Originally posted by LemonJello
This shows why you suck at witnessing so much.

Let's go through this yet again for good measure:

Your 1) is just procedurally wrong. It's strange that you think it is indicative of the right "attitude of heart" for approaching some inquiry, because the opposite is actually the case. If a person approaches some inquiry honestly and with intellectua ...[text shortened]... onal defense of their Christianity seriously. So sorry to have to keep telling you that.

This shows why you suck at witnessing so much.

Interesting. Sounds like you are aware of some other Christian who is much better at witnessing for Jesus ? Who might that be ?

I thought a skeptic like you would regard all witnessing for Christ is bad. Sounds like you have done some comparison.

Originally posted by LemonJello
This shows why you suck at witnessing so much.

Let's go through this yet again for good measure:

Your 1) is just procedurally wrong. It's strange that you think it is indicative of the right "attitude of heart" for approaching some inquiry, because the opposite is actually the case. If a person approaches some inquiry honestly and with intellectua onal defense of their Christianity seriously. So sorry to have to keep telling you that.

Regarding point 1)

The reason why attitude of heart is important in something like this is because you are not investigating a neutral phenomenon like a rock or gravity. God is personal and He has a will. Why should he bother revealing Himself to you if are not prepared to follow Him if he does? God will not belittle Himself. You need to be willing to know Him. To treat God just like some kind of dry science experiment is to miss the point. I'm not saying that intellectual integrity is unimportant and I do understand the concept of wish fulfillment. The problem is that this "experiment" will only work if the Holy Spirit moves to reveal it to you - so this aspect involves a divine will and action that is not neutral.

For example , the classic prayer "God if you are real then show me something...." might be necessary here. By "want to know God" I mean "willing". If one goes into the whole thing with 100% scepticism then although God might still do something , the chances are He might not.

Regarding 3) try and think of faith as similar to a science hypothesis. A scientist makes a hypothesis that x might be true and then experiments to see if x is true. This experiment is no different. The difference is that YOU are the experiment. Presumably you or anyone else would not be even trying if you were 100% certain God did not exist. Therefore , the experiment assumes some level of faith (or hypothesis) from you. If you ask God (even tentatively) to show His presence He will probably respond (if it's a genuine request).

If you are 100% sure that God does not exist then don't bother with any of this. But if you are interested at all that would suggest that you are only 99.9% or less sure that God does not exist. If that is the case then all the experiment asks of you is to employ the 0.01% of "openness" or potential faith and invest it into the experiment.

The nature of any experiment is to make a hypothesis and then run the process through and see what happens. Why is this so different? All you are being asked to do is make a tentative hypothesis that God might show you something. You seem to object to making the hypothesis! The very nature of the whole thing implies that there is some openness to the idea that God might actually be present. If you remember , my post was a response to the question "how do I go about sensing God?" - the hypothesis is built into the question itself.

The hypothesis that Jesus offers you is "seek and you will find" . It's his promise to you. The problem is that you want to know God is there before you seek Him , but you can't know Him unless you seek Him. He doesn't expect much , 0.01% seeking will do IF you are serious and honest about it. He already knows your heart and knows whether you are playing games with Him or actually having a go. Infact he knows this even better than you do.

Having said all this I will try to think of different ways of going about this that might be more acceptable to you.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Let's keep this simple.

Do you deny that your world view has radically different philosophical assumptions and implications about life than mine? (ie we have two different world views)

Do you deny that you also (like me) feel that you "know" or feel extremely convinced that I am mistaken in my world view? (As I do in reverse)

Do you deny that your world view has radically different philosophical assumptions and implications about life than mine? (ie we have two different world views)
No - this does not imply the silly assumption that I place no value on my own or others' lives as you previously assert.

Do you deny that you also (like me) feel that you "know" or feel extremely convinced that I am mistaken in my world view? (As I do in reverse)
No - buth the crucial difference is that my skepticism is unbiased whilst your completely unjustified belief is.

Originally posted by jaywill

This shows why you suck at witnessing so much.

Interesting. Sounds like you are aware of some other Christian who is much better at witnessing for Jesus ? Who might that be ?

I thought a skeptic like you would regard all witnessing for Christ is bad. Sounds like you have done some comparison.

