If God's existence is so self evident as the christian proclaims, then why on earth have oceans of ink been spilled trying to prove this being? Link.
Let me put a finer point on this: If the God of evangelical Christianity exists then why isn't it more obvious to others that he does? Do evangelicals who travel the country and the world even bother thinking about this as they see non-evangelicals everywhere?
[Edit: That's non-evangelicals. Everyone who is not an evangelical is a non-evangelical for the logically impaired].
42 comments:
Evangelicals will just claim that unbelievers are either blinded by our sin natures or that we are being willfully obtuse. This is usually followed by a quote of Psalms 14:1 or Romans 1:20.
This quote goes well with your Wife's comment that Christians need to be constantly reminded to be good. I tend to see the constant barrage of radio preaching, sappy books, etc. as desperate measures to achieve status within the Christian social network. The most creative can spin off their own sects. The attention-whoring and fantarding is terrifying to behold.
So with aproximately only 10 percent of the population holding to atheism, you wonder why it isn't more obvious?
But of course, refusing to believe in God is only one form of rebellion. Once again, free will is an excellent answer.
If Plantinga is to be believed (and I believe him) just by virtue of being human, it is natural to believe in God (or at least something that transcends the world of bear physical facts). But of course, so far a very strict logical approach to the evidence won't determine it one way or another. So if that's what one has choosen to require of rational belief in God, a questionable fashion by they way, well, there will be plenty of ink to spill on those grounds and even more which has been rightfully spilled demonstrating the fallacy of that kind of thinking.
This question can be taken to so many other matters though. I think it is obvious that people can have knowledge. But then why has so much ink been spilled upon this? I think it's obvious that there is an external reality, why has so much ink been spilled about it? If what is moral and immoral and if moral realism is so obvious (as it is to perhaps the vast majority of humans) then why has so much ink been spilled on it?
As for your finer point, I don't think the veracity of the evangelical views of God are obvious, and much ink ought to be spilled on that. But writing books is not the primary way to spread the gospel. It is only part of it. It's important (after all, God himself choose ink as a way to communicate much of his revelation) but it is only part. Living it is. And of course, this is a work in progress that we often unfortunately fail. But even if when we succeed, we are promised hatred from those who refuse redemption and guaranteed a struggle with the status quo.
Rob R spilled a lot of ink just to get to this:
"...we are promised hatred from those who refuse redemption..."
Which is what Walter said in the first comment:
"Evangelicals will claim...we are being willfully obtuse."
He could've just agreed with Walter.
But at any rate, I guess our cover is blown guys. Rob has figured out that it's not that we can't believe the gospel, (because what kind of loving god would send people to hell who were unable to make sense of his message, right? [unless you're a calvinist]) it's that we won't believe it. That we've willingly chosen hell (however he may define it) over heaven.
You gotta love such presumption.
Rob R spilled a lot of ink just to get to this:
I made several independent points. They did not all necessarily lead up to that one point. I like to practise something that I geuss some atheists just don't like, the cummulative case method. Well, John Loftus seems to like it.
So with aproximately only 10 percent of the population holding to atheism, you wonder why it isn't more obvious?
With Christianity only being a mere 30 something percent of that number you quote there Robr... you're stuck with two things you have to "cummulative case" (or more accurately B.S.) your way out of...
1) If it's so obvious God is real, why does it have to be your God?
2) Even if it is the Christian God... still WHICH ONE... so much fun, cause that 30 something percent number includes everything from Catholicism to Mormonism.
Reality check... the percentage number for "your brand" of Christianity is probably just as freakin small as the 10 percent you arrogantly taunt towards Atheism...
And besides since when is 'truth' determined by a popularity contest there Robr?
@ RobR:
"So with aproximately only 10 percent of the population holding to atheism, you wonder why it isn't more obvious?"
Ten percent of which population? Nonbelievers form the majority in some European countries.
Basically humans have a weak interest in religion, which they organically let go of once their living conditions improve sufficiently. The tipping point, where mass commitment to religion collapses, seems to happen when a country's per capita GDP reaches about $25,000 a year:
Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations
I wonder what Christians Nontheistdavid is reading or listening to. He should try Aquinas and some of the other top Christian philosophers and theologians before talking about what "the Christians" proclaim.
As far as Plantinga goes, we have to be careful to distinguish what is self evident from what is properly basic. What is self evident may be properly basic, but not everything that's properly basic is self evident, and I don't think Plantinga would say that God's existence is self evident. Indeed, Plantinga compares the rationality of belief in God with the rationality of belief in other minds (a belief he holds to be properly basic, but not self evident), not with any self evident beliefs.
Eric,
I predict with Hawking's new book there will be a resurgence of Thomist theology (it will be the most reasonable based on the cosmological argument).
"Do evangelicals who travel the country and the world even bother thinking about this as they see non-evangelicals everywhere?"
Bother thinking about this?.
-----------------
Power of Charisma Quote: "deactivated the frontal network consisting of the medial and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex " http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/early
/2010/03/12/scan.nsq023
Prefrontal Cortex quote :The most typical psychological term for functions carried out by the prefrontal cortex area is executive function. Executive function relates to abilities to differentiate among conflicting thoughts, determine good and bad, better and best, same and different, future consequences of current activities, working toward a defined goal, prediction of outcomes, expectation based on actions, and social "control" (the ability to suppress urges that, if not suppressed, could lead to socially-unacceptable outcomes).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex
Faithfully brain damaged.
