Paul Jacobsen's "Case Against Faith"

[jpholding]

Hello all.

In the next 30 minutes or so I will be uploading a new project hubbed at

http://www.tektonics.org/caf00.html

The subject is a rebuttal to Strobel's Case for Faith written by an agnostic (well, as of the third of this month, atheist) styled Paul Jacobsen. I was asked to reply to it and have done so, other than a few places beyond my scope of study.

I'm starting this thead for comments. I have invited Jacobsen to drop in because I perceive that he is somewhat like our friend Kyle Gerkin, willing and able to listen and discuss matters with intelligence and foresight. We'll see if he has time to accept the invitation.

Again, please wait as I am in the middle of an upload now which includes a lot of modified files with the new template. I needed to wait until I started this thread so I could put the URL at the bottom of the hub page.

[dizzle]

Awesome!!!

[Paul Jacobsen]

Hello, Mr. Holdings,

I didn't receive any e-mail inviting me to your site, someone else told me of it. Perhaps you sent to an old address. I just gave your refutation of my critique a first read through. I can say you treated me much more gently than you are known for! You actually gave me a few compliments here and there!

I can imagine that it took a bit of time and effort to produce your work. Likewise, it will likely take me some time to respond. I guess I'll have to take out my copy of CfF again, and read it once more.

[jpholding]

Today @ 04:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=215193#post215193)
Paul Jacobsen:


I didn't receive any e-mail inviting me to your site, someone else told me of it. Perhaps you sent to an old address. I just gave your refutation of my critique a first read through. I can say you treated me much more gently than you are known for! You actually gave me a few compliments here and there!

I can imagine that it took a bit of time and effort to produce your work. Likewise, it will likely take me some time to respond. I guess I'll have to take out my copy of CfF again, and read it once more.

Howdy,

I sent it to the email address listed on your site as of the day I posted it. Perhaps it was one of those usual cyberspace accidents and it got run over by a message from Poland that read, "My name is Sese Mkumbo brother of former dictator of Kenya and I have $25 million US I need to transfer and this is confidential and I have been told you are trustworthy." Lot of those flying around these days. :smile:

Take your time. As noted, you earned the "kid gloves". :thumb:

[Paul Jacobsen]

I have written a response to Holdings' "refutation" of my critique of Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith. I will be posting it on my site, www.caseagainstfaith.com.

I have read J.P Holdings defense of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Faith. For one, I must say that Holdings has done the best job defending Strobel that I have seen. Also, I appreciate that Holdings was quite polite and spoke reasonably well of me. That said, it probably comes as no surprise that I have disagreements with Holding’s defense.

Chapter 1: Since Evil and Suffering Exist, A Loving God Cannot
Before I address Holding’s comments, the first thing I would like to note is, I used to be a Christian. And, when I was a Christian, one possible explanation for situations such as the starvation of the baby that I contemplated was that perhaps they are to teach us that man cannot solve our own problems, we need God. I thought that perhaps we are to learn that while some forms of human government may be superior to others, none are good enough. In other words, maybe Capitalism is better than Communism, but maybe all human forms of government are bound to eventually fail. And then, after Armageddon, and Jesus returns to Earth, man could see that nothing man came up with proved to be a lasting solution.

That was my own personal “pet” theology. And it seemed like it could possibly be right. But my own counter-argument to such a theory was that if what we are supposed to learn is that man is ultimately doomed to fail, then what is the point of trying? Most Christians try to make the world a better place. And yet, what is the point of trying to make the world a better place if the ultimate purpose of the world is for it to be destroyed by man?

The reason I bring up my “pet” theology is that I see in Holdings’ response the same conflict. On one hand, he says that it isn’t God’s fault if man doesn’t do good stewardship of the resources He has provided us. But Holdings’ also depicts man as generally, “too stupid or involved in our own sinful, petty concerns to get off our duffs and take the needed steps.” If that is what man is like, would it not be the expected outcome for us to not do good stewardship?

Then of course this also brings up the question, from whom does our nature come from? If man is generally too stupid or self-involved, from whom does this nature originate from? Wouldn’t it have to originate from God? Now I know the counter-argument would “free will”. But I don’t believe that is a satisfactory answer. Some people have “free will” and generally choose good, others frequently choose evil. What is the difference between the person who chooses good, and the person who chooses evil? Both have free will, but yet there must be some reason why one chooses good, and the other chooses evil. Whatever that reason is, must it not come from the nature of the individual people, or perhaps their environment? And since God controls their nature and their environment, then ultimately is not God’s fault that the person who chooses evil does so?

So, now let me more directly answer Holdings points. Holdings says that surely I’m not suggesting that God could have also given us an omniscient nature. Why not?

Holdings says that if we are like “pets” to God, there is nothing wrong with that. Okay, but when someone chooses to be a pet owner, one understands the nature of their pets. Humans choose pets that have a nature that we like. We don’t generally choose alligators for pets as their nature is not conducive to being a pet. God, as designer of His “pets” should be capable of designing a pet that matches His requirements of a pet.

Holdings says that since I cannot know what would happen in all possible worlds, I cannot know if the death of the child would not indeed result in a greater good. This is true, but for one, does God really want a “greater good” on Earth anyway? Like in my personal pet theology, I considered the idea that God actually does not want a greater good on Earth, as the purpose of Earth is to show man our faults. Therefore, it is not necessarily true that God is working towards any “greater good” at least on Earth. But, if we assume that God does indeed want a greater good on Earth, surely an omniscient, omnipotent Creator could know how to bring this greater good without needing something bad to happen first.


Ultimately, however, what I find the biggest problem in the kinds of arguments as Holdings (and Strobel/Kreeft) provide is, they seem to not apply to heaven. Holdings says that without suffering, we can become "impossibly spoiled little brats". But he doesn’t explain why we don’t become spoiled brats in heaven without suffering. Holdings makes some attempt to discuss where I mention this in my critique, but really, I don’t see how his response sheds any light at all on this. We expect that in heaven, it won’t be necessary for people to die of starvation in order to produce a greater good. We expect in heaven that we won’t become “brats”. We expect that an omniscient, omnipotent God to be capable of creating heaven such that this isn’t a necessary. But if God can create heaven that way, then there seems to be no reason for Earth to not be that way.

On the question about why doesn’t God give absolute proof of His existence, I again fail to see how Holdings response sheds any light on this. I said that I have absolute proof of my wife’s existence, and I’m still able to choose her. Holdings responds that God would need to do more than just prove that some God of some sort exists. A sign in the sky saying “I exist” wouldn’t not prove which God exists. But then, inexplicably, seems to say that if God were to show specifically which god exists, that would be like a shotgun wedding where I’m forced to marry my wife. This makes no sense. I say again, I know my wife exists, and I know what woman she is, and her attributes, and that did not mean I was forced to choose her.

Holdings comments on where I claim that our concepts of “good” and “evil” seem to be merely conceptualizations of biological functions. He makes the usual charge that this reduces “good” and “evil” to “might makes right”. My first response is, even if we might want God to decide what is “good” and what is “evil,” if there is no God, then there is not God. And we are just out of luck in wanting God to decide what is “good” and “evil”. Secondly, the fact that on every single moral issue that I know of, birth control, homosexuality, divorce, etc., there are Christians that argue on each side. And of course there are theists of other religions to argue on both sides. This seems rather conclusive evidence that God has, at the very least, not made what is “good” and “evil” clear. Holdings’ claims that God has made it clear, we just haven’t been willing to understand flies in the face of the evidence. Therefore, I must conclude that, like it or not, God has not provided clear definition of “good” and “evil” and humans are just stuck doing the best we can. I don’t like it. Really, I don’t. But that does seem to be the facts.


Objection 2: Since Miracles Contradict Science, They Cannot be True

Partially in response to Holdings defense, and partly due to the fact that the issue of how miracles interact with natural law has come up from other critics of my work, I have revised the first seven paragraphs on Objection 2.

Craig provides a definition of a miracle that I actually like. He says, "an event which is not producible by the natural causes that are operative at the time and place that the event occurs." Good definition. However, this definition makes no claims as to whether the natural laws are “suspended” or “violated” or “interceded” or whatever term you like. And, in my current version, I argue that there is no difference, or at least no difference that we can know of.

Holdings argues that in validating potential miracles, it is important that a deity has claimed responsibility for the miracle. I don’t recall Craig having made this claim. But at any rate, whether or not Craig would agree, this obviously begs the question, how does one know that a deity has claimed responsibility? As near as I can tell, all reports that a deity has claimed responsibility of various acts have always been by people claiming some deity has made the claim. Which leads us nowhere.

Holdings also claims that one should consider whether there are possible natural causes to the purported miracle. But that’s the problem, there are always possible natural causes! Or, at the very least, there is at least always naturalistic explanations for why it appeared that the miracle happened. Memories can be faulty, things might not always be the way they appeared, etc. For example, I do not seriously believe that the Resurrection was a trick by Jesus, like maybe he paid off Pontius Pilate to fake the crucifixion. But, while I don’t seriously believe this possibility, it is still a possible explanation that does not require the supernatural. So, as I said, there is always a possible naturalistic explanation to every miracle.

Holdings then comments on Craig’s denial that “extraordinary events” require “extraordinary evidence.” Holdings concedes that Craig’s lottery analogy isn’t very good, but says I should cut Craig some slack, seeing how that was an off-the-cuff analog. Okay, but, the problem is not merely that the analogy is bad, the problem is, the point he was trying to make is wrong. Extraordinary events do indeed require extraordinary evidence.


Objection 4: God Isn't Worthy if He Kills Innocent Children

Holdings seems to concede that Geisler did a poor job of answering these questions, and that at least much of my criticism of Geisler is reasonable. Cool! <g>

In my analogy to the movie Titanic, Holdings comments that much effort was undertaken to surround the fictional characters in true history. And I concede that modern movie budgets allow for fantastic realism within fictional stories that certainly did not exist in the first century. But my basic point was, the Gospels could be at least similar to the extent that the authors wanted to put fictional characters into a realistic setting. And, given that the authors lived in that time period, they no doubt had a good understanding of the region. So, it may well have been easy for them to put fictional characters into a realistic setting. Today, somebody writing a fictional story set in the first century, if they wanted realism, would need to do a great deal of study of the period. Somebody who lived in the first century would not need to do this. Therefore, if the stories somebody wrote at the time had accurate settings, this shouldn’t be surprising.

Generally speaking, the other defenses that Holdings provides is along the same lines used in his defense of Objection 1. I would need omniscience to be able to determine whether something wasn’t the best solution in the long term. And to which I would respond the same way as I did there, one would think that an omniscient, omnipotent Being would not need a “bad” to make a “greater good”. Otherwise, how could heaven be any better than Earth?


Objection 5: It's Offensive to Claim Jesus is the Only Way to God

Holdings says that I “change the subject” to the question of how does one become saved? Well, I concede that I mostly ignored parts of his interview that did not deal with this question. But, I would indeed say that this question is a big part of the interview. But, I can concede that maybe by focusing on this one subtopic, which perhaps Zacharias didn’t completely flesh out because of the other topics, perhaps I skewed Zacharias’ position on the topic.

The “official” topic of this chapter was whether or not Christianity is fair in claiming exclusivity. And I can concede to Holdings and Zacharias that if Christianity is indeed true, then it is exclusively true. My main problem is that if it is true, one would think that God would want people to know it is true. Thought the topic of the Trinity was not discussed by Zacharias, I’d like to use that topic for a moment. Most Christians seem to believe in the Trinity. In fact, most Christians think this is of paramount importance. I’ve heard Christians say that not believing in the Trinity could cause you to loose your soul. Here are some audio tracks by Walter Martin arguing this position:

http://www.waltermartin.org/trinity.ram
http://www.waltermartin.org/trinity2.ram

The only reason I bring this up is, how could it be possible that the Trinity is so important that you could loose your soul over it, and yet God’s “chosen people”, the Jews, had no idea of the Trinity? The whole idea of God wanting people to know who He is, and He is omnipotent, and yet has somehow failed to have people know who He is, is not plausible in my view.

Holdings refers to an analogy by Dr. Kreeft of multiple paths to salvation. Well, what happened to Christianity have exclusive lock on the truth? That the only road to salvation is through Jesus Christ? Holdings seems to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth here. This multiple paths to salvation idea is directly contradictory to there being only one path to salvation.

Objection 6: A Loving God Would Never Torture People in Hell

Okay, this chapter is where the fun begins J. Holdings says, “Jacobsen as a whole is clearly not a depraved individual” well, I’ve had people say otherwise… :smile: He says he thinks I have “overestimated the options for leisure activity, so to speak, in hell.” Depends on if I’m, um, fully functional… :teeth: Seriously, what could people do for all eternity, whether or not in the company of God, seems rather difficult to imagine. I’ve heard one atheist say that the idea of eternal life is terrifying—they couldn’t imagine not eventually getting bored. And after being bored long enough, insanity would come.

Since I don’t personally like the idea of turning to dust, I would hope that it might be possible for God to be able to keep bringing new experiences so that boredom never comes. But that of course begs the question, if God can do that in heaven, why can God do the same for hell? Why shouldn’t those that have decided they would rather spend eternity without God have a way to spend eternity productively?

Holdings asks, how I could know for certain the people would change their minds? Can I read their minds. No, but I know that the nature of people is that they do tend to change their minds. So, at the very least, one would have to conclude it likely that some people would change their minds, even if not everybody would.

Now for the sub-objections. For several of them, I feel that I don’t really have anything new to say, it is up to the reader to decide if my take on them (from the critique) or Holdings’ take is the better argument. But for the others, I wish to rebut some of Holdings’ comments:

1. No further comment.

2. No further comment.

3. Holdings says that God could, so to speak, “spread out the suffering”. So that someone that only deserves a relatively small amount of suffering could have it dolled out over eternity. I suppose that I can’t prove him wrong, but this implies an infinitely thin “layer” of punishment that one would receive. ‘X’ amount of punishment, levied over an infinite amount of time, would imply that per time unit, you received ‘x’ divided by infinity punishment, which implies that per time unit, one should receive essentially zero suffering/punishment.

4. Holdings says I’m mind reading to say that people would want to return to God. Well, to claim otherwise also requires mind reading. And it also flies in the face of human nature where people tend to change their mind.

5. No further comment.

6. Holdings says I’m mind reading. He is mind reading to conclude otherwise.

7. I’ve decided to try to more strongly defend my take on Moreland’s position. I said that I’m not sure, but Moreland “seems” to be making a reference to chaos theory. Whether he would use that term or not, I agree is debatable. But I’m am all the more convinced that I am correct that is what he is basically saying. Moreland says that God probably could have created just a handful of people that would all be saved. But then says, “the problem is that once God starts to create more people, it becomes more difficult to just create the people who would choose him and not create the people who wouldn’t.” How could anything ever be “more difficult” for someone omnipotent? The only conclusion one could make from this statement, and Morland’s Back to the Future analogy is that Moreland is indeed saying that God is not capable of predicting every ramification of every act. I intend to revise my critique, and make my argument on this sub-objection stronger.

8. As to “second chances,” Holdings responds, “How about a 187th, 1296th, 78,463rd chance?” But this doesn’t really address the question. And that is, maybe it does take some people “78,463” chances. But of all the people that get 78,463 chances, and fail, surely some of them would choose right on the 78,464 chance. How can God know for certain not? Or, if God really would know that you would choose right on the 78,464 chance, but decides tough doo-doo, you only get the 78,463 chances and that’s that--and you are stuck for all eternity because you never got the 78,464 chance--is this the God you would want to worship?

9. Holdings says that he doesn’t think anybody defines reincarnation as for certain to be a human again is what any religion teaches. I’m pretty certain Holdings is incorrect, and that many Buddhists and Hindu teach reincarnation this way. Then he claims that what would it matter anyway, someone that chooses against God would make the same choice every time. This is an assertion with no evidence. And in fact, contradicts what he said in sub-objection 7: “the argument actually is that one's decision is actually a syncretistic event, in which the people you meet, the experiences you have, and your own free will decision combine.” In every new life, the people you meet and the experiences you have will be different, and Holdings agrees that these are part of the equation. Therefore, he contradicts himself saying that reincarnation as a human again is inherently futile.


Okay, in summary, I think that Holdings has done just about as poor of a job as Moreland did in defending hell.

Objection 7: Church History is Littered with Oppression and Violence

I have only a few things to say in response to Holdings on this topic. First, on the witch trials, Holding says, “IF indeed there had been real witches -- casting spells on people, destroying crops, or otherwise threatening others -- then the only difference between themselves and someone who sticks a knife in your gut is the means by which they kill you.” Well, since he capitalized IF, I assume he realizes this is a real big IF. Secondly, even if there were/are witches, aren’t some of them “good” witches? Don’t they need to be tried on the specific crimes, like “destroying crops” instead of merely being condemned for being a witch?

And, given that the evidence points to the non-existence of effective witchcraft, this says the evidence points to the Bible pronouncing a death sentence for non-existent crimes. I have heard numbers of executions from “merely” tens of thousands of such executions, to numbers as high as ten million. (Europe saw many more witch trials than the US.) I suspect the high numbers are exaggerations. But, there were indeed many executions that the Bible helped sanction.

Holdings says that he doesn’t “see where Woodbridge is ‘all for blaming atheism for bad things done by atheists.’” Let me be of assistance. On 216 he says, “in talking about the sins of Christianity to forget the role of atheism in trampling human rights.” Strobel then quoted to Woodbridge from another Christian, Luis Palau discussing atheism’s role in Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, etc. To which Woodbridge responds, “give the lack of framework in atheism for making moral decisions, it is easy to see why the world has experienced the horrors of these regimes.”

Objection 8: I Still Have Doubts, So I Can't be a Christian

Holdings responds to Objection 8 by denying that there are various levels of being convinced. He says, “my own take on this matter is that those who speak of being at various levels of being ‘convinced’ are fooling themselves.”

Well, I’d have to say that my own take is that Holdings is fooling himself. If I asked him if Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman, could he say that he is 100% certain yes, or 100% certain no? Well, I guess he could if he were the second gunman… :doh: But, generally speaking, it is clear to me that various levels of belief in everything, not just religious beliefs, is human nature. But that Holdings can’t allow for this, for it would mean that my take on Objection 8 is right. So, he has to deny this. Sorry, but your denial doesn’t work.

[jpholding]

Heya Paul,

Thanks for the drop in. I'll respond to this in the next day or so and post it on my site as well as here.

JP

[jpholding]

Huzzah!

It was a pleasure to have Paul come over and say a few words. If I may be so bold, though, he had a habit of adding an S to the end of my name where none existed. :teeth: Now let's get to the issues. (BTW, change notice, I remembered I have a link to this discussion at the end of the original series, so no need to put this on Tekton.)

