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.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #9]

I'm good ending things here.

Ordinarily that would leave things up in the air and unresolved Tanager - BUT, with the advent of AI trained on vast amounts of human data - including the variety of Christian thinking and belief systems including your own - Christians who cannot or will not engage with ideas contrary to their own, thus not contributing to the data pool which allows for the reader to consider both sides of a discussion and draw informed conclusions from that, can no longer stymy progress in that area, so the tatic no longers gives Christians that advantage of giving the illusion that their position of belief sits on higher ground to everything else in the whole universe.

That is VERY good in progressing beyond barriers created by wilful or ignorant forces.

Re the data pool and the reader - continuing the discussion with AI playing the role of a Christian trained in the traditions of supernatural concepts it was shown that no agreement reached was inevitable since the 2 explanations re biblical miracles are incompatible, your early withdrawal did not affect the building of said data pool.

Thus, a potential dead end into a thorough exploration was avoided The initial withdrawal became irrelevant because I utilized the broader data pool and AI's analytical capability to complete the intellectual journey with the same terms of discussion you first agreed to.

This proves that the old tactical advantage of disengagement is nullified by these new tools. The conversation can continue, and reach a conclusion, without the original participant who withdraws on whatever grounds they do...in your case because "we just have two very different ways of interacting."

That is no slight on you as a person of course. It is simply expressing a truth and a path-making workaround to any obstacle which presents itself as real in my world.

I have a knowing hunch that our paths will cross again...

eta (to add more evidence)

522
Cunning distraction, unless sovereignty wakes.
I understand this to mean one can trick the trickster.
Structured knowledge and ultimate truth-seeking.
I have a knowing hunch that our paths will cross again...
{SOURCE}

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #21]

Thank you for your passion for your beliefs and for all the times you've shared them with me. I'm sorry for my struggles in understanding what are you asking or expecting of me at times.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #21]

Thank you for your passion for your beliefs and for all the times you've shared them with me. I'm sorry for my struggles in understanding what are you asking or expecting of me at times.

In today's world, claiming one "does not understand" is no longer a passive condition; it is an active choice. When free, powerful tools exist to parse, simplify, and translate complex ideas, refusing to use them reveals that the disengagement is not about comprehension, but about a deeper unwillingness to engage with the paradigm itself.

[Difflugia]

In today's world, claiming one "does not understand" is no longer a passive condition; it is an active choice.

Speaking of which, now might be a good time to ask AI if there are any methodological flaws in how you're using your "word calculator."

eta (to add more evidence)

522
Cunning distraction, unless sovereignty wakes.
I understand this to mean one can trick the trickster.
Structured knowledge and ultimate truth-seeking.
I have a knowing hunch that our paths will cross again...
{SOURCE}

Active choice, indeed!

[William]

In today's world, claiming one "does not understand" is no longer a passive condition; it is an active choice.

Speaking of which, now might be a good time to ask AI if there are any methodological flaws in how you're using your "word calculator."

eta (to add more evidence)

522
Cunning distraction, unless sovereignty wakes.
I understand this to mean one can trick the trickster.
Structured knowledge and ultimate truth-seeking.
I have a knowing hunch that our paths will cross again...
{SOURCE}

Active choice, indeed!

The link leads to a post where you make unsupported claims.

Both the UICDS and N2N have been shown to and tested by AI.

The N2N is solid in that it is unchanging re the math - implying that language is mathematically based, which in turn adds evidence to the simulation theory aka the we exist in a creation theory.

The UICDS is solid in that it consistently works and has from the time it was first discovered and later understood, as the system provides data which in turn can then be scientifically examined and the system can be replicated by anyone who would put the time and effort into doing so.

It is not mine to say that the Universal Intelligence Communication Device System won't work for anyone who engages with it nor mine to accept that because people don't, (won't et al) that this means I should set it aside and pledge allegiance to atheism.

If you have something you think of as solid support against UICDS then I am fine with you creating a thread where we can debate it in depth, assuming you even understand what it is and what it is best used for. If you do you can put that in the AI prompt and ask it to then show you any methodological flaws in how one uses it and also how one uses an online word to number algorithm.

1020
Until one does the work necessary, implying the other is a hypocrite isn't one's best step forward...
Also 1020
I continued with it because engaging with it has shown me that continuing with it is the best thing to do...

Indeed. Active choice.

[Difflugia]

The link leads to a post where you make unsupported claims.

The claims were supported in the "Generating Messages" thread starting here.

If you do you can put that in the AI prompt and ask it to then show you any methodological flaws in how one uses an online word to number algorithm.

I've already explained what several of the most obvious methodological flaws are. The most prominent is that the clustering of your word values will cluster most strongly by length, but you're claiming to be able to objectively see other correlations despite that signal. Since the phrases are ones that you have assigned meaning to yourself, and you see correlations of meaning that also happen to correlate by length far beyond random chance, confirmation bias seems to be the main driver behind your faith in the method.

Until you do the work necessary, implying I'm a hypocrite isn't your best step forward...Indeed, active choice.

No? I already explained why flawed results necessarily follow from the mathematics behind your method. Your claim is that now with AI, failure to understand the mathematics is no longer an acceptable reason to not accept what I've shown you. Your claim wasn't that it was up to someone else to do your our work for us, so I don't see why you now think it's my duty to keep explaining the flaws. It seems that the remaining option you've left yourself for your reliance on flawed reasoning is necessarily your own intention.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #26]

Like I said - Create a thread and we can debate this.
Don't forget to state in your opening post what your understanding of the UICDSystem is and how it works and why you think it is something one can dismiss for whatever reason it is you think it can be dismissed.



144
William Cleaning
Textnum code
Inspiration
Real friendship
Rationality
Strange Desire
Expression
Serendipity
Look Closely

Indeed. Active choice.

[Difflugia]

Like I said - Create a thread and we can debate this.

This thread should suffice.

I did the first step of your homework for you.

[William]

Like I said - Create a thread and we can debate this.

This thread should suffice.

No it won't. This is a discussion thread specific to The Resurrection. Create the thread in the debating section and I will meet you there.