In my opinion it takes a faithfully brain damaged brain to believe in a God that can create a whole universe with such ease.Yet for some strange reason would then still be thought to be in such dire need of help from men to help try and introduce him to humans.
1,God builds a whole universe with such ease.
2,The same God needs to employ help from men just for his introduction.
Rob Rs "faith brain" answer is :->"But of course, refusing to believe in God is only one form of rebellion. Once again, free will is an excellent answer."
Yeah .. why of course.Mans thought process is like a ostrich .Its really smart thought to think man thinks he can escape God-s ,by simply refusing to believe in them.Great logic!
Because the Christian holy bible says so.
John
Please get rid of dm. He is a bum.
Rob R
The old free willer diller huh? You sound like Bruce Almighty, "How can you love someone so much when they won't let you" Of course the Free will mantra really convinced Martin Luther when he wrote "Bondage of the Will", and of course the free willy dilly argument convinced all the Puritans and Calvinist to accept that rubbish. And let us not forget that modern Calvinist Theologians consider Plantega to be a heretic.
Could it possibly be that so much debate over Christian Doctrine(communicated by an almighty sovereign God that flung the universe into existence by his very word)is why former evangelicals cease to believe?
Dan DeMura
You did an excelent job dealing with the ten percent hogwash.
Eric and Rob.
Rob: belief is not a voluntary action-its not a free will choice any more then choosing to tell hearts to stop pumping blood!
Eric tells us that david should have addressed Aquinas who (as he claims) is one of the better christian philosophers?
No offence Eric, but Aquinas's philosophical "proofs" of Gods existence have been refutted and shown to be illogical.
Every arguement he offers whether it is design, cosmological, contingency, degree's. whatever.
As thoughs arguements apply to the universe- they equally apply to any concept of God!
And as thoughs arguements apparently do not apply to your concept of God, then they equally do not apply to the universe.
Aquinas's logic was ad hoc!
post 1 of 4
Dan,
With Christianity only being a mere 30 something percent of that number you quote there Robr... you're stuck with two things you have to "cummulative case" (or more accurately B.S.) your way out of...
I critisized the idea that belief in God wasn't obvious on the grounds that so much wasn't written about it.
THEN I admitted that evangelical Christianity ISN'T obvious. Even though John pushes that observation, the original quote is rather silly for the reasons I gave. The second to me is a non-issue for me.
1) If it's so obvious God is real, why does it have to be your God?
Nothing is greater than personhood. Nothing in our experience. Nothing would matter without persons with values, intentions, a sense of wonder and beauty, deep incredible value for other persons and community and some of this contributes to our ethical nature and near universal sense that the world is not the way it ought to be (hence there IS a way the world ought to be). If the divine isn't personal, it isn't worth worshiping. It isn't that special. It might be interesting, but we would be greater than the divine. So if the divine is greater or even equal to the world, it must at least be personal. If God is God, then God is personal. So most (but not all) of eastern religion (and some of western theology of the "intellectuals") doesn't cut it. If God is truely the greatest being, then God is the ultimate expression of personhood. The greatest expression of personhood is communal. If it is to be believed that love is so important as even some atheists and skeptics would think, then all of the sudden, a triune God where community is built into his being makes sense.
What also flows from personhood and from the importance of relationality is historical development. In no religion is historical development as important in Judeo-Christianity where the history of God's relationship and development must be communicated in the biblical narrative. Contrast this with Islam. Islam does not tell of a narrative as Christian scripture. It borrows from the Jewish and Christian scriptures. It refers to our stories, but if you want the narrative itself, you won't find it in the koran but in those scriptures alleged by the Muslims to be corrupted.
The importance of historical development fits best with a story that is going somewhere demonstrating the importance of eschatology. And Eschatology leads us back to the moral consideration, that the world is not the way it ought to be. Thus the Judeo-Christian picture once again fits this picture as not only is the world not the way it ought to be, the history told to us is of God's plan to restore his creation.
And this is just some of the reasoning why I think that Scripture is the best explanation of who God is. These considerations I've made prove nothing. They just demonstrate that the Judeo Christian God makes good sense.
post 2 of 4
With Christianity only being a mere 30 something percent of that number you quote there Robr... you're stuck with two things you have to "cummulative case" (or more accurately B.S.) your way out of...
I critisized the idea that belief in God wasn't obvious on the grounds that so much wasn't written about it.
THEN I admitted that evangelical Christianity ISN'T obvious. Even though John pushes that observation, the original quote is rather silly for the reasons I gave. The second to me is a non-issue for me.
2) Even if it is the Christian God... still WHICH ONE... so much fun, cause that 30 something percent number includes everything from Catholicism to Mormonism.
Probably the same one for all of those different perspectives. After all, God is not the conception of God. Even if one has as screwed up perspective as mormonism, I don't know that this means that many mormons don't have the same referent as other Christians. Just because one has many mistakes about whom they refer to doesn't mean that they aren't refering to that being.
