Trinity as Christianity claims.

None at present until I can understand what what you mean by 'support'?

By “support” I mean any reason(s) we should think any theory is true.

What support have you offered re your understanding of the story, given we both are coming from the position of belief in said stories, we can agree that the stories themselves support the resurrection - thus I need to know why support is needed for any alternate explanation. Perhaps you mean "extra" support? If so, what extra support have you offered with your explanation?

I offered that (1) there is no evidence that natural resurrections happen, (2) God (a supernatural being), as the Creator of all of life, would have the authority and power to overturn death, and (3) Jesus predicted His resurrection via God’s power. If those three things are true, this would support that the resurrection was a supernatural act.

[William]

Supernatural, as traditionally understood, is not a synonym of “unknown”.

When you make such statement please don't assume that the reader understands what "as traditionally understood" signifies and be aware that you ought explain that as if the reader does not know the details...this ought apply to all such statements made.

What I will do in cases such as these, is consult AI to give a summary. In this case, AI has returned with...

Based on our exchange, here is a summary of the key points of agreement and disagreement:

Your Stated Position:

You agree with the definition of "supernatural" as something "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

You interpret the phrase "scientific understanding" to mean current scientific understanding, which is not static. Therefore, something unexplained today (like a resurrection) could potentially be explained by future science.

The Other Person's (T's) Clarification:

T agrees with the same definition but clarifies its traditional meaning.

T argues that "supernatural" is not a synonym for the "currently unknown."

The key distinction is that "supernatural" refers to phenomena that are in principle beyond scientific explanation and the laws of nature, not just phenomena that science hasn't explained yet.

The Core Disagreement:
The central point of contention is the nature of the boundary:

Your view: The boundary is temporary and moves as science advances.

T's view: The boundary is permanent; the "supernatural" is defined as that which exists outside the realm of scientific inquiry by its very nature.

Is AI correct in its summary?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #3]

When you make such statement please don't assume that the reader understands what "as traditionally understood" signifies and be aware that you ought explain that as if the reader does not know the details...this ought apply to all such statements made.

What I will do in cases such as these, is consult AI to give a summary. In this case, AI has returned with...

To me, it still seems like you are missing my main point about our two definitions and your AI summary, especially in it's use of "boundary" doesn't help to get at that.

You are saying that things that exist can move across the boundary from being considered "supernatural" to being considered "natural" as new evidence comes forth, right? That is what it sounds like to me.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #4]

To me, it still seems like you are missing my main point about our two definitions and your AI summary, especially in it's use of "boundary" doesn't help to get at that.

You are saying that things that exist can move across the boundary from being considered "supernatural" to being considered "natural" as new evidence comes forth, right? That is what it sounds like to me.

Then for now we can disregard the necessity of explaining or understanding each others definitions before proceeding.

You have offered what you think of as support for both The Creator as a supernatural being, and for your definition of supernatural.

I agree that...
...Support = defined as "reason(s) we should think any theory is true."

My understanding of supernatural.

Underlying Causes:
The concept emerged as humans developed symbolic thought, sought explanations for dreams and death, and structured their societies around rituals and beliefs in invisible agents, eventually formalizing these ideas through religion and philosophy.
The idea of the supernatural developed gradually over thousands of years as a product of human cultural and cognitive evolution. It was not a single invention but a slow process.

I see no "traditional definition" as shown to being true/truth/truthful. I can reject that on the grounds that it is more recent "tradition" that ancient. Therefore, I do not base my theory on any definition of supernatural.

My Alternate theory
We exist within a created thing (simulation) and that biblical miracles could be explained as superintelligent tech which involves those on the one side interacting with those one the other side...and there is no supernatural thing actually occurring...

I offered that (1) there is no evidence that natural resurrections happen, (2) God (a supernatural being), as the Creator of all of life, would have the authority and power to overturn death, and (3) Jesus predicted His resurrection via God’s power. If those three things are true, this would support that the resurrection was a supernatural act.

My support is the same as yours.

1: The lack of natural resurrections. This is because the tech was used specific to the Jesus Story. Our universe, including its laws of nature, is a created artifact - a simulation or a designed system.

2: God's (as a natural being) personal creator of impersonal creation which can and is imbued with personage (life) and that life was not created. That life is The Creator and it is within the capability as Creator for the creator to enter the creation (for the personal to enter the impersonal). The Creator is a Superintelligent Technologist et al.

3: Jesus's own prophecy. Jesus by his own words was in the know as to his fathers plans et al...and thus could repeat this into the reality experience of being human to those around him. While the reporting may appear to be predictive from those not in the know, it is nonetheless the act of reporting.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #5]

Then for now we can disregard the necessity of explaining or understanding each others definitions before proceeding.

I don't see how we can communicate without understanding the terms we each are using.

When you say:

We exist within a created thing (simulation) and that biblical miracles could be explained as superintelligent tech which involves those on the one side interacting with those one the other side...and there is no supernatural thing actually occurring...

"Supernatural" in my sense (which you seem to say you don't need to understand)? If not, I have no idea what you mean by "supernatural" here, so I can't respond to it.

Without clarifying 'supernatural' and 'natural' (and maybe more) I have no idea what you mean by "superintelligent tech" helping those on either "side" interact with each other in a non-supernatural way. Or why you think a lack of natural resurrections supports your theory. Or why the other supports you offered support your theory.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #5]

Then for now we can disregard the necessity of explaining or understanding each others definitions before proceeding.

