Dialogue on material and immaterial existence

Joe:
TO believe that only what is material or physical is or can be real can also be the result of circular reasoning. You look only at the object of the belief, ie God, and not at how the belief is formed or maintained.


Skepie

- Let's consider this. Do I believe that "only what is material or physical is or can be real"? No. I do not begin with any such presumption. I am perfectly willing to accept that there could be something other than material reality. But if you want me to believe that there actually IS something other than the material, I need evidence of it. And that evidence not apparent. When I look at what's in my world, I see material things. I don't see immaterial things. Sure, people SAY those things exist, but I don't see them. People make many arguments for them, but as I pointed out, those arguments typically include the unstated presumption of their existence.

Joe:
My fish analogy answers that, if you were a fish and you were skeptical of the stuff humans talk about called "water," you would say "I don't see any water, I see all these physical things around  me but I see no water,"

The very  process through which you observe the world is immaterial. It is the mind that pulls sense data together and forges a coherent view of the world,you assume it;s just a straight line from your eye to your brain but it's not,

Skepie

You can't tell me that believing in the existence of material things is circular.

Joe:
I did not say that,I said your reasoning process in making arguments about it is circular,

Skepie

 It's what we see all the time. You can't tell me that the existence of immaterial tings is evident.

Joe:
It's not because that's the dividing line between domains. But if think not seeing it means it's not real then you lost half of science,

Skepie

We don't see them. Ever. Do I have reason to believe that the material is all that exists? Yes. It's based on the evidence. Do I presume that there could be no immaterial things? No. That's just what the evidence tells me. I do not begin my arguments by making that unstated presumption.

Joe:
That is just reductionist nonsense. as i said your apprehension of the world is viewing the world through the immaterial part of your mind. the sub  atomic particles is immaterial to   us we cant see it we have no direct proof it's there,there is no real  way to prove that the so called physical isn't just analogs to the immaterial in the way matter is related to energy, I;ts entirely possible that all physical existence is just a thought in a mind.

Saturday night 6/9/18

Joe:
you seem to think that it must be empirically verifiable in exactly the same way that material things are verifiable (at least on principle). That is your unstated presumption.

im-skeptical said...

- I disagree. But I do presume that evidence must be objectively knowable. If something is subjective, it isn't knowable to anybody but yourself, and therefore, it isn't evidence to anybody but yourself. It is therefore unreliable. There can (in principle) be evidence of non-material things. That's the basis of Joe's book (Joe calls it the 'trace', but that is indistinguishable from what the rest of us call 'evidence'). So, for example, if you showed me an observable effect of some immaterial entity, I would take that as evidence that such a thing exists.

Joe:
You Seem to be contradicting yourself in a basic way here. You just said "if you showed me an observable effect of some immaterial entity, I would take that as evidence that such a thing exists." I have shown that because argumemt from universal experience [1]shows that. You will never accept it. It fits exactly what you just said you will fight tooth and nail and rationalize until you bleed you will never accept that it could validate religious belief, My guess is you will back peddle and deny that  you just said there are circumstances under which it could be proven.

You say "it isn't knowable to anybody but yourself" so what? If I know it  it's something I know why should I allow someone else to dictate their ignorance to me as fact?
Joe:
You're rigging the game from the outset by assuming that the only type of legitimate evidence is the kind that verifies material things and only material things.

Skepie

- No, I'm not rigging the game. Please note that I don't insist on seeing the thing itself. I just need to see evidence that it exists. 

Joe:
The old atheist ploy, You deny that you insist upon absolute proof but we supply gobs of evidence.I have 52 arguments. Plantiga  has 120, I;'ve seen more.o Every single time you keep boosting the ante  until you really are demanding absolute proof;you say you aren't and it's fine in theory but you really are. The good atheist solider boy will never ever never admit that any evidence might just possibly maybe might prove it. Never.

200 studies in peer reviewed journals making three  different arguments, you have never read a single study  you know almost nothing abouit the  facts your assertions of what they say are just third hand guesses.

Skepie

Show me something that nature can't do. Show me a fruit tree that produces fruits with the Lord's prayer written on the inside of the unopened peels. Show me someone who can reliably predict future events. It doesn't matter what it is - I just need to see evidence. You are rigging the game by insisting that something exists, but I can never see the evidence of it.

Joe:
(1) You are dogmatically trying to raise the bar to a level you know wont be met.