Ch1:

But Holdings’ also depicts man as generally, “too stupid or involved in our own sinful, petty concerns to get off our duffs and take the needed steps.” If that is what man is like, would it not be the expected outcome for us to not do good stewardship?

I think Jacobsen has assumed here that I think "stupid/involved" is something we can't help. I don't think that's the case at all. I do think it is of our own free will that we choose this direction and saying it "originated from God" would be false. As for why one chooses good and one evil, I simply hold that we have a "wildcard" ability to do so -- not from our nature or environment, but a genuine ability to choose, the same way God can. (For those who want to know, this is called libertarianism.) I'll add that we very often do make the choice to LET environment be our control.

Holdings says that surely I’m not suggesting that God could have also given us an omniscient nature. Why not?

To be that way would require us to be God. Is it logically possible for God to make someone as powerful as He is?

God, as designer of His “pets” should be capable of designing a pet that matches His requirements of a pet.

As far as I know, God is quite satisfied with His choice. And I don't see that we can't match up with the requirements: Be loyal to God. When we make mistakes, apologize. Barring those with mental inability, is there anyone incapable of this?

This is true, but for one, does God really want a “greater good” on Earth anyway?

Christian theology holds this to be the case; if one wants to get into a possibility of a "malevolent God" or a deistic one then that runs beyond what Strobel was trying to defend.

But, if we assume that God does indeed want a greater good on Earth, surely an omniscient, omnipotent Creator could know how to bring this greater good without needing something bad to happen first.

"Surely"? Here again, this is merely second-guessing theoretical omniscience, which is the province of emotional, reactive outrage lacking rational basis.

Ultimately, however, what I find the biggest problem in the kinds of arguments as Holdings (and Strobel/Kreeft) provide is, they seem to not apply to heaven. Holdings says that without suffering, we can become "impossibly spoiled little brats"

Actually Kreeft said that. As for heaven, I reply that the combination of our prior experience on earth in life, and our resurrection body, together make suffering unnecessary in heaven. One could argue that the rez body could be given now, but without the experience, which cannot be given all at once (unless we want to posit existence as an illusion) all that will be produced is super-brats. In short, God does not create heaven "that way" for us -- God sanctifies us to be suitable for it.

But then, inexplicably, seems to say that if God were to show specifically which god exists, that would be like a shotgun wedding where I’m forced to marry my wife. This makes no sense. I say again, I know my wife exists, and I know what woman she is, and her attributes, and that did not mean I was forced to choose her.

I think Jacobsen may have missed my qualifying phrase, that he was forced to marry his wife when they first met. Meaning, he would not know what woman she is, or her attributes.

My first response is, even if we might want God to decide what is “good” and what is “evil,” if there is no God, then there is not God

That response goes beyond the range of the chapter, however.

. Secondly, the fact that on every single moral issue that I know of, birth control, homosexuality, divorce, etc., there are Christians that argue on each side

That's very interesting, but diversity of opinion proves little. What would matter is whether a given position can survive critical evaluation. To assume lack of clarity is the problem is to assume that persons on each side are both informed and fair, which given the record of encounters I have had, I rather doubt. If Jacobsen doubts this, he may select an issue for discussion.

Ch2:

I appreciate Jacobsen's willingness to revise material in light of commentary. :smile:

But at any rate, whether or not Craig would agree, this obviously begs the question, how does one know that a deity has claimed responsibility? As near as I can tell, all reports that a deity has claimed responsibility of various acts have always been by people claiming some deity has made the claim.

To the extent I suggested (a voice from the clouds)? I did account for this: The miracles Craig speaks of are not open for "God of the gaps" explanations, but were those performed by God and His prophets, and were not usually so far removed (like lightning) such that one could attribute the matter to some other natural cause, or to coincidence; they are also so distinctive that it would take bias or cockeyed explanations to say that they might be explained away naturally (once one is past the usual charges of lying about what happened).

Holdings also claims that one should consider whether there are possible natural causes to the purported miracle. But that’s the problem, there are always possible natural causes! Or, at the very least, there is at least always naturalistic explanations for why it appeared that the miracle happened.

I admit there is always any excuse possible, but the issue turns to whether such explanations are rational, or merely efforts to avoid a "miracle" conclusion. The swoon theory is an excellent example of this, as is the one Jacobsen mentions about Pilate being paid off. Such explanations require too much propping up, too much that is contrary to known data, to be allowed to be considered "possible" in any historical sense.

Extraordinary events do indeed require extraordinary evidence.

It happens we are debating this in another TWeb thread, so I'll leave comment off here.

Ch4:

But my basic point was, the Gospels could be at least similar to the extent that the authors wanted to put fictional characters into a realistic setting.

That point will simply not survive scrutiny. As noted, no one will mistake Titanic for a narrative documentary; in turn, the Gospels are in the genre of historical biography. There is no way anyone could conclude that Titanic was intended as a documentary piece, unless they were not from Earth, or all knowledge of our society was destroyed. But I ask again, how then does Jacobsen suggest we "do" history?


Ch5:

The only reason I bring this up is, how could it be possible that the Trinity is so important that you could loose your soul over it, and yet God’s “chosen people”, the Jews, had no idea of the Trinity?

Hmm. Actually they did have an idea that was much like it. The ANE belief in hypostases, shown in Proverbs 8 for YHWH, was a precursor to the Trinity. On the other hand, I think Martin's point would be more than one cannot have false views of the Trinity, not that you are at risk if you are ignorant of it. Indeed I would hold that someone who holds a false view of the Trinity in ignorance is not at risk for damnation, which means the failure Jacobsen sees is not, in my view, problematic.

Holdings refers to an analogy by Dr. Kreeft of multiple paths to salvation. Well, what happened to Christianity have exclusive lock on the truth? That the only road to salvation is through Jesus Christ?

Jesus says, "No one comes to the Father except by me." He lets those in he wishes to. I think Jacobsen has rather oversimplified my point here. Perhaps he can address what I say in more detail later/elsewhere.

Ch6:

Seriously, what could people do for all eternity, whether or not in the company of God, seems rather difficult to imagine. I’ve heard one atheist say that the idea of eternal life is terrifying-they couldn’t imagine not eventually getting bored. And after being bored long enough, insanity would come.

Actually, I find that quite sensible. Hell can be boredom and a form of insanity. I am reminded of a Star Trek book I read lately in which an android who lived for a million plus years on a planet alone resorted to having rock-breaking contests between his right and left hand; over a million plus years the right hand led around 700,000 to 550,000. :smile: Beyond that his creators had not made provisions for him to "grow" as a person. An interesting point in relation to this is that the word used for experience in hell is like our word "pruning". Hell may well mean becoming like that android -- our ability to grow is stopped, and we are reduced to mindless tasks like rock-breaking contests. (Think of Sisyphus here!) Which means, we also can't go insane...but may prefer to.

Why shouldn’t those that have decided they would rather spend eternity without God have a way to spend eternity productively?

If they have rejected God, then they have already rejected the principle of productivity in their lives.

No, but I know that the nature of people is that they do tend to change their minds.

On what basis? Rationality? No, what Jacobsen calls "changing their mind" is actually fickleness, not a firm commitment to an overarching worldview or life-decision.

I suppose that I can’t prove him wrong, but this implies an infinitely thin “layer” of punishment that one would receive

That's fine. Another analogy would be that theoretically, inside a black hole, one's experience is drawn out into an infinite time. But does Zeno require that someone move "essentially zero distance"?

How could anything ever be “more difficult” for someone omnipotent?

I'll answer that question with a question Jacobsen should know of: Is it difficult for God to create a stone so heavy He can't lift it? Or, is it "difficult" for God to make Himself disappear? And if He can do neither, does that mean he is not omnipotent? No, because these are all questions of logic, not power.


But of all the people that get 78,463 chances, and fail, surely some of them would choose right on the 78,464 chance.

Surely? Not at all. There is no rational reason to say so; this is merely an emotional reaction. If anything I would say 78,463 choices the same makes it more sure than any future choices will be the same, if not worse. And any alleged "change of mind" would not be a sincere one. I wonder if any human judge would revoke a sentence from someone who said, "You only gave me 78,463 chances. Come on!"

Holdings says that he doesn’t think anybody defines reincarnation as for certain to be a human again is what any religion teaches. I’m pretty certain Holdings is incorrect, and that many Buddhists and Hindu teach reincarnation this way.

Then I would like documentation of this, please. :smile:

Then he claims that what would it matter anyway, someone that chooses against God would make the same choice every time. This is an assertion with no evidence. And in fact, contradicts what he said in sub-objection 7: “the argument actually is that one's decision is actually a syncretistic event, in which the people you meet, the experiences you have, and your own free will decision combine.

It does not contradict because of what follows: "Is it possible that had you not turned that corner, you would not have been saved? Yes, but the point is meaningless, for the paradigm also holds that if you miss that corner, God has multiple opportunities to bring you into yet another situation where you will make the same decision." And one lifetime IS enough for that to happen.

Ch7:

Well, since he capitalized IF, I assume he realizes this is a real big IF

Yes, though if those who went after witches truly believed this, even if incorrectly, then that makes them less culpable than otherwise.

Secondly, even if there were/are witches, aren’t some of them “good” witches?

That is often said, but historically I do not know if "good"witches were claimed to have existed in Salem, or if they were "gone after".

And, given that the evidence points to the non-existence of effective witchcraft,

I think Wiccans would disagree. :smile:

this says the evidence points to the Bible pronouncing a death sentence for non-existent crimes. I have heard numbers of executions from “merely” tens of thousands of such executions, to numbers as high as ten million.

30 to 50 thousand is the estimate used by professional historians.


Holdings says that he doesn’t “see where Woodbridge is ‘all for blaming atheism for bad things done by atheists.’” Let me be of assistance. On 216 he says, “in talking about the sins of Christianity to forget the role of atheism in trampling human rights.”

That's "all for blaming..."? I just don't see that kind of emotional impetus in Woodbridge's comments. He is making a historical and philsophical observation; is it or is it not true that Lenin, et al. were influenced by their atheism? Since Jacobsen admits elsewhere that a moral framework provided by God would be his preference, I wonder what Jacobsen is on about, since he seems to say the same thing Woodbridge does.

Ch8:

Well, I’d have to say that my own take is that Holdings is fooling himself. If I asked him if Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman, could he say that he is 100% certain yes, or 100% certain no?

I would say, "100% I don't care." :smile: Bad choice of topic, perhaps; the Kennedy assassination is not one of my favorite topics and I have never taken a look at it in depth. But on such topics as I do have interest, I am 100% either way, or I say nothing. Those who use "various levels" are indeed fooling themselves, or trying to have a foot in both camps so as to please both sides. This is the politcally correct method of epistemology. The ancients were never this wishy-washy.

And that's it. here we go from here, I leave to Paul to decide. I would like to look at each chapter in depth if that is within his timeframe.

[Paul Jacobsen]

Okay, here is my latest response to Mr. Holding (with no 's')

It is also on my site at:
http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/response_tektonics_ii.htm

It is probably more readable there, as I have indented paragraphs and italics of the quotes.


This is the second (of two so far) in the series of responses J. P. Holding's comments on my critique of Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith.

First off, I had been mistakenly referring to Mr. J. P. Holding as "J. P. Holdings" (an errant 's'.) I stand corrected. I went back and edited my original response. I made no other changes except to correct this error. So, on to the issues:

CH1:

JPH: I think Jacobsen has assumed here that I think "stupid/involved" is something we can't help. I don't think that's the case at all. I do think it is of our own free will that we choose this direction and saying it "originated from God" would be false.

I have several comments to make in response. First, I thought that it was indeed guaranteed that all men are sinners and will at least occasionally not do right. The only man who (supposedly) never did wrong was Jesus Christ. So, that seems to be proof that we can't be expected to always do right. Secondly, regardless of whether that bit about original sin is true or not, I would say it is fair to say that it is man's nature to not always do right. If, in all the history of man, it has never been the case where all men have done right, it is a reasonable conclusion that by our nature, we don't always do what is right. Then that brings us back to the question, where did our nature come from? It must be from God, right? Where else?

JPH: As for why one chooses good and one evil, I simply hold that we have a "wildcard" ability to do so--not from our nature or environment, but a genuine ability to choose, the same way God can.

But God never chooses to do wrong, correct? Why not? Is not it His nature to not do wrong? And if He has such a nature, then why did He make us defective--with a nature to sometimes do wrong?

JPH: To be that way would require us to be God. Is it logically possible for God to make someone as powerful as He is?

Well, first off, I don't see any logical contradiction there, so it seems logically possible. Secondly, God could have made us omniscient, but not omnipotent, no? So, we would be as knowledgeable as God, but not as powerful. This seems logically possible as well. Of course you could argue that must not be what God wanted to do, or we would be so. But I'm just saying that there is no apparent reason He couldn't have.

Third, I'd say that even if God didn't want us either omniscient nor omnipotent, it seems reasonable He could have made us at least a bit smarter than we are. Smart enough that those of us (like presumably me) who are too dumb to recognize God's work would be better able to do so.

JPH: As far as I know, God is quite satisfied with His choice. And I don't see that we can't match up with the requirements: Be loyal to God.

Apparently, not everybody is loyal to God. So apparently, God is not satisfied with all His pets.

PJ: This is true, but for one, does God really want a “greater good” on Earth anyway?

JPH: Christian theology holds this to be the case; if one wants to get into a possibility of a "malevolent God" or a deistic one then that runs beyond what Strobel was trying to defend.

Remember, I considered my own theology (that I mentioned earlier) to be Christian. I didn't believe that God was "malevolent" per se. I believed that God did want an eventual greater good--in heaven. It's just that I believed that God expected there to be no greater good to be employed by man on Earth. And my own theology seems very similar to the end-times, Armageddon theorists--who believe that man will nearly destroy himself before Jesus Christ returns. Since Strobel didn't comment one way or the other on this idea, I don't think we can necessarily assume that he and/or his experts might not agree in whole or in part to this kind of theology. But, I won't argue this idea further.

PJ: But, if we assume that God does indeed want a greater good on Earth, surely an omniscient, omnipotent Creator could know how to bring this greater good without needing something bad to happen first.

JPH: "Surely"? Here again, this is merely second-guessing theoretical omniscience, which is the province of emotional, reactive outrage lacking rational basis.

You are second guessing just as much. But, which choice of the following is the more "rational" choice?

1. An omniscient, omnipotent Creator would need a bad to happen first for a greater good.
2. An omniscient, omnipotent Creator would not need a bad to happen first for a greater good.

Of the two choices, I would say option 2 is clearly the more rational choice. In fact, based on my understanding of omnipotence, which I discuss some more a bit later, omnipotence is supposed to be able to do anything that is not logically impossible. Since there is no logical contradiction to choice 1, then it God should indeed be able to create whatever greater good He wants without need of a bad to happen first.

JPH: In short, God does not create heaven "that way" for us -- God sanctifies us to be suitable for it.

Of course you are again just guessing this is what God does. It's one of those things that I can't prove wrong. But I can say it is illogical for God to have created us "unsanctified". For to create us "unsanctified" means that God created us intentionally imperfect and therefore must have wanted some people to go to hell.

JPH: That's very interesting, but diversity of opinion proves little. What would matter is whether a given position can survive critical evaluation. To assume lack of clarity is the problem is to assume that persons on each side are both informed and fair, which given the record of encounters I have had, I rather doubt. If Jacobsen doubts this, he may select an issue for discussion.

You are setting yourself up as judge. You ask if persons on both sides are “informed and fair” and then say you doubt it. But that is easy for you to say. Some Christian that happens to be on the other side of any particular issue than you are could likewise charge that you are either not informed or not fair. From my point of view as the non-believer, I have no reason to accept your self-appointment of judge of the other side, nor vice-versa. I can say that I have read writings from Christians on both sides of several prominent issues, and found that both sides often make persuasive arguments. And I had this same assessment when I was a Christian.

I think I will decline picking a specific issue to debate this on—for in order to prove my assertion that both sides can be persuasive, I’d have to pick an issue, and then argue both sides. And then you could presumably argue that one or the other side I present isn’t “informed” or “fair”. I think this would be a fruitless endeavor.

CH2:

JPH: I appreciate Jacobsen's willingness to revise material in light of commentary.

Another Christian, Mr. Ron Stephenson, attempted a defense of Strobel from my critique, as you have done. He never finished, he only completed through first four chapters. I would say that although I disagreed with almost everything he said, his input was still very valuable. His input led to my significant rewrite. On my site, I mention that I consider my articles to be perpetually works in progress. And of course I should leave open the door to the possibility of your input leading to me fundamentally changing my position. Although I can say so far, that eventuality seems unlikely…

JPH: I admit there is always any excuse possible, but the issue turns to whether such explanations are rational, or merely efforts to avoid a "miracle" conclusion. The swoon theory is an excellent example of this, as is the one Jacobsen mentions about Pilate being paid off.

I would agree that the swoon theory, and my “Pilate was paid off” theory, are indeed low-probability theories. But, people are known to be deceitful, and/or to be merely honestly mistaken; people are not known to rise from the dead. Therefore theories involving deceit or mistakes, even if unlikely, are still inherently more likely than being raised from the dead.

JPH: Such explanations require too much propping up, too much that is contrary to known data, to be allowed to be considered "possible" in any historical sense.

The problem is, there is no “known data”. All the reports are from highly biased sources. Even if the sources got the story mostly right, a few details here or there wrong, and then all of a sudden some of these low-probability possibilities become more easily probable.

And, it is indeed fair to bring up the fact that the Gospel writers are biased sources. It is indeed true that someone can be biased, and yet report fairly. On the other hand, if your only sources are highly biased, one must reasonably consider that as a possible influence. If you want to know if George W. Bush is a good president, do you only ask his cabinet members? If it were to be the case that indeed the only reports you have happen to be by his cabinet members, then you are forced to piece together the best you have. But you’d be a fool to blindly accept them at face value. Particularly if they said things like, “and George W. Bush rose from the dead to defeat Saddam Hussein!”

CH4:

JPH: the Gospels are in the genre of historical biography

So is the Gospel of Thomas, and yet it is considered by most Christians as fraud or fiction. I understand that there were also a number of other gospels written and used by various Christian sects. The point being, being of the "genre of historical biography" doesn't make them true and even Christians realize this when talking about any Gospel other than the canonical ones.

CH5:

JPH: I think Martin's point would be more than one cannot have false views of the Trinity, not that you are at risk if you are ignorant of it.

That doesn’t quite directly address my point. The Trinity is really important, right? God wants people to know about it, right? God is omnipotent, right? And yet, not everybody knows about it. How could this be possible?

JPH: Jesus says, "No one comes to the Father except by me." He lets those in he wishes to. I think Jacobsen has rather oversimplified my point here. Perhaps he can address what I say in more detail later/elsewhere.

