Originally posted by Jorge BorgesYou did set up a straw man. You essentially claimed that if the Jesus story was a lie (or even parts of it such as Jesus' early life as recorded in the gospels) then over 500 witnesses to his resurrection would have been 'in' on the lie. That is a stawman, plain as day. The gospels were written long after most of those witnesses would have died.
I'm not setting up a strawman. My post pointed out specific hurdles which your hypothesis must overcome, and raised legitimate questions about whether your speculations are tenable or not. If you refuse to acknowledge them, that is not my problem.
Whenever somebody starts interjecting ad hominem into the discussion, as you have here and elsewhere, it usually means that person doesn't have much of substance left to offer. Ad hominem, though it may be personally satisfying, does nothing but weaken your argumentation. Refrain from it in the future if you wish to be taken more seriously.
That is essentially ad hominem itself so fell free to apply your own rules to yourself 🙂
I don't think there is any point in discussing this topic further with you, twhitehead.
This is not a matter of opinion where we can simply agree to disagree, it is a matter of you presenting a flawed argument - and I have shown that to be the case. So you should be honest and admit it.
Instead we should start by addressing your presuppositions. If you already have the presupposition that miracles are impossible, that God doesn't exist, etc., then no amount of evidence is going to be sufficient to change your mind, since you will judge everything according to your presuppositions.
What I believe is irrelevant for the points at hand. You cannot present a flawed argument and expect even your fellow Christians to accept it simply because they agree with your conclusion. Just because someone believes miracles exist does not mean that they will accept anyones claim that they have seen a miracle.
I do not believe that God exists and I do not believe that miracles are possible. However, it still remains that that the evidence you have presented is flawed and I am rejecting it on valid grounds regardless of my beliefs.
What kind of evidence would you accept for God's existence?
I cannot honestly answer that question in detail. But I would not accept evidence of the standard that you have presented.
Originally posted by mtthwThis doesn't rule out the possibility of miracles happening. It just means we have no reason to believe in them.
I'm with David Hume on this one.
See, for example, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hume-miracles.html
The basic argument being, in almost any case of a reported miracle, it is more likely that the testimony is suspect (which we know happens all the time) than the miracle occurred (which is, by definition, an unlikely occurrence).
This doesn't rule ...[text shortened]... ut the possibility of miracles happening. It just means we have no reason to believe in them.
Well, you do have reason to believe in miracles, because scripture is there attesting to them -- scripture which can be tested for its reliability in many different ways. The question is, will you trust the testimony?
If you pronounce scripture invalid simply because it testifies that Christ rose from the dead and worked miracles, then it would not matter if the testimony were true or if the miracles actually happened -- your presuppositions have already rendered the evidence null and void.
It is possible to rationalize away the trustworthiness of any evidence, according to one's presuppositions, the same for Hume as well as yourself. But such rationalizations aren't universal. You may not have reason to believe in scripture according to your presuppositions, but that does not preclude others from finding convincing reasons to, nor should it.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat is a stawman, plain as day. The gospels were written long after most of those witnesses would have died.
You did set up a straw man. You essentially claimed that if the Jesus story was a lie (or even parts of it such as Jesus' early life as recorded in the gospels) then over 500 witnesses to his resurrection would have been 'in' on the lie. That is a stawman, plain as day. The gospels were written long after most of those witnesses would have died.
Wh stion in detail. But I would not accept evidence of the standard that you have presented.
The problem is, you have bad information. The gospels were written within one generation of the Christ's ministry. Therefore, the gospels weren't written long after the witnesses died, as you claim. For example, Paul's letter to the Corinthians which mentions the five-hundred witnesses was written while the apostles were all still alive.
You see, it is a legitimate point, not a strawman argument. Take it or leave it.
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesBut neither should you find 'convincing reasons' simply because you believe their conclusion. Flawed reasons are flawed reasons whether or not their conclusion is valid. And closing your ears to others points simply because you believe they can never believe you is similarly a poor argument.
You may not have reason to believe in scripture according to your presuppositions, but that does not preclude others from finding convincing reasons to, nor should it.
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesOne generation but God knows (pun intended) how many people in between.
[b]That is a stawman, plain as day. The gospels were written long after most of those witnesses would have died.
The problem is, you have bad information. The gospels were written within one generation of the Christ's ministry. Therefore, the gospels weren't written long after the witnesses died, as you claim. For example, Paul's letter ...[text shortened]... l alive.
You see, it is a legitimate point, not a strawman argument. Take it or leave it.[/b]
It's like game where people sit in a circle and receive and whisper a message around. Just think about urban myths and how they spread. They usually start with an inkling of truth and become more and more extreme. And the funny thing is, that most people claim they 'have a friend' that was either closely involved or has access to privileged information (cop, judge, etc.).
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesYou may be missing the point.
Well, you do have reason to believe in miracles, because scripture is there attesting to them -- scripture which can be tested for its reliability in many different ways. The question is, will you trust the testimony?