(2) There is no theoretical reason why that's a valid requirement in terms of disproof of Christian belief. It's based upon bucking the Bible but I  don't have to just defend Bible thumping, There are other views of Christianity and non Christian views of God. Any of them being true means atheism is not true.

(3) your contradiction--this is why i say bucking the Bible, You say: "Show me a fruit tree that produces fruits with the Lord's prayer written on the inside of the unopened peels. Show me someone who can reliably predict future events. It doesn't matter what it is - I just need to see evidence." That is based upon countering the Bile rather than just reuting any kind of evidence, But you sweep all possible evidence under that  rug, unless the evidence is that dramatic it's not evidence. That is totally different from just saying as you do "I just need to see evidence." No! You just got throw   demanding evidence at a ridiculous level that you know wont happen; that is a contradiction.

On the overall issue proof of immaterial

You are talking like there is just a straight 1x1 proposition of seeing an object, we see it so it's real, You are glossing over the epistemological problems inherent in being human. This is not a matter of verifying some object. It;s about the nature of reality, There is no reason to expect empirical proof of any epistemic fundamental at the level  of being itself. God is not just an object in nature but he basis of reality,.
There are three aspects of reality that might lead us to believe:

(1) consciousness

(2) Matheatics

(3) Laws of phsyics

These are realities that cannot rationally be denied and yet have no physical basis in the world as we know it, It will be tempting for the physicalist to say they are in the  brain they result of brain chemistry, No they are not, in fact we can only access them through mind, True that we   need the physical apparatus to think about them but that does not reduce them to brain function. They are clearly just concepts that are referenced through brain function, they don't reside in any physical space,

The concept of physical law i s proving problematic is not as simple as merely reducing to description of the universes behavior. If physical law exists as such then there is a non physical reality that bears impact upon physical   reality. If it is just a matter of describing the universe,what is being described is a law-like regularity. [2]

Physics at the most basic level is not able to explain the basis of reality,It may be that the physical is really just another form of the mental the way matter is just another form of energy,[3]


Notes

[1] J.L.Hinman,"Argument from Universal Nature of Mystical Experience." The Religious a priori, no date given
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2009/01/argument-from-universal-nature-of.html
(accessed 6/10/18)


(1) Religious experience is an individual personal experience

(2) Religious symbols are cultural

(3) scientific knowledge is far from proving a gene for religion

(4) therefore, we should not expect to find that mystical experience is universal

(5) we do find that mystical experiences are universal in the nature of what is experienced.

(6) Therefore, we are rationally warranted in thinking that there is an external stimulus being experienced.

(7)Since universal mystical experience leads people to faith, the content of it is about God, and is life transforming we are warranted in the assumption that this external stimulus experienced is God


[2] J.L.Hinman "Laws of Physics beyond descriptive/prescriptive dichotomy," Metacrock;s blog (Aug 21, 2017) 
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/08/laws-of-physics-beyond.html
(accessed 6/10/18)

[3] J.L.Hinman. "can science really prove the basis of modern physics?" Metacrocl's b.og, (April 30, 2017)
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/04/can-science-really-prove-basis-of.html
(accessed 6/10/18)

"Lord, Lord, when were you on welfare...?"

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/23/15675892/food-stamps-snap-evidence-health-poverty-hunger

"One oft-repeated Republicans line is that benefits like SNAP discourage people from working. But according to the researchers who study SNAP, there’s no good evidence of that. Instead, its been shown to improve health outcomes, reduce poverty, and fight hunger."

 Christian Adams/Getty Images

Trump’s new budget proposal has been panned for its magical thinking on economic growth and sloppy accounting errors.
One of the big cuts proposed would also take a sledgehammer to a safety net program that’s been remarkably effective.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, has been helping keep Americans from going hungry since the 1960s. Formerly known as food stamps, the program began as a pilot under President John F. Kennedy in 1961 as part of the war on poverty. Today, SNAP is the biggest and most important nutrition assistance program: About 45 million Americans living below the poverty line — nearly half of them children — rely on SNAP to purchase food.
If Trump had his way, though, the number of SNAP recipients would soon be drastically cut. The administration’s first comprehensive budget proposal would trim SNAP spending by $191 billion over the next decade — which is about a quarter of the program’s funding. (The program costs the federal government $80 billion a year, which is a large amount of money — but a relatively small fraction of the budget.)