Though perhaps I did "oversimplify." But my basic point is that the swamp/rapids/stream analogy seems to really say: "Christianity is the one true religion, and nothing else is true--but we gotta come up with some escape hatch because we'd look like fools if we said everybody else was going to hell."

This kind of idea opens the door to questions like, "what if someone heard the Gospel only once, and the preacher who told them the Gospel was a child molester?" And if that person might be saved, what about the person who heard the Gospel many times, but it was from Tammy Fay Bakker? What I'm basically getting at, is that your theology here really muddies the waters as to exactly who gets saved and who doesn't.

CH6:

PJ: Why shouldn’t those that have decided they would rather spend eternity without God have a way to spend eternity productively?

JPH: If they have rejected God, then they have already rejected the principle of productivity in their lives.

For myself, I would say that I haven’t “rejected” God, I simply haven’t found the evidence of His existence compelling. However, I would presume that you would say that I’m fooling myself and have indeed “rejected” God. While I don’t agree with that assessment, even if I have “rejected” God, I have definitely not rejected “the principle of productivity” in my life! If I were to do that, I might as well commit suicide.

JPH: On what basis? Rationality? No, what Jacobsen calls "changing their mind" is actually fickleness, not a firm commitment to an overarching worldview or life-decision.

Well, I can concede that major viewpoints don’t generally change overnight. For example, someone that has been a life-long political conservative doesn’t often change their viewpoint to being a political liberal. But it does happen. In fact, presumably, you do hope for it to happen to those who have been life-long atheists to change to being a Christian. It then becomes irrational for you to think that it might happen any time up until the moment I die—but if it doesn’t, it wouldn’t happen for all eternity.

JPH: But does Zeno require that someone move "essentially zero distance"?

Actually, yes. “Zeno’s Paradox” is where each step is infinitely small.

PJ: How could anything ever be “more difficult” for someone omnipotent?

JPH: I'll answer that question with a question Jacobsen should know of: Is it difficult for God to create a stone so heavy He can't lift it? Or, is it "difficult" for God to make Himself disappear? And if He can do neither, does that mean he is not omnipotent? No, because these are all questions of logic, not power.

This could really open the proverbial can of worms. For one, I’m not entirely convinced that omnipotence is a logically coherent concept. For example, there is nothing illogical about making objects too big to lift. I can make an object too big for myself to lift. It is only when framed within the context of an omnipotent being that an object too big to lift becomes illogical. That implies that the logical problem of God not being able to create a rock too big to lift is not in the task, but within the concept of omnipotence itself. But, I can imagine debating this on its own at length, and I’m not sure we want to go there. So, I guess I'll assume that omnipotence is logically coherent for the purposes of our conversations.

Okay, so if omnipotence is logically coherent, what does it mean? I understand it to mean that God can do anything that is logically possible. If it does not mean that, then it seems to mean nothing at all. So, if God can do anything logically possible, unless you can demonstrate why it is not logically possible for God to be able to create a world of more than ten or so people where everybody is saved, then your argument fails.

Further, I’d say that your interpretation of Moreland’s phrase of “more difficult” to mean “logically impossible” to be rather a stretch. If he meant “impossible,” rather than “difficult,” I think Moreland would have said so. But if he really did mean impossible, then where is the dividing line, and why? Moreland said that God could “probably” create ten people that He knew would follow Him. But more than that would become “more difficult”. Where is the cutoff, and why? Where’s the equation that says how many people could be created where all are saved? Frankly, the more we debate this issue, the more clear (to me anyway) that this line of argument that you and/or Moreland present is g-a-r-b-a-g-e.

PJ: But of all the people that get 78,463 chances, and fail, surely some of them would choose right on the 78,464 chance.

JPH: Surely? Not at all. There is no rational reason to say so; this is merely an emotional reaction. If anything I would say 78,463 choices the same makes it more sure than any future choices will be the same, if not worse. And any alleged "change of mind" would not be a sincere one. I wonder if any human judge would revoke a sentence from someone who said, "You only gave me 78,463 chances. Come on!"

Groan… You regularly throw the line that I’m just being emotional, rather than logical—and then pull out these kinds of emotional, illogical arguments… Last I heard, we aren’t talking about a human judge, we’re talking about the divine Creator of the universe, And I thought He wasn’t supposed to care how many times we fall down, so long as we eventually choose right. Am I mistaken?

Granted, somebody who chooses 78,463 times the same thing, likely will choose the same thing the 78,464th time, 78,465th time, etc. But if you yourself didn’t have some hope that maybe some people might choose God on the 78,464th try, then you’d have no purpose in being an apologist. But then, if it might be true that on the 78,464th try—whilst on Earth—I choose God; then it might also be true that on the 78,464th try after I’m dead, I might choose God.

Also, you charge that if there was a change of mind, it wouldn’t be a sincere one. Last time, you complained regularly about me doing mind reading, but here you are mind reading. How do you know it wouldn’t be sincere?

JPH: God has multiple opportunities to bring you into yet another situation where you will make the same decision." And one lifetime IS enough for that to happen.

When you say “one lifetime IS enough for that to happen” it appears that you could mean one of two different things. You could mean:

1. One lifetime provides enough opportunities for each person to be certain that if that individual would ever choose God, they will do so within the provided opportunities.

2. One lifetime provides enough opportunities to be “fair” (in God’s opinion) and that if, in those opportunities, you don’t take them, then God no longer cares whether or not you would do so if you had further opportunities.

So, could you clarify which of these you mean? However, option 1 seems illogical. People accept Christ every day. If any of those people that accepted Christ today had died yesterday, they would have had too few opportunities. Therefore logic dictates option 1 could not be true. Option 2 seems at least possible. But this seems inconsistent with the idea of God being a loving God. Option 2 has God saying, in effect, “you had your shot, tough luck”.

By the way, partly to better address some of the issues you raise, I revised my critique for sub-objections 7 & 8. If you have further comments on these subobjections, I'd like you to read my current version first.


CH7:

JPH: Yes, though if those who went after witches truly believed this, even if incorrectly, then that makes them less culpable than otherwise.

I can accept this… except it still leaves the Bible very culpable for proclaiming death sentences for nonexistent crimes.

JPH: That's "all for blaming..."? I just don't see that kind of emotional impetus in Woodbridge's comments

You re-quoted one of Woodbridge’s comments that I quoted, but not the next. The next was where he said that he could see how atheism’s lack of moral framework would lead to Stalin, Lenin, etc. This certainly sounds to me like “blaming” atheism.

JPH: Since Jacobsen admits elsewhere that a moral framework provided by God would be his preference, I wonder what Jacobsen is on about, since he seems to say the same thing Woodbridge does.

Not quite. While I would indeed agree that a moral framework provided by God would be my preference, that does not necessarily mean that a lack of one provided by God inherently leads to immorality. We could of course then bring up the age-old debate as to how much of Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, etc., can be blamed on atheism, vs. how much can be blamed on their thirst for power. Hitler of course claimed to be a Christian, though I know many Christians argue that he was a “closet atheist”. In fact, I have a paper on my site by a Christian who argues this position. Bottom line is, I’m not entirely certain how much of such regimes can be blamed specifically on atheism.

Ultimately however, I must make a confession. And that is, well, being an atheist myself, I hope that atheism doesn’t lead to immorality. And I’ve read arguments by other atheists, such as Dan Barker, who argue that morality is ultimately biologically based—and claim it really always has been. Yet I still find myself not completely convinced, and unsure what the world would be like if atheism were the dominate belief system. I honestly don’t know.

CH8:

JPH: I would say, "100% I don't care." Bad choice of topic, perhaps; the Kennedy assassination is not one of my favorite topics and I have never taken a look at it in depth. But on such topics as I do have interest, I am 100% either way, or I say nothing.

Well, at the very least, you have conceded that on topics that you don’t look at in depth, it is possible to not be 100% one way or the other. But I’d again say it is just as likely and reasonable to not be 100% one way or the other on topics you have looked at. You may not have looked into the Kennedy assassination much, and frankly, neither have I. But of course many people have. And it would be (in my view) quite reasonable for someone who has spent hours and hours investigating it only to say, “‘x’ evidence points towards a single gunman, ‘y’ evidence points towards a second gunman, and either is possible”.

In fact, I would argue that someone who takes such a position is far more reasonable than someone that takes a 100% one way or the other position. A 100% position is an arrogant position. It is saying, “the people on the other side of this issue are 100% wrong”. Someone that spends many hours studying the Kennedy assassination and says they are 100% on the side of a lone gunman is saying that someone else who has spent many hours and concluded otherwise is 100% wrong. This is a position of arrogance.

JPH: Those who use "various levels" are indeed fooling themselves, or trying to have a foot in both camps so as to please both sides.

More mind reading from Mr. Holding. No, being at “various levels” is not (necessarily) an attempt “to please both side;” it is being honest enough to admit both sides of an argument have some validity, instead of saying one side is 100% right, the other side is 100% wrong.

JPH: And that's it. here we go from here, I leave to Paul to decide. I would like to look at each chapter in depth if that is within his timeframe.

As to where to go from here, well, hopefully we both should be open to at least the potential possibility of having our position fundamentally changed by good arguments from the other side. Yet I think both of us have heard most of the arguments from the other side and therefore not a high probability for either one of us to fundamentally change position. I don’t see it too likely that after reading this material of mine, you will think to yourself, “by golly, Jacobsen’s right!” and dismantle Tektonics.org. I guess the best we could reasonably hope for would be to crack the other guy’s armor, so to speak--meaning that you or I might find that one or two of our own arguments no longer compelling.

But for the most part, I think our arguments are primarily directed at “our viewing audience,” the fence sitters who are looking to see who has the better arguments. I would think the “fence sitters” should see that I have (so far anyway) provided the better arguments. But I suppose you might be apt to disagree…

As far as looking “at each chapter in depth,” I’m a bit unsure of what you are proposing. I feel that my original critique goes into most chapters fairly deeply, except for chapters 5, 7 and 8. Those particular chapters I simply had less that I wished to comment. If there are any points in those chapters—or any other for that matter—that I skipped and you would like to cover, I am open to discussion.

[dizzle]

/ot Paul if you need assistance on learning our formatting codes, PM me and I will instruct you. There are just a couple key things to know and it is a piece of cake from there.

[jpholding]

Howdy howdy,

It's nice to have an intelligent conversation again. :smile:

CH1:

First, I thought that it was indeed guaranteed that all men are sinners and will at least occasionally not do right.

Yes, but that hardly removes that they do so freely. Same for #2. God's only "responsibility" for this is what would be called primary causality, which is not direct or culpable responsibility.

But God never chooses to do wrong, correct? Why not? Is not it His nature to not do wrong? And if He has such a nature, then why did He make us defective--with a nature to sometimes do wrong?

That part of God's nature which makes Him unable to do wrong is precisely part of that which cannot be "recreated" in another that has free will. Indeed, this may surprise you to hear from me, but in a real sense, we are more free than God is. Note as well that it is NOT held that the nature to sometimes do wrong" is what we were "made" with -- what we were made with was the ability to freely choose between right or wrong.

Well, first off, I don't see any logical contradiction there, so it seems logically possible

Hmm. God would have to make someone of unlimited power...which requires Him to get unlimited power from somewhere to give away...but He is the only source for it. Can you double infinity?

Secondly, God could have made us omniscient, but not omnipotent, no?

I don't think that would be logically possible, either. Omniscience requires transcendance, "above" the space-time continuum, which I'd say is once again something limited to God in terms of nature.

Third, I'd say that even if God didn't want us either omniscient nor omnipotent, it seems reasonable He could have made us at least a bit smarter than we are. Smart enough that those of us (like presumably me) who are too dumb to recognize God's work would be better able to do so.

I don't think the problem is smarts in the case. :smile: I think the problem here is emotions overruling. But I don't want to get personal, so let me expand. I have yet to find anyone (barring the mentally ill) who could not figure out the basic message of good vs evil. I don't see that it's that hard. If not, why not?

Apparently, not everybody is loyal to God. So apparently, God is not satisfied with all His pets.

There is a lack of distinction made here between being satisfied with the system as the best one possible, and being satisified with those who choose to be "deviant" while realizing that this comes of the best of possible options.

You are second guessing just as much. But, which choice of the following is the more "rational" choice?
1. An omniscient, omnipotent Creator would need a bad to happen first for a greater good.
2. An omniscient, omnipotent Creator would not need a bad to happen first for a greater good.

Neither is more "rational" until we have relevant data demonstrating which one truly does end up for the greater good. I remain non-commital beyond "pericopes" in life that show that a greater good resulted. All that the above offers is not "rational" but an emotional reaction.

But I can say it is illogical for God to have created us "unsanctified". For to create us "unsanctified" means that God created us intentionally imperfect and therefore must have wanted some people to go to hell.

Is freedom an "imperfection"? Were the Founders of this country striving for "imperfection"?

You are setting yourself up as judge

I do so under the presumption that years of study have made me qualified to be seated. :smile: At this stage I am able to make fair judgments about who is "informed" and who is not. But so be it.

CH2:

I would agree that the swoon theory, and my “Pilate was paid off” theory, are indeed low-probability theories. But, people are known to be deceitful, and/or to be merely honestly mistaken; people are not known to rise from the dead. Therefore theories involving deceit or mistakes, even if unlikely, are still inherently more likely than being raised from the dead.

Why? This is simply fallacious: "I/others have not seen such things happen; therefore it did not in this case." I am debating this in a thread with someone else right now...if you want to open another front, that's fine with me. I would also add that putting it down to a narrow category ("people not known to rise from the dead") tends to stack the deck. Why not, ""God is known to work in the lives of people," theoretically speaking?

The problem is, there is no “known data”. All the reports are from highly biased sources.

Hmm. I consider this to be an all-purpose "throw away" line that merely begs the question that bias affected reportage. The ThinkTank has a large article on this, if Jacobsen cares to expand to more specifics as to why we should be concerned with this. The comparison to Bush is somewhat off kilter. "Good president" requires a subjective value judgment, which is not comparable to, "Did you meet the resurrected Jesus? Did he say X?" I think it is safe to ask cabinet members, for example, if Bush really did veto a certain bill, or write a certain executive order.

CH4:

So is the Gospel of Thomas,

No, actually, it isn't. GThom is not in a biographical genre; it does not fit the mold of ancient bioi like Tacitus' Agricola as the canonical Gospels do. At best GThom is in the genre of a sayings collection (like Proverbs) and it is considered fraudulent for a number of reasons; for example:

1) It was written no earlier than 150 AD.
2) It has obvious Gnostic tendencies that would never
have "played" in Jewish Palestine.

Lots more where that came from. As usual if Jacobsen wants to argue particular documents, I'm open to do so....

The point being, being of the "genre of historical biography" doesn't make them true

It does, however, place the burden on those who claim that there is fiction behind the Gospels.

CH5:

That doesn’t quite directly address my point. The Trinity is really important, right? God wants people to know about it, right? God is omnipotent, right? And yet, not everybody knows about it. How could this be possible?

The Trinity is important, but not as important as loyalty to God. God wants people to know about it, yes, but knowing about it is not "saving" knowledge. Hence the rest of the questions are of no relevance.

But my basic point is that the swamp/rapids/stream analogy seems to really say: "Christianity is the one true religion, and nothing else is true--but we gotta come up with some escape hatch because we'd look like fools if we said everybody else was going to hell."

Isn't that somewhat of an ad hominem and a slam on the character of those who propose it? :smile:

This kind of idea opens the door to questions like, "what if someone heard the Gospel only once, and the preacher who told them the Gospel was a child molester?"

A very high level of improbability there. Someone though who rejected the Gospel on that basis would be fairly foolish, would they not? Do you reject that your house may be on fire because the fireman reads porno magazines?

CH6:

For myself, I would say that I haven’t “rejected” God, I simply haven’t found the evidence of His existence compelling. However, I would presume that you would say that I’m fooling myself and have indeed “rejected” God.

I'm wise enough to refrain from a strict judgment. But I would say that you have rejected the principle of productivity, on terms other than your own. :smile:

For example, someone that has been a life-long political conservative doesn’t often change their viewpoint to being a political liberal.

And when it does, is it rational? The only such people I know with a sea change are those who say, for example, that God spoke to them. While I obviously consider this episemically possible, it is clearly not what you would call "changing your mind" in the sense I am talking about, where fickleness is a factor.

Actually, yes. “Zeno’s Paradox” is where each step is infinitely small.

Yet, there is still a step?

unless you can demonstrate why it is not logically possible for God to be able to create a world of more than ten or so people where everybody is saved, then your argument fails.

Demonstrate it? By creating my own world? :smile: Here's a demonstration: Pack as many people as you can into a room who share exactly the same viewpoint on everything. Can you do it?

If he meant “impossible,” rather than “difficult,” I think Moreland would have said so.

I'm not making any case based on what Moreland meant, actually. But barring experiments like the above, there are no other possible indicators, and those that we have point in the direction I'm speaking of: Disagreement is a natural result of freedom to choose. That we can't find a "cutoff point" is not an argument against this idea, but merely an objection that we don't know what we think we have a right (!) to know...and calling it names is also not an answer.

Groan… You regularly throw the line that I’m just being emotional, rather than logical—and then pull out these kinds of emotional, illogical arguments…

That's really all that's needed: It's a mirror image showing the irrationality of arguing in this fashion.

Last I heard, we aren’t talking about a human judge, we’re talking about the divine Creator of the universe, And I thought He wasn’t supposed to care how many times we fall down, so long as we eventually choose right.

That's not so much the point, as that the scenario of, "he'll choose right on #74,675" is not supported by any evidence, and that the mere availability of the prior choices is not an excuse that will "play" in any system of justice, human or divine as a way to demand more.

But if you yourself didn’t have some hope that maybe some people might choose God on the 78,464th try, then you’d have no purpose in being an apologist.

The catch in that is I, personally, have no idea which of those people might make the choice, so I have to work as though any one of them will, even though some will obviously be those who would never make the choice.

Also, you charge that if there was a change of mind, it wouldn’t be a sincere one. Last time, you complained regularly about me doing mind reading, but here you are mind reading. How do you know it wouldn’t be sincere?

I can speak here only from experience and human nature. Surely you do not disagree that people make choices not out of loyalty to an ideal or person, but to keep from getting punished.

1. One lifetime provides enough opportunities for each person to be certain that if that individual would ever choose God, they will do so within the provided opportunities.

I mean this one.

However, option 1 seems illogical. People accept Christ every day. If any of those people that accepted Christ today had died yesterday, they would have had too few opportunities. Therefore logic dictates option 1 could not be true

Logic has not dictated this; your experience has dicated this. It cannot be logic because no data has been collected from such situations. The answer moreover is that your person who "died yesterday" has a fate that would be known to God, who simply as needed can "move up" the encounter (speaking theoretically, of course, as if God could be surprised under the Christian paradigm!) that would result in a decision.

