Two Questions

[sandlewood]

For my own curiosity:

Do you believe that Christianity needs to make sense before you believe that it describes the truth about reality? Or, do you believe that when you encounter some aspect of Christianity that doesn’t seem to make sense, the reason it doesn’t seem to make sense is as yet undiscovered and that you need to search for the explanation?

Do you believe that people such as the atheists that visit this board exist to test Christians? Do you believe that God put us here to challenge your faith to see if it is strong or not, and if you pass the challenge that you are worthy of Heaven?

[wienerdog]

To answer the first question, let me quote Lee Strobel's interview with William Lane Craig in The Case for Faith:

"When the Christian message was first shared with me as a teenager, I had already studied biology. I knew that for the virgin birth to be true, a Y chromosome had to be created out of nothing in Mary’s ovum, because Mary didn’t possess the genetic material to produce a male child. To me, this was utterly fantastic. It just didn’t make sense."
"You’re not alone," I observed. "Other skeptics have problems with it too. How did you proceed?"
Craig thought back for a moment. "Well, I sort of put that issue aside and became a Christian anyway, even though I didn’t really believe in the virgin birth. But then, after becoming a Christian, it occurred to me that if I really do believe in a God who created the universe, then for him to create a Y chromosome would be child’s play!"
I told Craig I found it interesting he could have become a Christian despite misgivings about a doctrine as significant as the virgin birth.
"I guess the authenticity of the person of Jesus and the truth of his message were so powerful that they simply overwhelmed any residual doubts that I had," he replied.
I pressed him by asking, "Weren’t you rushing headlong into something you didn’t totally accept?"
"No, I think this can be a good procedure," he said. "You don’t need to have all your questions answered to come to faith. You just have to say, ‘The weight of the evidence seems to show this is true, so even though I don’t have answers to all my questions, I’m going to believe and hope for answers in the long run.’ That’s what happened with me."

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 08:40 PM wienerdog:

To answer the first question, let me quote Lee Strobel's interview with William Lane Craig in The Case for Faith:

You just have to say, The weight of the evidence seems to show this is true, so even though I don't have answers to all my questions, I'm going to believe and hope for answers in the long run. That's what happened with me.


William Lane Craig summed it up well, when he wrote in 'Reasonable Faith' - Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa.

And he wrote 'The Bible says all men are without excuse. Even those who are given no good reason to believe and many persuasive reasons to disbelieve have no excuse, because the ultimate reason they do not believe is that they have deliberately rejected God's Holy Spirit.'

So if Craig has many persuasive reasons to disbelieve, he will continue to ignore arguments and evidence.

[WinAce]

Craig thinks the Kalaam Cosmological Arrrgghument makes sense. That lapse of judgement alone discredits anything he might want to say on any other subject. :tongue:

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 11:25 PM
WinAce:

Craig thinks the Kalaam Cosmological Arrrgghument makes sense. That lapse of judgement alone discredits anything he might want to say on any other subject.

Does Craig really think there is not an actual infinite number of things?

1+1 = 2 is a fact. Facts exist. So there is one fact which exists.
1+2 = 3 is a fact. Facts exist. So there are two facts which exist.
1+3 = 4 is a fact. Facts exist. So there are three facts which exist.
1+4 = 5 is a fact. Facts exist. So there are four facts which exist.

For the sake of brevity , I will skip the next billion or so examples.

So there are an actual infinite number of facts which exist, unless Craig wants to start arguing that 1 + N = N + 1 stops being a fact when the numbers get big enough........

Or perhaps Craig thinks that facts don't really exist. Also strange, as God knows the answer to all of these sums, so perhaps God knows things which don't really exist.

Or perhaps God can't do arithmetic for really big numbers.....

[KingDavid8]

Yesterday @ 08:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79535#post79535)
sandlewood:

For my own curiosity:

Do you believe that Christianity needs to make sense before you believe that it describes the truth about reality? Or, do you believe that when you encounter some aspect of Christianity that doesn’t seem to make sense, the reason it doesn’t seem to make sense is as yet undiscovered and that you need to search for the explanation?