[READ MORE]

Slate:

https://slate.com/business/2018/05/paul-ryan-is-trying-to-kick-a-million-people-off-food-stamps.html

Paul Ryan has had three overarching goals during his political career: to cut taxes on the wealthy, to cut government spending on the poor and old, and to make the needy work if they want government help. Last year, the House Speaker finally checked the taxes bit off his Congressional bucket list. But his dreams of clipping the safety net have proven more elusive. The Obamacare repeal bill Ryan jammed through his chamber would have made the historic reductions to Medicaid that Republicans have been chasing for decades. But that effort died with a thumbs down from John McCain.
"At the end of 2017, Ryan made it clear he wanted Republicans to make one last effort at “welfare reform” before the midterms potentially swept them out of power. The point was not to save money, he insisted, but to do “workforce development.” This was his dry, bureaucratic euphemism for making more adults work in order to qualify for federal aid like food stamps. Some Republicans were skeptical of this “workforce development” plan—perhaps because literally taking lunch money from the poor seemed like a dubious election year strategy—but the White House said it was on board."
read more:

Matthew 25:31-46

³¹ “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. ³² All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³ He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

³⁴ “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me food stamps, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶ I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸ When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹ When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

⁴⁰ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

⁴¹ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴² For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³ I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

⁴⁴ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

⁴⁵ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

⁴⁶ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Then the republicans will stand before him and he will say I was hungry and you took away my food stamps, I was a pregame tanager and you called me a hoar, I was disabled you cut off my disability. I was old and sick and you took away medicare.

Life,Liberty and the Purist of What?

Filini';s famous fountian Scene La Dulce Vita
(My review}




Victor Reppert brings up a piece he wrote on evolutionary theory undermining liberal humanist values. He reflects upon the work of  Dr. Yuval Noah Harari in discussing problems raised for humanism. Reppert's point is that liberal humanism cannot be militiaman by a Godless Society. I am not concerned  here with bashing atheism, but with meeting a problem head on  and weather through belief in God or belief in humanity, or whatever,  confronting the problem. There is a problem even an atheist could agree. 

Reppert Writes:

Perhaps some of the best-known words from our American heritage are the words from the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain Inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
But, if you are an atheist, there is no Creator, so we couldn't be created equal. Advanced thinker that he was for his time,TJ seems to have imbibed some creationist nonsense. Hence to reflect what an atheist really believes, it would have to be rewritten as follows.[1]

He Introduces Harari:

Interestingly enough, this issue has been taken  up by atheist Yuval Noah Harari. Vincent Torley takes up the issue in this discussion. Harari says that the statement form the Preamble must be revised in favor of this revision:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.
Hardly the basis of liberal humanism. 
Torley then goes on to quote the following passage: 
At the same time, a huge gulf is opening between the tentes of liberal humanism and the latest findings of the life sciences, a pull we cannot ignore much longer. Our liberal political and judicial systems are founded on the belief that every individual has a sacred inner nature, indivisible and immutable, which gives meaning to the world, and which is the source of all ethical and political authority. This is a reincarnation of the traditional Christian belief in a free and eternal soul that resides within each individual. Yet over the last 200 years, the life sciences have thoroughly undermined this belief. Scientists studying the inner workings of the human organism have found no soul there. They increasingly argue that human behavior is determined by hormones, genes and synapses, rather than by free will – the same forces that determine the behavior of chimpanzees, wolves, and ants. Our judicial and political systems largely try to sweep such inconvenient discoveries under the carpet. But in all frankness, how long can we maintain the wall separating the department of biology from the departments of law and political science?[2]

The problem here really is an ethical one. Upon what do we hang our values? We cannot find them in science or in a literal application of scientific view of nature. Consider the declaration of independence supposed a bulwark of liberalism."Is there any objective reality, outside the human imagination, in which we are truly equal? Are all humans equal to one another biologically? Let us try to translate the most famous line of the American Declaration of Independence into biological terms:

According to the science of biology, people were not ‘created’. They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be ‘equal’. The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul, and that all souls are equal before God. However, if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation and souls, what does it mean that all people are ‘equal’? Evolution is based on difference, not on equality. Every person carries a somewhat different genetic code, and is exposed from birth to different environmental influences. This leads to the development of different qualities that carry with them different chances of survival. ‘Created equal’ should therefore be translated into ‘evolved differently’.[3]