By the way, partly to better address some of the issues you raise, I revised my critique for sub-objections 7 & 8. If you have further comments on these subobjections, I'd like you to read my current version first.

OK, I'll go back to that with just minimal comment here to answer questions. I expect I'll have time in the next week or so.

This certainly sounds to me like “blaming” atheism.

I think you may just be taking it too personally. :smile:

and says they are 100% on the side of a lone gunman is saying that someone else who has spent many hours and concluded otherwise is 100% wrong. This is a position of arrogance.

The only way to tell is to critically evaluate and see who has done the best job. :smile: I see little evidence that those who play both ends are being "honest" as much as using the word "honest" as a baptizing of their attempt not to offend anyone. When closely questioned, I find such people reveal their hands.

But for the most part, I think our arguments are primarily directed at “our viewing audience,” the fence sitters who are looking to see who has the better arguments.

That would be true as far as I can see.

As far as looking “at each chapter in depth,” I’m a bit unsure of what you are proposing.

I was indeed proposing a closer point by point look. But don't feel obliged to do so. I do have the unfair advantage of doing this and nothing else with my time. :smile:

[Paul Jacobsen]

Just thought I'd post that I have seen your recent response. :fight: (Eh, I just had to use that smilie, its too cute...)

As usual, it will probably take me a few days to respond :nc:

Also, I'm revising my Zacharias chapter to improve it as well, based in part from your comments.

[jpholding]

I'm really starting to like you, Paul. I may need to add you to my Top 3 list of Reasonable Skeptics. You might end up displacing John Powell or Joe Alward. :wink:

Take your time. I'm beat right now after an all nighter beating up on that DaVinci Code book. Bleah.

[jpholding]

Because I was occupied with The DaVinci Code last week, I didn't get to this, but just as well. Paul is a quite bright individual and I suspect he will be constantly improving his arguments, so I've decided I may as well wait a bit before looking at the new versions.

[Paul Jacobsen]

Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been out of town for two weeks--on business. In the Bahamas actually. Its a tough job, but somebody's gotta do it... Anyway, I'm nearly finished with my response to Holding's last response. I'll probably post it this weekend, before I go out of town again.

I have completed my rewrite of Objection 5. So, in summary, this is what sections of my Strobel critique that have been revised since we started this ball rolling:

Objection 2: First 7 paragraphs new or revised, the rest unchanged.

Objection 5: Basically a complete rewrite. Some original material remains, but it is mostly new.

Objection 6: Sub-objections 7 & 8 revised, the rest unchanged.

[jpholding]

Paul Jacobsen:

I have completed my rewrite of Objection 5. So, in summary, this is what sections of my Strobel critique that have been revised since we started this ball rolling:

That's very helpful of you. :smile: It is now my turn to be out of pocket a while, though, so I won't be back to it for at least two weeks. Bahamas? Well, I can claim Sarasota at least...

JP

[Paul Jacobsen]

Looks like I'm not going to be able to finish my response this weekend after all. I'm leaving Sunday for Trinidad on business, and I'm short on time. But, I'm only gone for a week, so I should have my response completed probably the weekend after next.

[Paul Jacobsen]

Finally, at long last, I have my latest response to Holding's last response. It is also available at my site (with nicer formatting--because I'm too lazy to duplicate the formatting here) So, it may be easier to read on my site here:

http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/response_tektonics_iii.htm

If you prefer to read here, I think it is almost as readable:

CH1:

JPH> That part of God's nature which makes Him unable to do wrong is precisely part of that which cannot be "recreated" in another that has free will.

How do you know this? How do you know that it is not possible for God to be able create another being that has free will and yet never do wrong? You seem to "know" this only because, well, its gotta be true or Christianity falls apart. But there seems to be no good reason to believe this otherwise. For example, it seems quite possible that God could have created us with the free will to choose among multiple good options.

Or, another possibility would seem to be that if God knew ahead of time who would choose Him and who wouldn't, why not only create those that would choose Him? (Yeah, I know this is exactly one of the questions Moreland tried [abysmally] to answer... This question is one of the sub-objections that I recently revised. Bottom line is, I haven't found an answer to this question that I have found reasonable.) I had this same conversation with another Christian, and I used this analogy:

Say God just really hates chocolate ice cream, and anybody that would choose chocolate is immediately sent to hell. So God comes to you and says, "hey, J.P., I've got some ice cream for you, would you like chocolate, or vanilla?" And you say, "thanks God! I think I'll have the vanilla." And God says, "actually, I knew you were going to pick vanilla, and if you were going to pick chocolate, I wouldn't have created you to begin with." You still had the choice, and the fact that He knew which choice you made doesn't mean you made any less of a choice.

JPH> Hmm. God would have to make someone of unlimited power...which requires Him to get unlimited power from somewhere to give away...but He is the only source for it. Can you double infinity?

Well, you can give away half of infinity, and still have infinity left. And you can do that an infinite number of times. For example, assuming God made the universe, and it took X amount of energy, after the work was done, God doesn't have remaining "infinity minus X" energy, He still has infinite left. I gather that you haven't had a lot of math studies. This isn't a "slam", it just seems to be an accurate statement. For me, its been years since I took calculus, and I'm no expert on infinite set theory. But I think I recall the basics.

PJ> Secondly, God could have made us omniscient, but not omnipotent, no?

JPH> I don't think that would be logically possible, either. Omniscience requires transcendence, "above" the space-time continuum, which I'd say is once again something limited to God in terms of nature.

It was my understanding that Satan, the angels, and all other beings in heaven are likewise "above" the space-time continuum. At least I thought this was considered current theology. I gather that you don't hold this view, but I thought it was a fairly common view. I could be wrong. Since you disagree, you could argue that the Bible doesn't specifically say so, so you could say this supposition isn't Biblical. But then, the Bible doesn't directly say that God exists outside of time either. So, it seems that this is all pure speculation and double-talk, and we wouldn't even be talking about it, except that modern understanding of the nature of time and space has made it necessary for the theist to place God into the "above" the space-time continuum realm. But its all just guesswork that isn't very consistent with the Bible.

For example, in the Book of Job, Satan challenges God that the only reason Job is steadfast is because he has been blessed. But Satan says that surely Job would curse God to his face if Job lost all his good fortune. You could try to make the claim that Satan is temporal (like we are) but God isn't. And therefore Satan would not have foreknowledge of what would happen based upon this challenge. But, at the very least, Satan should know that God knows what would happen before it ever happens. And therefore he should have no reason to challenge God. The only way such a challenge could make any sense is if neither God nor Satan could know with certainty what would happen. Challenging someone who you already know is omniscient and omnipotent makes no sense. Therefore, the exchange in Job only makes any sense if both God and Satan are *temporal* and exist *within* our time-space continuum.

Before I put this discussion to rest, I'd like to say that I can't really say with any certainty what an omniscient, omnipotent Being could possibly do, or perhaps might choose to do. As I said earlier, I'm not sure these terms are coherent, but if they are, I'm not certain what exactly is possible for such a Being to want to do or to be able to do. For example, I said that it seems at least possible that God could have made us omniscient but not omnipotent. I can't know for certain that He could have had He wanted to, nor can I know why He might have chosen otherwise if it was possible for Him. The problem is, the theist (you, Strobel, and his experts) regularly make proclamations as to what God could or could not do. For example, you stated that the part of God's nature that cannot be recreated in another being with free will is the part of His nature that prevents Him from doing wrong. This is a very specific limitation that you are placing on God.

My point is, whether you are right or wrong, or if any of my speculations are right or wrong, I can say that from my, admittedly biased perspective, is that the specific set of limitations on God that Christianity must place on God in order for Christianity to "fit" seem rather implausible. And while I can't prove you wrong, since I'm not omniscient myself, it seems to me that it should be my right to say, "ya know, that just doesn't seem very believable." But yet Christianity seems to say that my saying "that just doesn't seem believable" is a terrible crime. This, in a nutshell, is the most significant problem (in my opinion) with Christianity.

JPH> I don't think the problem is smarts in the case. I think the problem here is emotions overruling. But I don't want to get personal, so let me expand. I have yet to find anyone (barring the mentally ill) who could not figure out the basic message of good vs. evil. I don't see that it's that hard. If not, why not?

Well, I don't believe in "good" and "evil" in the Christian sense. I don't believe in "evil" as a force, like "The Dark Side of the Force". Nor do I believe in a being that is the personification of evil, like "Satan". What we humans understand to be "evil," I believe to originate from the question, "what causes harm?" In my opinion, it is our ability to contemplate this question is one of the major things that separates us from the animals. They cannot contemplate that question, but we can. And it is how we answer that question is where we get the concepts of "good" and "evil".

JPH> There is a lack of distinction made here between being satisfied with the system as the best one possible, and being satisfied with those who choose to be "deviant" while realizing that this comes of the best of possible options.

Again, the question arises, "how do you know this?" How do you know this is the best possible system? How do you know a better one isn't possible? I'm reminded once again of the question I asked before, "why didn't God just create the people that He knew would follow him?"

PJ>You are setting yourself up as judge
JPH>I do so under the presumption that years of study have made me qualified to be seated. At this stage I am able to make fair judgments about who is "informed" and who is not. But so be it.

On one hand, I have to confess that you do indeed seem to be well read, and much more knowledgeable than the average Joe on the street, Christian or not. In fact, in many ways, I feel out of my league debating you, for I know I will never be as well read as you. Be that as it may, you are certainly NOT the only person to have spent the majority of your life studying the Gospel. You are certainly NOT the one and only expert. On one hand, I appreciate your honesty in admitting that you have indeed put yourself in the seat of judge of what arguments are "fair" or "informed." On the other hand, such an admission by you seems to prove my point! You have sufficient confidence in your studies to consider yourself able to judge that other people's arguments are "fair" or "informed"--or not. Whilst other people with different opinions, but themselves as well read as you could likewise feel themselves able to judge your arguments and opinions. Which leads me to conclude there simply is no amount of study or reading sufficient to say, "okay, I've read enough, and the Bible definitely says 'X' on the subject of 'Y'"

While I want to try to avoid being personal as much as possible, but I feel it important to say that there are many people in history who have, like yourself, gotten to the point that they think they know exactly what the Bible, and therefore presumably what God says, who then felt they can speak for God. They think they knew how to run society because they have discerned what God wants. You may or may not like being compared to St. Augustine, but I'm reminded of a quote by him, "Women should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should, in fact, be segregated as they are the cause of hideous and involuntary erections in holy men." I know that you would never say such a thing. But I think the reason you wouldn't say such a thing is not that you have a better understanding of God's word than Augustine, it is because you happen to live in a society that knows such statements are asinine.

Clearly Augustine was intelligent, well read, and well studied in scripture, and that didn't seem to be sufficient to discern what God wants--at least in regards to the issue of "hideous and involuntary erections." So I see no particular reason to conclude you have either--despite your intelligence and research.

History seems to show that what people who think they know what God wants, seem to always say, "God doesn't want things to change." Here's a simple example, when Elvis Presley started to shake his hips, the clergy seemed to all be certain that God found Elvis's hip-shaking "sinful" and surely he was going to hell. Fifty years later, and the average clergyman today has fond memories of The King of Rock 'n Roll! The bottom line is, if anybody has a clue what God wants, then why does "what God wants" change with every generation? The only reasonable conclusion: nobody has a clue what God wants, if He wants anything, if He even exists.

I know this has been a great diversion from our topic at hand, but when you admitted that you had set yourself up as judge, I can't help but think of every other "religious" man who thought they knew what God wanted. And this seems to me to be conclusive proof that nobody knows what God wants!

JPH> Is freedom an "imperfection"? Were the Founders of this country striving for "imperfection"?

1. Is God "free"? You said yourself that God is less free than we are. 2. Is God perfect? I think you'd say yes. 3. Therefore, freedom is imperfect.

CH2:

PJ>Therefore theories involving deceit or mistakes, even if unlikely, are still inherently more likely than being raised from the dead.

JPH> Why? This is simply fallacious: "I/others have not seen such things happen; therefore it did not in this case."

C'mon, you really know this to be true. Say I were to claim that I flapped my arms and flew to the store. And say I even had some witnesses, people that you generally consider trustworthy, saying, "yep, I say Paul flapping his arms and flying to the store." You might concede in such a case that perhaps it is true that I did do so, but you would still find yourself forced to conclude that most likely it did not really happen--and trickery or honest mistakes were more likely to have happened. Similarly with the Resurrection, I cannot prove absolutely that it did not happen, but like flapping arms and flying, a report of being raised from the dead is more likely trickery or honest mistake.

JPH> I would also add that putting it down to a narrow category ("people not known to rise from the dead") tends to stack the deck.

Okay, but if I were to start a religion that required believing that I, the founder, had flapped my arms and flown to the store, I will allow you to say that my religion has "stacked the deck" against itself... <g>

PJ> Why not, ""God is known to work in the lives of people," theoretically speaking?

Your two statements, "people not known to rise from the dead" and "God is known to work in the lives of people" are very different kinds of statements. The first statement, "people not known to rise from the dead" is something both you and I generally agree with. You and I both agree that people, as a rule, do not raise from the dead. We also feel we have good scientific evidence to support this contention. You may be correct that a claim "God is known to work in the lives of people" is accepted by many, even most people. But, it is a sufficiently vague claim that simply cannot be confirmed or denied. If you believe that God worked in your life to help you to "X", you cannot prove yourself correct, while I cannot prove it wrong. Therefore, your first statement deals with demonstrable fact, while your second statement deals with vague, untestable claims.

PJ> The problem is, there is no “known data”. All the reports are from highly biased sources.

JPH> Hmm. I consider this to be an all-purpose "throw away" line that merely begs the question that bias affected reportage.

Well, we can't know for certain whether it did or didn't. But, you earlier have relied on your understanding of human nature in some of your arguments. Well, my understanding of human nature is that for some reason, "human nature" tends to want to worship Someone or Something--and tends to exaggerate the powers and capabilities of this Someone or Something.

CH4:

JPH> 1) It was written no earlier than 150 AD.

I thought scholars placed it as the same timeframe as John, but I could be mistaken.

JPH> 2) It has obvious Gnostic tendencies that would never have "played" in Jewish Palestine.

I thought one of the Christian arguments was that NONE of the Gospels "should" have "played" in Jewish Palestine, and therefore there must have been something real to it.

JPH> It does, however, place the burden on those who claim that there is fiction behind the Gospels.

Not when the Gospels make claims that violate natural law. And again, from my previous argument from human nature, it looks an awful lot like fiction.

CH5:

PJ> But my basic point is that the swamp/rapids/stream analogy seems to really say: "Christianity is the one true religion, and nothing else is true--but we gotta come up with some escape hatch because we'd look like fools if we said everybody else was going to hell."

JPH> Isn't that somewhat of an ad hominem and a slam on the character of those who propose it?

Please allow me to rephrase. I believe it is true that in times past, the official church doctrine of many Christian churches had in fact stated that one must be a Christian to be saved. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this used to be true.) Which, strictly speaking would mean that anybody born before Jesus, or never heard of Jesus, would be just out of luck. Most Christians today recognize this would be unreasonable of God, and therefore have to try as best as possible to guess how salvation would work for these people. But the bottom line is, the Bible just doesn't say. Jesus said that no one comes to the Father except through him. But he was not explicit in exactly for whom he would bring to the Father. If indeed Jesus was the only human being to know exactly how salvation works, for he himself was the one and only source of it, one would think he would have been more clear on how it works! Although I suppose it might be postulated that he wanted to leave it vague, perhaps so that each individual would have to spend their own time contemplating it. But of course this postulation is just more guesswork. The bottom line is, the Bible doesn't say.

PJ> This kind of idea opens the door to questions like, "what if someone heard the Gospel only once, and the preacher who told them the Gospel was a child molester?"

JPH> A very high level of improbability there. Someone though who rejected the Gospel on that basis would be fairly foolish, would they not? Do you reject that your house may be on fire because the fireman reads porno magazines?

As far as "improbability", well, probably not very many people would fit the exact profile of "heard the Gospel only once from a child molesting preacher". But I'd say that it not unlikely that at least a few people would fit that exact profile. But, the more generic profile of, "heard the Gospel not very well, and the source of whatever information they did get seemed to be from suspect individuals" probably fits millions and millions of people. Which leads me back to some of my other comments about how there really isn't any good way to divide people up into "these people get hell" and "these people get heaven".

Strobel discussed the possibility of different levels of punishment in hell, and perhaps different levels of reward in heaven. But ultimately, "the best seat in the house" of hell is presumably distinctly and dramatically worse than the "worst seat in the house" of heaven. In fact it is this disjuncture that is one of the strongest arguments against Christian theology--there just isn't a fair way to divide up people into two groups.

Your reference to the fireman who reads porno mags is an inapt analogy. For one, well, um, I read porno mags, for the, um articles of course. So, it wouldn't bother me much if my fireman did as well. But, regardless of whether I approved of porn or not, I think I can recognize that a fireman should be sufficiently trained in fire. As far as I can tell, most people who are trained in a religion say, 'yep, my religion is right" and certainly they can't all be right.

Continued next post...

[Paul Jacobsen]

Continued from last message...

CH6:

JPH>I'm wise enough to refrain from a strict judgment. But I would say that you have rejected the principle of productivity, on terms other than your own.

You'll notice that in one sentence, you say you are wise enough to refrain from making a "strict judgment", but then immediately proceed to do so! Although I guess you are more or less stuck making such a judgment, based on your religion. But, my point is, it simply is not true that not finding evidence for the existence of God compelling is related to accepting terms other than my own. They are completely unrelated! If God exists, far be it for me to decide what is good and what is evil, I'll defer to Him whatever He wants deferred to Him. I don't have any problem with that. I have not "rejected the principle of productivity on terms other than my own."

PJ> For example, someone that has been a life-long political conservative doesn’t often change their viewpoint to being a political liberal.

JPH> And when it does, is it rational?

??? My guess would be that it generally is. Supposedly, Winston Churchill said, "any man who is under 30 and is not a Liberal has no heart; and any man who is over 30 and not a Conservative has no brains." I don't happen to agree with this statement, as I'm overall fairly liberal--and unfortunately well over 30. But, I can say that I have seen a number of people who seem to fit Churchill's depiction; they were liberal in their younger years, and became conservative over the years. The point being that while drastic changes in points of view don't happen all the time, and usually not overnight, they do happen and are rational.

PJ> Actually, yes. “Zeno’s Paradox” is where each step is infinitely small.
JPH> Yet, there is still a step?