Reality check... the percentage number for "your brand" of Christianity is probably just as freakin small as the 10 percent you arrogantly taunt towards Atheism...
reality check. I never said all my beliefs about God were obvious and I explicitely stated that in my first post. The comment about the minority of atheism was in response to the idea that the existence of God wasn't obvious. Now what God is like, that needs much more ink, education and thought.
And besides since when is 'truth' determined by a popularity contest there Robr?
Since never, and perhaps one day these statistics will turn around. That is consistent with some possible understandings of Christian eschatology after all. However, what statitistics MAY indicate is, to stay on topic what is obvious or at least intuitive. But one day, the world in consistency with its rebellion may even largely ignore an intuition or lose it because of that rebellion as the scriptures say that people may become deceived through their rebellion.
post 3 of 4
Mark,
this world of suffering is the context of our redemption, where we psychologically have more opportunities to depend upon God and each other as these are the two primary areas for redemption. So yes, as we increase our physical comfort level, there is that risk that one has less reason to depend upon God and rely instead on impersonal corporations, governments and technologies as Europe is. but as trends go, it's not clear how long Europe will keep this up with some socialistic countries on the verge on economic collapse, a low birth rate (which is surpassed by the birth rate of the Islamic community which unfortunately may yeild to islamic extremism). How long will europe be a beacon of secularism?
post 4 of 4
shane, I accidentally mixed my response to you with ex reformed below.
Exreformed,
you are right that many of us aren't immediately free with respect to the question of belief in God. The landscape of our freedom varies wildly. And freedom with respect to merely believing in God just isn't the universal struggle for Christians. For some, it's resisting lust and temptation, for others, it's loving their neighbor, and others, it's following God's calling. And for many of us, it's many of these things.
I am well aware of the deterministic tradition and interpretation of scripture. I almost lost my faith because of it but instead I persisted by getting help from better learned Christians and studying the current scholarship on the matter.
But so what if that tradition is there. So they don't have the resource of libertarian free will to answer some of these issues. They do have other means, means that I don't care for. So yes, this is very old news. It surely doesn't mean that they don't have free will. Like the vast majority of humans who have normal mental capacities, even they face instances where they really believe they might do one thing and they really believe they might not choose to do that same thing. And if those beliefs are true, then so is libertarian freedom.
Could it possibly be that so much debate over Christian Doctrine(communicated by an almighty sovereign God that flung the universe into existence by his very word)is why former evangelicals cease to believe?
Sure, it's a contributor particularly when they don't find satisfactory answers and when the debate isn't carried out with Christian integrity (like when Christians dechristianize each other). And some evangelical protestantism has made things difficult when they imply that all one has to do to figure out all these issues is open up their bible and read all by their lonesome. But scripture wasn't written directly to every individual. It was written to and for the church and it must be read by the community as a whole taking advantage of our different intellectual strengths. Placing scripture in the hands of of all Christians by protestants was two steps forward, but one step backward when we individualize that task. Sola scriptura wasn't a big help either. Well, with scriptural authority, it again represents progress and regress, emphasizing the authority of scirpture, but inhibiting our ability to fully understand it. It's a good thing that even much of evangelical scholarship doesn't stick to that doctrine, at least not in practice.
"Eric tells us that david should have addressed Aquinas who (as he claims) is one of the better christian philosophers?"
I was referring specifically to "the Christian" claim (according to Nontheistdavid) that god's existence is self evident -- a claim none of the great Christian philosophers and theologians have made, as far as I know -- and referred to Aquinas's argument *against* the claim.
"No offence Eric, but Aquinas's philosophical "proofs" of Gods existence have been refutted and shown to be illogical."
Why not take, oh, Aquinas's first way, explain the argument to me and tell me exactly where and how it goes wrong? (I ask this because, invariably, those who tell me "Aquinas's arguments" have been refuted demonstrate, usually within the first pass, that they have no idea whatsoever what Aquinas was actually saying.)
Hi Eric and Rob R
Eric, you say, ... "Why not take, oh, Aquinas's first way, explain the argument to me and tell me exactly where and how it goes wrong? "
Papalinton
Perhaps I should repeat:
"....religions do not and cannot progress the way that, say, science can progress. When science progresses, it abandons old and false ideas. Once we discovered oxygen and the principles of combustion, we stopped thinking that there was a substance called phlogiston. Once we discovered that the earth is round, we stopped thinking that it is flat. Science and reason are SUBSTITUTIVE and ELIMINATIVE: new ideas replace old ideas. Religion is ADDITIVE and/or SCHISMATIC: new ideas proliferate alongside old ideas. For instance, the development of Protestantism did not put an end to Catholicism, and the development of Christianity did not put an end to Judaism. With science, we get BETTER. With religion, we get MORE." [Eller]
Within this veritable context, you can see why theists are so easily able to trot out Aquinas [how long ago since he lived?] as though his thoughts were delivered just yesterday as new and exciting proof for the existence of a god[s]. With religion you just get more, the old stuff floating around alongside the 'new' stuff. What's described as 'theological knowledge' is notoriously indiscriminate. Aquinas' stuff is almost a thousand old, and there has been no improvement in the argument for a god. Even Plantinga's stuff is rehash of old stuff inside a new cover, and there have been many an argument positing a rebuttal of Plantinga's premises.