Of course he understands "objective reality: to the hard and fast surface of existnece but the faciticity of existing nothing beyond that. This is what Tillich means when he says by saying existence is not merely the surface of existing and that being has depth. He bases the concept  of equality upon a literal sense of how we turnout, of what nature gives us. He asserts that nature does not make us equal but only regards difference. Yet in so doing he has transposed the meaning of equality from a legal right to ability. He thinks the Declaration ascribes legal right to ability when it fact there's is no reason to think this. Probably Jefferson was not thinking of ability but of  titles. Nature does not bestow titles man does. We are all born equal in the sense of Algeria  accorded, and at first that privilege was not accorded, now it is. Now we see as a society that we need to expand our view. That still leaves us with a need of something to hang the vale on.[4]

Harari is quick to assert the alleged Godless nature of modern society, This is something people hiave been countering since Harvy Cox in 1965.[5] The Secular city is overdone, we don't live in a secular city we still live in a society whose basic values are coasting on Christian memories. Harari is quick to insist there is no God and that the only source we have to seek from is the natural world"There are no rights in biology," So Haraari;s declaration has no equality clause. But e also never says why biology is our only recourse? He has no basis or ruling out other avenues of knowledge he has no real way of determining that the desire for equality the value of it does not spring from some thing transcendent. Notice he has to change the form of equality under discussion, from legal rights to ability,

He asserts that our only recourse is the "blind evolutionary process" He finds  "But ‘liberty’? There is no such thing in biology. Just like equality, rights and limited liability companies, liberty is something that people invented and that exists only in their imagination. From a biological standpoint, it is meaningless to say that humans in democratic societies are free, whereas humans in dictatorships are unfree. And what about ‘happiness’ "[6] So then democracy is just done away if we assert that biology is the only basis for ideas, or ethics. Why should we so assert? Of we values that counter such assertions, and that view point leads to excusing dictator ship and rationalizing away freedom, we Harari has done. 

Then he attacks happiness. He points to social research showing that people are still happy even at lower  income are not necessarily any happier at higher income level. "Most biological studies acknowledge only the existence of pleasure, which is more easily defined and measured. So ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ should be translated into ‘life and the pursuit of pleasure.’"[7]He has reduced the grandeur of American democracy to meaningless Hedonism. I can't think why anyone would want to say these things  having taken away rights and freedom it's not a declaration of independence anymore just a statement of fact,So needs it? Another problem worth reducing happiness to pleasure he rules out the reality of happiness on the flimsily excuse that one can  always be happy apartment financial interests, But that admits that happiness is a reality so there is no reason to rule it out. I don't know if Harari is actually  trying to establish biology as the standard or just demonstrating the insufficiency, It certainly does do that. 

It seems clear we need a higher source to ground the axioms, The best version I've see apart from God,was actually proposed by a Christian, all be it a 19th century style theological liberal. This was Albert Schweitzer who tried to ground ethical axioms in the survival instinct but turning it outward connecting it through empathy to others.[8]That has the advantage of being rooted in biology and yet he wasn't able to attach an ought without assuming God. God is still the strongest basis for ethical axioms and for values but that doesn't necessarily narrow  it to a particular tradition, One could connect my moral argument at this point, [9]


Filini;s La Dulce Vita is the perfect image because it illustrates the emptiness of a sensitivities life style. There is a lot more to the concept of snappishness than just feeling good. Why this guy  would put it on a level of economics any way is ridiculous,.



[1] Victor Reppert, "Why Evolutionary Naturalism undermines Liberal humanism," Dangerous Idea, blog. (Monday, June 04, 2018)
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2018/06/in-one-of-my-first-posts-on-this-blog-i.html(all sources accessed 6/4/2018)
[2] Ibid [3] Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens, A brief History of Human Kind. New Uork NY:Harper Collins Books , repriomt 2018 (original 2005), 8-10


[4] Matt Brundage, "what  did Jefferson mean by all men are create equal?" Matt Brundage Publications. BLOG, 2018
 https://www.mattbrundage.com/publications/jefferson-equality/ (all sources accessed 6/4/2018)

[5] Harvey Cox, The Secular City, Princeton University Press; Revised ed. edition (September 8, 2013)[6] Harari, op cit, 10.