Well, here is a page that describes "Zeno's Paradox":

http://www.shu.edu/html/teaching/math/reals/history/zeno.html

There are actually four similar paradoxes that have survived. The most well known makes any motion at all appear to be impossible. This is because for you to traverse from point A to point B, you first have to reach the midpoint between A and B. And before you can do that, you have to traverse to the midpoint between A and the first midpoint. And since there is an infinite number of midpoints to get to, motion can (seemingly) never start. Zeno's Paradox was never solved mathematically until the 20th century. But, I think we are getting off track. Which, my contention was, if one divides up 'X' amount of punishment, over an infinite amount of time, the punishment per unit time would be either 0, or very near zero. I think this should be apparent even with minimal understanding of mathematics.

JPH> Logic has not dictated this; your experience has dictated this. It cannot be logic because no data has been collected from such situations.

Hoo-boy! I suggest you check your local college or university schedule for a course on logic. (I got an A in logic at the University of Houston, by the way...) Science is about collecting data and making observations. Logic has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with data collection! Here is an example:

A. All green aliens are from Mars._
B. Spaceman Biff is a green alien._
C. Logical conclusion: Spaceman Biff comes from Mars.

The above is foolishness, if there are green aliens, they probably do not come from Mars. But, conclusion C follows logically from premises A and B. To verify A and B would take observation, and likely observation would show premises A and B false. But, that has nothing to do with the fact that C logically follows A and B.

So, back to my understanding of omnipotence, I understand "omnipotence" means that God can indeed do anything that is not a LOGICAL fallacy. Square circles, or round squares are a logical fallacy. I do not need to collect data, checking all circles to be sure none are square to know there are no square circles. Therefore, it is reasonable that God cannot create a square circle, and no data collection is necessary, it follows from the definition.

NOTE: I took your comment about "logic has not dictated this" out of order from your commentary, because I wanted to discuss the idea of logical fallacy first, before covering some of the next material:

PJ> unless you can demonstrate why it is not logically possible for God to be able to create a world of more than ten or so people where everybody is saved, then your argument fails.

JPH> Demonstrate it? By creating my own world? Here's a demonstration: Pack as many people as you can into a room who share exactly the same viewpoint on everything. Can you do it?

No, what I mean is, you need to demonstrate a logical fallacy, such as round squares. As noted, logic has NOTHING to do with observation and testing. What you (and Moreland) seem to be trying to get at is akin to Paul Copan's idea of "feasibility". (I haven't yet written any defense about your "refutation" of my critique of Copan.) In your "refutation," I believe you said you hadn't read Copan's book yet. So, let me explain a bit of what Copan said. Copan conceded that there are things that God apparently cannot do even though there is no logical fallacy to them. He seemed to (almost) concede that shouldn't be possible if God is omnipotent. But then he produced what I feel is merely a "Deux ex Machina" solution. He came up with the idea that perhaps some things are not logically impossible, yet not "feasible" for God to do. The problem is, this makes the word "omnipotent" utterly without any meaning at all. Heck, with that kind of definition, I'm omnipotent, except I just can't do a bunch of stuff that isn't "feasible" for me to do! Therefore, I reject any attempt to try to wiggle out of God not being able to do things that aren't "feasible," unless you are going to admit God isn't omnipotent. You just can't have them both.

So, now, you have to demonstrate LOGICALLY why God cannot create a world with more than X number of people that would all be followers of God, or your (and Moreland's) argument fails. Further, even if you could demonstrate this, you would then have to demonstrate why God could not create billions of earthlike worlds, each with X number of people. Otherwise, your (and Moreland's) argument fails.

CH8:

JPH> That's not so much the point, as that the scenario of, "he'll choose right on #74,675" is not supported by any evidence, and that the mere availability of the prior choices is not an excuse that will "play" in any system of justice, human or divine as a way to demand more. [snip] The catch in that is I, personally, have no idea which of those people might make the choice, so I have to work as though any one of them will, even though some will obviously be those who would never make the choice.

But the problem is, your statement after my [snip] disproves your statement before the snip! Even if you don't know who, you've admitted that you have to have hope that some people will choose right on try 74,675 or you would have no use being an apologist. So, you've just proven me correct.

JPH> I can speak here only from experience and human nature.

Like I did when I noted that people tend to fudge the capabilities of their Deity...

JPH> Surely you do not disagree that people make choices not out of loyalty to an ideal or person, but to keep from getting punished.

Well, do they not do that already, here on Earth, before they die? Aren't some people Christians because they don't want to go to hell?

PJ> 1. One lifetime provides enough opportunities for each person to be certain that if that individual would ever choose God, they will do so within the provided opportunities.

JPH> I mean this one.

Thanks for the clarification, now I can beat you up over it... <g>

However, option 1 seems illogical. People accept Christ every day. If any of those people that accepted Christ today had died yesterday, they would have had too few opportunities. Therefore logic dictates option 1 could not be true

JPH> The answer moreover is that your person who "died yesterday" has a fate that would be known to God, who simply as needed can "move up" the encounter (speaking theoretically, of course, as if God could be surprised under the Christian paradigm!) that would result in a decision.

Well, let me rephrase the question, if those who chose God today had died yesterday AND NOTHING ELSE WAS CHANGED PRIOR TO THE MOMENT OF DEATH, then they died too early. You are adding into the equation that God would have made sure that didn't happen, somehow. Which I guess I can't prove you wrong. But, then that makes our entire life on Earth rather pointless. God already knows whether or not you would, in any circumstance, choose Him, so why bother making us go through the motions?

PJ> and says they are 100% on the side of a lone gunman is saying that someone else who has spent many hours and concluded otherwise is 100% wrong. This is a position of arrogance.

JPH> The only way to tell is to critically evaluate and see who has done the best job. I see little evidence that those who play both ends are being "honest" as much as using the word "honest" as a baptizing of their attempt not to offend anyone. When closely questioned, I find such people reveal their hands.

Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that if there was a way to provide an unbiased, exact quantitative measure of evidence, the measure of the evidence for the lone gunman/multiple gunmen in the Kennedy assassination is exactly 50/50. That should mean that no matter how much time people spend studying the Kennedy assassination, the "right" answer for an expert on it would be "I have absolutely no idea, it could be one gunman, it could be multiple gunmen." I have to concede that in my contrived scenario, I kind of doubt many people who claim to be "experts" on the assassination would be willing to say, "I have utterly no clue". For one, people who claim to be experts on something are reticent to say, "I have no idea". People would probably find either some of the evidence on one side or the other to be more personally compelling, and pick a side. So, to some degree, I'm basically agreeing with you that being dead-center, 50/50, uncommital isn't very normal for human nature.

But, even so, in my contrived scenario of the evidence of the lone gunman being exactly 50/50, I would expect there would be very many experts on the assassination to say things like, "it's very puzzling, there's good evidence on both sides. I personally find the evidence on the side of 'X' being stronger, but it is still inconclusive". In other words, while I think that few people would be willing to sit dead center, many people would easily be not 0% and not 100%.

So, when you claim, "when closely questioned, I find such people reveal their hands" you may indeed find people moving off center, and picking one side or the other to some degree, but that is still not the same as saying that you have shown them to actually be 0% or 100%. Basically, you are claiming to be doing more mind reading. And, well, you can't read my mind. And while now I'm pretty much at 0% on the issue of Christ, I wasn't always. There were indeed times when I was over 50%, but probably not 100%. And times that I was below 50%, but not yet at my current 0%. And that is simply the truth, like it or not.

But, since I conceded that it is probably true that very few people are exactly dead center 50/50. So you might say that is good enough, if everybody is at least off dead center, then those who are above 50% get heaven and those below 50% get hell. But that basically means that in my "faith quota" analogy the number happens to be 50, and everything else I said about it is correct.

JPH> I was indeed proposing a closer point by point look. But don't feel obliged to do so. I do have the unfair advantage of doing this and nothing else with my time.

Well, lets see how this debate plays out first. I suspect we'll hit a deadlock within a few more rounds. We might then cover other topics, or go our own ways.

[jpholding]

Paul,

Technically you're only supposed to post once here before someone else can respond. But I'll not register a complaint with management as long as I can answer this later. :thumb:

JP

[dizzle]

We'll let him slide..... wet noodle is put away for the time being.

[Paul Jacobsen]

There is a 24000 character max, and it so happens that my response this time exceeded that length, so I had to split it into two pieces. Of course, take your time responding as I certainly took my time.

[Paul Jacobsen]

At the risk of being yelled at for two consecutive posts, I just thought I'd mention I fixed a couple of typos on my site. I won't bother to attempt to repost here, as they are fairly minor. But, if you have the choice to read the copy on my site or the copy here, then the one on my site is slightly better. (No significant change in content was made.)

http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/response_tektonics_iii.htm

[jpholding]

Heya Paul,

I'm going to ask a favor. If you would, please allow me to post replies in sections over the next few days and wait until I am done to reply. I wanted to give you the courtesy of a reply (which you deserve) but have to keep a lot of fires burning at once, and don't want to cheat you out of attention.

Boy if I had a choice I'd clone you and Kyle Gerkin and debate you all the time. At least you guys are honest. :smile:

How do you know this? How do you know that it is not possible for God to be able create another being that has free will and yet never do wrong?

Actually, never lack the capacity to do wrong -- the two options are mutually exclusive.

For example, it seems quite possible that God could have created us with the free will to choose among multiple good options.

I don't say that he didn't. But it remains that with that comes the free will to select bad options. There may be worlds where the people never took the bad option (as CS Lewis hypothesized in Out of the Silent Planet). But it remains that the option to "do bad" is there and given that possibility, it is inevitable that a "do bad" choice will be made at some point by someone.

Or, another possibility would seem to be that if God knew ahead of time who would choose Him and who wouldn't, why not only create those that would choose Him?

Since you did revise your answer on this I will address it later.

Well, you can give away half of infinity, and still have infinity left.

Mathematically that sounds like nonsense. There is no such thing as "half of infinity".

It was my understanding that Satan, the angels, and all other beings in heaven are likewise "above" the space-time continuum. At least I thought this was considered current theology

No, not that I have ever heard. Satan and the angels are designated as created beings, which implies residence in space-time. Any idea where you heard that?

And therefore Satan would not have foreknowledge of what would happen based upon this challenge. But, at the very least, Satan should know that God knows what would happen before it ever happens.

Perhaps, but since when do you suppose Satan is rational? The whole premise of satanology is that Satan made a stupid decision.

chosen otherwise if it was possible for Him. The problem is, the theist (you, Strobel, and his experts) regularly make proclamations as to what God could or could not do. For example, you stated that the part of God's nature that cannot be recreated in another being with free will is the part of His nature that prevents Him from doing wrong. This is a very specific limitation that you are placing on God.

We have no problem with this. God can't violate logical laws; I am sure you know of the standard "Can God make a stone" paradox...what's your take on that? Can God make 2 + 2 = 5? (I mean, REALLY do it -- not play a trick like, change the meaning of "5" in our minds so that it equals the quantity we now know as 4.)

believable." But yet Christianity seems to say that my saying "that just doesn't seem believable" is a terrible crime. This, in a nutshell, is the most significant problem (in my opinion) with Christianity.

Well, that's kind of general, and I hope I have not done that to you arbitrarily.

contemplate that question, but we can. And it is how we answer that question is where we get the concepts of "good" and "evil".

That's fine for now. So then this is not a hard concept, is it?

Again, the question arises, "how do you know this?" How do you know this is the best possible system? How do you know a better one isn't possible?

I don't. And thus it remains that neither of us has a ground for criticism on this point. Only raw emotion is involved in claims that this world isn't satisfactory.

could likewise feel themselves able to judge your arguments and opinions. Which leads me to conclude there simply is no amount of study or reading sufficient to say, "okay, I've read enough, and the Bible definitely says 'X' on the subject of 'Y'"

Well, you can't know that until you've done your own work on the subject, can you? Still I admire your willingness to learn.

They think they knew how to run society because they have discerned what God wants

Well, sorry to disappoint you but I am not running for political office or seeking to run the world to any extent. :smile: As for Augy, I'd need more context for his statement to evaluate it. It certainly does not fit in with what is written in Paul in terms of education. (In terms of segregation, it does; and that comes from Jews even before the NT period.) Actually it sounds to me like Augy was having personal problems and venting about it.

History seems to show that what people who think they know what God wants, seem to always say, "God doesn't want things to change." Here's a simple example, when Elvis Presley started to shake his hips, the clergy seemed to all be certain that God found Elvis's hip-shaking "sinful" and surely he was going to hell

Well, I am sure they did not have much in the way of historical, contextual, or critical support for that idea, now did they? I'm not old enough to know of that, but what little I know suggests that this was just a gut reaction and not a studied one.

1. Is God "free"? You said yourself that God is less free than we are. 2. Is God perfect? I think you'd say yes. 3. Therefore, freedom is imperfect.

So I ask again: Were the Founders of America mistaken? Should they have stayed under George III, or made Washington a monarch as some suggested?

Part 2...

C'mon, you really know this to be true

No, I'm afraid I don't. I'm willing to accept your claim of having flown to the store based on what you reported. The thing is, why should I care?

Okay, but if I were to start a religion that required believing that I, the founder, had flapped my arms and flown to the store, I will allow you to say that my religion has "stacked the deck" against itself... <g>

Well I'd like to see you base a soteriology on THAT. :teeth:

But, it is a sufficiently vague claim that simply cannot be confirmed or denied

Well, I'd argue with that, but it would take us far afield...I would argue for a general pattern of involvement in evidence from history as a whole.

Well, we can't know for certain whether it did or didn't. But, you earlier have relied on your understanding of human nature in some of your arguments. Well, my understanding of human nature is that for some reason, "human nature" tends to want to worship Someone or Something--and tends to exaggerate the powers and capabilities of this Someone or Something.

Isn't that a position derived from your personal orientation as one skeptical? It remains that "bias" is an easy charge to throw around....but it needs to be demonstrated objectively, not merely assumed.

CH4:

I thought scholars placed it as the same timeframe as John, but I could be mistaken.

A tiny number do, but they are in a vast minority and their arguments have many problems, for example what I said about Gnostic tendencies.

I thought one of the Christian arguments was that NONE of the Gospels "should" have "played" in Jewish Palestine, and therefore there must have been something real to it.

Not exactly the same thing. What Jesus said and did IS Jewish in orientation, even if making claims that Jews would reject; but one will never find a Gnostic Jesus preaching in Jewish Palestine.

Not when the Gospels make claims that violate natural law.

Well, you know I call that a begged question...in addition, I do not agree that a "miracle" is any more a "violation" of natural law than you picking up a box is the law of gravity violated....

CH5:

Please allow me to rephrase. I believe it is true that in times past, the official church doctrine of many Christian churches had in fact stated that one must be a Christian to be saved. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this used to be true.)

Still is in traditional groups, though allowances are often made for infants and those who lived before of without knowledge of Jesus. I can point to a couple of books on it if you have time. Cases are drawn from Scripture and I have done the same.

one would think he would have been more clear on how it works!

Well I do find it quite clear myself...can you explain what you think the problem is?

But I'd say that it not unlikely that at least a few people would fit that exact profile

Well if you find me one let's have a pop quiz. :smile:

But, the more generic profile of, "heard the Gospel not very well, and the source of whatever information they did get seemed to be from suspect individuals" probably fits millions and millions of people

And is this nevertheless a rational basis upon which to make a decision?

In fact it is this disjuncture that is one of the strongest arguments against Christian theology--there just isn't a fair way to divide up people into two groups.

If the basis is, "Accepted Christ, or didn't" is that not a start?

Your reference to the fireman who reads porno mags is an inapt analogy. For one, well, um, I read porno mags, for the, um articles of course.

My blind stepfather used to say the same thing. :rofl:

think I can recognize that a fireman should be sufficiently trained in fire. As far as I can tell, most people who are trained in a religion say, 'yep, my religion is right" and certainly they can't all be right.

Then the burden is to show that the person is not "sufficiently trained" in religion; hence we are back to the necessity of objective investigation and not just the character of the person.

I will return for Ch. 6 and beyond...later...

[Paul Jacobsen]

Okay, I will await your telling me you are done before I post a response. I thought I'd simply say that I have given your current response a first read-through and will read it in more detail later.

[Paul Jacobsen]

I know you requested that I not respond until you finish, but I hope you don't mind one short comment. You said, "I do not agree that a 'miracle' is any more a 'violation' of natural law than you picking up a box is the law of gravity violated". As it so happens, my revised Objection 2 (which I mentioned earlier) now covers this subject. The first six paragraphs of my revised Objection 2 is the new material covering this.

The reason I opted to mention this now is in case you might want to cover that before my next major response. Or, if you'd rather wait, I'll be sure to raise the issue again...

[jpholding]

I'll wait. Keeps things organized. :smile:

[Paul Jacobsen]

Okay, I'm awaiting your futher responses.

I just thought I'd mention a bit about my pen name. Not that I really need to explain, I thought I would anyway. When I first started my site, I used my real name. My "real" job is a software developer, and my company wasn't doing very well the first few years of this decade, and I started to think that I might need to look for a new job. Then I thought, "what if a perspective employer decided to do a web search on my name, find my site, and not like it?" My real name, as it is spelled, is not very common--although other spellings are somewhat more common. So, I decided to switch to a pen name.

Some have wondered if my choice of a pen name was a religeous reference, Son of Jacob or something. I simply picked my first name and my mother's maiden name. I searched on the web, and there seems to be a lot of "Paul Jacobsen's" in the world, so that is what I picked. Although, one of the Paul Jacobsens I found was a Reverend, so if he finds my site, he might not like it. But, as I noted, there seems to be a lot of them.

As I think about it, maybe I should have just changed the spelling of my last name to a more common spelling, rather than change the name.

[jpholding]

Heya,

I'll try to get to the rest this week. I have a class to plan for at my church...

I just thought I'd mention a bit about my pen name. Not that I really need to explain, I thought I would anyway.

Thanks for that. But be careful or Farrell Till will write an article about you for using one. :wink:

[jpholding]

OK, now for Ch. 6 --

You'll notice that in one sentence, you say you are wise enough to refrain from making a "strict judgment", but then immediately proceed to do so!

Noooo..."I'd say" means it was a qualified estimate... :smile:

If God exists, far be it for me to decide what is good and what is evil, I'll defer to Him whatever He wants deferred to Him.

OK. That's an unusual stance for a skeptic, at least the ones I've encountered.

Which, my contention was, if one divides up 'X' amount of punishment, over an infinite amount of time, the punishment per unit time would be either 0, or very near zero. I think this should be apparent even with minimal understanding of mathematics.

Very near zero is fine with me. Have you had time to look into Glenn Miller's article on what hell is like, which (I think) I linked to in my original article? I need to do a deeper evaluation, but it is quite likely that hell should be evaluated not in terms of punishment, but of absence of that which is positive -- in which case the whole Zeno issue seems to me to fall by the wayside.

Science is about collecting data and making observations. Logic has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with data collection!

