1hr long but seemingly irrefutable

Originally posted by twhitehead
And the authors of the gospels go to great pains to make up a story which fits all those prophesies. Much of the story has been discredited as being inconsistent with other historical sources.
How do you explain the contradictions between:
1. A virgin birth.
2. Decendancy from anyone - Note that the gospels list Josephs ancestors.
3. The contradictions between the different family trees listed in the different Gospels.

And the authors of the gospels go to great pains to make up a story which fits all those prophesies.

I see your point, but what you are in fact asserting is that the New Testament authors lied about Jesus. How do you account for the writers of the New Testament teaching about truth, love, honesty, giving, etc., all based on lies? Why would they suffer hardships like beatings, starvation, shipwreck, imprisonments, and finally execution for nothing but lies? What you are saying doesn't make sense, and raises more questions than it answers.

The only logical explanation is that the fulfilled prophecies really did happen. Jesus actually rose from the dead, performed miracles, and forgave sins.

(He forgave sins then, and He can still do it now. My sins are forgiven, are yours?)

Please note that many cult members will die for their faith as well. But they die for something they believe in, not for something they have actually seen. Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses all die for their faith. But the New Testament believers died for what they saw and believed, not for what they believed only. That is a big difference. The N.T. writers died claiming that they had seen the risen Lord.

Much of the story has been discredited as being inconsistent with other historical sources.

Please provide examples.

How do you explain the contradictions between:
1. A virgin birth.
2. Decendancy from anyone - Note that the gospels list Josephs ancestors.
3. The contradictions between the different family trees listed in the different Gospels.

2. It was customary to use the ancestors of the father.

3. The genealogy in Matthew 1 is Joseph's, and the genealogy presented in Luke 3 is Mary's. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side). Matthew was written to the Jews, which is why it contains the legal line (Abraham through David), while Luke was not written for the Jews, which is why it contains the biological line (Adam through David). You assume that the "discrepancy" between the two genealogies is some kind of overlooked error, but it is not.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
My main objection is to this point. The existence of absolute logical rules does not necessarily indicate the presence of a perfect mind. Perhaps this is simply how a physical universe like ours must be.

If absolute logical rules can be [b]created, that implies that there could have been a time before their creation in which they did not ap ...[text shortened]... es of logic, could he have been God and not-God at the same time?! Of course not. Absurd, right?[/b]

The existence of absolute logical rules does not necessarily indicate the presence of a perfect mind. Perhaps this is simply how a physical universe like ours must be.

This is begging the question and does not provide an explanation for their existence. Simply saying logical absolutes exist is not an answer.

If absolute logical rules can be created, that implies that there could have been a time before their creation in which they did not apply. So, before God created the rules of logic, could he have been God and not-God at the same time?! Of course not. Absurd, right?

First of all, if the laws of logic are merely "rules", or agreed upon conventions, then they cannot be absolute. If they are not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything. I could accurately claim anything, and could not be proven to have contradicted myself, e.g. I could claim victory over you in all our arguments because I have already won everything logically because I said so yesterday and today, etc.

Therefore, these are not mere "rules" but absolutely true in all times and places, with or without the existence of humanity, with or without the existence of the universe.

Secondly, I don't think I ever stated that logical absolutes were created. What I have stated is that logical absolutes reflect the transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind of God, i.e. absolute laws of logic exist because God exists. My contention is, only a theistic world-view can account for the existence of absolutes. Otherwise, one must either deny the absolute nature of the laws of logic (which is self-defeating), or borrow from the theistic world-view (i.e. logical absolutes arise from a transcendent Source) in order to engage in rational discourse.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
[b]The existence of absolute logical rules does not necessarily indicate the presence of a perfect mind. Perhaps this is simply how a physical universe like ours must be.

This is begging the question and does not provide an explanation for their existence. Simply saying logical absolutes exist is not an answer.

If absolute logical rules ca perfect, and independent mind of God, i.e. absolute laws of logic exist because God exists.[/b]

This is begging the question and does not provide an explanation for their existence. Simply saying logical absolutes exist is not an answer.

I was not trying to provide an answer. I was trying to show you that you don't have anything better. You haven't given a good reason why logical laws must emanate from God.

Secondly, I don't think I ever stated that logical absolutes were created.

You said earlier, on page 2 of the thread,

"The contention is, the absolute laws of logic, which transcend time and space and subjectivity, are not Man's invention but originate in God."

The word "originate" implies that they had a beginning. So, unless you think God began at the same time as logical laws, he must have created them [since you think they emanate directly from him, and are not just a natural property of the universe]. Feel free to clarify.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
Why would they suffer hardships like beatings, starvation, shipwreck, imprisonments, and finally execution for nothing but lies?

OK, why did the 9/11 hijackers give up their lives for nothing but lies?

How do you explain the martyrs of other faiths if those faiths are based on a lie?