Both, actually. The overall idea of Christianity must make sense before one can believe it, but that doesn't mean the potential believer must understand every aspect of it before it can be believed. That Jesus died in order to redeem my sins and was resurrected - that makes sense to me, and is enough for me to believe in Him. However, I don't feel that I have a full understanding of each and every thing Jesus said and did (I don't believe that any mere mortal really does). Frequently, I'll come across something in the NT that I don't understand. I don't put my faith on hold until I understand it, but keep believing while I try to understand it. Such a thing could potentially BECOME an obstacle to my faith, if, once I understood it, it still didn't jibe with my understanding of Christianity. But it's not going to be an obstacle while I'm still learning about it.


Do you believe that people such as the atheists that visit this board exist to test Christians? Do you believe that God put us here to challenge your faith to see if it is strong or not, and if you pass the challenge that you are worthy of Heaven?

I don't think there's any one reason that atheists visit this board, but I don't believe that they were sent by God. Some of them probably are here to test our faith, but it's probably a more personal motivation on their part. These ones may be considering becoming Christians, and first want to see if our faith stands up to scrutiny. So it's really more for their benefit than ours. I'm sure others are here because they want to enlighten us to the "fact" that our beliefs are false, and aren't considering converting at all. I'm sure there are many reasons they're here, but, no, I don't believe that God directed them here.

Oh yeah, and I don't believe that any of us ever become worthy of Heaven. As long as we're still sinners, we're unworthy. Our being allowed into God's kingdom is an act of grace on His part.

David

[semmie]

Yesterday @ 03:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79535#post79535)
sandlewood:

For my own curiosity:

Do you believe that Christianity needs to make sense before you believe that it describes the truth about reality? Or, do you believe that when you encounter some aspect of Christianity that doesn’t seem to make sense, the reason it doesn’t seem to make sense is as yet undiscovered and that you need to search for the explanation?

Do you believe that people such as the atheists that visit this board exist to test Christians? Do you believe that God put us here to challenge your faith to see if it is strong or not, and if you pass the challenge that you are worthy of Heaven?



Yesterday @ 09:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79747#post79747)
KingDavid8:
Both, actually. The overall idea of Christianity must make sense before one can believe it, but that doesn't mean the potential believer must understand every aspect of it before it can be believed.

i think dave hit the nail on the head, here. if we prolong any attempts to know god until we understand him, we are basically doomed. scriptures tell us that right now we see as in a poor reflection--how can we assume that any attempt on our part to FULLY know god will be productive? this should not, however, keep us from seeking him and trying to know him. there is much we can learn about his character and his will by reading the scriptures and waiting on him.

in response to the second part of your question, i think it's worth noting that none of our apologetics will make us "worthy of heaven." when we stand before god, he's not going to ask us, "how many atheists/skeptics did you convert?" and...although i am grateful for the existence of atheists/skeptics in my life, as they challenge me and cause me to seriously consider what is true and what is tradition.....i do not believe that atheists "exist to test Christians." i believe atheists (non-believers in general) exist for the same reason that Christians exist--for god to be glorified and made known to mankind. if god wants to allow an atheist to test a christian as a means of making himself known--than i certainly won't question that. but is it their sole purpose in life? i doubt it. remember....scripture says that god desires for NONE to perish--how then could we believe that a person's only purpose in life is to test christians?

[sandlewood]

weinerdog,
I assume that by posting Craig’s opinion, you mean that you agree with his. Unfortunately I can’t ask Craig to clarify what he means. At the end he says “The weight of the evidence seems to show this is true”. And yet, it was precisely the evidence that there was no Y chromosome present that should be counting for something. I can only assume that by “the weight of the evidence” he is referring to other evidence that outweighs the evidence of the missing Y chromosome. Therefore, his answer and your answer must be that, yes, Christianity does need to make sense before one believes it is true, and it makes sense because the evidence in favor of it outweighs the evidence against it.

