The BIBLE and SCIENCE

[GostHacked]

Yes. I am trying to validate the story.

No, you just want to validate that the story exists. Which the story does exist.

You have no intention on finding out if the account is true or not. You just want to prove it is that way for the person who reported it. How the hell do you do that? How do you validate the story is true from the reporters view when you can't ask the reporter any questions?

The first thing I'd ask the reporter is: Is ressurection possible? Then we can begin to test if he saw what he really saw was true or false. I know you are trying to say that the story is true and accurate to the person who viewed it at the time. But we can't actually say that it was valid without proving that ressurection is possible. That would make the account true and accurate. But you have no will to go down that road.

Nope. I am assuming that the report of Lazarus' ressurection is true and accurate to the reporter.

So it may be true to the reporter, but the story may be overal false because of the fact you don't want to prove ressurection is possible.

Invalid conclusion based upon false premise. I am not trying to validate ressurection. I am trying to valid the story. See above.

Fine, we have validated we have a story. And that is ALL we have. We validated a story exist. We have not validated whether the story is true or not. Now I want to test the validity of that story. Can the person actually witness a ressurection when it is simply not possible to ressurect someone.

Invalid conclusion based upon false premise. I see no flaw in my logic therefore I must be using "science."

Of course you don't.

Invalid conclusions based on false premise and irrelevant questions to the enquiry.

It is 100% relative that we validate ressurection to prove that the account of Lazarus' ressurection by Jesus is fact.

Not so. I used your replies as input into the conclusion of your personal bias and circular reasoning technique.

You have an obvious bias in not answering a question I think is completely relevant to prove your account that the story is true and accurate. YOu only want to prove that the story exists and can exist by means proveing it was true to the reporter.

I don't want to answer irrelevant questions to the enquiry and I doubt either could find fault with that.

You are not doing science. I asked a question that might actually help in validating that the story is true or not. But you don't want to answer it. You just want to say that the story is true and accurate to the reporter. But how do we do that?

You have already come to the conlcusion without doing any science.

Edited November 23, 2009 by GostHacked

[Shwa]

No, you just want to validate that the story exists. Which the story does exist.

Nope, you missed again as evidence by this very sentence which is nonsensical. Then - just because you say it - you go on to try and validate your nonsense with all kinds of irrelevant questions and goading comments. That's not science either, it's game playing. And game playing of a lower order I may add.

Here is the original challenge:

Ok so now apply the science. It is very easy. Let's say the report is true and accurate. How can it be scientifically true and factually true from the Biblical report as well?

Any ideas?

The key phrase here asks, "any ideas?" I see - many pages later - that you have none.

But because you have no idea how the report could possibly be scientifically true and true from a Biblical perspective doesn't mean they can't be reconciled. It simply means you don't have any idea how they could be. Science isn't about proving YOU right, it is about finding the TRUTH. If you can get that one simple little fact in your head and give up your tender preconceptions or fixed ideas, you might get somewhere with actual science. Otherwise, as I wrote to a previous poster, you are stuck in Plato's cave pretending to be a worthy advocate of something you have no idea about.

So... for the second time... moving on now...

[GostHacked]

Nope, you missed again as evidence by this very sentence which is nonsensical. Then - just because you say it - you go on to try and validate your nonsense with all kinds of irrelevant questions and goading comments. That's not science either, it's game playing. And game playing of a lower order I may add.

Your evidence consists of a passage from the Bible correct?

The key phrase here asks, "any ideas?" I see - many pages later - that you have none.

This is not my theory, and I don't have any ideas on how to proceed with this.

But because you have no idea how the report could possibly be scientifically true and true from a Biblical perspective doesn't mean they can't be reconciled.

You are running around in circles, and not providing any more evidence beside your opening statement. The biblical perspective is that someone witinessed a ressurection. It does not matter who saw the event or who was even involved. You have to validate ressurection to bring to the conclusion that the eye witness account is not only true to him, but true in general.

It simply means you don't have any idea how they could be.

Neither do you at this point. Again, not my theory, so I don't have to provide evidence to support or disprove your claim. You want to prove something is true, show your work.