[7] Obid

[8] J.:.Hinman, "Albert Schweitzer and the Death of Civilization", Negations" Negations An Interdisciplinary Journalism of Social Criticism, winter 1998
http://www.datawranglers.com/negations/
accessed 6/4/2018)


[9] Joseph Hinman, "the counter apologist attacks the moral argument," Metacrock's .blog (MAY 29, 2016)
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-counter-apologiost-attacks-moral.html
accessed 6/4/2018)

Resurrection ala Moltmann: Historical or History Making

Jurgen Moltmann April 8, 1926 (age 92 years), Hamburg, Germany




Talk of reasons for the resurrection (last week) [1] made me think how incomplete that whole discussion was, First because it put God on human terms by giving a full discussion of reasom (I accept God must be rational,but not as we are rational,oblivious God would be the source of the rational, logos, not just another rational being on a par with logicians. Secondly, asking for reasons for the resurrection (or "a reason") put's God on  par with human reason and human calculating. There is more than just "a reason" for it, the event itself is not merely one more in a series of "one-damn-thing-after-another" that makes history but is in fact a source of sublation in historie's dialectical process, We see this in the use Jurgen Moltmann makes of eschatology, and in his rules change argument from Theology of Hope,[2]

I affirm the literal resurrection of Christ, as I affirm the Nicene creed. Unfortunately, affirming it and proving it are two different things. Many apologists try to use the Resurrection as proof in itself that Jesus was the Son of God. The problem is, the event itself has to be proven, and is of equal dispute to the claims of Christ deity. Thus, I doubt that it makes a great tool for verifying the claims of the faith, since it is itself such a claim. On the other hand, let us ask ourselves, "was the true purpose of the resurrection as a proof of Jesus validity?" I think not. I think the true purpose was not to offer modern scientific "courtroom evidence" of the event (they did not have that standard), but to confirm in a religious way, for insiders, by provision of an important symbol.

My answer on reasons for the resurrection used the concept of symbolism, I was taken aback by a statement on SOP that symbolism is important to ancient primate people as though modern people do;t use symbols. [3] Tillich has managed to make use of symbols, he says that a symbol participates in the thing it symbolizes. Thus a bull fighter dying young is a symbol of darning courage going awry, but a non specific figure like the American flag is not a symbol but an embalm. Thus the resurrection of Christ can be a theological symbol and still be a real event! Thus the true importance of the event is its theological significance and not its market place value as an apologetical tool.

Historians have argued that a view like that of the resurrection of Christ can't be understood as a historical event, thus can't be proved by historical evidence because history is intrinsically naturalistic. Historians must make naturalistic assumptions thus a miracle can't play a role in history. The first thing to notice about this argument is that far from contradicting what I've said, it supports my position in that I argue that atheist's only have ideological objections to the resurrection. There's no historically based disproof. If untrained non-historian apologists mistakenly argue "this is historical" the atheists objections are not based upon disproving the historically based evidence they are only based upon ideological assumptions. Evoking the rules of history is also ideological assumption.

Eschatology in Theology of Hope. 

In his great ground breaking work, Theology of Hope (1964) Jurgen Moltmann re-positions eschatology transforming it from a lose appendix (last things) to a dynamic aspect of the Hegelian understanding of history. The Hegelian aspect is not important, what is important is that "the last things," the eschatological element  becomes: the horizon of hope; the point from which we take our focus of history not the past where we have been but the future where we are headed. The Resurrection  is a focal point or a "strange attracter"as it were for the point to which history moves, the consummation of creator and creation. That is not a Moltmonnian phrase, yo put it in Moltmann;s terms, "eschatology means the doctrine of Christian Hope which embraces both the object hoped for and the hope inspired y it...the medium of Christian faith as such..."[4]

The History Making Concept.

 He argues, the rules of history exclude the miraculous. This is because historians, as heirs to the enlightenment, automatically exclude the supernatural. For this reason the resurrection cannot be seen as historical, a priori, for the rules of making history are set by an ideology of metaphysical assumptions which dogmatically excludes anything miraculous. History must be predicated upon the assumption of a coherent natural world, therefore, the supernatural cannot be part of history.[5]  Yet he felt it was important to make a place for the resurrection in modern thought. So he argued for changing the rules. Rather than calling the resurrection "historical" he calls it "history making." The belief itself has shaped the outline of historical event. This is apart from the question of its truth content, the fact of belief in it made history what it is. This introduces the concept of understanding the belief as history making thus the evidence that supports the belief is also history making. His solution: change the rules. We wont call it "historical" but "history making."