(In my, and Hume's opinion) Any rational argument must come to the conclusion that the testimony is suspect. Would it be more of a miracle that the testimony is false than that somebody rose from the dead? No, it wouldn't.
So to believe the testimony is to make greater assumptions than to doubt it.
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe point about absolutes is that they can't be explained. As soon as you explain something you are referencing something else that is more absolute than the thing you are trying to explain. This process then goes on ad infinitum with no end in sight.
The point about absolutes is that they can't be explained. As soon as you explain something you are referencing something else that is more absolute than the thing you are trying to explain. This process then goes on ad infinitum with no end in sight.
For example , if existence popped into existence out of diddly squat then how can we explain it? ...[text shortened]... which if true would mean God would stop being God and something else would then be God.
Yes, how does the atheist account for logical absolutes? He cannot. If he says they simply exist, this is begging the question and does not provide an explanation for their existence. If he calls them agreed upon principles merely, then he runs into another problem: logical absolutes transcend space and time and are absolute by nature; therefore, they could not be the product of human minds which are finite and not absolute. Etc., etc.
The Christian world-view, however, can explain the existence of absolutes, because the God of the Bible is Himself absolute. Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on the space, time, physical properties, or human nature. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter) because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds because human minds are different, not absolute. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind is authoring them. This mind is called God.
***
This is an attempt to demonstrate the existence of God. Any thoughts?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI need to be somewhat picky, because I don't have a lot of time. If I had all the time in the world, I'd love to defend the Christian faith and pursue every branch of argumentation to its fullest. But I recognize that it can be a fruitless venture to present what evidence there is for God and Christ to those whose presuppositions make it impossible to consider the evidence objectively and without bias.
But neither should you find 'convincing reasons' simply because you believe their conclusion. Flawed reasons are flawed reasons whether or not their conclusion is valid. And closing your ears to others points simply because you believe they can never believe you is similarly a poor argument.
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesPlease give an approximate time period not a vague "within one generation". Do you mean 'in the next generation'? Are we talking 10 years, 20 years, 50 years?
The problem is, you have bad information. The gospels were written within one generation of the Christ's ministry. Therefore, the gospels weren't written long after the witnesses died, as you claim.
For example, Paul's letter to the Corinthians which mentions the five-hundred witnesses was written while the apostles were all still alive.
There you go with strawmen again.
1. Pauls letter is not part of the gospels.
2. The 500 did not witness Jesus' birth or most of the other 'fulfilled' miracles that we were discussing.
3. Pauls letter does not mention the 'fulfilled' miracles either.
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesYou have not accounted for the existence of logical absolutes but merely:
But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind is authoring them. This mind is called God.
1. Made the ungrounded claim that they derive from an absolute transcendent mind.
2. Essentially given them a name.
This is an attempt to demonstrate the existence of God. Any thoughts?
Your demonstration takes the form:
1. Something exists called A.
2. We shall call A God.
3. Therefore God exists.
Let me also prove that God exists:
1. There is a frog in my garden. It exists.
2. Lets call my frog God.
3. Therefore God exists.
1 edit
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesI understand the doubts which you are attempting to raise. In my response I was intending to show that your speculations aren't compliant with the data -- nothing more.
Forgive me if I've offended you, SwissGambit, as it was not my intent to do so.
I understand the doubts which you are attempting to raise. In my response I was intending to show that your speculations aren't compliant with the data -- nothing more. Your case would indeed be bolstered by an incontrovertible historical document suggesting that the co How about the resurrection of the dead? Do you believe Christ's resurrection is possible?
First off, you have this bad habit of raising an issue, then acting like it was some tangent I went off on of my own accord. You brought up the Josh McDowell argument that nobody would give their life for something they knew was a lie. In order to examine the argument, it is necessary to assume, at least for the sake of argument, that the scriptural data on the resurrection is false [or the truth exaggerated, or inaccurately recorded, etc. etc.].
Since no such documents have yet been found,
Are you sure? How about documents with a different interpretation of events? How about 'add-ons' to the gospel account?
I see no logical reason to assume that the apostles, along with the five-hundred other witnesses to Christ's resurrection,
The number seems too high. Source, please.
communally agreed to lie
Did all 500 of them go to his tomb? I doubt it. So, the ones who did could have persuaded the others.
(not just once, but lie continually throughout their ministry)
Lots of people lie continually. Politicians and religious leaders are among the worst offenders.
all while preaching honesty, integrity, charity, love, etc.
It's called hypocrisy. Again, many people are guilty of it.
I highly doubt such a deplorable organization could ever get off the ground, much less keep one person from letting the cat out of the bag.
You must not be very conversant with history outside of Christianity.
Keep in mind, not one person in the early church is on record saying that it was all a hoax.
I guess you should tell Josh McDowell to stop making the argument about not knowingly giving your life for a lie, then [and it wouldn't hurt to quit using it yourself, if you're not willing to actually consider its validity]. If only he knew how iron-clad the scriptural data is, he would not have to waste his time with weaker arguments! 😛
Do you believe that miracles are possible?
