H
Offline
I know, I should have known better - I've had plenty of discussions like this and after a while it feel like you are debating with the same person over and over.
Anyway I'll have one last go: I just need to take my time and consider how to convey my thoughts in an unambiguous way that cannot be twisted.
@unknownuser said:
Is that your position as to what happened here?
I don't think it's a complete solution, but I think it's an important factor that has to be considered. We could be dealing with the testimony of people who weren't initiated into the inner mysteries of the cult and misperceived a non-literal resurrection rite. There are lots of mundane explanations that are more credible than the paranormal explanation.
@unknownuser said:
The only thing I'm trying to get some sort of concession on is that Christians were making the claimvery early on that Jesus had raised from the dead, therefore this isn't legendary material.
That's a non sequitur. Obviously early Christians made claims regarding the resurrection (some seem more literal than others), but I take issue with the notion that these claims are made very early - the supposed eye witness accounts are said to have been recorded a considerable time after they occurred and are subject to human error and deliberate fabrication, so it doesn't follow that we aren't dealing with 'legend'.
@unknownuser said:
The Bible isn't a single source.
I wasn't referring to the Bible but Christianity itself i.e. a single authority.
@unknownuser said:
It's valid to ask why we don't have extra-biblical sources attesting to a particular event but that doesn't necessarily discount the event occurred from a historical perspective.
It does however speak to the strength of the evidence.
@unknownuser said:
The claim is that Jesus was resurrected by supernaturalcauses, for which science has nothing to say.
That's begging the question as it presupposes the existence of the supernatural. There has never been objective evidence for any supernatural phenomena and if the supernatural isn't subject to empirical study then we simply couldn't be aware of it anyway - it would have no means of interacting with reality or being perceived by anything that is limited by the materialistic laws of the universe (which includes all of our senses).
@unknownuser said:
That doesn't explain anything. The Jews at that time weren't waiting for an a-political resurrected messiah. They were looking for a political leader that would overthrow the Roman oppressors. That's why in every other case after the 'would-be' messiah was put to death, the followers gave up hope that he had been the messiah. Even if inventing the story made sense from a historical perspective, by all accounts the early leaders did nothing but suffer for their convictions and ultimately died on account of them. Again, there's no motivation.
That's what I meant by a hook. The early Christians set themselves apart by offering something other cults did not. It may seem counter-intuitive but showing how much you are willing to sacrifice for a cause can be a good draw for would-be converts. The fact that you think it speaks to the credibility of the resurrection shows how psychologically powerful that can be. Which brings me back to Heaven's Gate. Should we also consider their beliefs to be credible just because they were willing to die for them?
@unknownuser said:
It's one thing for someone to remember a shorter person as being tall or a red car as being green. It's quite another to misremember a dead man as having appeared to you.
You would be surprised at the way people can drastically misperceive what they have seen. Even large groups of people can mistakenly believe that they have seen some kind of exotic phenomena.
Obviously the historical method takes account for this fallibility, but along with the problem of bias it's also the reason that historians prefer not to draw conclusions based on a single source - especially when we are dealing with incredible claims - and will seek out corroborating evidence from various sources or even other fields. When it comes to the resurrection there is no evidence outside of the NT and our empirical understanding of medicine tells us that it's impossible for someone to come back to life after clinical death.
Applying the historical method we can't lend claims regarding the resurrection any more weight than say the claims of the Heaven's Gate cult.
@unknownuser said:
Here, in 1 Corinthians we might ask what people had to gain by claiming Jesus to have been resurrected?
Every cult needs a hook to draw the punters in.
@unknownuser said:
This counters the common argument that such a 'myth' developed many years later like a game of telephone.
Not really. Perceptions can change within hours of witnessing an event and it doesn't take long for that perception to change to such a degree that it bears little resemblance to the reality of the original events - this is a problem with all eye-witness testimony and not limited to the supposed eye-witness accounts recalled many years after the fact in the Gospels.
Add to that the agenda of the Gospel authors and you can't objectively accept the events of the resurrection without any non-biblical documentary evidence (something which is tellingly in short supply).
@unknownuser said:
Stop geographic restrictions for selling music and movie downloads
That would only work if there were simultaneous release and broadcast dates for all films and TV programmes. If however you are trying to watch/purchase/download something that has already been released in your region (or never will) then I agree that geographic restrictions should be lifted.
Are you thinking of Olishea's billboard trees?
Thanks andybot 
I did add some subtle undulations to the lawn but in hindsight they were a little too subtle. The night shot was a bit rushed and I should have added some more neighbouring buildings or trees as well.
