How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #670]

First off, what do you think my claim here has been? I need to know if I need to correct you on that before I then defend my actual claim. (1) That claiming the resurrection actually occurred or that it didn’t occur is a (here is the important bit) philosophical claim built off of historical data or (2) that the resurrection actually occurred?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #663]

The supernatural would be some force or thing outside of the natural world. Magic would be a type of supernaturalism. Christianity would be a different type of supernaturalism.

What this implies is that whatever the "force or thing outside of the natural world" is, it appears to be dualistic and even at odds with itself, so how can such a thing be trusted in crediting it with the creation of the physical universe let alone worshiping it, et al?

[The Tanager]

What this implies is that whatever the "force or thing outside of the natural world" is, it appears to be dualistic and even at odds with itself, so how can such a thing be trusted in crediting it with the creation of the physical universe let alone worshiping it, et al?

Why do you think it would be dualistic and even at odds with itself?

[William]

What this implies is that whatever the "force or thing outside of the natural world" is, it appears to be dualistic and even at odds with itself, so how can such a thing be trusted in crediting it with the creation of the physical universe let alone worshiping it, et al?

Why do you think it would be dualistic and even at odds with itself?

You wrote that the supernatural would be some force or thing outside of the natural world. Magic would be a type of supernaturalism. Christianity would be a different type of supernaturalism.

Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that there is a difference say - between the "magic" of paganism and "miracles" of Christianity or between say - supposed supernatural beings, such as the "demons" and "angels" of Christian lore?

[The Tanager]

You wrote that the supernatural would be some force or thing outside of the natural world. Magic would be a type of supernaturalism. Christianity would be a different type of supernaturalism.

Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that there is a difference say - between the "magic" of paganism and "miracles" of Christianity or between say - supposed supernatural beings, such as the "demons" and "angels" of Christian lore?

If one talks of the difference of horses and unicorns, does that mean they are asserting that both actually exist in reality and are at odds with itself? I’m not saying magic and Christianity both exist. But even if I were, that wouldn’t mean an overarching Supernaturalism encompasses them both as itself and, therefore, would be at odds with itself; it would mean that there are different supernatural forces that are at odds with the other.

[William]

You wrote that the supernatural would be some force or thing outside of the natural world. Magic would be a type of supernaturalism. Christianity would be a different type of supernaturalism.

Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that there is a difference say - between the "magic" of paganism and "miracles" of Christianity or between say - supposed supernatural beings, such as the "demons" and "angels" of Christian lore?

If one talks of the difference of horses and unicorns, does that mean they are asserting that both actually exist in reality and are at odds with itself? I’m not saying magic and Christianity both exist. But even if I were, that wouldn’t mean an overarching Supernaturalism encompasses them both as itself and, therefore, would be at odds with itself; it would mean that there are different supernatural forces that are at odds with the other.

Well is that what your philosophical statement was implying? That there are "different supernatural forces" that are at odds with each other?

[The Tanager]

Well is that what your philosophical statement was implying? That there are "different supernatural forces" that are at odds with each other?

No, my statement simply said that there are different kinds of supernaturalisms. I do believe there are different supernatural forces at odds with each other (although not magic and Christianity).

I don't see how this implies that "whatever the "force or thing outside of the natural world" is, it appears to be dualistic and even at odds with itself, so how can such a thing be trusted in crediting it with the creation of the physical universe let alone worshiping it, et al?" Forces are at odd with each other, not a force at odd with itself because "supernaturalism" isn't one force. So, this is no reason to not trust God with the creation of the physical universe, let alone not worship God.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #677]

So, this is no reason to not trust God with the creation of the physical universe, let alone not worship God.

That would depend upon what the entity claiming to be God, wanted us to trust and what the definition of worship was.

How does one test such re 2 Corinthians 11:14?

[The Tanager]

No, my statement simply said that there are different kinds of supernaturalisms. I do believe there are different supernatural forces at odds with each other (although not magic and Christianity).

I don't see how this implies that "whatever the "force or thing outside of the natural world" is, it appears to be dualistic and even at odds with itself, so how can such a thing be trusted in crediting it with the creation of the physical universe let alone worshiping it, et al?" Forces are at odd with each other, not a force at odd with itself because "supernaturalism" isn't one force. So, this is no reason to not trust God with the creation of the physical universe, let alone not worship God.

So, this is no reason to not trust God with the creation of the physical universe, let alone not worship God.

That would depend upon what the entity claiming to be God, wanted us to trust and what the definition of worship was.

How does one test such re 2 Corinthians 11:14?

No, it would not depend on that. No matter what entity we are talking about, it would not be shown to be untrustworthy as a creator or not worthy of worship simply because it exists within some sort of dualistic reality. It may be shown untrustworthy as creator and the one to worship for other reasons, but not the reason you originally claimed and I responded to.

The way Paul advises us to test truth is carefully. Specifically, in 2 Cor 11:14, he is saying truth isn’t judged by the speaker’s prowess or how much money the speaker gets.

[Diogenes]

No, I’m claiming that there is good evidence of the resurrection, via historical and philosophical reasoning involving physical occurrences.

I claim there is no "good evidence of the resurrection," and am curious about what you call "philosophical reasoning involving physical occurrences." I am aware of none.

There is no competent evidence of a resurrection, tho' it is often claimed by various religions as it is a common religious and mythic motif.

Resurrection or anastasis is the concept of coming back to life after death. In a number of religions, a dying-and-rising god is a deity which dies and is resurrected. Reincarnation is a similar process hypothesized by other religions, which involves the same person or deity coming back to another body. Disappearance of a body is another similar, but distinct, belief in some religions.

With the advent of written records, the earliest known recurrent theme of resurrection was in Egyptian and Canaanite religions, which had cults of dying-and-rising gods such as Osiris and Baal. Ancient Greek religion generally emphasised immortality, but in the mythos a number of men and women were made physically immortal as they were resurrected from the dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection

The 'evidence' in the gospels is at least double hearsay from anonymous authors. I've always thought it significant that the only NT author we can identify (Paul) who makes this claim never saw Jesus before or after the resurrection (accept in a rather dubious vision or hallucination which he reports only after 3 days of being in extremis for three days with no water. The contradictions in the Gospels' anonymous accounts have been pointed out by many including Thomas Sheehan in The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity
https://infidels.org/library/modern/tho ... rstcoming/

It is telling that Christians only contend that their claim of the physically impossible resurrection is true and supported historically. Or do Christians admit to a belief in reincarnation?