Science isn't about proving YOU right, it is about finding the TRUTH.

You don't have to prove anything to me. You simply have to prove that the account is true. And you are asking me to do your grunt work to prove your hypothesis. That is not how science works.

If you can get that one simple little fact in your head and give up your tender preconceptions or fixed ideas, you might get somewhere with actual science. Otherwise, as I wrote to a previous poster, you are stuck in Plato's cave pretending to be a worthy advocate of something you have no idea about.

So... for the second time... moving on now...

So, you got any ideas yourself we can work with?

[Oleg Bach]

Is your theory based on ressurection? Bringing someone back to life after death?

It's not based on ressurection or other and mirror concepts.It is based on the embracing of life and the shunning of death. It is based on science. It is based on loving God - that reacts like a mirror that sends back life sustaining energy that is beyoud our physical comprehension. It is based on knowing and not accepting the idea that we are nothing but parishing germs..that we are god like and can enter the angelic realm while in our bodies...Christianity was destroyed from the onset...Romanizing or making it a romantic vision based in superstition is a grevious error. IT is all about dominating the natural - about being a steward to the natural world and taking authority over it - Look at China and India - their children and adults fear dogs - we control them..a Christian is not fearful.

[ToadBrother]

Invalid conclusion based upon false premise. I am not trying to validate ressurection. I am trying to valid the story. See above.

That is impossible. There's no way to validate that story, not without new evidence coming to light.

Edited November 24, 2009 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Science isn't about proving YOU right, it is about finding the TRUTH.

No it is not. Science is about finding the best explanation that fits the evidence. At best, "truth" in science is provisional.

[Oleg Bach]

No it is not. Science is about finding the best explanation that fits the evidence. At best, "truth" in science is provisional.

They used to bleed those with blood cancer at one time..it was literally considered cutting edge science. Science like true religion is an on going afair of perpetual learning - once you have settled to the point that you have all the answers then reality continues and this establishment becomes redundant...learning takes an eternity and there is no end to it..Those within the religious and scientific community are both guilty of institutionalization of reality - reality moves forward leaving what is fact behind. If we came to a standstill and there was no push or pull of positive and negative forces we would cease to exist...science and religion seem to have an agenda of putting an end to it all by finding the end answers - sorry there is no end!

[Shwa]

There's no way to validate that story, not without new evidence coming to light.

That's right. Science brings to light new evidence. That is why a scientific enquiry into this little cultural fragment is interesting.

No it is not. Science is about finding the best explanation that fits the evidence. At best, "truth" in science is provisional.

OK, that being so, this can be tested: stick your tongue is a live light socket and tell me if the shock you feel is "provisional."

I know what you are saying, but I have to ask, "provisional" according to whom? Science doesn't just sit and postulate - it discovers. Otherwise we would still be cooking our toast on candles and philosophizing about it all.

Interestingly enough, the etymology of science is from the Latin word for 'knowledge.' Merriam Webster defines science as 1) the state of knowing; 2) systemized knowledge and 3) knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws

Perhaps you meant to say 'general' instead of 'provisional?'

[GostHacked]

That's right. Science brings to light new evidence. That is why a scientific enquiry into this little cultural fragment is interesting.

OK, that being so, this can be tested: stick your tongue is a live light socket and tell me if the shock you feel is "provisional."

I know what you are saying, but I have to ask, "provisional" according to whom? Science doesn't just sit and postulate - it discovers. Otherwise we would still be cooking our toast on candles and philosophizing about it all.

Interestingly enough, the etymology of science is from the Latin word for 'knowledge.' Merriam Webster defines science as 1) the state of knowing; 2) systemized knowledge and 3) knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws

Perhaps you meant to say 'general' instead of 'provisional?'

So you got any ideas???

[Oleg Bach]

So you got any ideas???

Yah - get a team of physicists together to pour through the teachings of Christ and look for any hints of quantum theory.

[GostHacked]

Yah - get a team of physicists together to pour through the teachings of Christ and look for any hints of quantum theory.

I'll leave that for the real scientists.