It doesn't? Your own example you call "foolishness" but presumably based on data showing that 1) there are no green aliens; b) there is no life on Mars. In any event here logic is not used at to arrive at a decision about actual data, so this completely misses the point.

No, what I mean is, you need to demonstrate a logical fallacy, such as round squares.

Logically there is nothing fallacious about saying that it is possible that everyone will pick up and eat a pistachio ice cream cone on Tuesday at 3 PM, and there will be no collusion involved. But is it going to happen? I'm not talking about what is feasible for God to do, but what is feasible, PERIOD! :smile: I don't know that I match Copan here, but when it comes to free choices, there is simply no practical possibility of all agreeing in a pool of sufficient size.

I'll get the last part up as soon as I can...right now I have not only a class to plan, but an article to edit for CRJ...my plate toppleth over...

[Paul Jacobsen]

I await your completion. I haven't even looked at your prior response in detail yet, just gave it a guick first read through. I guess I should start reviewing what you've done so far in more depth. :huh:

[jpholding]

OK, last but not least --

But the problem is, your statement after my [snip] disproves your statement before the snip! Even if you don't know who, you've admitted that you have to have hope that some people will choose right on try 74,675 or you would have no use being an apologist. So, you've just proven me correct.

I don't see how one disproves the other. I target persons not knowing who the "74,676th converter" is, and who the "I'll never convert" is, nor even knowing whether I am approaching them with chance #32, #6574, or #65,876. "Have to hope" implies that there won't ever be results, possibly. That is so, but I still would think I have a job to do, even if I just happen to run into all "no-converts" (unlikely).

Well, do they not do that already, here on Earth, before they die? Aren't some people Christians because they don't want to go to hell?

Yes, and they shouldn't. It's nowhere used as a kerygamtic appeal.

However, option 1 seems illogical. People accept Christ every day. If any of those people that accepted Christ today had died yesterday, they would have had too few opportunities.

Nevertheless, they did not die yesterday. God would know that they would not die yesterday. Therefore we still don't have an unfair situation, until and unless we prove someone "would have chosen salvation" if they had had one more chance, 10 more chances, 76,765 more chances. The idea you posit:

Well, let me rephrase the question, if those who chose God today had died yesterday AND NOTHING ELSE WAS CHANGED PRIOR TO THE MOMENT OF DEATH, then they died too early

"If" -- yet that is the very question which revolves around whether God is being fair or not. You acknowledge you can't disprove this (and it is after all an integral part of the Christian paradigm that God knows the future), but then say:

But, then that makes our entire life on Earth rather pointless. God already knows whether or not you would, in any circumstance, choose Him, so why bother making us go through the motions?

I'll answer that with a question: Does experience add value to your future?

Let me admit that I have a problem relating to your "50/50" scenario....I'd like it better if you could come up with a real scenario where we have a 50/50 appearance (the image of the Kennedy assassination just doesn't work for me! :teeth:)...still, I would maintain that I do not mind read; I question. And what I find is that as people try to keep what they want to believe, they tend to become more equivocal, and create more ad hoc speculations. The example that comes to mind -- something YOU would never do! -- is how one skeptic recently responded to an argument I made, like so:

1) He made a point about what he thought a person in Bible times would do in a given situation.
2) I responded by noting that under the social mores of the day (an honor and shame society), such an act would be impossible; it is the act of a modern individualist in a guilt culture.
3) To which, he replied in effect that maybe X person in Bible times was an exception to the social rules!!

Now is that "mind reading" to say that such a person is equivocating?

I appreciate the intelligent debate. :smile: Hopefully I can respond faster next time now that I've got most of that class prepared and other issues out of the way.

[Paul Jacobsen]

I have read your response in brief. I will take some time to consider your points. I do not know how long it will take me to respond, but I don't have any out of town trips planned right now, so I suspect it won't take too long.

There is a new, trippy color bars here at the TheologyWeb today. Trippy and cool, I like it. Not sure if this is something that changes from time to time or what, but I like it.

[Paul Jacobsen]

Sorry for the long delay in responding. I got behind in work and some other things.

I assume we have dispensed with the Theolgy Web's ordinary rules of only one post until the other side responds. You requested that I not respond until you finished your last set of responses. And now I will respond to your set of responses. Here we go:

PJ>How do you know this? How do you know that it is not possible for God
PJ>to be able create another being that has free will and yet never do wrong?

JPH>Actually, never lack the capacity to do wrong -- the two options are
JPH>mutually exclusive.

I disagree. Let me give another analogy. Will there ever be anybody to make chocolate/motor oil/gasoline flavored ice-cream, even if it could be made non-toxic? I assume it could be done, but nobody would ever do it simply because nobody has any desire to eat chocolate/motor oil/gasoline flavored ice-cream.

Or, to explain another way, there are an infinite number of things that I and/or other people could do that would be termed "bad", and an infinite number of things I and/or other people could do that would be termed "good". And of those infinite things, some of the "good" things will just never be done, for whatever reason. Likewise, of all the "bad" things possible, some of them will also never be done--for whatever reason. The point I'm getting at is that you (and many other Christians I encounter) seem to equate a necessity that something actually be done in order for it to be a real option. And I don't believe that is true, I believe that there are real options, things that I could do if I chose to do so, but will never do so. Therefore, I do not believe it to be a true statement that evil things must actually ever be done in order for evil to be an available choice.

PJ>Or, another possibility would seem to be that if God knew ahead of time
PJ>who would choose Him and who wouldn't, why not only create those that
PJ>would choose Him?

JPH>Since you did revise your answer on this I will address it later.

Okay, ready whenever you are...

PJ> Well, you can give away half of infinity, and still have infinity left.

JPH> Mathematically that sounds like nonsense. There is no such thing
JPH> as "half of infinity".

Forgive my imprecision. You can do what appears to be "dividing infinity in half". Such as, you can decide to divide whole numbers into even and odd numbers. Each of those sets seems like it should be half the size of the set of all whole numbers. And yet each of those subsets are still infinite sets. Also, you can do that again and again, apearing to divide each set in half, only to still have infinite sets. The point I'm getting at is, if there is a being of infinite power, He should be able to bestow infinite power upon infinite entities if He so chose. You can say that He must not want to, but there seems to be no logical reason He cannot. How we got started in this discussion was your questioning that this was logically possible and I believe it to be logically possible.

JPH> Satan and the angels are designated as created beings, which implies
JPH> residence in space-time.

Even if Satan and the angels are "created beings" that doesn't to me necessiarily imply residence in space-time.

JPH> Any idea where you heard that?

You know, I can't put my finger on it, and it may indeed be my own invention and I didn't realize it. However, my understading is that heaven is NOT within our universe. I can't take a rocket-ship, even the Starship Enterprise, and ever get to heaven, right? And if heaven is NOT in our universe, does that not imply that it does not reside in at least our space-time? Now, it could have its own space-time, but it would not be our space time, no?

PJ> But, at the very least, Satan should know that God knows what would
PJ>happen before it ever happens.

JPH>Perhaps, but since when do you suppose Satan is rational? The
JPJ>whole premise of satanology is that Satan made a stupid decision.

I always thought of Satan as being depicted as "diabolical"--of intellect befitting a being intended by God to be His finest creation.

JPH> God can't violate logical laws; I am sure you know of the standard
JPH>"Can God make a stone" paradox...what's your take on that? Can
JPH>God make 2 + 2 = 5?

I use the "square circle" or "round square" variation of this theme. True, I understand that omnipotence is generally defended as not requiring the logically impossible. Therefore, God cannot create the logical absurdity of a "square circle". But, making a stone too big too lift is very different. There is nothing inherintly contradictory to the concept of something too big to lift. For example, I can build things too big for myself to lift. The idea of something "too big to lift" isn't inherently self-contradictory or illogical, it only becomes illogical when framed in the context of an omnipotent being. This implies--perhaps--that what is self-contradictory is not the idea of something too big to lift, but the very idea of omnipotence itself. I concede that what I just said isn't an airtight proof, but simply a possibility.

PJ>And it is how we answer that question is where we get the concepts
PJ>of "good" and "evil".

JPH>That's fine for now. So then this is not a hard concept, is it?

But my concept of "good" and "evil" is very different than yours. I don't believe in good and evil "force" (Use "The Force," Luke! Help, I'm being drawn to the Dark Side of "The Force!") Nor do I believe in any personification of "good" or "evil" force, such as God and Satan.

PJ>How do you know a better one isn't possible?

JPH>I don't. And thus it remains that neither of us has a ground for criticism
JPH>on this point. Only raw emotion is involved in claims that this world isn't
JPH>satisfactory.

But, you had earlier made the positive claim that this is the best possible world. I may not be able to prove you wrong, but I say that you have not proved your positive claim. And, you now seem to take back your positive claim and say neither of us knows. Okay, if neither of us knows, then it should be my right to think that there probably aught to be a better plan available to an omnipotent being. Even if ultimately I'm wrong and you are right, it seems to me it should be my right to think there should be a better possible world.

JPH>Well, sorry to disappoint you but I am not running for political office
JPH>or seeking to run the world to any extent.

You are correct, you personally are not running for political office. But, it has been fairly common for those who seek political office to believe they know God's plans and desires, and attempt to run society based on it.

JPH>I'm willing to accept your claim of having flown to the store
JPH>based on what you reported.

Did you know that "gullible" isn't in the dictionary? <g> Seriously, I really doubt you would really believe me if I said I flew to the store. And if you really would believe me, you must believe that the face on Mars is a real face placed by aliens, Elis Presley faked his death and is planning a come-back carreer, etc...

JPH>The thing is, why should I care?

Well, gee, if I found the secret to being able to fly by flapping my own arms, that would probably be a valuable skill. I'd think just about everybody would want to know how I did it.

JPH>Isn't that a position derived from your personal orientation as one JPH>skeptical? It remains that "bias" is an easy charge to throw around....

It is true that everyone is biased, and I'm no different. I think that we can try to understand our bias, try to recognize it, but I don't believe it is humanly possible to turn off one's bias. So, I'm skeptical, is this a crime?

JPH>but it needs to be demonstrated objectively, not merely assumed.

Well, I think the popularity of religion, including ones that you consider false religions, is sufficient objective evidence.

JPH>I do not agree that a "miracle" is any more a "violation" of natural law
JPH>than you picking up a box is the law of gravity violated....

As I noted, I now attempt to cover this issue in the first seven paragraphs of my revised coverage of Objection 2.

JPH>Still is in traditional groups, though allowances are often made for infants
JPH>and those who lived before of without knowledge of Jesus.

PJ> one would think he would have been more clear on how it works!

JPH> Well I do find it quite clear myself...can you explain what you think the
JPH>problem is?

Well, your own quote above, "allowances are often made for infints and those who lived without knowledge of Jesus" is a great starting place for questions. Well, are there or aren't there allowances for infants? Or for those that lived without knowledge of Jesus? If so, do they get a "get into heaven free card" or do they get a second method of salvation? And exactly how much of what Jesus taught do I have to believe? If I think he was an inspirational rabbi, is that good enough? Why or why not? What about if I heard a little bit of Christianity one time, or a few times? Am I expected to make that my life goal to determine if it is true or not? Those are rhetorical questions, which you need not bother answering, for whatever answer you give, I can find a dozen different answers from well-studied Bible scholars. The Bible just doesn't say.

PJ>But, the more generic profile of, "heard the Gospel not very well,
PJ>and the source of whatever information they did get seemed to
PJ>be from suspect individuals" probably fits millions and millions of people

JPH>And is this nevertheless a rational basis upon which to make a decision?

Like it or not, it is part of the human system of evaluation to include perceived reliability of the source of information when determining whether or not the information itself is reliable or not. That's just the way it is. If someone tripped out on drugs tells me they were abducted by aliens, vs. someone that I otherwise have generally thought to be a reliable source tells me they were abducted by aliens, I'm more likely to believe the second person. Even in the second case, I personally would probably be skeptical, but I'd still consider the non drug user as at least being somewhat more likely to be correct. If the first person, the drug user, really did get abducted by aliens and I disbelieve him because of the drug use, well, that's the breaks. The fact is, even if he is correct, there isn't a good reason for me to conclude he is correct.

JPH>If the basis is, "Accepted Christ, or didn't" is that not a start?

Well, now we are back to, how much "accepted"? Accepted that there is a fair possibility that he was the Savior? Accepted that there is a small possibility that he was the Savior? How about accepted that he was a good, inspirational Rabbi? And, again, there seems to be plenty of people that should answer "n/a" as they never even heard of Jesus.

PJ>For one, well, um, I read porno mags, for the, um articles of course.

JPH>My blind stepfather used to say the same thing.

I thought it was only a myth that it caused blindness...

[Paul Jacobsen]

Okay, this is the second part, which covers your parts two and three. I probably could have fit the last post and this one into one message I guess. Some of your points I simply didn't feel I had anything further to add to the topic, so I didn't comment further.

JPH> but it is quite likely that hell should be evaluated not in terms of
JPH> punishment, but of absence of that which is positive

Just FYI, I happened to listen to Tim Phelps, son of world infamous Fred Phelps, the "God Hates Fags" preacher on the Infidelguy radio show. And the host mentioned that he understood that most people teach hell as being the absence of God. And Tim said that is bad theology. I forget what passage of the Bible he used, but he used some passage to support his claim that God is going to be directly in your face down in hell directly punishing you. Phelps' God is the most sadistic bastard immaginable. But anyway, I digress. The point is, exactly what hell is, is also debatable. You can probably find passages to prove Phelps is is all wrong, and he can likely do the same to you. And the bottom line is, even if you are right, that means that for all the people in hell, they miss out on all the good stuff for all eternity, even if they change their mind.

JPH>there is simply no practical possibility of all agreeing in a pool of
JPH>sufficient size.

Well, I covered this earlier, in that even with billions of people who ever lived, there are things that nobody will ever do even though they were possible for them to do. If nobody ever makes chocolate/motor oil/gasoline ice cream, then that means that of all the billions of people that ever lived, all of them all "agree" to not make chocolate/motor oil/gasline ice cream. So it is possible for pools of huge numbers of people to have a choice, and never make it.

JPH>I don't see how one disproves the other. I target persons not knowing
JPH> who the "74,676th converter" is,

But your comment "the 74,676 converter" implies that you agree it is possible that there indeed could be someone who would convert on the 74,676th try. Which means if there is any such person, but they die at only the 74,675th chance, then they died too soon! Now, you have argued (if I understand correctly) that if there is any such person, God wouldn't let them die at only the 74,675th chance, He would be sure they got the 74,676th chance. Do I understand correctly? Assuming so, this is one of those things that, true, I can't prove you wrong. But I can say that it seems highly unlikely to me. It looks to me like people that convert today may well have died yesterday and died too early.

After all, if you were correct, it would seem like, at least occasionally, there should be a few people that might take hundreds of years to eventually convert. Maybe very few, but seems like there should be at least some. So, it would seem like God would need to let at least a few people live to hundreds of years old, and that hasn't ever happened that I know of.

PJ>Well, do they not do that already, here on Earth, before they die?
PJ>Aren't some people Christians because they don't want to go to hell?

JPH>Yes, and they shouldn't. It's nowhere used as a kerygamtic appeal.

It took me a while to find the definition of the word, but I now understand it to mean "proper" way to spread the message. Well, um, where does the Bible say what is or what isn't the right way? Where does it say that fear of hell isn't a valid reason to want to be Christian? And moreover, whether it is the "right" reason or not, you did agree that it can be a motivator. And even if that is the motivator, if someone then chooses Christ, they are still saved, right? So, why should there be any difference to hell being a motivator on Earth as merely a threat, and an actual motivator after death in hell?

PJ>But, then that makes our entire life on Earth rather pointless. God
PJ>already knows whether or not you would, in any circumstance, choose
PJ>Him, so why bother making us go through the motions?

JPH>I'll answer that with a question: Does experience add value to your
JPH>future?

Well, I'll start answering your question to my question with another question... <g> What difference would it make to you right now if God had actually created the universe five minutes ago, complete with memories of everything you think you did prior to then? The answer is absolutely nothing. We experience life moment-by-moment, trapped by the tick of the clock, unable to escape it. And at any single moment, whatever it is you think happened, as far as your reaction at the moment, is exactly the same whether what you think happened in the past is what really happened or not. Any experience God might want me to have, He could implant it into my mind and I would know no difference. Therefore, actually having to go through the motions of doing anything seems pointless.

And now, the ball returns to JPH's court...

[jpholding]

Heya Paul,

Yes, no worries about response time or length afaic. :smile: I may even take a week on this one. A couple of days back I got some sort of allergic reaction in my left eye and it's still bothering me. May be best to cut down on reading for a bit.

I would make one comment about ice cream tasting like gasoline or other weird ingredients. You've obviously never watched Iron Chef! :wink: And there's also a guy in New York state who makes odd flavors like that every year as a specialty. How about:

* Salmon roe (caviar) ice cream
* Squid ink ice cream
* Jalapeno ice cream

And the New York guy has made some with the taste of some inanimate stuff too, if I recall right. :smile:

[Paul Jacobsen]

And the New York guy has made some with the taste of some inanimate stuff too, if I recall right. :smile:

But, he probably has NOT made chocolate/gasoline/motor oil flavored ice cream. And even if he has, that really isn't the point. I'm sure there is some flavor that has never been made and never will be made. And of more importance, there are "good" acts and "bad" acts that will never be done.

Of course, take your time in responding. I certainly took mine...

[jpholding]

Howdy ho,

Or, to explain another way, there are an infinite number of things that I and/or other people could do that would be termed "bad", and an infinite number of things I and/or other people could do that would be termed "good". And of those infinite things, some of the "good" things will just never be done, for whatever reason. Likewise, of all the "bad" things possible, some of them will also never be done--for whatever reason.

I absolutely have to disagree. But even if I did not, what we are talking about is really only two choices -- "good" or "bad". What are the odds that nothing "bad" will EVER be done? That is the real issue. You're using the not-happening of particulars to argue for the not- happening of a much broader general.

I actually am going to pass over your response on infinity, not as a concession but because I've recently had some insights about the matter of infinity as it relates to atonement that seriously changes the way I argue this point and boots infinity out of the picture as a concern. It's now posted here in the Tektonics.org section under "Honor and Pain" and I'd be interested in your response.

Even if Satan and the angels are "created beings" that doesn't to me necessiarily imply residence in space-time.

If they are created, they had a beginning point. Thus they must logically have experience of duration. I can suggest that they may not experience time at the same rate we do (maybe like those aliens in Star Trek that made the buzzing noises) but it is still within a space-time continuum.

We'd best be carful not to alienate (ahem) the non Trekkers here. :wink:

my understading is that heaven is NOT within our universe.

Yes I go along with that. If parallel dimensions are explicable there, why not here?

Now, it could have its own space-time, but it would not be our space time, no?