Even here on DC there is a precis of one such rebuttal:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/01/on-plantingas-ontological-argument.html
Again, we shouldn't be wasting our time on rehashing theist tripe dating back a thousand years.
That's akin to revisiting the Dark Ages when religion did rule the world.
Sheesh
Papalinton, what you and your quote say of science and religion isn't strictly true of neither. Within Christianity, we have indeed seen ideas rejected and replaced. Some things just aren't spoken of anymore. I wager no major and many minor groups of Christian believes that infants who aren't baptized go to hell any more. Some of these were considered heresies. Many conflicting ideas are not held at the same time but represent ongoing debates such as one I spent a great deal of time on of predestination and free will vs. determinism. and this is a discussion, though has representatives of perspectives that have still persisted has drastically changed in the late 20th centuryl alone with research that has led to the new perspective on paul and a view called open theism. (there are other developments as well).
And science has it's ideas that persist even though they have been replaced. We are still talking about Newtonian physics and teaching it. We still analyze physical bodies in terms of euclidean geometry. It's not because they are absolutely true (and what sense they are true is a good) but they are still useful in our (reletively) crude calculations.
It's not like we should expect understanding in religion to flow like that of science anyhow. Just because science has the increasing changes in our empirical data to push it along doesn't mean that other pursuits that don't have this aren't worth pursuing and don't have wisdom and knowledge to impart. Religion is perhaps closer to philosophy than science in it's progress. But the idea that we should take philosophical concepts for granted and not deal with them just because they don't fit that mold is nothing short of antiintellectual. And it leaves your scientific world view incomplete and quite possibly self defeating. For example, science can say nothing about whether there is an external world. I'm sorry but that study just hasn't been published yet in any scientific journal. There are no experiments that can prove this. It is taken for granted. And there is no scientific test for science itself as a source of knowledge. To say this, you have to do philosophy.
As for Aquinas, I'm no fan (though I know a few of the things I believe are indebted to him... and I would gladly grant Eric's point that I just may not understand much of what he's said... though I've read little from him and mostly about him), but the idea that he's old, just where does it come from that if some ideas stand the test of time, they aren't any good. That kind of attitude is only consistent with the notion that we never attain knowledge
@ Rob R:
"the world is not the way it ought to be", because there are selfish, and rotten and damaged people clogging it up. There is no reason to infer from there that there is some "divine ideal" that MUST exist, just because some pastoral tribesmen wrote down their legends.
Rob R said,
"...some evangelical protestantism has made things difficult when they imply that all one has to do to figure out all these issues is open up their bible and read all by their lonesome..."
Ah, the ubiquitous "you're not reading it correctly" ploy.
So you're saying that we need some (Christian) "guide" to set our feet on the proper path, because to read the Bible literally would drive one away from religion?
Cool. I thought I was reading it RIGHT.
Geerhed, it's ubiquitous for good reason not just within the bible but for pretty much the whole scope and history of of human thought, communication and literature. A month or so ago, I think John Loftus raised the question of whether someone was right to consider himself or other atheists to be fundamentalists of a sort. If you didn't know that interpretation was a significant issue, then yes absolutely yes you think just in the worst ways that are attributed to fundamentalists.
It's atheistic philosophers like Sartre and Nietzche and perhaps more so philosophers in their tradition, in the continental tradition that really hammered away demonstrating our active roles in interpretation, many going to the extreme that it is all arbitrary. And while I don't agree with that extreme, it might be a little less naive than the view that every text or peace of communication or peace of information is always straightforward and clear and has only one obvious interpretation.
I have discussions with people in my own culture and language and we still manage to talk right past one another, mininterpret, and sometimes it can be cleared up, sometimes the converstaion doesn't really have a chance of going anywhere.
And if you've had a literature class where the instructure did his job, you will learn that it wasn't enough to read the text, but through discussion, through research, the text will yield to deeper observations and subtleties that one can miss. Sometimes, I'll think some work of literature or some movie is crummy, and then someone gives me a fresh insight, a different perspective and then I realize that it was really profound after all. This is not religious texts. This is all kinds of texts and there's no reason to think texts on a topic as deep and complex as religion, given the deep subjects it handles of God, humanity, and creation should be any different particularly when we are instructed by the scriptures in question to dedicate our whole minds to the task and to seek the guidance of the wise.
We are looking at texts written to a different culture with different assumptions about the world where different matters are taken for granted than we would take, different sociological structures, different language (and concept metaphors that that entails) a different outlook on history, in some cases only single sides of conversations and so on. Some things will come through clearly because it was written in the context of humanity. but there is a great deepening of understanding to be had and it has been deepened by a great deal of reflection on the texts through the centuries some good, some bad, and it has been greatly deepened by the fresh scholarly methods of current times.
because to read the Bible literally would drive one away from religion?