"The resurrection of Christ does not mean a possibility within the world and its history, but a new possibility altogether for the world, for existence, and for history. Only when the world can be understood as contingent creation out of the freedom of God...does the rising of Christ become intelligible as nova create [new creation]. ...it is necessary to expose the profound irrationality of the rational cosmos of the tech scientific world..."[6] 

"The resurrection of Christ is without prattle in the history known to us. But it can be for that very reason regarded as a 'history making event' in the light of which all other history is illumined, called into question and transformed." [7]

Skeptics are too quick to argue that the resurrection is not historical fact.  In modernity we have gained an anti-supernatural bias, and so the believer is forced to ask rhetorical questions like "did Jesus raise form the dead?" and then to answer them rhetorically.  Moltmann changes the rules. Rather than ask if the resurrection is "historical" he merely argues that it doesn't have to be, it is history making. We change the rules of the debate because predicated upon the preaching of the resurrection is one of the most profound developments of world history; the growth of the Christian faith which has shaped the entire Western tradition. We view the Resurrection of Christ as history making because the belief in it did change history, the doctrine of it has made history, and belief today shapes the basis of all Christian doctrine. We put aside the hypocritical skepticism of naturalistic circular arguments and allow ourselves to accept the verdict of a history that has been made by faith in the event, in light of the fact that there is enough there to base faith upon. (see Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, 1968).

The doctrine furnishes the basis for hope, when grasped in faith, that offers a much more profound answer to any of questions about life and death than any form of skepticism or pride in confusion ever could. Rather than merely declare a rules change, I will argue that this rules change is warranted based upon the evidence. In other words, not that the resurrection can be "proven" in the same sense that any other aspect of historical research can be proven, but that the resurrection evidence is credible enough that one can feel confident in asserting its truth as a tenet of faith. The actual case can never be proven, or disproved, but the evidence allows one to believe with impunity.

In keeping with my policy of enlightening the reader about my sources, I must point out that I do lean heavily upon two major evangelical sources here: F.F. Bruce, and William Lane Craig. Bruce is, however, one of the most highly respected Evangelical scholars, even among the liberal camp, and Craig is renown as a highly credible and effective apologist. The other sources such as D. E. H. Whiteley, Stephen Neil, Gaalyah Cornfeld, and Luke Timothy Johnson are basically liberal or moderate.A few major liberal theologians, such as Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg have defended faith in the resurrection.


Historical Verdict Reversed

As William Lane Craig puts it:

The real case for skepticism of the resurrection of Christ was actually developed by 19th century liberal theology, and though they don't know it, the objections of most Internet skeptics today are echoes of those arguments. But in the postwar era even major liberal theologians began to defend the resurrection. Ernst Kasemann, student of Bultmann, at Marburg in 1953 argued that Bultmann's skepticism toward the historical Jesus was biased and Kasemann re-opened a new Quest for the historical Jesus. The great modern liberal theologian Wolfheart Paennberg argued for the resurrection of Jesus. Hans Grass argued that the resurrection cannot be dismissed as mere myth, and Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen defended the historical credibility of Jesus empty tomb....Equally startling is the declaration of one of the world's leading Jewish theologians Pinchas Lapid, that he is convinced on the basis of the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. Lapide twits New Testament critics like Bultmann and Marxsen for their unjustified skepticism and concludes that he believes on the basis of the evidence that the God of Israel raised Jesus from the dead.

According to Jakob Kremer, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb" and he furnishes a list, to which his own name may be added, of twenty-eight prominent scholars in support. I can think of at least sixteen more names that he failed to mention. Thus, it is today widely recognized that the empty tomb of Jesus is a simple historical fact. As D. H. van Daalen has pointed out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." But assumptions may simply have to be changed in light of historical facts.[8]

Before the apologist can even posit the turth of the resurrection, his truth is refuted by the very nature of historical "facts" as modern thought construes them; supernatural events cannot be part of history. But Moltmann turns this around on the nature of modern thought by arguing that before modern thought can posit a naturalistic history, the content of history is already shaped by supernatural claims.

In response to the issue that history must make naturalistic assumptions, thus miracles must be excluded.

My answer summed up in the following points

(1) Gospels are historical artifact that ques us in to a historically validated set of readings that can be understood as even older artifacts.

(2) these artifacts testify to the early nature of the empty tomb as a belief of the community.

