That's a well written point of view. I don't agree with this statement though:

It's simply lack of evidence that a dog is living in that house. It's ok to be skeptical about the claim after the fact just like it's ok to be skeptical about God or life after death; it's just not ok to draw conclusions about it.

For example 200 years ago I could tell you that the earth once roamed with flying, swimming, and running monsters and that you can find their bones in the ground. You could look for your whole lifetime and not find any evidence at all of it (after all, people have been digging into the ground for thousands of years) but without the proper location and paleonotlogical techniques, you would be predetermined to not find anything. You'd think that this is evidence that my claim was false, but it's not, because the earth really was inhabited with flying monsters. When dealing with something that is outside of the current realm of evidence seeking such as God or life after death, you should be skeptical about drawing any conclusions: that's my point.

It doesn't matter whether flying monsters really existed or not in order for us to have evidence either for or against that. Evidence is distinct from proof in this regard.

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

In this case, we can form a valid logical syllogism based on the dog not barking.

If the premises are true, then how can the lack of a dog bark not be evidence of the absence of an intruder?

How doesn't the real existence of some thing matter when looking at evidence for the existence of that thing? Of course it matters. My counterexample was given to show you that lack of evidence for something is not necessarily evidence against it. You would be wrong in your conclusion that flying monsters didn't ever exist because there was no evidence of them 200 years ago. The only honest position you could possibly take is that you were skeptical of their existence due to lack of evidence. Conversely, the approach given earlier regarding life after death was that the lack of evidence for it led the other poster to conclude that life after death didn't exist. This is not an honest or defensible position.

And of course this isn't even bringing up actual evidence for the existence of life after death or the continuation of consciousness after 'medical' death, of which there is some.



Sure. Unfortunately that is one of the problems with syllogisms is that the conclusions rely on the truth of your premises. It's obviously clear in the real world that your first premise is not necessarily true.

Because you can have evidence of something that isn't actually the case.

This happens all the time. Otherwise we couldn't know if we had evidence unless we already knew the proposition was true.

For example, a case can be brought to trial and the prosecution can have evidence that the defendant is guilty even if said defendant turns out to be innocent in actuality.

Bolded the key word. No, it's not necessarily evidence. In certain cases it can be.

What you're saying is that even if our logic is valid, even in a case in which we believe the premises are true or likely true, we can't consider the logical inference to be evidence.

You're arguing that when my smoke detectors and fire alarms are silent, I have no evidence that there's no fire. That, to me, is absolutely bizarre because I don't for a second believe that you don't make that kind of inference on a daily basis and consider it entirely reasonable.

I'm not asking for certainty from evidence. My dog not barking does not make me certain that there's no intruder. My smoke alarm being silent does not make me certain there's no fire. But both greatly increase my confidence that that is the case.

DoOrDoNot

I think the problem stems from inconsistency in the way you use "evidence." Sometimes you seem to mean "incontrovertible proof," and other times you seem to mean "makes it more (or less) likely."

Regarding evidence of absence, I said, "Sure, not always, but there are plenty of circumstances where absence of evidence is evidence of absence."
To which you responded
But then later you say The change from "never" to "not necessarily" makes all the difference, and is now in agreement with what we have been saying.



You seem to do a similar shift between the underlined and bolded parts. It looks like you're saying antialias is unjustified (to the point of dishonesty and indefensibility) because the lack of evidence for an afterlife is not incontrovertible, as if that's what's required to reach a conclusion.

What if [the evidence that consciousness is tied to physicality] + [the lack of evidence for an afterlife] = 87% confidence that there is no afterlife, in their view? You seem to be saying their conclusion is indefensible unless they're, what, 100% sure?

But then in your very next sentence (bolded) your language is suddenly pretty provisional, as if you recognize that some reasonable people will find the evidence very compelling while other reasonable people won't find it all that compelling. It no longer needs to be incontrovertible.

It also seems inconsistent that you consider recollections of people undergoing the most extreme brain trauma as "some" evidence, yet you say nothing you did (saying "I love you," gifts, massages, treating her with respect) could ever count as evidence that you love your wife.




I think your objection was to antialias's confidence, particularly their confidence resulting from absence of evidence. For example, antialias said, "I have absolutely no shred of evidence to the contrary," which seems pretty wrong to me. NDEs are evidence. They may be strong evidence to some and negligible to others, but they are evidence.

Nah not really. Evidence in a vacuum always means the latter and when there is a lot of evidence for something you can be pretty certain of holding a positive position. I'm just not equivocating that position with one in which you are near-certain of holding a negative position due to lack of evidence.

It's not. One is dealing with a positive position and one is dealing with a negative. You can never be 'certain' of a negative position. The only thing you can be is skeptical.