[Oleg Bach]

I'll leave that for the real scientists.

Prejudice because of long expanses of time seem to hinder the scientific community..they believe that learning is a lineare thing and that we get smarter as we go forward in time..sometimes going back in time is useful. Time traveling is not for the faint of heart though..You had better have enough fuel for the return trip..if you know what I mean..seriously...I was always facinated by biblical quotes refering to timelessness..and the acending and decending in time.

[ToadBrother]

That's right. Science brings to light new evidence. That is why a scientific enquiry into this little cultural fragment is interesting.

And pointless. The story is told in the Gospel of John (it's not recounted in any other Gospel). There are no other documents that could even remotely be seen as being complimentary or confirmational. Pretty much all the claims about Jesus, other than that he was a preacher from Nazareth have no independent corroboration (and as far as even those small facts, that's only because Josephus the Greco-Jewish historian mentions him in passing).

You might as well explore whether Zeus actually lived on Mount Olympus. A considerable amount of effort has been put into proving the stories about Jesus, and the best anyone has come up with is a sort of circular "it's-true-because-the-Bible-says-so" sort of way.

OK, that being so, this can be tested: stick your tongue is a live light socket and tell me if the shock you feel is "provisional."

I fail to see how this is supposed to be relevant. Theories explain evidence (facts, data, whatever). That you get electrocuted is a piece of data. The theory would be in explaining why and how you get electrocuted.

I know what you are saying, but I have to ask, "provisional" according to whom? Science doesn't just sit and postulate - it discovers. Otherwise we would still be cooking our toast on candles and philosophizing about it all.

Provisional, because any theory at any moment could be modified, or in extreme cases outright replaced, by new data.

Interestingly enough, the etymology of science is from the Latin word for 'knowledge.' Merriam Webster defines science as 1) the state of knowing; 2) systemized knowledge and 3) knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws

Perhaps you meant to say 'general' instead of 'provisional?'

No, I meant provisional. Science is not an avenue to Truth, it is an avenue to testable explanations that are not fixed in stone, because new data can do one of two things; confirm a theory or cause it to be questioned.

And you won't get technical answers looking in a dictionary. Worse, you're dangerously close to committing the etymological fallacy.

Edited November 24, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Shwa]

What you need to do my friend is empty yourself of any preconceived ideas of the Bible, Jesus Christ, the controversy between science and religion, and whatever. Try and empty out all that bias and opinion. Then stop and ask yourself - in all the resources available to science and scientific thought is it possible to examine the Bible or parts of it with a scientific outlook?

It sure is. It is easy. Hint: use anthropology.

Let me ask you a simple question of the story fragment at hand. GhostHacked, if you are reading this, you can answer too. Here's an idea:

The reporter says that Lazurus was dead. We know that they had a good idea about what death is because one of the characters says that Lazarus will smell after being dead for four days. However, after being called, Lazarus comes out of the cave in his funerary clothes.

Is there any report of the smell? If not, what can we scientifically conclude from this aspect of the report? Don't jump ahead to the resurrection or Jesus' ability to perform miracles or your personal disdain for the church or some website with simpleton graphics. Just stick to the basic fact of what data we can gather from this tiny piece of the report.

[GostHacked]

What you need to do my friend is empty yourself of any preconceived ideas of the Bible, Jesus Christ, the controversy between science and religion, and whatever. Try and empty out all that bias and opinion. Then stop and ask yourself - in all the resources available to science and scientific thought is it possible to examine the Bible or parts of it with a scientific outlook?

It is possible. Yes. But the one thing lacking is another text or set of texts to cross reference.

It sure is. It is easy. Hint: use anthropology.

Just anthropology? We can't use something like reason?

Let me ask you a simple question of the story fragment at hand. GhostHacked, if you are reading this, you can answer too. Here's an idea:

Oh, I've been waiting for an idea.

The reporter says that Lazurus was dead. We know that they had a good idea about what death is because one of the characters says that Lazarus will smell after being dead for four days. However, after being called, Lazarus comes out of the cave in his funerary clothes.