That is so.

I always thought of Satan as being depicted as "diabolical"--of intellect befitting a being intended by God to be His finest creation.

That view seems derived from an assumption that Satan is the "prince" mentioned in the OT in Ezekiel and Isaiah, which I find completely unfounded. I do not even see any warrant for thinking Satan was any particularly high-ranking or special being, much less God's finest creation.

But, making a stone too big too lift is very different. There is nothing inherintly contradictory to the concept of something too big to lift

Making something too big for omnipotence to lift would be what is posited in this framework, yes.

But my concept of "good" and "evil" is very different than yours. I don't believe in good and evil "force" (Use "The Force," Luke! Help, I'm being drawn to the Dark Side of "The Force!") Nor do I believe in any personification of "good" or "evil" force, such as God and Satan.

I don't either. Neither of these beings "personifies" these things (Piers Anthony aside); it would be better to say that these are the ideals they stand for by nature, though with evil, even that is not quite right because evil is a twisting of good, not an opposite. The "force" thing I am not so sure of (sorry -- I'm a Trekker and Star Wars is my sworn enemy).

But, you had earlier made the positive claim that this is the best possible world.

Can you quote me on that? I would say that this could be the best possible world and that a doubter needs to explain how and why another way is better. After all, they are the ones complaining. :smile: Even though they lack omniscience. By all means think it possible, but do not argue for it unless you are prepared to substantiate it with a thorough argument.

But, it has been fairly common for those who seek political office to believe they know God's plans and desires, and attempt to run society based on it.

If they did not have God, do you suppose they would contrive some other means? Isn't that what Communism did?

Seriously, I really doubt you would really believe me if I said I flew to the store. And if you really would believe me, you must believe that the face on Mars is a real face placed by aliens, Elis Presley faked his death and is planning a come-back carreer, etc...

I'll give you credence to start and listen to what you have to say, no. However, be prepared for me to question you so closely that it'll never pass muster unless you actually did it. Care to try it as a fun experiment with the "flew to the store" idea? :smile: Thus:

Well, gee, if I found the secret to being able to fly by flapping my own arms, that would probably be a valuable skill. I'd think just about everybody would want to know how I did it.

Heck no. The amount of energy required would make it more a burden than anything else. My first thought would be (if I figured you to be sincere), "So he found a way to fly, but he's gonna die next week of exhaustion." See what I mean?

recognize it, but I don't believe it is humanly possible to turn off one's bias. So, I'm skeptical, is this a crime?

Yep. 10 to 20 years. :wink: 30 years to life if you pull it in the commission of an argument.

Well, I think the popularity of religion, including ones that you consider false religions, is sufficient objective evidence.

Er, of what? Of EVERY person having this problem??

Well, your own quote above, "allowances are often made for infints and those who lived without knowledge of Jesus" is a great starting place for questions. Well, are there or aren't there allowances for infants? Or for those that lived without knowledge of Jesus? If so, do they get a "get into heaven free card" or do they get a second method of salvation?

The answer lies in this question: Does Jesus represent only a person, or does he represent a concept and/or an idea? In other words, do you think that if someone was taught that Jesus was named "Boogada", but believed that he died, rose again, and paid for our sins, do you think we'd say that God would boot the man out because he had the wrong name?

And exactly how much of what Jesus taught do I have to believe? If I think he was an inspirational rabbi, is that good enough? Why or why not?

Why not? Answer this: Of what efficacy does believing him to be an inspirational rabbi have upon the core "problem" Christianity relates, of personal sin and a distance from God?

What about if I heard a little bit of Christianity one time, or a few times?

Depends which part you hear about. Rhetorical answer. :smile:

Like it or not, it is part of the human system of evaluation to include perceived reliability of the source of information when determining whether or not the information itself is reliable or not. That's just the way it is.

Then your answer is, "I know the process we go through is flawed and that we are responsible for that, but it still makes no difference"?

And Tim said that is bad theology. I forget what passage of the Bible he used, but he used some passage to support his claim that God is going to be directly in your face down in hell directly punishing you.

I'd have Phelps kissing the mat pretty quickly, though he'd be too dumb to know it. :wink: No, he can't do the same to me -- not without making a complete ignoramus of himself, calling scholars names, ignoring contexts, and pretending that Paul read the KJV. There's such a thing as "incompetent and unaware of it."

God wouldn't let them die at only the 74,675th chance, He would be sure they got the 74,676th chance. Do I understand correctly? Assuming so, this is one of those things that, true, I can't prove you wrong. But I can say that it seems highly unlikely to me.

Yes, you have it right. Why is this unlikely when an omniscient being is in the mix? Does this not call off all bets? Obviously I can only show that the paradigm has systematic consistency -- of course, that's all that is needed in this scenario, where the objections are likewise to internal inconsistency.

After all, if you were correct, it would seem like, at least occasionally, there should be a few people that might take hundreds of years to eventually convert.

I really don't see any possibility of someone going through so many changes that they could not fit them into 50 or 70 years, unless they deliberately ignore the questions (maybe they like TV better?), which is itself a choice.

It took me a while to find the definition of the word, but I now understand it to mean "proper" way to spread the message. Well, um, where does the Bible say what is or what isn't the right way?

The missionary preaching in Acts appeals to the historical resurrection of Jesus, his miracles, and his fulfillement of OT prophecy. Hell is not once mentioned in a missionary context. If we follow the apostolic model, then we have to justify "fear of hell" as a good thing to use, because the models do not contain it. Jesus never uses hell that way either; it is used only AFTER someone has rejected his message, and then not to their face (Capenrnaum, etc.).

And moreover, whether it is the "right" reason or not, you did agree that it can be a motivator. And even if that is the motivator, if someone then chooses Christ, they are still saved, right?

Saved, but immature. And if they are part of the elect, waiting longer to be saved in order to be a mature believer is a far better option. Hell is used because preachers are too anxious to see crowds and don't think about long-term discipleship.

Any experience God might want me to have, He could implant it into my mind and I would know no difference. Therefore, actually having to go through the motions of doing anything seems pointless.

Then how is it any less pointless under the "five minutes" ago model in which you really believe you had all the experiences?

I look forward, again, to comments on my, um, new stance. :smile:

JP

[Paul Jacobsen]

Sorry for the long delay again. Here is my next response:

JPH> What are the odds that nothing "bad" will EVER be done? That is the
JPH> real issue.

Well, what are the odds that nobody will ever choose to eat chocolate ice cream, if God doesn't create anybody that would eat chocolate ice cream? 100%. Likewise, the odds of nobody EVER doing anything "bad," if God doesn't create anybody that would do "bad" is 100%. You will no doubt argue that would take away free will. But, as I've already stated, I don't believe it is a requirement that anybody actually do something "bad" for it to be a real choice.

JPH> You're using the not-happening of particulars to argue for the not-
JPH> happening of a much broader general.

No matter, God is all-powerful, so he should be capable of dealing in the "broader general" sense.

JPH> I've recently had some insights about the matter of infinity
JPH> as it relates to atonement that seriously changes the way I argue
JPH> this point and boots infinity out of the picture as a concern. It's
JPH> now posted here in the Tektonics.org section under "Honor and
JPH> Pain" and I'd be interested in your response.

Okay, I've your article, and Glenn Miller's article that you link to. I found one paragraph of his worth quoting:

In much of traditional orthodoxy, heaven will be populated by a very small minority of the world's population. And, although they will be blessed immeasurably, this doesn't really seem 'heavy enough' to counterbalance the belief that the vast majority of the population is tormented forever in a hell of conscious agony. To make the situation even more grim, this unending torment is often said to be based on events which transpire within a range of a few decades or so of human time. The stakes are incredibly high, and often, it seems these stakes are not even in the awareness of those making them. It is difficult to conceive of any action, decision, or lack thereof, by a mortal being, having that level of impact--and/or "deserving" that severity of repercussion. [Theologians make honest attempts to make 'finite' decisions to reject God, into 'infinite sins' (via rejection of an 'infinite' God) as ways of making sense of the apparent imbalance between cause/effect.]

So, Glenn Miller seems to have sympathy for the skeptics position that "traditional orthodoxy" doesn't seem terribly fair, and his reference to theologians making "honest attempts" to reconcile this apparent injustice seems to be essentially an admission that the "honest attempts" ultimately fail. I was quite impressed at his honesty at admitting that there does seem to be a genuine issue here. Yet his paper goes on (and on, and on) and I never saw him present a solution to his conundrum. Maybe I missed it somehow... But, back to your article, you offer the "honor and shame" hypothesis as the solution to this conundrum. But I don't see how this ultimately changes anything. You say this makes "Zeno's Paradox" a moot issue, but to me, all you seem to have done is exchanged one "Zeno's Paradox" for another. Is eternal shaming a fair response to a finite shaming of God? How much shame per unit time is a fair response to shaming God? Or, will you simply alter Miller's depiction of an "honest attempt" by substituting "infinite shame" for his "infinite sin"?

Essentially, as far as I can see "shame" is just a form of "punishment" and I see no particular difference whether God's goal is to "punish" non-believers or to "shame" them. In either case, what is the point of doing so eternally? Normally, when someone tries to "shame" you, the goal is similar to punishment, to make you not want to do the "shameful" act again. But shaming someone for all eternity seems to be just as pointless as punishing them for all eternity.

JPH> If they are created, they had a beginning point. Thus
JPH> they must logically have experience of duration.

I concede this sounds logical. Possibly it could be argued, but I don't think I could do so adequately, so I will concede the point.

PJ> my understanding is that heaven is NOT within our universe.

JPH> Yes I go along with that. If parallel dimensions are explicable there, why
JPH>not here?

Well, although I think that other universes may exist, I think "parallel dimensions" are science fiction. People tend to think that there is some linkage of some sort between time in our universe, and time in other dimensions, such as perhaps heaven. For example, people tend to think that if it is 11:00 PM CDT, April 18, 2004, then it must be 11:00 PM CDT, April 18 2004 in heaven. While I can't prove that God didn't make some kind of a time linkage such that would be true, I can say that is not what one would expect based on physics. Physics tells us that time only has relevance within a time-space continuum. As an analogy, say you are under water, 10' deep in the Atlantic Ocean. How deep are you in the Pacific Ocean? The question makes no sense, you aren't any depth in the Pacific Ocean. Likewise, if it is 11:00 PM CDT, April 18, 2004 in our universe, it makes no sense to ask, "what time is it in some other universe?" There is no linkage. So, there should be no linkage between our time and any time in any other time-space continuum. Again, I can concede I can't prove God made some sort of linkage, I'm just saying that is not apparent from our understanding of time-space.

PJ> I always thought of Satan as being depicted as "diabolical"--
PJ> of intellect befitting a being intended by God to be His finest creation.

JPH> That view seems derived from an assumption that Satan is
JPH> the "prince" mentioned in the OT in Ezekiel and Isaiah, which
JPH> I find completely unfounded.

Interesting. I have some articles on Satan on my site, including some links to some Christian sites that make similar claims. But I never would have guessed you felt that way. Do you have any articles on your site that express this position? If so, could you give me some links?

JPH> (sorry -- I'm a Trekker and Star Wars is my sworn enemy).

Rather off topic, but I enjoy both and see no point in having to "take sides" in Trek vs. Wars. But, Trek (except for the generally wretched "Voyager") is overall far more intelligent than Wars. But I have hopes that Episode 3 might yet be a worthy Wars.

PJ> But, you had earlier made the positive claim that this is the best possible
PJ>world.

JPH> Can you quote me on that?

Okay, you didn't say exactly that, you did say we have the best possible system. Here is the quote I was thinking of:

JPH> There is a lack of distinction made here between being satisfied
JPH> with the system as the best one possible, and being satisfied with
JPH>those who choose to be "deviant" while realizing that this comes
JPH>of the best of possible options.

Also note that you defended, at least in general, Paul Copan's book (although we haven't started debating your defense of that). And Paul Copan does indeed make the claim that this is the best possible world, he knows this as God wouldn't create anything less.

JPH> I would say that this could be the best possible world
JPH> and that a doubter needs to explain how and why another
JPH>way is better.

Well, presumably heaven is better. So, this couldn't be the best possible world.

PJ> But, it has been fairly common for those who seek political
PJ> office to believe they know God's plans and desires, and
PJ> attempt to run society based on it.

JPH>If they did not have God, do you suppose they would
JPH>contrive some other means? Isn't that what Communism did?

Well, that is always possible. There are always people who want power, and will either use God, or deny God, depending on which suites their fancy. But I'm not necessarily talking about people who are just out for power. I'm just talking about your Average Joe (A. J.) who wants to see society improve. And when A. J. discusses what he might think is good or bad for society, most of the time he'll be willing to at least consider alternate ideas and points of view--except when A. J. thinks the edict came from God. And in that case, many A. J.'s can be utterly unwilling to consider the possibility that any other point of view can be worth considering. Nobody seems as certain they are correct than those who think that God says they are right. That is just they way it seems to me. I'm concede I'm generalizing, and I can't prove my generalization.

PJ> Well, gee, if I found the secret to being able to fly
PJ> by flapping my own arms, that would probably be a
PJ> valuable skill. I'd think just about everybody would
PJ> want to know how I did it.

JPH> Heck no. The amount of energy required would make
JPH> it more a burden than anything else. My first thought
JPH> would be (if I figured you to be sincere), "So he found
JPH> a way to fly, but he's gonna die next week of exhaustion."

Oh, come now. Had I found a way to flap my arms and fly to the store, I might have found a way to generate my own power without excessive strain. And, even if my skill was impractical for regular use (for whatever reason) it could still be an emergency life saver. Similarly, even if my skill was mostly impractical, the physics behind it (how I managed to do the seemingly impossible) might have other applications worth investigating. You seem to be working very hard to avoid conceding that I'm right, you wouldn't believe it.

Now, the usual Christian response (I believe) would be something like, "you're right, I wouldn't believe you, under your own power, flew. Nor would I believe that an ordinary man, under his own power, rose from the dead. But I believe that God has sufficient power to do either. And if God had decided to give you the power to fly, then you could indeed fly. If you gave me reason to believe God might have given you such power, then I would consider the idea." Would you agree with this line of thinking?

PJ> Like it or not, it is part of the human system of evaluation
PJ> to include perceived reliability of the source of information
PJ> when determining whether or not the information itself is
PJ>reliable or not. That's just the way it is.

JPH> Then your answer is, "I know the process we go through is
JPH> flawed and that we are responsible for that, but it still makes no
JPH> difference"?

Well, there simply is no magic formula for determining truth, or the validity of someone's testimony. There are things that we can do to "put the odds in our favor." For example, it is not totally erroneous for someone to doubt wild claims from someone that has a history of false wild claims. It is always possible that in the specific instance, the person is telling the truth. But that doesn't mean it was off base to have doubted.

JPH> I'd have Phelps kissing the mat pretty quickly, though he'd be too dumb
JPH> to know it.

Well, that much I'd like to see. I'd like to see a debate with you and Phelps, either Jim or Fred.

JPH> Yes, you have it right. Why is this unlikely when an omniscient being is
JPH> in the mix?

Well, going back to an argument of yours above, why is it unlikely that nothing bad would ever happen when an omniscient being is in the mix? It is somewhat aggrivating when the Christian's God's omniscience/omnipotence seems to come and go at the whim of the apologist.

As to why, to me, it seems unlikely that God would make sure that people would get the "74,676th chance" is simply that it seems that your theology has internal inconsistencies. God isn't capable of using his omniscience/omnipotence to prevent "bad" from happening without interfering in free will, and yet is is capable of making sure you get the 74,676th chance if you need that, while not interfering in free will. Well, it seems to me that He should be able to do both, or neither.

JPH>I really don't see any possibility of someone going through
JPH> so many changes that they could not fit them into 50 or 70
JPH> years, unless they deliberately ignore the questions
JPH> (maybe they like TV better?), which is itself a choice.

Well, your wording seems to be a concession that there are indeed some people, even if they wasted too much of their first 70 years vegging out when they shouldn't have, nevertheless, conceivably could eventually get bored with TV, ask better questions, and eventually convert. And if God wants people who would eventually choose right no matter how long it takes, then these people should get to live for hundreds of years if necessary.

PJ>And moreover, whether it is the "right" reason or not, you did
PJ>agree that it can be a motivator. And even if that is the motivator,
PJ>if someone then chooses Christ, they are still saved, right?

JPH>Saved, but immature. And if they are part of the elect, waiting
JPH>longer to be saved in order to be a mature believer is a far
JPH>better option.

But, you would still be forced to concede that "saved by immature" is still a better option than "not saved", no?

PJ> Any experience God might want me to have, He could implant
PJ> it into my mind and I would know no difference. Therefore,
PJ> actually having to go through the motions of doing anything
PJ> seems pointless.

JPH> Then how is it any less pointless under the "five minutes" ago
JPH> model in which you really believe you had all the experiences?

I guess I don't understand your question. Any need to actually go through any experience seems pointless, if God already knows what they will be and can implant them in your head.

[Paul Jacobsen]

Addendum:

I neglected to comment on a few items originally. So I am adding this to my response 5:

JPH> I would say that this could be the best possible world and that a
JPH> doubter needs to explain how and why another way is better. After all,
JPH> they are the ones complaining. Even though they lack omniscience. By
JPH> all means think it possible, but do not argue for it unless you are
JPH> prepared to substantiate it with a thorough argument.

You no doubt have many times addressed the issue of who has the burden of proof of what. Skeptics will generally say the burden of proof lies with the claimant, the theist. And therefore the burden of proof lies with them. Christians will say that skeptics also make claims, and therefore the burden of proof then shifts to them. Such as above, you say that if the skeptic thinks another way is better, "they are the ones complaining" and therefore the burden of proof shifts to the skeptic. Well, that really isn't true. Say for example someone is on trial for murder. And the prosecution produces some evidence, such as maybe blood of the victim in the defendant's car. Then say the defense provides an alternate scenario for how the blood got in the car--perhaps the defense may claim the victim had been in the car at one time, with a cut, and that was unrelated to the murder. The prosecution doesn't get to say, "well, the defense has now offered a claim, and now the burden of proof that the blood was in the car by a cut must be proved by the defense." No, the burden of proof that the blood did not come from the cut is still on the prosecution! The defense merely needs to provide a plausible counter-explanation, not a proof of the counter-explanation, in order to bring about "reasonable doubt".

So, what you tried to do is you worded your phrasing to make it appear that you are not making a positive claim. You appear that you are not making the positive claim that this is the best possible world. You said "I would say this could be the possible world". But then ask me to prove that it is not if I say it isn't. This is rather like saying, "it could be true that George W. Bush is an alien from an alternate dimension, but if someone doubts it, they should be prepared to substantiate it with a thorough argument". And then when I say, "well, its rather difficult to prove he isn't an alien from an alternate dimension." And then you say, "AHA! So you admit that you cannot produce a shred of evidence for your claim that George W. Bush is not from an alternate dimension! This man is making claims and yet admits he can produce no evidence!"