This is the danger in judging the validity of a faith by the fervency of its followers.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
This is begging the question and does not provide an explanation for their existence. Simply saying logical absolutes exist is not an answer.

I was not trying to provide an answer. I was trying to show you that you don't have anything better. You haven't given a good reason why logical laws must emanate from God.

Secondly, I don't ly from him, and are not just a natural property of the universe]. Feel free to clarify.

I was not trying to provide an answer. I was trying to show you that you don't have anything better. You haven't given a good reason why logical laws must emanate from God.

But the point is, I do have something better. The Christian world-view is able to account for the existence of logical absolutes, while the atheistic world-view is not. If you don't think logical absolutes arise from the mind of God, then how do you account for them?

You said earlier, on page 2 of the thread,

"The contention is, the absolute laws of logic, which transcend time and space and subjectivity, are not Man's invention but [b]originate in God."

The word "originate" implies that they had a beginning. So, unless you think God began at the same time as logical laws, he must have created them [since you think they emanate directly from him, and are not just a natural property of the universe]. Feel free to clarify.[/b]

I can see where my choice of words is misleading. If you notice, though, in the preceding sentences I said clearly:

"In the Christian world-view God is absolute and the standard of truth, and the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God. These laws are uncreated, that is, eternal, because they reflect God's thinking."

I meant to underscore the fact that logical absolutes aren't subjectively determined (man's invention) but, rather, are absolute and eternal because they are a reflection of God's absolute and eternal mind.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
OK, why did the 9/11 hijackers give up their lives for nothing but lies?

How do you explain the martyrs of other faiths if those faiths are based on a lie?

This is the danger in judging the validity of a faith by the fervency of its followers.

OK, why did the 9/11 hijackers give up their lives for nothing but lies? How do you explain the martyrs of other faiths if those faiths are based on a lie?

Of course, believing in something doesn't make it true, even if you are willing to die for it. The difference is, the apostles died claiming they had seen the risen Lord. Dying for something you haven't seen but only believe in is one thing, dying for something you've seen with your own eyes is quite another thing. If the apostle's testimony is a lie, then that means they died for something they knew was a lie (unlike the 9/11 hijackers), which doesn't make sense and raises more questions than it answers.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
I hope I am reading you correctly, because what you refer to by, "grammar of our consciousness," or, "syntax of the cosmos," I admit, eludes me. Are you saying, basically, that so-called absolute logical truths aren't really absolute?

[b]~(A & ~A) is a logical truth. I recognize it as such. Does that mean that I have a perfect mind?

No ion that logical absolutes arise from a transcendent Source) in order to rationally argue.[/b]

I hope I am reading you correctly, because what you refer to by, "grammar of our consciousness," or, "syntax of the cosmos," I admit, eludes me. Are you saying, basically, that so-called absolute logical truths aren't really absolute?

I was not clear perhaps. We apply the “grammar of our consciousness” to decipher the “syntax of the cosmos”: that is a linguistic metaphor applied generally. In the course of that application (“deciphering” ) we may identify logical truths, such as ~(A & ~A). That does not mean that they are not true independent of our identification.

And if we were to start with the premise that the laws of logic are not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.

I think we need to differentiate between deductive and inductive logic. Take the statement “If P, then Q; P, therefore Q.” That is a valid inference for any P or Q. However, it is only true if, in fact, P. It cannot be used to prove P, and therefore cannot be used to prove Q, unless it can be otherwise proved that P. “If P, then Q; P, therefore Q” is a deductive argument.

With regard to an inductive argument, I can do no better than to quote Dr. Scribbles:

“An inductive argument is an argument whose premises, when true, suggest that the conclusion is true. The degree of suggestion lies along a subjective spectrum of strength. While a deductive argument is objectively valid based on the existence of a proof (or invalid based on the impossibility of a proof), an inductive argument is subjectively strong or weak based on how compelling the beholder finds the evidentiary connection between the premises (facts) and the conclusion.

“When assessing a deductive argument that you have been presented with, you ask for a proof. When assessing an inductive argument that you have been presented with, you ask for the evidentiary connection between the facts (premises) and the conclusion.”

With that said—

I'm presenting logical absolutes not as proof but evidence that God exists.

Gotcha. Basically, you seem to be arguing along these lines: That the existence of logical truths implies the existence of God.

One of your premises is that the existence of logical truths needs to be accounted for. More, broadly, that seems to me to be akin to the assumption that the coherence of the cosmos needs to be accounted for (the coherence version of the so-called “cosmological argument” for the existence of God). And here, there are two points: you need to explain (i) why there needs to be such an accounting, as opposed to simply taking it as an apparent fact, and (ii) why the desire for such an accounting justifies the leap to a supernatural category (with a supernatural being: God). Therefore, the first three premises of your argument seem to be—


(1) There exist logical truths.