Even this, even our thought structures and assumptions apart from reading a text is something that we can improve upon which reflects back on scripture. Language itself let alone scripture is not even clearly basically literal. Great analysis and even the cognitive sciences have lead some to question whether literal language is even more basic than metaphorical language and it has been demonstrated that metaphors structure the way we think often without our knowing it. And you want us to make a straight naive literal interpretation of scripture, as if that was even a meaningful statement anymore?
"the world is not the way it ought to be", because there are selfish, and rotten and damaged people clogging it up.
That you, as a creature made in the image of God rightfully intuit some of the reasons as to why the world is not the way it ought to be doesn't mean you understand why there is oughtness about the world at all and how that oughtness can be derived from a purely naturalistic picture. And it can't. If nature is all there is, then it is what it is and there is no way it ought to be.
Rob Rs excuse -> ..."If the divine isn't personal, it isn't worth worshiping. It isn't that special. It might be interesting, but we would be greater than the divine. So if the divine is greater or even equal to the world, it must at least be personal. If God is God, then God is personal"
So there we have it, the faith apologist pitiful weak sad-ass easy excuse, for the very obscure covert nature of God-/s and all the nastiness and harm that then freely flowed from it right throughout history,harm that often also still carrys on to this very day.
Rob R..->"If the divine isn't personal, it isn't worth worshiping"
The loving God our wonderful heavenly father needs his personality so very bad ,it really dont matter! if some folks needed to be burned at the stake.It dont matter if kids in Africa still get hunted down and killed as witches to this very day.It dont matter how many needed to suffer and even die in all the many Jim Jones-David Koresh or Westboro baptist type cults.It dont matter how many young Girls get palmed off to dirty old men in polygamy.It dont matter how many large groups of animals get abused and have their blood spilled in sacrifice rituals, or even whether live children were once cast sobbing and crying! into flames of fire! in faith-adults hope of their gaining more fertility etc .It dont matter if maybe threat of nuclear warfare for the U.S.A gets pushed further forward in time,or soldiers still serving in far away countries might even come into possibility of even more danger ,because "personality of God" demands that certain Terry Jones type Christian priests need to demand that their followers do take part in burning of the Quran.
It just dont matter!.Who cares!.God-/s demand right to obscure personality.
All this suffering was simply needed because Gods required their rights to have this obscure covert "personal" nature.It simply sanctifys such situations.Because the faith apologist say God-/s they demand it! ,and the faith apologist just dont happen to care much about who or even how many might need to suffer so these "supposed" Gods have their right to this obscure covert personal nature.
The apologists they simply excuse it with such ease , just like Rob R does here.Hardly batting a eye-lid ! in such nasty coldhearteness ! ,its easy when you so "devoted" to living with thoughts of such importance and "charisma".Very much like the coldhearted nature we see in many serial killers.Blood thirsty serial killers, who often will try sanctify their own actions, and often still feel they can easily see very good reasons! why all the blood shed harm and suffering was reasonable.So much so they would harm and kill again and again ,and still sleep quite soundly.
Gods personality is thought of utmost importance.If the divine isn't personal, it isn't worth worshiping.
Is it any real wonder right throughout history we see that so much suffering is connected to faith.
Faith apologists Gods all demand their right to personality ,just like the serial killer.
And the apologist will excuse it with extreme ease ! , just like a cold-hearted serial killer also often does too !!.
And then these same deluded apologist will often try judging and accusing that the atheist way of life, is simply lacking any ability to have any real meaning.
Theists.
Very scary humans.Beliefs of such ancient darkness
Rob R
I spent over a decade studying systematic theologies, apologetics, and hard core Bible study. I even learned a good deal of Greek so I could translate the n.t. for myself. I spent many, many, hours in prayer to no avail. Finally after years of vigorous study, and unanswered prayer and an outsider test of faith, I became an agnostic.
It is so liberating not having to defend Christianity anymore. Not only do you have to accept the ridiculous story of Noha an his arc, but you also have to defend eternal conscience torment, and of course you have to defend against all of the cults. Mormonism, J.W.'s, Muslims, Catholics, no wonder I had a nervous breakdown.
I have been reading an introductory to Logic. So please do us a favor, instead of trying to respond to everyone and not staying focused on any one thing. Why don't you write us a deductive propositional argument for your belief in the Christian God? And why you are at it use the outsider test of faith.
I dare you.
Rob R...."I have discussions with people in my own culture and language and we still manage to talk right past one another, mininterpret, and sometimes it can be cleared up, sometimes the converstaion doesn't really have a chance of going anywhere.
And if you've had a literature class where the instructure did his job, you will learn that it wasn't enough to read the text, but through discussion, through research, the text will yield to deeper observations and subtleties that one can miss. "
---------------------
The faith serial killer easy excuse is omnipotent God is just like a human being ,if human beings cant explain themselves to each other .Then God has no hope in hell of doing any better either!.
Fine excuse.The tried and trusted quick Bait-n-Switch trick
Omnipotent God-/s is just like a earthly book .If Human find non-omnipotent books hard to understand ,then that means the loving heavenly omnipotent God-/s cant really be expected they might likely be able to do any better .-> Should they even exist.
Bingo! by his faith judgment the faith serial killer explains away his omnipotent harmful actions as being quite reasonable with such extreme ease.