But then he also says “if I really do believe in a God who created the universe, then for him to create a Y chromosome would be child’s play!" This indicates the opposite. He is saying that the reasonableness or the strength of evidence doesn’t matter since God cause anything to occur. Therefore, his reasoning is not clear at all to me. In his mind, what happened first? Did he learn about Christianity, decide it made sense, and then start to be a Christian? Or, did he decide to be a Christian first regardless of whether his observations made sense, and then afterwards either look for explanations or just write them off with the catch-all explanation that God can just do anything?


Yesterday @ 06:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79747#post79747)
KingDavid8:

Both, actually. The overall idea of Christianity must make sense before one can believe it, but that doesn't mean the potential believer must understand every aspect of it before it can be believed.

I should clarify one thing I was asking by making a distinction. I don’t mean to say that you need to have answers to all unknowns. I’m asking whether what you do know needs to make sense. And, does it need to make sense first? Or do you believe it is true first and then later try to find reasons for the things that appear to not make sense?[/quote]


That Jesus died in order to redeem my sins and was resurrected - that makes sense to me, and is enough for me to believe in Him.

Then I would take this to mean that this was enough evidence to outweigh any other contrary evidence you might know about. In other words, you see Christianity as making sense first. Then afterwards if you encounter things that don’t seem to corroborate with that, you would look for a reason. So it doesn’t sound like both. I think those two choices are mutually exclusive.

(As an aside, atheists and perhaps non-Christians will look at the same concept of Jesus’ resurrection and see it as not making sense.)


Today @ 04:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79970#post79970)
semmie:
in response to the second part of your question, i think it's worth noting that none of our apologetics will make us "worthy of heaven."

I can dispense with the word “worthy” if you like. All I really meant was that you need faith in order to get into heaven. I also didn’t mean the question to imply that an atheist’s sole purpose in life was to test theists. What I meant was more along the lines of God setting up the circumstances for atheists to challenge Christians’ faith. That he might have some hand in directing that to occur. David says no; semmie says it could be possible.

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 03:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79535#post79535)
sandlewood:

Do you believe that Christianity needs to make sense before you believe that it describes the truth about reality? Or, do you believe that when you encounter some aspect of Christianity that doesn’t seem to make sense, the reason it doesn’t seem to make sense is as yet undiscovered and that you need to search for the explanation?Um... both I guess. Christianity had to make sense to me before I chose to believe it. But some minor things are not knowable, so I have to consider that I either cannot know them now ... or that I am simply not informed enough to understand it yet.


Do you believe that people such as the atheists that visit this board exist to test Christians? Do you believe that God put us here to challenge your faith to see if it is strong or not, and if you pass the challenge that you are worthy of Heaven? That's four questions :lol: but I get your point. Yes to the third question ... I do think that some atheists visit this forum to test Christians. Do I think God sent them? I'd have a hard time believing that, but can't say for sure one way or the other. But I do know that it wouldn't be to see if we where "worthy" of heaven. No one is worthy of heaven ... we are going by the grace of God who sent Jesus Christ to be our Savior.


Rom 3:21-26 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 05:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80079#post80079)
SherBear:
For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

And you say this stuff was inspired by God? Someone needs to give God lessons in punctuation.

But anyway - what a fool God must be. Why on earth did he bother creating mankind, knowing as he did that mankind would never meet his lofty expectations? Nothing is ever good enough for him.

He creates us with desires and emotions, and then calls us names for submitting to them. What an idiot.

Paul

[wienerdog]

I don't think Craig was saying that the overall evidence for the virgin birth was convincing to him, but he had a problem with the genetics aspect of it; I think he was saying the overall evidence for Christianity was convincing to him, so the problems he had with Christianity (such as the virgin birth) were outweighed by them. This was similar for me: I couldn't bring myself to believe in inerrancy, but I became a Christian anyway because I was convinced by the evidence. Later on I accepted inerrancy because it seemed more plausible to me that the various "errors and contradictions" I found in the Bible were problems with me rather than the Bible. But again, that's just me.