(2) Such truths need to be accounted for.

(3) The only way to account for such truths is to posit a theistic being.

I dispute both (2) and (3).

[Note: I do not use the word “transcendent” to refer necessarily to either the supernatural, or to a theistic supernatural being. As I said, I am quite willing to accept that there may be aspects of “the syntax of the cosmos” that transcend the capacity of “the grammar of our consciousness.”]

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
[b]I was not trying to provide an answer. I was trying to show you that you don't have anything better. You haven't given a good reason why logical laws must emanate from God.

But the point is, I do have something better. The Christian world-view is able to account for the existence of logical absolutes, while the atheistic world-view is ...[text shortened]... lute and eternal because they are a reflection of God's absolute and eternal mind.[/b]

But the point is, I do have something better. The Christian world-view is able to account for the existence of logical absolutes, while the atheistic world-view is not.

All you have done is simply asserted that logical absolutes are a reflection of God's perfect mind. Why should I, a non-Christian, simply take you at your word?

If you don't think logical absolutes arise from the mind of God, then how do you account for them?

I don't. You're the one who claimed that you could, so the burden of proof is on you.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
[b]OK, why did the 9/11 hijackers give up their lives for nothing but lies? How do you explain the martyrs of other faiths if those faiths are based on a lie?

Of course, believing in something doesn't make it true, even if you are willing to die for it. The difference is, the apostles died claiming they had seen the risen Lord. Dying for ke the 9/11 hijackers), which doesn't make sense and raises more questions than it answers.[/b]

I recognize this bad bit of reasoning from Josh McDowell books.

Take Benny Hinn. He's an obvious phony. He probably knowingly lied about healing people to get rich. He's been making $$ for years.

Now let's imagine that the current Congressional investigation of Hinn and the other phonies results in Hinn going to jail. Benny pleads innocent throughout.

Would Hinn's followers be justified in claiming that Benny really healed people, on grounds that no one would willingly go to jail for something they knew was a lie?

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
I see your point, but what you are in fact asserting is that the New Testament authors lied about Jesus.

Not so. As pointed out by others more learned than me, it was normal (or at least not uncommon) at the time for writers to make their stories fit prophesy etc. That does not constitute lying if the writer believes his reader will know it is made up.

How do you account for the writers of the New Testament teaching about truth, love, honesty, giving, etc., all based on lies?
When did I say that? Surely you are not implying that the teachings on truth, love, honesty, giving, etc.are reliant on the place and circumstances of Jesus' birth?
To put it another way, have you ever lied? Should I disregard any teaching of yours on truth, love, honesty, giving, etc? Are you incapable of teaching on truth, love, honesty, giving, etc. because of your past lies? That is the implication you are making.

Why would they suffer hardships like beatings, starvation, shipwreck, imprisonments, and finally execution for nothing but lies?
Ahem, the shipwreck was because of what again? And which of those gospel writers suffered such hardships? Where do you get this information?

The only logical explanation is that the fulfilled prophecies really did happen.
Well show it logically then. So far you have failed miserably, and my explanation remains the more logical one.

That is a big difference. The N.T. writers died claiming that they had seen the risen Lord.
Ahem, you would be surprised how many cult members make the same claim.

[I]Much of the story has been discredited as being inconsistent with other historical sources.[/I]
Please provide examples.
You can do your own research, but the things I have heard and come to mind:
1. There was no census at that time.
2. A census would not have required them to return to Bethlehem.
3. The killing of children is not recorded.
4. Herod did not have the status implied.

2. It was customary to use the ancestors of the father.
Father? What father?

3. The genealogy in Matthew 1 is Joseph's, and the genealogy presented in Luke 3 is Mary's. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side). Matthew was written to the Jews, which is why it contains the legal line (Abraham through David), while Luke was not written for the Jews, which is why it contains the biological line (Adam through David). You assume that the "discrepancy" between the two genealogies is some kind of overlooked error, but it is not.
I will let those more learned than me deal with that one.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I hope I am reading you correctly, because what you refer to by, "grammar of our consciousness," or, "syntax of the cosmos," I admit, eludes me. Are you saying, basically, that so-called absolute logical truths aren't really absolute?

I was not clear perhaps. We apply the “grammar of our consciousness” to decipher the “syntax of the cosmos”: that syntax of the cosmos” that transcend the capacity of “the grammar of our consciousness.”][/b]

(a) “If the prophecies mentioned are true (P), then Jesus is the prophesied messiah (Q)”

How about:

"If Jesus fulfilled the O.T. prophecies concerning the Messiah (P), then Jesus is the prophesied Messiah (Q)." If P, then Q; P, therefore Q.