(3) community contained eye witnesses. so this fact would have been screened out if it as false.

(4) It was spread about from an early time thus we can infer form it that the eye witnesses to the situation approved.

(5)not proof but it is a good reason to assume it's valid as a belief.It has historical verisimilitude.

The standard I set my arguments:The Resurrection was a history making event. Whatever truly happened, the actual events which are make by the claims of witnesses and faith in the veracity of those witnesses, the upshot of it all is that the historical probabilities suggest the likelihood of an event, and that event shaped the nature of history itself. The faith claims cannot be historical claims, but they don't have to be. The faith itself is justified, it cannot be ruled out by history, but instead lies at the base of modern history in some form. We can suggest throughout the strength of the evidence that those actual events were the very events attested to in the Gospels. We cannot prove this claim with absolute certainty, but the warrant provided by the evidence itself is strong enough to make the historical nature of the religious hope valid. Some religious hopes are just ruled out by the facts. For example, the idea that the Native Americans are part of the 10 lost tribes of Israel; this can be dispelled by genetics as well as dentistry. The Resurrection, on the other hand, can be accepted as likely Given the suspension of ideological objections of Naturalism.

Sources

[1] J.L.Hinman, "Good Reasons for the Resurrection," Metacrock's Blog (May 29,2018)

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/05/good-reasons-for-resurrection.html

(accessed June4, 2018)

[2] Jurgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope: on The Ground and Implication of Christian Escathology. Philedephia: Fortress Press, 1993.Trans James W. Leitch. Original Publication Publican in German,Munich: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1965, 15-17.

Born: April 8, 1926 (age 92 years), Hamburg, Germany

Education: University of Göttingen, University of Tübingen

Influenced by: Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Ernst Bloch, Ernest Bloch

Main interests: Eschatology, Liberation 

[3] Susan Humphreys, "a Moral Argument  Agasimt the Resurrection" Comment section, Secular Outpost log, (May 29,2018), http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2018/05/29/a-moral-argument-against-the-resurrection/#comment-3924189829 (accessed June4, 2018)

• 
  

Ms Humphrey;'s said:

Re-read the Theologians response above. Joe Hinman gave you some examples. Remember that symbolism was VERY important to pre-literate and pre-scientific, superstitious people. WHICH is one reason the Catholic Church built such magnificent Cathedrals, all loaded with symbolism, everywhere you looked. Also what father wouldn't "save as in resurrect" his son if he could do so? Why does God have to have a "good reason" for doing something? Because he is a rational being? Based again on whose standards.

I don't take issue but it inspired me,

[4] Moltmann, Theology of Hope, Op Cit., 15=16

I may be reading in the  Hegelianism to Moltmann;s view here but he does make use of Hegel in explaing the resurrection with "Trinitarin history of God." (see The Crucified God).

[5] Ibid 176

[6] Ibid 179

[7] Ibid 180

[8]  William Lane Craig, "Contemporary Scholarship and The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Truth, 1 (1985): 89-95. 

How many illegals really commit serious crimes?

This article was written way back at the beginning Trump's campaign in 2015, it's still relevant statistically, The rhetoric of Trump about illegal immigration is a lie,

I've seen right wing activist blogs allude to this Washington Examiner story by  Paul Bedard • 2/22/16 12:01 AM :

Almost 90,000 dangerous illegal immigrants go free

"Nearly 60 percent of illegal immigrants identified by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as criminal threats are not deported and are eventually released, the latest example of the Obama administration's failed immigration policy."

152,393 illegal immigrants labeled a criminal threat, mostly in jails, but charged 64,116. About another 88,000 were not processed for deportation, according to the Center for Immigration Studies' Jessica Vaughan. The numbers are even worse for those who ICE asks local police and sheriffs to detain but never collect.[1]

First of all notice it doesn't say what level of crime we are talking about. It says "labeled a criminal threat" not charged with serious crimes, nor does it say why they were let go (perhaps because they were not dangerous). Who did the labeling? The police? The muckrakers writing the article? Or Donald Trump? "libeled" not charged!

USA  Today runs a story "How violent are undocumented immigrants?"

