u/Am-Hooman

So the proof to my understanding goes like this:

Imagine a machine A which takes in a machine B's code and that B's input as its own input and tells us if the problem halts exists

Place A into a greater machine C which takes the output of A and if A returns "halts" it goes into an infinite loop, and if it returns "does not halt" C halts.

Use C as an input to C and create a paradox.

The part I don't understand is how exactly the last step is a paradox. A, and therefore C don't just take in a machine as an input, but also that machines input, so you can't just put the machine C into itself without the context of what is being put into C.

Therefore C(C(B)) is not the same program as C(B), so why do they need to have the same result in order for it not to be a paradox?

Edit: i think i get it now, C modifies A not just in how it reacts to the output but it also modifies the input to be the same for both the program and the program's input

Thanks to u/OpiskionThemed, u/Aminumbra and u/stevemegson for explaining it

Atheist and here, it seems that a common argument for the historicity of the resurrection is the unlikelihood of any alternative explanation. The apostles lying seems inconsistent with their deaths, even taking the conservative estimate that only Peter, Paul and James (son of Zebedee) were martyred. The swoon hypothesis seems medically impossible, and mass hallucination is also unlikely.

However, I believe any of these explanations are still more likely than the resurrection. The apostles lying or hallucinating are both quite extraordinary claims, but don't rely on any supernatural events.

There have been recorded cases of mass hallucinations such as the miracle of the sun at Fatima, and given that the gospels were written well after the events they describe, the scale of the appearances may have been exaggerated. From what I've read I think most secular scholars that express an opinion on the topic believe that post-resurrection appearances were visions induced by grief or a desire to confirm Jesus' divinity, or both.

As for the likelihood of the apostles martyring themselves for a lie, there isn't significant consensus about how exactly most of them died or what exactly they were executed for.

There's a common theme where many of the apostles were executed for converting a family member of some leader, which seems to both contradict the narrative that they died for their personal beliefs and put into question the reliability of their death narratives in general. Many of the death narratives are also from apocryphal texts composed long after the canonical gospels.

From my perspective it seems that the argument tries to prove the impossible by first eliminating the improbable rather than the other way around.

Apologies for the rambling tone. Also, I'm not a historian or a scholar so if I missed or misinterpreted anything please let me know.

Edit: impossible might be the wrong word to use in the second to last paragraph, I don’t think anything that isn’t a logical contradiction is 100% impossible, I was referencing a famous Sherlock Holmes quote.

I (60M) am a martial arts and philosophy tutor for a promising student (22M). This student grew with his aunt and uncle, but I happened to know his father (44M). Unfortunately his dad went down some really unpleasant fascist-adjacent pipelines, and now has somewhat of a position of power in the current government, which he abuses. My student doesn’t really know any of this as he grew up on a pretty isolated farm and his guardians kept silent about anything related to his father. Unfortunately he recently found out that I lied about his father being dead (although I did phrase it somewhat ambiguously), and I’m worried that he might go down a similar pipeline.