Faithful folks are very scary people.
post 1 of 4
exreformed,
I frequently see ironic statements from atheists. And your post is one as well, the way you insist that I give you a deductively valid argument, yet you commend your decision to leave the faith because it was liberating. That is very subjective grounds. And you further refer to your own personal experience. I'll tell you what, John Loftus had a blog post a few months ago (or a year) alleging a problem with Christians appealing to their personal experience. But he celebrated yours with a qod.
You also complain that I lack focus, and yet the topic was answered long ago in my first post I challenged without response why belief in God shouldn't be obvious in light of so much written on the topic when there are dozens of other reasonable claims of obvious belief such that we can have knowledge and moral realism, that there is external reality, even though there has been loads of ink spilled. You see, something I have been emphasizing over and over again is that if atheists were consistent with many of their criticisms of Christianity, they'd have to be radical skeptics. They surely couldn't be the naive modernists that they are with their confidence in objective morality and science. Now I'm not saying that all atheists thinking is inconsistent that way, but much of it, and perhaps most of it in the blogosphere is. As for the other part of the topic, I happily agree with John that evangelical Christianity isn't obvious. And even though Dan Demura seemed to miss that I said I don't think it is obvious why, I indulged him anyway.
But I did mistake John's actual statement about evangelicalism. He asked why it shouldn't be obvious, not whether it was claimed to be so. I'll address that in an ammendment I'll post after my response to you.
So what follows in the discussions are loads of tangents. I'm not against tangents and I'll happily introduce them myself, I just don't find demands to follow them reasonable. You just can't have a realistically reasonable discussion if you expect someone to exhaustively defend their view every time they enter a discussion on a specific. It can lead one to the impression that progress can never be made. But tangents do introduce worthwhile discussions. Since there is a bad side and still a potentially good side to them, I reserve the right to take them up or not.
post 2 of 4
It is so liberating not having to defend Christianity anymore.
Perhaps before you rested your faith on whether you personally can defend the whole thing, you should've read I corinthians 12. there's no reason to think you have to be all things to the church and to authoritatively defend the entire Christian faith is too much for most individuals and even most scholars. It's the job of the church as a whole. And this is the way it should be and you certainly can't appeal to any modern discipline including science where no one can master every discipline and realm of knowledge and everyone depends upon the expertise and experience of someone else for much that they reasonably take for granted (not that time shouldn't be given towards examining what is taken for granted, but one man can only go so far in that).
But excelling in the faith is not the same as being able to defend "the Christian worldview" or some other equally Christian world view. I think some apologetics junkies don't know this. They don't know that our faith was founded in Israel, not greece (though some of what we got from greece was really useful).
but you also have to defend eternal conscience torment,
I don't see why I should. I happen to know of a religious scholar who made the case that eternal conscious torment isn't clearly the biblical view. You might've heard of him, his name is John Loftus!
For a more thorough treatment though, you could look at episode 5 from Glenn People's podcast and the next two episodes on the topic.
and of course you have to defend against all of the cults.
I don't even come into contact with all of the cults. JW's and mormonism are enough I think to be prepared for most people... if called to it. And while I consider some of catholic belief disturbing, in calling catholics a cult, you should have a nervous breakdown. Interestingly, the catholics in this and the last century have come closer to what evangelicals believe in Vatican II. The current pope even did away with purgatory!
post 3 of 4
Why don't you write us a deductive propositional argument for your belief in the Christian God?
Do you have a deductive argument that is both valid AND sound demonstrating that this is necessary for good epistemic integrity?
I suppose you'd like a a formal argument with numbered premises and propositions with those subsequent propositions followed by the rules premises or proposition from which they arise followed by a tidy conclusion. I had some formal training in that. I got a B. I asked the instructor who was a professional philosopher if the class on logic provided the best way to improve my skill in making arguments. He said that reading good arguments was the best way to improve that skill. Still though it is a useful tool, one that isn't always used. If you read philosophical journals and books even written for other philosophers, you'll find essays that don't involve formal deductive arguments and some whole chapters and even whole books that don't even use them.
But I did respond to this question when Dan Demura asked it. And I said (unlike what valid deductive sound arguments do) that I realize that my considerations do not prove the Christian faith. But as best as I can see it, for some of those considerations (and many more that couldn't be written reasonably in the comment section of a specific topic) as best as I can see it, Judeo-Christianity makes the best sense.
And why you are at it use the outsider test of faith.
I dare you.
But I think the outsiders test is a bad epistemological test that is a rehash of failed modernism that was dealt fatal blows by David Hume. I find considering outsider's perspectives (both by looking at what outsiders actually say... obviously) and even imagining what one would say in my head to be a good exercise. I'd never make the mistake of preferring it though though as a standard of knowledge. The insiders' perspective is often superior. Yes, john had that, but he didn't have my insider's perspective nor many that of many other Christians. And his former insider's perspective is no longer a living responsive one. I've read both John's description of the OTF in WIBA and his defense in TCD. I remain unconvinced. It is one of those things that many modernistic atheists apply to religion but refuse to apply it elsewhere and I am shocked every time I read a trained philosopher reference science in those instances which is in fact inept to defend against radical skepticism.
post 4 of 4
Amendment,
I was mistaken about John's refinement (no one called me on it cause everyone was just busy trying to prove me wrong... well it's a good thing I'm here to do so). He didn't didn't challenge THAT the evangelical picture isn't obvious (to which I agree) but he asked why shouldn't it be?