As for the cosmological argument: I'm certainly willing to consider the possibility that this argument fails. But since this argument has been held by many of the most intelligent people who have lived throughout history, I have a hard time believing that it's stupid.

[Sher]

Today @ 02:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80116#post80116)
lordsnooty:

And you say this stuff was inspired by God? Someone needs to give God lessons in punctuation.Actually it spans several verses ... the compilation was mine.
But anyway - what a fool God must be. Why on earth did he bother creating mankind, knowing as he did that mankind would never meet his lofty expectations? Nothing is ever good enough for him.

He creates us with desires and emotions, and then calls us names for submitting to them. What an idiot. Paul ... you must be having some very tough issues today ... I am sorry you aren't feeling yourself and feel this need to lash out at others and God. Perhaps a good nap would help.

[Socrates]

Winace the non-philosopher splutters:Craig thinks the Kalaam Cosmological Arrrgghument makes sense. That lapse of judgement alone discredits anything he might want to say on any other subject. As if Winace would know. An attempt at refutation would be better. And then send it to his university that awarded him a doctorate for his work on the argument. And why would an alleged philosophical lapse discredit his New Testament studies, for which Craig earned a second doctorate.

Then Stevie Carr spruiked:Does Craig really think there is not an actual infinite number of things?

1+1 = 2 is a fact. Facts exist. So there is one fact which exists.
1+2 = 3 is a fact. Facts exist. So there are two facts which exist.
1+3 = 4 is a fact. Facts exist. So there are three facts which exist.
1+4 = 5 is a fact. Facts exist. So there are four facts which exist.

For the sake of brevity , I will skip the next billion or so examples.

So there are an actual infinite number of facts which exist, unless
Craig wants to start arguing that 1 + N = N + 1 stops being a fact when the numbers get big enough........

Or perhaps Craig thinks that facts don't really exist. Also strange, as God knows the answer to all of these sums, so perhaps God knows things which don't really exist.

Or perhaps God can't do arithmetic for really big numbers.....:dufus: Craig was talking about an infinite collection of discrete objects or discrete time intervals. Craig made it clear that infinite sequences of numbers are irrelevant to the Kalaam argument.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 10:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80307#post80307)
SherBear:
Paul ... you must be having some very tough issues today ... I am sorry you aren't feeling yourself and feel this need to lash out at others and God. Perhaps a good nap would help.

My apologies.

Paul

[Sher]

Today @ 06:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80321#post80321)
lordsnooty:

My apologies.

Sure ... we all have bad days ... and I was serious about the nap ... it isn't just for children :smile:

[psychopath]

Yeah, Winace, I am interested in seeing your reasoning that supposedly refutes the Cosmological Argument.

[Woman]

sherbear

Christianity had to make sense to me before I chose to believe it.

That's what I've been saying all along!!

One cannot choose to believe that which makes no sense!



:smile:

[Sher]

Today @ 06:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80331#post80331)
Woman:

One cannot choose to believe that which makes no sense! Right ... otherwise they would choose another religion or no religion ... still making a choice :tongue:

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 05:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80072#post80072)
sandlewood:

I should clarify one thing I was asking by making a distinction. I don’t mean to say that you need to have answers to all unknowns. I’m asking whether what you do know needs to make sense. And, does it need to make sense first? Or do you believe it is true first and then later try to find reasons for the things that appear to not make sense?

I'd definitely say that the former is true, that what one does know needs to make sense. You could say that, when it comes to the Bible (or really, any belief system), there are the big questions and then there are the little questions. In this case, the big questions would likely be things like:

1) Was Jesus bodily resurrected?
2) Does Jesus' death on the cross in some way cause our sins to be forgiven?
3) Will accepting Jesus as my savior get me into Heaven?

I'd say that any Christian who accepts Jesus as their savior without having a satisfactory answer to those questions is being very silly.