If you mean supernatural miracles, no. If you mean miracles where a positive result obtained despite overwhelming odds, then yes.
If not, may I ask why?
I see no reason to believe that there are supernatural forces operating in this world. We do not know everything about the operation of the natural world, so we tend to interpret some events we cannot understand as supernatural.
How about the resurrection of the dead?
Not a supernatural resurrection. However, we've seen people come out of comas after 19 years. Before the advance of medical science, this may have fooled a lot of people.
Do you believe Christ's resurrection is possible?
See above.
1 edit
Would you consider it a good thing if you weren't free?
Maybe.
Would it be more desirable to be an automaton?
Maybe, but then that matters little from a creator's pre-creation perspective.
Would you not agree that it is in keeping with a good God to have created creatures possessing free will?
I don't see why any one should assume so. I know the Free Will Defense has been helping the weak-minded rest at night and keeping pastors fed and clothed, however you have not established any reasons for thinking that it is valid.
Do you know anything about choice theory? 🙂 Please say, "Yes." It will make my job much easier.
2 edits
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesSo, here is an inference, in the form of a reductio:
[b]The point about absolutes is that they can't be explained. As soon as you explain something you are referencing something else that is more absolute than the thing you are trying to explain. This process then goes on ad infinitum with no end in sight.
Yes, how does the atheist account for logical absolutes? He cannot. If he says they simply ...[text shortened]... is called God.
***
This is an attempt to demonstrate the existence of God. Any thoughts?[/b]
(1) The cosmos is coherent.
(2) (A & ~A) is true.
(3) (A & ~A) is incoherent.
(4) Therefore, the cosmos is incoherent.
—But (4) contradicts premise (1), resulting in a reductio ad absurdum.
Therefore, we are able to account for at least one logical fact—i.e., ~(A & ~A)—from a simple premise of coherence. Unless you want to challenge (1) or (3). I see no reason why other logical facts cannot be treated the same way.
________________________________________
Now, while you have been making much of others’ either being unable, or refusing, to “account” for logical truths sans a supernatural being or a perfect mind, you have put yourself in something of a circular position: you can’t both use the existence of logical truths to account for the existence of a God, and then turn around and say that the existence of God is what accounts for the existence of logical truths. You can’t use your conclusion to prove your premises.
If you want to argue that the coherency of the cosmos itself (a) requires an explanation, and/or (b) that a sufficient explanation entails the existence of some exoteric “perfect mind,” then do so. So far, all you have done is assert that is the case (e.g., in your C.). But be aware that knightmeister is right: If you then claim that God is a causa sui in no need of further explanation of it’s existence, then your claim is not logically different from mine that the coherency of the cosmos is a brute fact that we just can accept. You either have an infinite causal chain, or you stop somewhere by fiat.
One could, of course, claim that the cosmos itself is characterized by being fundamentally mind, as well as energy—that is the position of the Kashmiri Shaivites that I mentioned, and I think some Buddhists as well. In such non-dualist metaphysics, there is no need for an exoteric source. That is not my metaphysics, but it does lead to internally consistent systems of thought (at least it seems to based on my studies).
Yes, how does the atheist account for logical absolutes? He cannot. If he says they simply exist, this is begging the question and does not provide an explanation for their existence.
“Yes, how does the theist account for God? He cannot. If he says God simply exists (and always has), this is begging the question and does not provide an explanation for God’s existence.”
However, to claim that something is a brute fact is not question begging. This is—
(1) Logical truths exist.
(2) The existence of logical truths requires an explanation.
(3) Only the existence of God explains the existence of logical truths.
(4) Therefore God exists. [by (1), (2) and (3)]
(5) The existence of God explains the existence of logical truths. [restatement of (3)]
—How this is so, of course, itself needs an argument if it is not to be a mere assertion (in the stronger (3) as well as here).
(6) God exists. [by (4)]
(7) Therefore the existence of logical truths is explained.
4 edits
===================================
But if an atheist knows there is a God, let's say, in the same way he knows it is raining outside by the sound of raindrops on his roof, don't you think he would just as readily acknowledge God as he would the rain?
=======================================
No. There is a difference in the athiest's mind between a drop of rain and the idea of God.
I think with many athiests is works this way:
1.) From some quarter they learn that God is a Person to whom they are subject or should be subject. They heard that they were created from God or in some to this God's government they are, or should be subordinated.
Generally speaking God is greater, the greatest Person.
2.) They examine themselves and assume this Person of God must be like them the person with whom they are most familiar.
3.) The thought of being subject to someone like themselves repulses them to the uttermost. The same goes pretty much with any other "persons" they know, all of which being very error prone and unworthy of being subjected to.
4.) So they seek comfort in the thought that God cannot exist.
In short the thought is "If God is a person then he must be something like me. It is better to believe that no such God can exist."
I think this is the underlying thought. I don't think this is the thought they verbalize too often.