One of your premises is that the existence of logical truths needs to be accounted for... you need to explain (i) why there needs to be such an accounting, as opposed to simply taking it as an apparent fact

The Christian world-view is able to account for logical absolutes. The question posed is, "How does a non-theistic world-view account for logical absolutes?" I am simply asking atheists to give a rational reason for the existence of logical absolutes in the context of their atheism. Furthermore, the question is not asked in such a way that atheists cannot answer it.

I'm assuming that your answer to this question would be (judging from the quoted text above) that logical absolutes simply exist, which is another way of saying that you cannot (or refuse to) account for them. If your contention is otherwise, that there are ways to account for logical absolutes within the context of atheism, then I await your suggestions.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
But the point is, I do have something better. The Christian world-view is able to account for the existence of logical absolutes, while the atheistic world-view is not.

All you have done is simply asserted that logical absolutes are a reflection of God's perfect mind. Why should I, a non-Christian, simply take you at your word?

If /b]

I don't. You're the one who claimed that you could, so the burden of proof is on you.

All you have done is simply asserted that logical absolutes are a reflection of God's perfect mind. Why should I, a non-Christian, simply take you at your word?

I'm not asking you to take my word for it that logical absolutes are a reflection of God's perfect mind. I'm simply stating that this is the Christian explanation for the existence of logical absolutes.

I don't. You're the one who claimed that you could, so the burden of proof is on you.

So, are you refusing to account for logical absolutes, or is it that you cannot account for them?

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
The Christian world-view is able to account for logical absolutes.

No it doesn't. As with almost all questions it claims to answer (but doesn't) it simply hides it behind 'God did it'.
See if you can prove me wrong: try to explain how in your world view the existence for logical absolutes are 'accounted for' and lets see if you can do it without invoking either circular reasoning or obfustication.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
[b]All you have done is simply asserted that logical absolutes are a reflection of God's perfect mind. Why should I, a non-Christian, simply take you at your word?

I'm not asking you to take my word for it that logical absolutes are a reflection of God's perfect mind. I'm simply stating that this is the Christian explanation for the existence of ...[text shortened]... you refusing to account for logical absolutes, or is it that you cannot account for them?[/b]

I'm simply stating that this is the Christian explanation for the existence of logical absolutes.

And my counterpoint remains that this 'explanation' is no explanation at all. It is a mere assertion without any real support.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
[b](a) “If the prophecies mentioned are true (P), then Jesus is the prophesied messiah (Q)”

How about:

"If Jesus fulfilled the O.T. prophecies concerning the Messiah (P), then Jesus is the prophesied Messiah (Q)." If P, then Q; P, therefore Q.

One of your premises is that the existence of logical truths needs to be accounted for. account for logical absolutes within the context of atheism, then I await your suggestions.

[/b]How about:

"If Jesus fulfilled the O.T. prophecies concerning the Messiah (P), then Jesus is the prophesied Messiah (Q)." If P, then Q; P, therefore Q.

Well, I edited that part out simply because others are arguing as well as I can on the evidentiary weight concerning such fulfillment (and the nature of the statements taken as prophecies). In other words, those arguments go to the matter of P, and are inductive.

I'm assuming that your answer to this question would be (judging from the quoted text above) that logical absolutes simply exist, which is another way of saying that you cannot (or refuse to) account for them. If your contention is otherwise, that there are ways to account for logical absolutes within the context of atheism, then I await your suggestions.

I don’t know that they can be accounted for without some metaphysical speculation that I do not engage in (and that includes the metaphysical speculations of non-theistic worldviews such as those, say, of Advaita Vedanta or Kashmiri Shaivism, or, perhaps, some branches of Buddhism). My refusal, as you put it, is to engage in such speculation merely for the sake of having an explanation that is not otherwise forthcoming. (For example, I am a Zen Buddhist; but I do not speculate about such things as reincarnation—again, that is an area in which Zennists tend to be closer to the Taoists.)

If you want to know how non-theistic systems might account for them, I suggest that you read up on those alternative worldviews (Kashmiri Shaivism is particularly interesting in that it uses theistic language in a purely symbolic may within a strictly non-dualist framework). Again, I myself do not engage in such speculation just for the sake of coming up with answers. (People used to account for all sorts of things that they could not explain by ascribing "spirits" to the wind and the trees, etc. The so-called "god-of-the gaps" problem arises whenever people insist that what cannot presently be explained must have a supernatural source.)

Theists are not terribly different in this regard: whereas I stop at the cosmos as a whole, theists stop after postulating God as a causa sui which needs no further accounting for.

Therefore, I dispute that logical truths need accounting for, on the one hand. On the other hand, my study of non-theistic systems (such as those noted above) that attempt to account for them leads me to conclude that the theistic assumption is not necessary for such metaphysical speculation to yield internally consistent results.

___________________________________

The Tao that can be talked about is not the real Tao;
no name is its real name.

. . .

I don’t know what to call it,
so I just call it Tao.

—Lao Tzu (paraphrased)