Well why should it be to begin with. One might go on about requiring it from God if he is loving, but if love is part of a relationship, it's not as if everything about relationships should be obvious rather than subtle. Just try insisting otherwise to women!
WHY isn't the evangelical understanding of God obvious? At least one answer is that God is a person and persons are revealed through history and relationship. And a huge way of God's relating to us is by living and working through his creatures. Thus the gospel understanding (it's not like I'm interested in defending all things "modern american evangelical" as correct orthodoxy). of God is to be spread not because it is obvious but through people living out the gospel, revealing himself through his creation and his revelation. Anything that has to be lived out to be understood cannot be obvious otherwise.
"...the catholics in this and the last century have come closer to what evangelicals believe in Vatican II. The current pope even did away with purgatory!"
And you Christians give us atheists a hard time for dissing "objective morality"...
PFFFFFFT!
The RCC is ADAPTIVE. What does that say about the notion of an "eternal God"?
exreformed: "Why don't you write us a deductive propositional argument for your belief in the Christian God?"
Rob R: "Do you have a deductive argument that is both valid AND sound demonstrating that this is necessary for good epistemic integrity?"
Debate technique:
When you can't answer a question, return with another question.
You got nothing.
As someone else pointed out in another thread:
(loosely quoted) "Isn't it just a tad more than coincidental that EVERY god throughout history has been invisible?"
And you Christians give us atheists a hard time for dissing "objective morality"...
Actually, I'm not comfortable with labeling morality as objective. I suppose it is, but morality cannot exist without subjective experience.
Torturing kittens just doesn't seem that bad if it turns out that they are robot kittens.
The RCC is ADAPTIVE. What does that say about the notion of an "eternal God"?
Nothing really. It does say that the Roman catholic church doesn't know everything and can learn more about God and his plan. I don't know why Christians shouldn't take this position given 2000 years of development of orthodoxy.
Debate technique:
When you can't answer a question, return with another question.
Debate technique: Call a good point a debate technique thus dismissing it with pure hand waving without honestly dealing with it.
Even if you had something, it wasn't that important of an issue.
Johns Original Post
If God's existence is so self evident as the christian proclaims, then why on earth have oceans of ink been spilled trying to prove this being?
robR's responce
So with aproximately only 10 percent of the population holding to atheism, you wonder why it isn't more obvious?
But of course, refusing to believe in God is only one form of rebellion. Once again, free will is an excellent answer.
so you appeal to your asserted fact (10% atheist population) without documenting ware you source came or what study was consulted. And of course Dan pointed out the fallacy in that argumentation.
Then You switch to the topic of free will being a good answer.
If I were still took the Bible to be literal and true as I used to I would still defend the Reformed exegesus of scripture. The free will answer just try's to get God off the Hook. Even if you grant that your brand of free will is true. You still have to deal with God up in heaven with his hands tied behind his back weeping and wailing in tears because he cannot save the people he loves. And of course this leads you to adopt an animation view of hell. So now God will destroy us mean old agnostics forever we will cease to exist, rather then being tortured for all eternity. Now your conscience does not have to deal with that horrific doctrine, so you can still continue to delude yourself some more.
I frequently see ironic statements from atheists. And your post is one as well, the way you insist that I give you a deductively valid argument, yet you commend your decision to leave the faith because it was liberating.
So you find it ironic(deliberately stating the opposite of the truth, usually with the intention or result of being amusing )That I would challenge you to propose a deductively valid argument because I appeal to some personal experience in my testimony. Please tell me how you contrast these two statements as being deliberately stating the opposite of the truth?
You also complain that I lack focus, and yet the topic was answered long ago in my first post I challenged without response why belief in God shouldn't be obvious in light of so much written on the topic when there are dozens of other reasonable claims of obvious belief such that we can have knowledge and moral realism, that there is external reality, even though there has been loads of ink spilled
O.K. tell yourself what ever you want to make yourself believe what you want just like any other professing Christian. I think the others on this blog responded to your little analysis. For you to then claim that your challenge was not responded to is plan old B.S.
Perhaps before you rested your faith on whether you personally can defend the whole thing, you should've read I corinthians 12. there's no reason to think you have to be all things to the church and to authoritatively defend the entire Christian faith is too much for most individuals and even most scholars
I read first Corinthians, I studied it, and I taught on it. I took many personal enrichment classes on biblical interpretations, Hermunetics, and expository preaching. I could develop a text my friend. I was prayed over, prophesized over, and told for many years that I had the gift of teaching. So I was doing my part in the body. I do find it quite insulting that you would throw in a Bible Verse and use that as something I should have known better and I never would have left Christianity.
while I consider some of catholic belief disturbing, in calling catholics a cult, you should have a nervous breakdown.
Many main stream protestant, reformed, and Baptist churches dismiss the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon. However, in context I was referring to the constant assault you have to deal with when claiming that Jesus is the only way. And if you think I am the only one that had nervous breakdowns just roll on over to exchristian,net and read some of the horrific stories about Christianity causing or greatly increasing some one to have a mental break down.