Following on from the Villa PM feature in Catchup #6 I thought I would share some of full-size versions of the renders that were featured.
C&Cs are more than welcome as I still think that there is a lot of room for improvement.
@unknownuser said:
It's pretty mind boggling, particularly when you get into the notion of observation affecting the outcome.
From what I understand the observation factor is merely the most popular hypothesis. There's been on a lot of woo built on that shaky foundation. The same goes for Schrödinger's cat, which was initially intended as a piece of satire.
So the people of Omachron Persei 8 are supposed to buy into the teachings of the Bible despite the fact that they cannot relate to its teachings on any level?
Looks great!!!
I'm glad my work-flow tutorial proved informative (I was concerned that it was a bit too basic). At some point I'll probably create a more detailed version for my website, share some of the models and textures used and upload the more detailed version of the main Villa PM model.
@unknownuser said:
On the contrary wouldn't we presume that this God had created those laws and therefore MUST exist outside of them?
You can't work according to any unfounded presumptions. We have to draw conclusions based on what the evidence tells us.
@unknownuser said:
What if that mechanism isn't comprehensible from a naturalistic standpoint though?
Until there is evidence that any phenomenon operates outside the naturalistic model of the universe, it's safe to presume (for the time being) that such a mechanism is highly implausible. Also, it's worth considering that any non-naturalistic phenomenon wouldn't be observable since our means of observation are limited by materialistic mechanisms. Consequently any supposed observation of a non-naturalistic phenomenon cannot be any such thing.
@unknownuser said:
What if it were simply an all powerful entity acting within the bounds of our natural world. It's at least conceivable isn't it? And yet you've ruled it out as a point of worldview
I haven't ruled it out. I merely see no evidence to support such an hypothesis and whilst admittedly conceivable as a possibility, the lack of supporting evidence suggests that it's highly unlikely.
I am however open to considering any compelling evidence that may come along in the future.
If you want to study anything objectively then there are common approaches to reasonig and deductive logic regardless of the subject, whether it's electricity, history or paranormal claims.
I'm not sure how a study of God could be objective if you start out with the assumption that he exists. If however you remove that bias, any proof of God's existence would have to stand up to the scientific method and cannot defy the material laws of physics. The problem is that any God that could be shown to exist under those conditions would not resemble the God described in the Bible or any other religious text.
However I'm not saying that seemingly paranormal phenomena cannot exist, only that if they do exist then they must operate according to materialistic mechanisms that we simply do not understand yet. Proof that such phenomena exist would cause us to rethink the laws of physics, but ultimately any new paradigm would still be materialistic in nature and subject to the scientific method.
@unknownuser said:
The same with God. Its manifestation is all around you, including the electricity.
Not in a tangible way that can be objectively measured. It comes down to the quality of the evidence.
I used Thea Render.
I'll probably use the holidays to tidy up and compile my model tree library, so later next week I'll try out the forest scene I suggested. I might try doing it just using an HDRI as well.
If all evidence was subjective the sciences wouldn't exist. Phenomena such as electricity are supported by objective repeatable and predictable evidence. Even something like love can be reduced to the mechanics of the human body which are subject to physical laws that can be verified through objective experimentation.
The problem with God/gods or any other seemingly exotic phenomena is that they supposedly defy the materialistic physical laws of the universe and are only supported by weak subjective and unreliable anecdotal evidence. That's why the existence of electricity is a matter of objective scientific fact and belief in the existence of God is a matter of faith.
Here's a quick render using a really old scene I already had.
Thinking about it, a forest scene with the UFO landing in a clearing would really sell the image/model. If I had the time I would probably add more detail to the model and make it higher poly.
srx,
The Tesla anecdote was concerned with evidence for the existence of electricity. Most scientists would have responded by explaining the scientific method and the means by which we can establish the existence of electricity and measure it's influence etc. etc.
Failing to point that out, or equating evidence for the existence of electricity with that of God, was very 'dumb' in my opinion. I imagine that his comments had more to do with his spiritual beliefs than his understanding of science (otherwise it could have been irony).
If evidence for the existence of God (or God's creation of the universe) were as strong as that for the existence of electricity, we wouldn't be having this discussion 
@unknownuser said:
An orthodox priest once asked Nikola Tesla if he had ever seen electricity. Tesla said No. And how do you know it exists? asked priest. Tesla said: The same way you know God exists. So there is no much difference in major question.
All that tells us is that intelligent people can say dumb things.