Duh! Of course there are many much better at it. I know many Christians who at least try to present actual evidential reasons for their Christianity. You and knightmeister should take some cues from them.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Regarding point 1)

The reason why attitude of heart is important in something like this is because you are not investigating a neutral phenomenon like a rock or gravity. God is personal and He has a will. Why should he bother revealing Himself to you if are not prepared to follow Him if he does? God will not belittle Himself. You need to be willing ...[text shortened]... of different ways of going about this that might be more acceptable to you.

When are you going to get it through your head that your "classic prayer" is simply a question-begging exercise to someone who wants to honestly investigate the question of whether or not God exists? The best someone can do in any inquiry is to want to know the truth of the matter, whatever it may be, and weigh whatever evidence he has available to him in an objective manner. The best you can do to try to help him is to offer evidential considerations. But, this is something you repeatedly and utterly fail to do. This is a big part of why you suck so much at witnessing and why you continue to do disservice to your faith.

Regarding 3) try and think of faith as similar to a science hypothesis. A scientist makes a hypothesis that x might be true and then experiments to see if x is true. This experiment is no different.

FAIL. Let me try to explain this to you again. I'll go slowly because you just do not seem to get it. Please try to pay attention this time. The experiment you propose IS in fact different. You do not propose that I merely take on the supposition that X might be true, or is possibly true. You actually procedurally require me to take on the supposition, or the tacit assumption, that X is true. But whether or not X is true is supposed to be what I am investigating. Hence, your procedure is question-begging. Not sure how many ways I can explain this to you.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Duh! Of course there are many much better at it. I know many Christians who at least try to present actual evidential reasons for their Christianity. You and knightmeister should take some cues from them.

Duh! Of course there are many much better at it. I know many Christians who at least try to present actual evidential reasons for their Christianity. You and knightmeister should take some cues from them.

You named none, I notice.

And if I post up a couple of videos of, for example, Dr. Gary Habermas who is an expert on the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ, I am sure you'll be the first to yawn.

By the way. Dr. Habermas had a hand in persuading Atheist Anthony Flew to finally become a Theist of some sort. I said of some sort.

Dr. Habermas though, starts from the point of not assuming that the Bible is a divinely inspired book. His approach as an Evidendialist is very secular.

Here's a sample. And I expect you to be totally unimpressed. Which will not impress me much.

YouTube

Originally posted by knightmeister
So if you admit this what was the point of accusing me of arrogance in the first place?

I didn't. You accused your self in the OP, then tried to blame Jesus for it. (its right there in the thread title.)

Originally posted by jaywill

Duh! Of course there are many much better at it. I know many Christians who at least try to present actual evidential reasons for their Christianity. You and knightmeister should take some cues from them.

You named none, I notice.

And if I post up a couple of videos of, for example, [b]Dr. Gary Habermas who is an expert on t y unimpressed. Which will not impress me much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40aRXR8cBxQ[/b]

The list of Christians who present a better case for their faith than knightmeister (or yourself, for that matter) is long. You guys set an extremely low bar. If you want a name high on the list: Plantinga.

Originally posted by jaywill
And I expect you to be totally unimpressed. Which will not impress me much.

So why present it?

We both know that if an atheist provided strong evidence for the resurrection of Christ, half the Christians would argue against it because it would remove their need for having faith. This is a hole you dig for yourselves. You get challenged for evidence, you find yourselves in a difficult position, so you claim that evidence would take away the need for faith. Then later you try to produce evidence.
This switching back and forth between positions is something knightmeister does all the time.
Then then there is a third position - that the evidence is 'personally experienced' and cannot be shared, which is incompatible with the other two. Oddly enough, you then keep trying to share this 'personal experience', and claim to take as evidence, the witness accounts of others' personal experience. Then when you are pushed for statistics or other ways to really pin down these personal experience claims, it goes back to faith.

I am willing to bet that if we go through that youtube video and discuss it point by point, you will not stand by it (despite supposedly presenting it as evidence) and will eventually retract all claims and say it must be taken on faith.

Originally posted by LemonJello
The list of Christians who present a better case for their faith than knightmeister (or yourself, for that matter) is long. You guys set an extremely low bar. If you want a name high on the list: Plantinga.