Then, of course, there are smaller questions:

1) Exactly how long was Jesus in the grave?
2) Was Jesus really born of a virgin?
3) How can Jesus be both 'God-made-flesh' and the Son of God?
4) Why did Jesus curse the fig tree?

You can accept Jesus as your savior without having those questions answered. But they are the kinds of things that a good Christian should try to comprehend.

David

[sandlewood]

Thanks for the responses. I don't have time at the moment to go into any more detail as I might like to on a couple of the points. But I did read all the responses.

[b488]

Do you believe that Christianity needs to make sense before you believe that it describes the truth about reality? Or, do you believe that when you encounter some aspect of Christianity that doesn’t seem to make sense, the reason it doesn’t seem to make sense is as yet undiscovered and that you need to search for the explanation?

There is a name for the investigation of 'truth' in the spirtiual realm. the term is 'theology' Just as in any other inductive endeavor (such as the natural sciences) one develops a paradigm for how something is (say, Newtonian account of physics) and methodologies are developed as a means to discover new knowledge and/or clear up problems with the current paradigm. When the problems will not go away, another paradigm takes its place (Einstein's relativity & quantum mechanics)
By making theology into a 'science' or rational study, the presupposition is that one does not know 'everything' there is to know about the subject (in this case it is god and religion)
If this is true for the scholar (in whatever subject actually, not just theology), then why do we suppose it would be any different for the joe shmoe seeking to find a worldview that he finds acceptable to him? In a substantial way, due to our limitations, the best one can hope for is a 'best fit' for their experience/knowledge and base further study on those convictions till one learns and grows more. (then the convictions will either strengthen or be abandoned for something more satisfying)

\The*ol"o*gy\, n.; pl. Theologies. The science of God or of religion; the science which treats of the existence, character, and attributes of God, his laws and government, the doctrines we are to believe, and the duties we are to practice; divinity; (as more commonly understood) ``the knowledge derivable from the Scriptures, the systematic exhibition of revealed truth, the science of Christian faith and life.''

the : Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


Do you believe that people such as the atheists that visit this board exist to test Christians? Do you believe that God put us here to challenge your faith to see if it is strong or not, and if you pass the challenge that you are worthy of Heaven?

In the xian worldview, all are created by God to love god and people. No one is created/exists to be a 'test'. As far as 'god putting atheists here to challenge us', I dont know. But our scripture encourages us to have an answer for all who ask about the faith, so I have to assume that God anticipated that you guys would be around! :smile: And for the last part of your question, xians believe that we are saved by "grace, through faith" Nothing we can do would merit Heaven. We put our trust in the saving work of Christ on the cross and are so giddy with joy about this great and wonderous mystery, that we would like everyone to know about it, perhaps to share in it. :yipee:

I hope this helps in some way


ciao :thumb:

[johnransom]

04-26-2003 @ 05:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79617#post79617)
stevencarrwork:
Does Craig really think there is not an actual infinite number of things?

1+1 = 2 is a fact. Facts exist. So there is one fact which exists.
1+2 = 3 is a fact. Facts exist. So there are two facts which exist.
1+3 = 4 is a fact. Facts exist. So there are three facts which exist.
1+4 = 5 is a fact. Facts exist. So there are four facts which exist.

For the sake of brevity , I will skip the next billion or so examples.

So there are an actual infinite number of facts which exist, unless Craig wants to start arguing that 1 + N = N + 1 stops being a fact when the numbers get big enough........

Or perhaps Craig thinks that facts don't really exist. Also strange, as God knows the answer to all of these sums, so perhaps God knows things which don't really exist.

Or perhaps God can't do arithmetic for really big numbers.....
Stevie the Mental Pretzel's mind is getting so tangled the blood flow to his brain is cut off. What a dim-witted post. Bad even by his poor standards.

First, as Soc has pointed out, Craig is talking of physical entities, not abstractions, so the argument is moot.