Lazarus was not dead.

Is there any report of the smell?

This kind of smells.

If not, what can we scientifically conclude from this aspect of the report?

Lazarus was not dead.

Don't jump ahead to the resurrection or Jesus' ability to perform miracles or your personal disdain for the church or some website with simpleton graphics. Just stick to the basic fact of what data we can gather from this tiny piece of the report.

Now I can say the story is false in the view of the reporter and to anyone in general. And you are only giving us one little bit of data to work with? I think this needs to be expanded on to at least two bits of coroborating data. Which I challenge you to find.

I won't need my disdain to show that you are wrong and what you are trying to do is not science.

Edited November 24, 2009 by GostHacked

[M.Dancer]

There are three distinct possibilities.

Lazarus was raised from the dead.

Lazarus was not dead.

The story is not accurate.

I submit that neither science nor antropology can help answer this question.

On the otherhand, literary criticism might be able to.

There are 4 gospels. Only one features this miracle, which would have to rank as the crowning achievement. Why?

The one Gospel it is mentioned is John. John is the "newest" of the gospels....the furtherest removed from the event.

I think it is safe to say that the event most likely did not happen but was included into the story years after the historical jesus was long dead.

[Shwa]

Here, chew on this for a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_mythology

So a scientist would say that Lazarus was not dead is that your final answer?

I dunno. I think a real scientist would say that the probability of Lazarus being dead was likely very low. Very, very low. But probabilities are not going to prove "the story" false, but that is not our concern when we want to examine it. We need to presume it is true to the reporter. (I am not concerned with subsequent interpretations by religious dogmatists or wayward Jesus freaks.)

So we can look at this little bit of data within a probability table: (MLW doesn't do HTML tables)

1 - Lazarus was dead, but did not decay. (no smell)

2 - Lazarus was dead, but did decay. (smells)

3 - Lazarus was dead, but decayed some. (some smell)

4 - Lazarus was not dead, but unconcious but awoke on the call out. (i.e. coma or some other affliction)

5 - Lazarus was not dead, but gained conciousness prior to the call out.

6 - Lazarus was not dead, but was concious all along.

Are there any other possibilities?

Now about that smell. Suppose there was data loss. That may affect the probabilities above.

If there was smell, and it disapated (or not) it would give more credence to the truth that Lazarus was dead and was actually resurrected. But there is no mention of any smell after the raising. One would think that would be a very significant fact that would not be subject to random data loss through forgetting since oral peoples tend to have prodigious memories. And deliberately leaving it out would actually harm the authenticity of the act of resurrection.

So because there is no smell mentioned, we would rank #2 & #3 as a lower probability than #1.

Do you follow so far?

[Shwa]

"The story is not accurate."

Good grief, we want to get away from leaps of faith here! And besides, accuracy of the story is not in question nor are the beliefs of those that would say it is or isn't.

[ToadBrother]

What you need to do my friend is empty yourself of any preconceived ideas of the Bible, Jesus Christ, the controversy between science and religion, and whatever. Try and empty out all that bias and opinion. Then stop and ask yourself - in all the resources available to science and scientific thought is it possible to examine the Bible or parts of it with a scientific outlook?

There's having an open mind, and there's having so open a mind your brain leaks out your ears. I see no reason to treat the Bible as any more or any less than any of the other holy books from that or earlier eras. Anyone who expects such a book to be a rigorous historical recounting has expectations completely beyond reality.

It sure is. It is easy. Hint: use anthropology.

Anthropology isn't going to make an alleged event a real event.

Let me ask you a simple question of the story fragment at hand. GhostHacked, if you are reading this, you can answer too. Here's an idea:

The reporter says that Lazurus was dead. We know that they had a good idea about what death is because one of the characters says that Lazarus will smell after being dead for four days. However, after being called, Lazarus comes out of the cave in his funerary clothes.

Is there any report of the smell? If not, what can we scientifically conclude from this aspect of the report? Don't jump ahead to the resurrection or Jesus' ability to perform miracles or your personal disdain for the church or some website with simpleton graphics. Just stick to the basic fact of what data we can gather from this tiny piece of the report.