RobR said
exreformed,
I frequently see ironic statements from atheists. And your post is one as well, the way you insist that I give you a deductively valid argument, yet you commend your decision to leave the faith because it was liberating.
So you find it ironic(deliberately stating the opposite of the truth, usually with the intention or result of being amusing )That I would challenge you to propose a deductively valid argument because I appeal to some personal experience in my testimony. Please tell me how you contrast these two statements as being deliberately stating the opposite of the truth?
RobR Said: RobR said You also complain that I lack focus, and yet the topic was answered long ago in my first post I challenged without response why belief in God shouldn't be obvious in light of so much written on the topic when there are dozens of other reasonable claims of obvious belief such that we can have knowledge and moral realism, that there is external reality, even though there has been loads of ink spilled
exreformed said: O.K. tell yourself what ever you want to make yourself believe what you want just like any other professing Christian. I think the others on this blog responded to your little analysis. For you to then claim that your challenge was not responded to is plan old B.S.
Rob R said
Perhaps before you rested your faith on whether you personally can defend the whole thing, you should've read I corinthians 12. there's no reason to think you have to be all things to the church and to authoritatively defend the entire Christian faith is too much for most individuals and even most scholars
my response
I read first Corinthians, I studied it, and I taught on it. I took many personal enrichment classes on biblical interpretations, Hermunetics, and expository preaching. I could develop a text my friend. I was prayed over, prophesized over, and told for many years that I had the gift of teaching. So I was doing my part in the body. I do find it quite insulting that you would throw in a Bible Verse and use that as something I should have known better and I never would have left Christianity.
Rob R Said
while I consider some of catholic belief disturbing, in calling catholics a cult, you should have a nervous breakdown.
exreformed said
Many main stream protestant, reformed, and Baptist churches dismiss the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon. However, in context I was referring to the constant assault you have to deal with when claiming that Jesus is the only way. And if you think I am the only one that had nervous breakdowns just roll on over to exchristian,net and read some of the horrific stories about Christianity causing or greatly increasing some one to have a mental break down.
were still waiting for that deductive argument
Me, quoted by Rob R: "Debate technique: When you can't answer a question, return with another question."
Rob R's rebuttal: "Debate technique: Call a good point a debate technique thus dismissing it with pure hand waving without honestly dealing with it."
exreformed asked you first, you didn't answer. There was no POINT to your response, only a question shot back.
You didn't answer because you CAN'T.
were still waiting for that deductive argument
If you ever go to the airport and cancel your flight, I recommend you schedule another one or just go home, but don't wait around for the flight that was canceled.
I have excellent reasons for not doing this. 1) I'm lazy, 2) I'm rusty (not that I couldn't whip out something that was basic, but not a well-formed formula, but most absolutely important which I explained at length which you ignored 3) It isn't necessary
You know, you won't see much of it (if any) in John LOftus book WIBA. It's probably non-existant in his second book.
Many main stream protestant, reformed, and Baptist churches dismiss the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon.
Then they may have the awkward position that the church of Jesus Christ disappeared until the reformers rediscovered it. That doesn't sound very biblical to me.
However, in context I was referring to the constant assault you have to deal with when claiming that Jesus is the only way.
I was operating within the context when I noted that choose too many enemies (including the catholics) from which to be assaulted. I noticed your comment on considering Plantinga a heretic. You community shot itself in the foot insulating against fellow Christians. Your faith was poisoned. No wonder you lost it. I'm not catholic, I'm not protestant, I'm not calvinist, but I am happy to use the wisdom from any of those other traditions.
And if you think I am the only one
Nope. I never implied it in any way shape or form.
I read first Corinthians, I studied it, and I taught on it.
okay, perhaps you could deal with the point I was making. What follows is just evasive.
post 2
I do find it quite insulting
Then you may have another nervous breakdown if your skin is so thin. I didn't insult you. You let yourself feel that way and you evaded my point in the process.
I think the others on this blog responded to your little analysis. For you to then claim that your challenge was not responded to is plan old B.S.
For me to claim that something VERY SPECIFIC that I said wasn't addressed, and for it not to be in fact addressed is not BS.
I said THIS was never discussed: "so much written on the topic when there are dozens of other reasonable claims of obvious belief such that we can have knowledge and moral realism, that there is external reality, even though there has been loads of ink spilled"
I just checked the thread. People responded to much else I said except for this! Please, link me to the post where that specific thought was addressed if it was. But for me, that quote goes to the achilles heal of so much atheistic criticism. They criticize religion and specifically Christianity on grounds that if they held consistently to would lead to doubt of much else leading to radical skepticism that most people think is absurd.
Please tell me how you contrast these two statements as being deliberately stating the opposite of the truth?
Irony isn't about stating opposite truths, though it may highlight an inconsistency. And I explained the inconsistency. Personal experience is subjective. The point of a deductive argument is to be objective. I don't believe these are odds with each other, but most modernists would and most atheists are modernists.
I'm not protestant,
not that it's that important, but that was an error. I do identify with that tradition.
Post a Comment