Anyway, Stevie claims an infinite series of facts. But then Stevie goes and disproves himself by showing that in essence the only fact he is presenting is 1+N=N+1, the fact being true for all instances of N. So really, we don't have an infinite series of facts, but a single fact operating on an infinite group. That the members of the group N can be arranged seqentially is actually irrelevant.

But the trouble is, the fact isn't true for all N. Try setting N=infinity, which you have to do in Stevie's argument. In this case, 1+N=N. Indeed, X+N=N in this instance, where X is any member of the group N (including infinity itself).

Thus we prove (with Craig and Hilbert's Hotel) that you cannot have an actual infinite series by successive addition, because when you reach infinity, it grows by one. So the series is only ever potential.

[johnransom]

04-26-2003 @ 02:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79535#post79535)
sandlewood:
Do you believe that people such as the atheists that visit this board exist to test Christians? Do you believe that God put us here to challenge your faith to see if it is strong or not, and if you pass the challenge that you are worthy of Heaven?
Nope. Comic relief and target practice.:bonk:

[WinAce]

04-27-2003 @ 05:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80317#post80317)
Socrates:

An attempt at refutation would be better.

I was unaware that special pleading and question-begging needed a refutation.


And then send it to his university that awarded him a doctorate for his work on the argument.

The same argument that any preschooler can recognize as question-begging nonsense? :smile:

But then again, the Ontological argument alone demonstrates that philosophical work should be taken with a grain of salt. It's not like Craig's is any better, and that wouldn't change if he won 3 Nobel Prizes in succession for it.


And why would an alleged philosophical lapse discredit his New Testament studies, for which Craig earned a second doctorate.

It wouldn't. I was kidding about that part. :teeth: It does show, though, that Craig will non-chalantly use really awful logical fallacies to compose an argument. Of course, it's not like NT studies are a big improvement over the Kalaam argument... ::lol:

[wienerdog]

WinAce, with all due respect, you sound ridiculous when you write things like that. It makes it difficult to take you seriously when you dismiss arguments that have been seriously thought about by people orders of magnitude smarter than you and everyone else on this board as something that "any preschooler can recognize as question-begging nonsense," and "really awful logical fallacies." That's called blowing smoke, and it's only done by people who are trying to cover up their ignorance and their insecurity. I don't mean this as an insult.

[Sher]

:no:

[WinAce]

Just telling it like it is, I'm afraid. All variants of the cosmological argument to date rest entirely on begging the question. Special pleading is also a favorite fallacy that makes them "work", but even some preschoolers can see thru it.

[Vorkosigan]

WinAce, with all due respect, you sound ridiculous when you write things like that. It makes it difficult to take you seriously when you dismiss arguments that have been seriously thought about by people orders of magnitude smarter than you and everyone else on this board as something that "any preschooler can recognize as question-begging nonsense," and "really awful logical fallacies."

WinAce is quite right. Silliness remains silliness regardless of the level of intellect embracing it. Newton was quite bright, but he wasted so much intellect on meaningless exploration of alchemy and theology. And was an Arian too (I suppose since he was orders of magniitude smarter than you, you're going to convert to Arianism now....no?) Just think of how many bright people are creationists, holocaust deniers, and the like....


That's called blowing smoke, and it's only done by people who are trying to cover up their ignorance and their insecurity. I don't mean this as an insult.

No, it's called telling it like it is. Idiocy, no matter how slickly packaged, remains idiocy.

Vorkosigan

[wienerdog]

I'm not saying that since many people much smarter than all of us believed something that it is therefore true. I'm saying that since many people much smarter than all of us believed something it is not stupid. I already said that I am perfectly willing to consider the possibility that the cosmological argument fails. But when someone says that it is "question-begging nonsense," or "idiocy," it only demonstrates that they haven't thought about it enough to justify drawing any conclusions about it.

And there is a huge difference between "telling it like it is" and pure bluster. Many people on this board, both Christian and non, only engage in the latter. At least in his last two postings WinAce did not tell it like it is. I can use the same polemic to argue that the earth is flat, the moon landings were faked, the Holocaust didn't happen, etc. Bluster is just a way of trying to bully people into agreeing with you because you are unable to justify your position. Thus, it demonstrates the insecurity and ignorance of the one engaged in it.