I don't see how we can communicate without understanding the terms we each are using.

When you say:

We exist within a created thing (simulation) and that biblical miracles could be explained as superintelligent tech which involves those on the one side interacting with those one the other side...and there is no supernatural thing actually occurring...

"Supernatural" in my sense (which you seem to say you don't need to understand)? If not, I have no idea what you mean by "supernatural" here, so I can't respond to it.

Without clarifying 'supernatural' and 'natural' (and maybe more) I have no idea what you mean by "superintelligent tech" helping those on either "side" interact with each other in a non-supernatural way. Or why you think a lack of natural resurrections supports your theory. Or why the other supports you offered support your theory.

The following is what I mean as to my defining "debating reflex".

Of course we can still discuss without agreeing with or understanding what the other is meaning because we can at least get the gist and any misunderstandings can be addressed.
I am certain that any reader can understand what my theory means and what I said about my position on supernaturalism is. That isn't a problem.

I get the gist of your "traditional supernaturalism" and have explained why I don't agree with using that as a template re the beliefs we agree with and are discussing. There is no requirement therefore, to abandon the discussion because it is not using general method of debating. It is simply two souls saying/sharing why they believe the Bible stories are true. The reader has the opportunity to consider both explanations.
(In my minds eye "the reader" is Compassionalist, to give it a personality...)

You ought not have problem with this as we both agreed in 2 other threads where we were debating, to take it into the chat section of the debate forum

Okay - so in looking at the thread subject we are focusing on the particular event - Jesus rising from the dead.

I think at this point we might be better then to start our own thread. What is your preference - have the thread created in a debate forum - perhaps 1 on 1 - or in the informal chat section?

My preference is to engage this as informal chat.

As well as this, we have been discussing things in the other thread, and there may be an opportunity to also create a thread for that, or include it in the one new thread.

It sounds good to me to create a new thread for this and for it to be informal. Go ahead and start it and let me know where it is. Looking forward to it.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #7]

The following is what I mean as to my defining "debating reflex".

Of course we can still discuss without agreeing with or understanding what the other is meaning because we can at least get the gist and any misunderstandings can be addressed.
I am certain that any reader can understand what my theory means and what I said about my position on supernaturalism is. That isn't a problem.

But when I ask for clarification, you aren't giving it.

I get the gist of your "traditional supernaturalism" and have explained why I don't agree with using that as a template re the beliefs we agree with and are discussing.

It's not clear that you do get the gist. If you really do, then it seems you aren't interested in how I want to discuss things and only interested in your own agenda, which would be off putting.

There is no requirement therefore, to abandon the discussion because it is not using general method of debating. It is simply two souls saying/sharing why they believe the Bible stories are true. The reader has the opportunity to consider both explanations.
(In my minds eye "the reader" is Compassionalist, to give it a personality...)

I'm a reader too, but I can't consider your explanation because it's not clear to me what you are talking about.

You ought not have problem with this as we both agreed in 2 other threads where we were debating, to take it into the chat section of the debate forum

Which obviously means something particular to you that is different than what it means to me, but you won't let me in on that secret.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #8]

But when I ask for clarification, you aren't giving it.

I think that I have clarified enough that the reader ought understand. If you like you can point to what I said as to what you feel needs clarifying and I will pass that by AI to see if it understand what I am saying, which may in turn help you to get the gist.

But what we agreed to was the following.

Me: I think that clarifies things, but always feel free to correct any misunderstandings of mine that crop up.

You: Agreed and please do likewise with anything you feel requires correction re any misunderstandings of mine that crop up.

Thus far, I have clarified that we agreed to have an informal chat about the subject matter - not a debate. This means that if we get the gist we can continue on. We ought not need to agree with each others explanations in order to do this.

I get the gist of your "traditional supernaturalism" and have explained why I don't agree with using that as a template re the beliefs we agree with and are discussing.

It's not clear that you do get the gist.

Then always feel free to correct any misunderstandings of mine that crop up. Or if you are not sure that I do or don't then you can carry on with your explanation and if it becomes apparent to you that I don't, you can correct any misunderstandings.

If you really do, then it seems you aren't interested in how I want to discuss things and only interested in your own agenda, which would be off putting.

It is probably best not to infer things about me personally or my agenda. I would appreciate that.

I'm a reader too, but I can't consider your explanation because it's not clear to me what you are talking about.

Perhaps then you can run it by an AI and see if it has the same problem or helps give a clarity which you can then bring back to this informal chat.

I understand you are a reader but one cannot gauge if other readers understand me by your apparent difficulty in understanding me, if you get the gist...

You ought not have problem with this as we both agreed in 2 other threads where we were debating, to take it into the chat section of the debate forum

Which obviously means something particular to you that is different than what it means to me, but you won't let me in on that secret.

How is it obvious if you are also saying that you don't understand me?

There is no conspiracy re being "secretive" that is real. I am simply sharing my explanation alongside you own.

__________________________

Do you want to carry on offering the reader you explanation? Do you have more things to present re that?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #9]

I'm good ending things here. As usual, we just have two very different ways of interacting. Have a wonderful weekend, William.