Undocumented immigrants who are valedictorians of their high schools classes are held up against those who are members of brutal street gangs. Undocumented immigrants either help local economies flourish or bleed them dry. They're either hard-working, law-abiding members of society simply trying to improve their lot in life, or job-stealing opportunists who are holding Americans back

Only a tiny percentage of the nation’s violent crimes are handled by the federal court system. Yes, undocumented immigrants accounted for 9.2% of federal murder convictions in 2013, but that represents a grand total of eight murder cases. When you consider that the FBI estimates there were 14,196 murders in the U.S. in 2013, those few cases handled by the federal court system don’t quite register as a reliable sample set.
The same goes for the other violent crimes cited in those statistics. Add the fact that undocumented immigrants are far more likely to be caught up in the federal court system because of non-violent immigration violations, and the numbers shouldn't mean much.
But when updated data for 2014 were released last week, largely mirroring the previous year's figures, many pounced on them as proof of rampant crime by undocumented immigrants. Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., cited the data in a column last week, and the numbers received prominent coverage by conservative outlets such as Breitbart..[2]

Statistics from the American Immigration council shows that between 1990 and 2010 foreign born portion of population in U.S. increased by 12.9%. That's legal and illegal. In that same period the number of  illegalsv grew from 3 to 11.2 million."During the same period, FBI data indicates that the violent crime rate declined 45 percent {Figure 3} and the property crime rate fell 42 percent {Figure 4}." [3]

• The decline in crime rates was not just national, but also occurred in border cities and other cities with large immigrant populations such as San Diego, El Paso, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Miami.

• According to a 2008 report from the conservative Americas Majority Foundation, crime rates are lowest in states with the highest immigration growth rates.
  • From 1999 to 2006, the total crime rate declined 13.6 percent in the 19 highest-immigration states, compared to a 7.1 percent decline in the other 32 states.
  • In 2006, the 10 “high influx” states—those with the most dramatic, recent increases in immigration—had the lowest rates of violent crime and total crime.

Nationwide, Immigrants are Five Times Less Likely to be in Prison Than the Native-Born

• A 2007 study by University of California, Irvine, sociologist Rubén G. Rumbaut, found that for every ethnic group, without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated. This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population.
  
  • The 3.5 percent incarceration rate for native-born men age 18-39 was five times higher than the 0.7 percent rate for immigrant men in 2000{Figure 5}. Among male high-school dropouts, 9.8 percent of the native-born were behind bars in 2000, compared to only 1.3 percent of immigrants.
  • In 2000, 0.7 percent of foreign-born Mexican men and 0.5 percent of foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men were in prison. Among male high-school dropouts, 0.7 percent of foreign-born Mexicans and 0.6 percent of foreign-born Salvadorans and Guatemalans were behind bars in 2000.[4]

There are around 11 million undocumented workers, figures from Pew research center 177,960 undocumented aliens convicted and deported according to Immigration and Customs;. It doesn't say what they are convicted of and immigrants who have the slightest brush with the law can be put in this category.[5]

 Here is a more recent article that backs me up

 https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-21/the-myth-of-the-u-s-immigration-crisis

Sources

[1]  Paul Bedard, " 90,000dangerous illegals go free," Washington Examiner , 2/22/16 12:01 AM :

 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/almost-90000-dangerous-illegal-immigrants-go-free/article/2583597

[2]Alan Gomez, How violent are undocumented immigrants?" USA TODAY 7:58 p.m. EDT July 16, 2015

 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/16/voices-gomez-undocumented-immigrant-crime-san-francisco-shooting/30159479/

[3] American Immigration Council "From Anecdotes To Evidence: Setting the Record Straight" Thursday July 26, 2013.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/anecdotes-evidence-setting-record-straight-immigrants-and-crime-0

American immigration council is a non propjet:

http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/mission

their statement:

based in Washington D.C.  Our legal, education, policy and exchange programs work to strengthen America by honoring our immigrant history and shaping how Americans think and act towards immigration now and in the future.

The American Immigration Council exists to promote the prosperity and cultural richness of our diverse nation by:

•  Educating citizens about the enduring contributions of America’s immigrants. 
• Standing up for sensible and humane immigration policies that reflect American values.   
• Insisting that our immigration laws be enacted and implemented in a way that honors fundamental constitutional and human rights. 
• Working tirelessly to achieve justice and fairness for immigrants under the law. 

Our motto is: Honoring our immigrant past; shaping our immigrant future.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Catherine E. Shoichet, Immigrants and Crime Crunching the Numbers CNN,

Updated 10:36 PM ET, Wed July 8, 2015