[Vorkosigan]

I'm not saying that since many people much smarter than all of us believed something that it is therefore true. I'm saying that since many people much smarter than all of us believed something it is not stupid.

Why? Don't you think smart people are as capable of fooling themselves as dumb people? I think so. I don't think people lose their humanity simply because they are intelligent. Stupidity remains stupidity regardless of the brainpower invested. None of the various philosophical arguments for gods are convincing, and all have been resoundly trashed over the centuries.


I already said that I am perfectly willing to consider the possibility that the cosmological argument fails. But when someone says that it is "question-begging nonsense," or "idiocy," it only demonstrates that they haven't thought about it enough to justify drawing any conclusions about it.

No, it just means that after 1500 years of watching philosphical arguments for gods get trashed, some of us have come to the conclusion that they ain't worth much. Others, because of faith investments, continue to think that those arguments really say something interesting. They are useful to believers as additional defenses against cognitive dissonance, but they are worthless as arguments in and of themselves.

I mean -- think about it -- how many people can you name who were persuaded by the Kalaam and similar arguments? Most people who believe in gods do so because of social experiences they have had, either indoctrination from birth, or some kind of conversion later in life through interaction with friends, missionaries, etc. How many people do you know have said "I was reading through the Journal of Religion and Philosophy the other day and stumbled across a very interesting version of the TAG. I was so stunned that I fell to my knees and accepted Jesus Christ as my savior......"

So that is why WinAce dismissed those arguments as childish question-begging. Because they are.

Vorkosigan

[wienerdog]

Today @ 02:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93171#post93171)
Vorkosigan:



Why? Don't you think smart people are as capable of fooling themselves as dumb people? I think so. I don't think people lose their humanity simply because they are intelligent. Stupidity remains stupidity regardless of the brainpower invested.
Sure. Very intelligent people can still believe something silly. When they do so however, they are behaving uncharacteristically. It will always be more likely that they will behave characteristically than uncharacteristically. But of course, intelligent people can still behave uncharacteristically, just as all of us can. (I don't equate "humanity" with "stupidity" by the way)

But of course, this isn't my argument. My argument is that when a large number of the most intelligent people who have ever lived from various times, cultures, backgrounds, etc. believe something, to assert that this belief is stupid only indicates that you haven't thought about it enough to justify having an opinion about it. Again, to say that an intelligent person can behave uncharacteristically at some point is of course true; but to say that the majority of the most intelligent people throughout history have behaved uncharacteristically in the same way and about the same thing is just implausible in the extreme.


None of the various philosophical arguments for gods are convincing, and all have been resoundly trashed over the centuries...
No, it just means that after 1500 years of watching philosphical arguments for gods get trashed, some of us have come to the conclusion that they ain't worth much.
This is an inaccurate depiction of the history of philosophy.


Others, because of faith investments, continue to think that those arguments really say something interesting. They are useful to believers as additional defenses against cognitive dissonance, but they are worthless as arguments in and of themselves.
Well, I think most religious believers base their belief on their personal experience--which, of course, is what the vast majority of all our beliefs are based on. They have experienced God, and it will always be more plausible for them to accept the validity of this experience than to accept an argument that claims it is/was illusory.


I mean -- think about it -- how many people can you name who were persuaded by the Kalaam and similar arguments? Most people who believe in gods do so because of social experiences they have had, either indoctrination from birth, or some kind of conversion later in life through interaction with friends, missionaries, etc. How many people do you know have said "I was reading through the Journal of Religion and Philosophy the other day and stumbled across a very interesting version of the TAG. I was so stunned that I fell to my knees and accepted Jesus Christ as my savior......"
This is actually a fairly common experience: people who try to refute Christianity and end up becoming Christians as a result of their studies. That's largely how I became a Christian. That's how C. S. Lewis became a Christian. In fact, a few years ago at an SCP meeting, I met a philosopher from a university who had become a Christian a few months before solely based on the theistic arguments that Christian philosophers had put forth. I don't know if the Kalam argument was one of them, but he had gone to the meeting specifically to meet and thank William Lane Craig, who was reading an essay. His wife had just been baptized the week before.