No. He's making an certainty assertion about a negative position. That is not honest or defensible----it is fallacious reasoning.

Not possible to have confidence. You can only have skepticism about a positive position. IE: "There is an afterlife" can not be reasonably answered "I'm fairly certain there isn't." It can only be responded with "Until I see evidence I will remain in doubt." Making a certainty claim about a negative position because of no evidence is the same as making a certainty claim about a positive position with no evidence.




It's of course not possible to deduce my inner motivations, so there would be no visible difference between me accurately pretending to love my wife and me actually loving her.

My certainty that I'm not on fire right now is not absolute, but I can't think of anything else I believe more strongly. And the reason for that is the absence of all the things that fire is and does.

The deniers are tied to their "senses" whether realized or not and so the question becomes:

Can one appreciate a non sense bound realm ? or

Are we totally tied to our senses ?

Is there a higher than sense bound realm ?

It all leads to : is thinking a creative production of the sense bound realm / or

Does the brain produce material thoughts as the liver produces bile ? or

Are thoughts ponderable and if so, how much do they weigh ?

Hi Loading:

Well, someone is speaking in this passage, and he talks about the wounds on his hands and feet. Also, this is an end of days prophecy, so it hasn't happened yet.

Best wishes,
Mason

You make the switch here again, even after saying you're not going to equivocate.

Sure, there could be other competing explanations for your actions but that is in no way the same as saying that you can't provide evidence that you love your wife.

So I will ask again; what was it in this passage that made you think of me in regards to this conversation about what the Biblical point of view is on the resurrection of the dead? And what lies are you accusing me of telling in the name of the LORD? Please be specific.

I didn't think of you at all. You showed up in Post #19 and started talking about something that had nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

To respond to you, I directed you to Zachariah 13: 1 through 6, which, as I understand it, has something to do with the resurrection of the dead. Remember, the last time we responded to each other, you wanted to know what Jews believed relative to Isaiah 54, and you found out that what they believed was very different from what you thought it meant.

Now, while this thread had nothing to do with you, though you're certainly welcome to participate, I'm asking about something else that I understand that Jews believe which based on my limited understanding of this stuff seems to contradict what Christianity teaches. (See my OP.)

Also, in your post that our moderator deleted, you were quite nasty. Why was that? I've always been very nice and polite towards you and welcome your views here.

Best wishes,
Mason

If I misunderstood you, then forgive me. It's difficult to interpret someone's tone over the internet. The passage just seemed so random to me and I thought you were threatening me with the fate of a false prophet, which is the people who are being addressed in Zecheriah 13:1-6. The part about "if anyone prophecies in those days, their own parents will stab them" seemed like you were threatening me. I'm struggling to see which part of this passage could refer to the resurrection of the dead.

Also how did my post #19 not have anything to do with your original question? You were asking about the resurrection of the dead and the seeming contradictions so I sent every relevant passage I could think of from both the Tanakh and also the New Testament. In a sense, as your're describing it, both Jews and Christians have it wrong. If some say they can live long enough to see their resurrected grandparents, that's not resurrection that's reincarnation. But it's also wrong to think that we're resurrected as soon as we die, because that's not what the New Testament says. We sleep when we die, and won't be resurrected until the last trumpet when the Lord Jesus returns.

It's not reincarnation which means you come back as a different person. Resurrection means you came back as the same person and have all the thoughts and memories of that person.

But don't Christians believe that the soul goes to either heaven or earth? And assuming that's the case, it seems to me that it doesn't make any sense for the person to be resurrected. On the other hand, the idea of the soul going to heaven or earth is, as far as I understand, not part of the Jewish religion. Thus the idea of resurrection of the dead can make sense in the Jewish religion (whether you believe it or not).

Now to your first paragraph. The way I understand this, and again I'm not an expert in this stuff, is that the person speaking in Zecheriah 13:1-6 is a false profit, who is not identified, and who has come back to great shame after the dead are resurrected. It seems to me that this event, which is an end of days prophecy and has not happened yet, is not possible in the Christian religion. That's why I mentioned it.

Mason

Would they be aware they had previously lived? If so, why hasn't anyone realized this yet?

Christians believe the soul either goes to Heaven (Paradise with God) or Hell (the Lake of Fire). The question is WHEN does it happen, The Bible says it happens at the last trumpet right before Christ returns, not at the moment of death. (There are certainly exceptions for this, in the case of Lazarus, several people in the book of Acts, The Two Witnesses, and saints who came out of the grave when Jesus was raised.)