I believe I tried to point you to Dallas Willard once, I thought his book Divine Conspiracy would have been something you'd liked.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Those that seek God find Him if they do it with their whole hearts, those that
play games with God, only end up with the games they play. It is an honest
effort not a thought experiment that is required.
Kelly

How do you account for the countless people who have no doubt gone through the process you describe and end up with a different God?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I would say that there would be a few things needed

1) Someone would need to actually want to know God and be prepared to do something about it if God did reveal Himself. Attitude of heart is important.

2) Be prepared to be still and quiet one's mind. Sensing God means tuning out everything else.

3) Have enough genuine faith (even though it ...[text shortened]... t. Even Christians lose their sensitivity to the Spirit if their hearts are blocked with sin.

Thanks for the reply, see my above question to Kelly.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So why present it?

We both know that if an atheist provided strong evidence for the resurrection of Christ, half the Christians would argue against it because it would remove their need for having faith. This is a hole you dig for yourselves. You get challenged for evidence, you find yourselves in a difficult position, so you claim that evidence would g it as evidence) and will eventually retract all claims and say it must be taken on faith.

So why present it?

He's not the only one reading along with the discussion.

( I did attempt to edit my comment latter though. It was too late )

We both know that if an atheist provided strong evidence for the resurrection of Christ, half the Christians would argue against it because it would remove their need for having faith.

I assume this is a typo. You may mean if an atheist produced strong evidence AGAINST the resurrection, half of Christians would argue against it ?

What evidence would you suggest would cause this kind of strong proof ?
Finding the remains of the body of Jesus ?

I think strong opposers to the spread of the Christian church really should have done all they could to produce solid proof that the man was DEAD.

Saul of Tarsus, for example, should have thought of this as the very first option. "Just go get the body of Jesus, parade it through Jerusalem, and it is all over for the new sect."

Why do you think such a dedicated opposer did not do this ?

This is a hole you dig for yourselves. You get challenged for evidence, you find yourselves in a difficult position, so you claim that evidence would take away the need for faith. Then later you try to produce evidence.
This switching back and forth between positions is something knightmeister does all the time.
Then then there is a third position - that the evidence is 'personally experienced' and cannot be shared, which is incompatible with the other two. Oddly enough, you then keep trying to share this 'personal experience', and claim to take as evidence, the witness accounts of others' personal experience. Then when you are pushed for statistics or other ways to really pin down these personal experience claims, it goes back to faith.

I am willing to bet that if we go through that youtube video and discuss it point by point, you will not stand by it (despite supposedly presenting it as evidence) and will eventually retract all claims and say it must be taken on faith.

I expect that any argument could be countered by an at least plausible counter argument.

Been at this for awhile twhitehead. I heard plenty of at least plausible counter arguments against the new testament.

Originally posted by LemonJello
The list of Christians who present a better case for their faith than knightmeister (or yourself, for that matter) is long. You guys set an extremely low bar. If you want a name high on the list: Plantinga.

I think he just gave me a name. Allen Plantinga.

Okay. Fair enough. Thanks.

Originally posted by LemonJello
When are you going to get it through your head that your "classic prayer" is simply a question-begging exercise to someone who wants to honestly investigate the question of whether or not God exists? The best someone can do in any inquiry is to want to know the truth of the matter, whatever it may be, and weigh whatever evidence he has available to him i ...[text shortened]... Hence, your procedure is question-begging. Not sure how many ways I can explain this to you.

The best way to respond to what you have said is to draw attention to what I said before.....


If you are 100% sure that God does not exist then don't bother with any of this. But if you are interested at all that would suggest that you are only 99.9% or less sure that God does not exist. If that is the case then all the experiment asks of you is to employ the 0.01% of "openness" or potential faith and invest it into the experiment.

Why are you so averse to investing said 0.01% into the experiment? I am not asking you to believe in God before you start nor are you being asked to do anything disingenuous. Any hypothesis starts with an acceptance that the hypothesis might be correct. This is all that is asked of you.


I think you are trying to make out that you are expected to do something that you are obviously not being asked. It's a convenient strawman IMO.