So that is why WinAce dismissed those arguments as childish question-begging. Because they are.

Vorkosigan
Even if these arguments could be refuted it wouldn't demonstrate that they are "childish question-begging." Again, I could say the same thing about virtually any position. I could say that any claim that anything, virtually anything, exists is childish question-begging, and has been soundly thrashed time and time again throughout history. For any response anyone could make, I could come up with a pithy counter-response that such a claim had been refuted many times and you'd have to be a complete moron to disagree with me. Because that's what such behavior ultimately comes down to.

[WinAce]

05-11-2003 @ 01:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93510#post93510)
wienerdog:

For any response anyone could make, I could come up with a pithy counter-response that such a claim had been refuted many times and you'd have to be a complete moron to disagree with me. Because that's what such behavior ultimately comes down to.

Please point out where I implied those who accept the cosmological and other arguments as valid are morons.

P.S. I generally abide by the mantra "hate the stupidity, not the stupid", so even if you were right it wouldn't mean much :teeth:.

[wienerdog]

Please point out where I implied those who accept the cosmological and other arguments as valid are morons.
Well, I don't really want to get into a tit-for-tat kind of debate, but since you asked, your first posting on this thread was


Craig thinks the Kalaam Cosmological Arrrgghument makes sense. That lapse of judgement alone discredits anything he might want to say on any other subject.
This certainly implies that Craig's acceptance of the cosmological argument makes his thought untrustworthy in general. You also referred to the cosmological argument as


The same argument that any preschooler can recognize as question-begging nonsense?
which, again, implies that those who accept it are not at the intellectual level of preschoolers. As you say, this won't really bother you, it's just a pet peeve of mine when people don't respect the great intellects of history regardless of whether they're right or not.

I hope Sandlewood doesn't mind us hijacking his thread.

[Sheepdog]

of course! instead of actually addressing an argument, we can refute it simply by making bald assertions: Winace's last post was loaded with question-begging. and infant can see that.

[sandlewood]

Today @ 06:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95658#post95658)
wienerdog:
I hope Sandlewood doesn't mind us hijacking his thread.

Nah. The original topic was pretty much done. Hijack away.

[WinAce]

Today @ 09:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95658#post95658)
wienerdog:

This certainly implies that Craig's acceptance of the cosmological argument makes his thought untrustworthy in general.

No, his acceptance of logical fallacies as a valid argument form makes anything he writes untrustworthy in general.


You also referred to the cosmological argument as "question begging nonsense".

And?



which, again, implies that those who accept it are not at the intellectual level of preschoolers.

Don't knock preschoolers. Before the indoctrination sets in, they can be more rational than many adults.


As you say, this won't really bother you, it's just a pet peeve of mine when people don't respect the great intellects of history regardless of whether they're right or not.

As I said, my philosophy is "disrespect the idiocy, not the idiot". :teeth: Not that I'm implying that anyone is an idiot.

[Benjamin]

:cheers:

Kudos to you, Wienerdog. I've read a few of your posts and I very much like the way you think, and the way you present your arguments.

[wienerdog]

wienerdog: I hope Sandlewood doesn't mind us hijacking his thread.
Sandlwood: Nah. The original topic was pretty much done. Hijack away.
Thanks dood.


WinAce: Don't knock preschoolers. Before the indoctrination sets in, they can be more rational than many adults.
True enough. I'm more impressed by their honesty before we teach them to lie. Although it's interesting that no one has ever had to teach a child to say "NOOOO!!"


Benjamin: Kudos to you, Wienerdog. I've read a few of your posts and I very much like the way you think, and the way you present your arguments.
Wow, thanks man. That's really nice.