Regardless of when it happens, I believe we will all be in the presence of the Lord in some way. The rich man died and was tormented in flames crying out to the poor man he neglected during his life who was now comforted in Abraham's bosom. There seems to be a period between death and the ultimate resurrection. So when you say "earth" maybe the confusion is because of the Greek translation of "Hell." There is "Hades," "Tarturus," and "Gehenna" and they are all translated as "Hell" in the English Bible, which causes some confusion. "Hades" simply refers to the universal realm of the dead, which the psalmist said "If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Hades, you are there!" Gehenna is the one that refers to the final judgement of unbelievers, the Lake of Fire.

So my understanding is that when we die, we sleep until the Lord Jesus returns. I believe it's a conscience sleep, for some peaceful and for some tormenting. But it's not final, and one day the Lord Jesus will return, and resurrect both the righteous and the unrighteous; one to Eternal Life, the other to shame and everlasting contempt, just as it was written by the prophet Daniel.


Absolutely I believe it makes sense from a Jewish standpoint. (Isaiah 26:19, Daniel 12:2.) Also it seems that a lot of the Jews at the time believed that Jesus was the resurrected Jeremiah or the Prophet who was to come (Matthew 16:14.) But I think they misunderstood what the resurrection really meant, and their interpretation was more similar to that of reincarnation.

Which part makes you think that these false prophets have died and come back to life and haven't simply recognized their folly in the current one?

Just read it. Both 13-2 and 13-4 begin with the words "On that day"

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...-6&version=KJV

so it's clearly an end of days prophesy that hasn't happened yet. Zechariah 13-4 also speaks of the false prophets who "in that day" shall be ashamed.

13-5: "But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman;"

and in 13-6: "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."

Remember, Zechariah lived 500 or 600 years before Jesus and is clearly talking about an event that had not yet happened as he does in Zechariah 12 through 14.

Also are you aware that it says in Zechariah 8-23 it says: "Thus saith the Lord of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you."

Mason

Fair enough. I just don't see why "on that day" has to mean "after they have died and come back to life." If I recall it's a pretty common phrase used throughout the Old Testament, like whenever he says Israel will rebel, will be given over to their enemies, and "on that day" they will call out to the LORD and he will answer them. But I could be wrong.

To the second part yes I recognize the Jews are a special people in God's plan, and that all of true Israel will be saved (the one's who are Jews inwardly and not just outwardly.) However because of their temporary hardness of heart the Gospel went to Gentile nations who were willing to receive it, but there will come a day according to Old Testament prophecy when Israel will realize that Jesus was the Messiah and they missed it.

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son."
Zechariah 12:10

They have looked upon [b]me[\b] ... and they will mourn for [b]him[\b]

If this was about Jesus, the word “me” would be him. Also, when you read all of Zac 12, you’ll see that this is a prophecy for events that haven’t happened yet.

Also, if you go here and listen to #18, you’ll get a much better explanation than I can give:

https://outreachjudaism.org/lets-get...-audio-series/

Mason

Not true, Jesus is the one who is speaking and using a first person pronoun.

How do you explain God referring to himself as "us" in Genesis when he says "let us make man in our image"?

Correct. Israel has not yet recognized their Messiah, but eventually will according to this passage and they will "weep over him they have pierced."

Also notice how the LORD uses the phrase "on that day" several time in Zechariah 12 and it's never referring to the resurrection of the dead. So I still think you're way off in assuming Zechariah 13 has anything to do with the resurrection of the dead. These things are all speaking of future events that will happen in this world, in this lifetime, before the dead are judged. Not after.

If I said "on Tuesday I'm gonna go buy ice cream" would you assume I was making an end of the world prediction?

Yes.

No. John takes care of this problem in the book Of John: 19:37. In an effort to show that Jesus does indeed appear in the Old Testament, John quotes Zac 12:10 but changes the word "me" to "him."

So what is Zac 12:10 about. First, notice that when you read it in context starting with Zac 12:8, you'll see that this is actually an End of Days prophesy that refers to a great war yet to come and the death of a great leader, who the Jews will mourn. If you read this carefully, you'll see that God strengthens the Jewish people, which is exactly the opposite from what happened after the Year 30.

Mason

And I never said it had anything to do with the resurrection of the dead.

MM

Of course you did, that was the whole reason you posted it in this thread.

So it should be pretty clear now which one of us is lying and which one is telling the truth. I'll just leave it at that.

Also; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZQ2QNnw3o8

Don’t call me a liar. This is the second time you’ve thrown the insults in when your arguments run into difficulty. You need to understand that there are also other places in the New Testament where its authors have to make adjustments in the Old Testament language to make things work. And, if the Old Testament language is the word of God, no adjustments should ever be made.

Mason