This is nothing more than an ad hoc attempt to redefine the story, to make it appear more feasible or believable by ignoring the whole intent in favor of some explanation that may or may not empirically plausible. This is no different than the guys that run around trying to find physical ways that the Red Sea could part or how Joshua's long day could actually happen.

You would have to first justify to me that I should treat this account (or any other claim from the Bible) as being true. I'm not particularly interested in thought exercises where we fundamentally say "the reporter was a daft moron who was mistaken on the physical condition of Lazarus". I want you to provide some actual physical evidence, or even alternative and demonstrably concurrent accounts that in any way bolster the point.

You're basically abusing science, or more properly inventing a sort of pseudo-scientific process. How precisely are you behaving any different than a crackpot like Erik Von Daniken? His books used pretty much the same came of ludicrously twisted logic to justify Mayan spaceman and Ezekiel seeing UFOs.

[ToadBrother]

"The story is not accurate."

Good grief, we want to get away from leaps of faith here! And besides, accuracy of the story is not in question nor are the beliefs of those that would say it is or isn't.

It isn't in question? I openly question the account. I have no particular reason to accept that it ever happened, just like I don't believe that there was an Atlantis.

[M.Dancer]

"The story is not accurate."

Good grief, we want to get away from leaps of faith here! And besides, accuracy of the story is not in question nor are the beliefs of those that would say it is or isn't.

On the contrary. Accuracy is the entire question. The leap of faith is where someone believes the impossible, not the probable.

[M.Dancer]

One of these Gospels is not like the others,

One of these Gospels just doesn't belong,

Can you tell which Gospel is not like the others

By the time I finish my song?

Did you guess which Gospel was not like the others?

Did you guess which Gospel just doesn't belong?

If you guessed John is not like the others,

Then you're absolutely...right!

[GostHacked]

"The story is not accurate."

It is not accurate because even you gave 6 different probabilities for Lazarus' 'death'.

Good grief, we want to get away from leaps of faith here! And besides, accuracy of the story is not in question nor are the beliefs of those that would say it is or isn't.

First you wanted to determine if the story was true to the reporter. Now that accuracy is not even needed to answer the question. We are noit questioning your faith or belief. However we are trying to validate a bible passage through scientific means.

I had a feeling you would run around in circles. Becase you had no hypothesis to begin with. You have not done any work or shown any work to support your hypothesis. You wanted others to do your work for you. Which with using reason, you have not even come to a conclusion to support your hypothesis which does not even exists. You have failed the scientific method process on all counts.

NEXT !!!!!!!!

[charter.rights]

I just love when the apologists of dogmatism come to each others' rescue. How religious of them....

[Shwa]

This is nothing more than an ad hoc attempt to redefine the story,

LOFL! You made that determination by the small little beginning I have made? I haven't even finished a simple probability table and already you are drawing grand conclusions and comparing me to Von Daniken! That is SO funny. You just made my day!!!

OMG here is another super genius:

Accuracy is the entire question.

Tell me Mr. Super Genius, what was my original hypothesis? No looking back, just off the top of your head. Do you even know? No? I didn't think so. Otherwise you would't have made such a simpleton mistake.

I had a feeling you would run around in circles. Becase you had no hypothesis to begin with.

You have to do better than Platos Cave and Mr Super Genius, come off it. The jokes on you GH because here is where I 'circle' back and illustrate my original hypothesis:

I'd say he is more of a magician, or illusionist.

But I modified it slightly:

The interesting thing about the stories of Jesus Christ - the rest of the Bible aside - is that he had a peculiar knack for using psychological treatments with much reported success. Now, supposing he was some mere holy man, but discovered some means to correct or 'heal' afflictions that were considered serious in that day, well, yeah that would excite his followers wouldn't it?

The problem is, you are so enamoured with your own lofty bias and righteous opinion, you are powerless to even attempt to prove it scientifically. It was Platos Cave that brought up Lazarus and the lepers, I was going to use the the blind man and the lame man. But no matter I think I have accurately made my point.

So... for the third time... moving on now...