What I'm saying is, you used a word game to make a claim by not making a claim and then say it is up to the doubter to prove it wrong. This is an end-around tactic to attempt to switch burden of proof to me. Well, no, you are still the claimant and the burden of proof still lies with you.

PJ> And exactly how much of what Jesus taught do I have to believe? If I
PJ> think he was an inspirational rabbi, is that good enough? Why or why
PJ> not?

JPH> Why not? Answer this: Of what efficacy does believing him to be an
JPH> inspirational rabbi have upon the core "problem" Christianity relates, of
JPH> personal sin and a distance from God?

I know that you generally deride Earl Doherty, but his review of Mel Gibson's _The Passion of the Christ_ addresses this question better than I can. His review is a combined review of the movie, which he concedes has high cinematic value; and of the theology it portrays, which (surprise, surprise) he isn't so keen on. But in my opinion, he expresses this quite well in this review:

http://human.st/jesuspuzzle/AORPassion.htm

In short, his basic idea is that there doesn't seem to be any rational "efficacy" of the Christian salvation methodology. God is the one that chose what He wanted for the methodology of salvation. He was just as free to chose that a belief Jesus was an inspirational Rabbi was the method of salvation as he was to chose that a belief that Jesus was a prophesized Messiah is the method of salvation.

So to your question, "of what efficacy does believing him to be an inspirational rabbi have upon the core 'problem' Christianity relates[...]?" My answer is, as much efficacy as God chooses it to have. Its his plan.

[jpholding]

Howdy again,

Well, what are the odds that nobody will ever choose to eat chocolate ice cream, if God doesn't create anybody that would eat chocolate ice cream?

How would this be accomplished? By making it so that chocolate ice cream never existed? So that anyone who made it or tried to eat it would dissolve in smoke? I don't see how you can get around this and still have a world of free choice. You did anticipate this answer, and said:

But, as I've already stated, I don't believe it is a requirement that anybody actually do something "bad" for it to be a real choice.

This seemed unclear to me, but if I read it aright it seems to me to make little difference. The existence of real choice, given enough persons and/or time, implies that at some point, there WILL be something "bad" done. I do not see how this can be avoided.

No matter, God is all-powerful, so he should be capable of dealing in the "broader general" sense.

We say that God did deal with it in Christ. I think you are saying, "he should be capable of dealing with it in a way that I prefer"? If so, aren't we back to the idea that you are presuming to know what a better would outcome would be, based on no data at all other than personal preference?

me, all you seem to have done is exchanged one "Zeno's Paradox" for another

How so? The terms have changed from quantity to quality. There is no "eternal shamING"; there is eternal shame. You live in a state that is one of shame; there is no direct act upon you, and the eternality is a function of your existence, not of the shame itself. Indeed shame here involves lack of given privilege; you are denied the chance to have what those in heaven have. Our semantics may call that "punishment" (as when a child is denied ice cream that a sibling is given) but that is a thoroughly modern contrivance of definition, as far as I can see.

Essentially, as far as I can see "shame" is just a form of "punishment" and I see no particular difference whether God's goal is to "punish" non-believers or to "shame" them.

How is shame a "form of punishment"? You seem to define "punishment" rather broadly. :smile: To wit:

Normally, when someone tries to "shame" you, the goal is similar to punishment, to make you not want to do the "shameful" act again.

Such is the modern view; shame in an honor-shame society was for the purpose of assigning value to the person who committed the act. It was not "punishment" in the sense you describe. Of course such persons did wish to avoid shame, but the goal was actually more to make EVERYONE less inclined to the act, as a collective. In that view, the goal of sending some persons into eternal shame for the sake of others bypasses your objection.

Do you have any articles on your site that express this position?

I'm almost sure I say something about it somewhere, but I can't find it now. :rant: But there's not much more I can say other than that the identification must be read into the OT texts.

Okay, you didn't say exactly that, you did say we have the best possible system.

OK. To this then you said:

Well, presumably heaven is better. So, this couldn't be the best possible world.

Hmm. I don't see that we can have heaven as it is/will be without the contiguous reality of what we have had here...

, most of the time he'll be willing to at least consider alternate ideas and points of view--except when A. J. thinks the edict came from God.

Granted, yet I don't see that Stalin had an open mind either... :smile: I think the reason God is so handy for politicians is because most of their constituents believe in God. Is this the fault of theism or the fault of uncritical thinking? But I accept your concession of possible generalizing.

seemingly impossible) might have other applications worth investigating. You seem to be working very hard to avoid conceding that I'm right, you wouldn't believe it.

I am not working hard at all. :smile: This relates to something I have been saying on other threads here about the idea that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I consider that false; what is usually argued when that phrase is used is rather, that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanations." You flying to the store as such would require an extraordinary explanation; and if you seemed earnest in your contention that you did so, a fair-minded person would at least ask some probing questions (which would probably immediately expose you as out of your mind :teeth:, but that is hardly to be pre-judged).

to believe God might have given you such power, then I would consider the idea." Would you agree with this line of thinking?

Obviously, no. :smile:

has a history of false wild claims. It is always possible that in the specific instance, the person is telling the truth. But that doesn't mean it was off base to have doubted.

Is it not better to simply withhold judgment instead?

Well, going back to an argument of yours above, why is it unlikely that nothing bad would ever happen when an omniscient being is in the mix? It is somewhat aggrivating when the Christian's God's omniscience/omnipotence seems to come and go at the whim of the apologist.

The matter of free will vs omniscience is not one of power vs power, however: It is one of power vs logic. I am sure you agree that the old "can God make a stone..." bit is misplaced in the same respect. No amount of knowledge of power can stop a free choice. It may be able to stop the results of a free choice, but the rebellion still remains intact in the decision.

"bad" from happening without interfering in free will, and yet is is capable of making sure you get the 74,676th chance if you need that, while not interfering in free will.

Making sure you get the chance to make the choice is not the same as forcing the choice upon you, is it?

Well, your wording seems to be a concession that there are indeed some people, even if they wasted too much of their first 70 years vegging out when they shouldn't have, nevertheless, conceivably could eventually get bored with TV, ask better questions, and eventually convert.

I did not intend to imply such a thing, actually. I chose the number based on human lifespan.

But, you would still be forced to concede that "saved by immature" is still a better option than "not saved", no?

Yes, though as may be said, it is better to be a live dog than a dead duck.

I guess I don't understand your question. Any need to actually go through any experience seems pointless, if God already knows what they will be and can implant them in your head.

Then the question I ask is: If you would not know the difference between one and the other, what difference does it make if you actually experience it, or if it is merely implanted?

You no doubt have many times addressed the issue of who has the burden of proof of what.

Well, actually, no. My take on the matter is not what you might suspect. I don't relieve any person of the burden of proof on either side. This is because I see both sides as claimants in reality; even if not stated, for example, the person who asserts a negative view is by default standing for some other positive claim, even if they have not articulated it. The burden I see on both of us. I would fulfill my burden as Glenn Miller has in his series (which I think I linked to earlier), giving evidence that the matters of this world are not as bad as is commonly claimed.

So, what you tried to do is you worded your phrasing to make it appear that you are not making a positive claim.

Well - no; I believe my positive claim was implied, and my challenge to you was a means to open discussion of specifics. In other words, to give an accounting in the negative as Miller did in the positive.

In short, his basic idea is that there doesn't seem to be any rational "efficacy" of the Christian salvation methodology

I'll note this as a possible project for later. I'd suspect Doherty of using modern value judgments to decide what is or is not "efficacious" (the ancients, and most of the world today, is still heavily action-oriented, and the "just an inspirational rabbi" view would never have flown in the ancient world) but that is another issue. However:

My answer is, as much efficacy as God chooses it to have. Its his plan.

And then what happens? God uses this plan, and fewer people choose it, and more people are condemned.

Either way, we're back to that subjective preference is so far the only grounds for, "what way is better?" :smile:

Paul, thank you for being such an intelligent and worthwhile debate partner.

[Paul Jacobsen]

Here is my round 6 of my debate with JP Holdings:

PJ: Well, what are the odds that nobody will ever choose to eat chocolate
PJ: ice cream, if God doesn't create anybody that would eat chocolate ice
PJ: cream?

JPH: How would this be accomplished? By making it so that chocolate ice
JPH: cream never existed? So that anyone who made it or tried to eat it
JPH: would dissolve in smoke? I don't see how you can get around this and
JPH: still have a world of free choice.

Before I answer, I will note that you don't really have an answer for my question as to how God can make sure that everyone gets all the chances to choose salvation that they need. You have said that should be possible for an omniscient/omnipotent Being. If I just answered your question by saying likewise that it should be possible for an omniscient/omnipotent Being, why is that not a sufficient answer?

But to answer your question as to what methodology God might use to employ that someone will never choose to eat chocolate ice cream (if that was what He wanted to do) here is my answer. You agree that there are some people who have never eaten chocolate ice cream, no? Maybe not very many, at least in our society. But some. Maybe some are allergic. Maybe some just happened to like strawberry and never happened to try chocolate. But surely there must be some people who have never eaten chocolate ice cream, even though they had the choice to do so. Since God is omniscient, then He need only have created those people.

Perhaps you might complain that if God didn't create the other people that did eat chocolate, things might be different, and some of the people that didn't eat chocolate would do so in this alternate timeline. But since you think that God can handle dealing with alternate timeline considerations while insuring that people get the chances to choose salvation, then surely he should be able to handle alternate timeline considerations to insure people don't eat chocolate ice cream. Or don't do evil.

PJ: all you seem to have done is exchanged one "Zeno's Paradox" for another

JPH: How so? The terms have changed from quantity to quality. There is
JPH: no "eternal shamING"; there is eternal shame.

To what ends? What's the point?

JPH: Indeed shame here involves lack of given privilege; you are denied the
JPH: chance to have what those in heaven have. Our semantics may call
JPH: that "punishment" (as when a child is denied ice cream that a sibling is
JPH: given) but that is a thoroughly modern contrivance of definition, as far
JPH: as I can see.

Have you had your eyes checked recently? :-) Sorry for some sarcasm here, couldn't resist. Denying a privilege based upon undesirable behavior looks to my eyes as clearly punishment. That kind of punishment, as opposed to corporal punishment, seems to now be favored by child psychologists these days. I've known a fair number of people that think this "modern" punishment is too "liberal" and advocate corporal punishment. But, regardless of which philosophy is right, both are pretty obviously punishment.

PJ: Normally, when someone tries to "shame" you, the goal is similar to
JP: punishment, to make you not want to do the "shameful" act again.

JPH: Such is the modern view; shame in an honor-shame society was for the
JPH: purpose of assigning value to the person who committed the act.

What's wrong with the "modern view"? You yourself have modern views, on at least some things. You consider women to be reliable witnesses--no more or less reliable than men, no? That is a "modern" view. One can't really be born and raised in today's society and not have "modern" views, even if some of your views are less "modern" than others. What I'm saying is, what is so great about an "honor-shame society"? Why does God (presumably) prefer this kind of society? Does He also think women are unreliable witnesses?

JPH: It was not "punishment" in the sense you describe. Of course such
JPH: persons did wish to avoid shame, but the goal was actually more to
JPH: make EVERYONE less inclined to the act, as a collective. In that view,
JPH: the goal of sending some persons into eternal shame for the sake of
JPH: others bypasses your objection.

You appear to have contradicted yourself because you earlier said that hell is not why people should choose salvation, and hell should not be used by preachers to encourage theism.

PJ: Well, presumably heaven is better. So, this couldn't be the best possible
PJ: world.

JPH: Hmm. I don't see that we can have heaven as it is/will be without the
JPH: contiguous reality of what we have had here...

Whether you or I could "see" that we could heaven without our reality here first, surely an omniscient/omnipotent God could see it, no? But for me, I see no relationship whatsoever between our reality here and heaven. After all, children that die as infants and had almost no "contiguous reality" presumably do fine in heaven.

JPH: This relates to something I have been saying on other threads here
JPH: about the idea that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
JPH: evidence". I consider that false; what is usually argued when that
JPH: phrase is used is rather, that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
JPH: explanations."

Well, now we could debate what qualifies as an "extraordinary explanation". I could give as an "extraordinary explanation" for why I can fly to the store as my muscle fibers have been replaced with top-secret nanotechnology giving me superhuman strength. That is an "extraordinary explanation" but doesn't really make my claim any more believable.

I suppose you might say my explanation is itself another extraordinary claim, in need of more extraordinary explanations--such as some specifications on this nanotechnology. But for sake of argument, say I produced some specifications on this nanotechnology, and lab reports etc. What I would be producing is, is *evidence*. In other words, an extraordinary claim is not validated by an extraordinary explanation until there is evidence for this explanation. Which turns the phrase back into "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

PJ: It is always possible that in the specific instance, the person is telling the
PJ: truth. But that doesn't mean it was off base to have doubted.

JPH: Is it not better to simply withhold judgment instead?

There is, for all practical purposes, an infinite number of claims that could be true. It could be true that Christianity is true. It could be true that Islam is true. It could be true that Hindu is true. It could be true that Rev. Moon is the second coming of Christ. It could be true that aliens abduct people, make weird circular shapes in fields and dissect cows. It could be true the face on Mars is a real face placed by an alien race. It cold be true that the the universe was created by pink unicorns. It could be true that Elvis is alive and planning a comeback tour.

The point is, I have not the ability or time to investigate every possible claim. You may say that you simply withhold judgment on those claims. But neither are you actively trying to validate those claims either, I assume. To which I say this isn't really merely "withholding judgment"--you are really assuming they are false claims until someone produces good evidence.

JPH: No amount of knowledge of power can stop a free choice. It may be
JPH: able to stop the results of a free choice, but the rebellion still remains
JPH: intact in the decision.

I'm fairly convinced free will is an illusion. You may say that I act like I believe free will exists. And you would be correct to say this. I do act like I believe it exists. Emotionally, I want to believe it exists and hope it exists. But logically, I don't think it does. Your decisions to write what you have written are based on your biology and your environment and past experiences. As are mine. But, for sake of argument, I will assume that free will exists. But even if it does exist, there are indeed limits. There are things I can choose to do, and there are things that I simply cannot choose to do. You might say that I can always choose to *try* anything. But there simply are things that I will never even consider trying to do based on my past events and experiences. I won't consider trying to drink gasoline because I have good reason to think that is not a good thing to do even if I've never personally trying it. The point is, what is even my sphere of things that I will even consider trying is limited.

JPH: Making sure you get the chance to make the choice is not the same as
JPH: forcing the choice upon you, is it?

I agree that I haven't made my objections to this clear. How exactly does God make sure I get some specific chance that I need? If you are correct, then is not God manipulating something or someone? For example, I have a friend who is a good person and all that. But I find her way of viewing the world aggravating. For example, she talked about how there was one time when their home business was about to go under, not able to pay the bills. And then, totally unexpected, a deadbeat customer that they had given up on ever paying came through with a $5,000 payment. So, she said that she is sure God played a hand in this. So, did God knock on this deadbeat customer's door and go, "hey, pay up! My good servant Cathy needs the money!" How could God have arranged this payment without violating someone's free will?

JPH: Then the question I ask is: If you would not know the difference
JPH: between one and the other, what difference does it make if you actually
JPH: experience it, or if it is merely implanted?

As I have said, we are trapped by the sands of time, unable to experience any moment but the current moment. The past is a memory, and the future is unknown. I'm saying there is indeed *no* difference to *us*, whether what we think happened five minutes ago actually happened or not. If you and I both think that what you wrote in the previous round was written by you, then it makes no difference to us whether that is correct or not. But, the advantage from an omniscient perspective, God's perspective, is many-fold. All of the terrible things that I think happened in history, don't have to have happened in order for me to act and believe as if they happened. If for some reason God thinks it useful for me and you to think that Stalin did what he did, then He could implant the knowledge in our heads without Stalin ever having to have done what he did.

Also, God then can tailor your experiences and my experiences to exactly what He wants them to be. No point in having our experiences limited by merely what actually has happened is there?

PJ: You no doubt have many times addressed the issue of who has the
PJ: burden of proof of what.

JPH: My take on the matter is not what you might suspect. This is because I
JPH: see both sides as claimants in reality; even if not stated, for example,
JPH: the person who asserts a negative view is by default standing for some
JPH: other positive claim, even if they have not articulated it. The burden I
JPH: see on both of us.

Actually, your take was exactly what I suspected, and already responded to... So I'll have to repeat myself. If you were to claim that George W. Bush is an alien from an alternate dimension, I might disbelieve you. You might say that I am thereby making a positive claim that he is not an alien from an alternate dimension. But it is still not reasonable to say we both have a burden to show our side. Your assertion of the claim he is from an alternate dimension is the claim that demands evidence, not the counter-claim.

PJ: In short, his basic idea is that there doesn't seem to be any
PJ: rational "efficacy" of the Christian salvation methodology

JPH: I'll note this as a possible project for later. I'd suspect Doherty of using
JPH: modern value judgments to decide what is or is not "efficacious"

Well, as I said earlier, what is wrong with "modern value judgments"? In fact, criticizing Doherty for using modern value judgments is like criticizing him for being born in modern times.

PJ: My answer is, as much efficacy as God chooses it to have. Its his plan.

JPH: And then what happens? God uses this plan, and fewer people choose it,
JPH: and more people are condemned.

Well, God could have chosen believing "dog doo-doo is yucky" as His salvation plan. And that would have has much efficacy as God wants it to have.

By the way, I recently revised my Objection 1 for Strobel's book. I don't think I added any "groundbreaking" arguments though, I just improved my presentation (I hope.)

[The Creep]

Sorry. I can't come. I am busy saving the world but when I get a chance I'll take a peek. Ah! The sorrows of superheroes dedicating to stamping out fascist tyranny! They never come to an end. Sincerely, The Creep

[jpholding]

Um, yeah. Thanks, Creep. :ahem:

Paul: Thanks -- back in a few with a reply. Got a couple of magazine articles and all that good stuff. :smile:

JP

[jpholding]

Hey ho there!

Before I answer, I will note that you don't really have an answer for my question as to how God can make sure that everyone gets all the chances to choose salvation that they need

? -- I didn't think that would require any explication; obviously omnipotence can use any number of means to accomplish this, no? Here I think the nub is that human free choice is not compatible with certain uses of omniscience that compromise free will. Obviously God "can" do such things in practice; but Judeo-Christian theology has held that to do so is not compatible with one of God's other principles of love.

Perhaps you might complain that if God didn't create the other people that did eat chocolate, things might be different, and some of the people that didn't eat chocolate would do so in this alternate timeline.

Correct. :smile:

But since you think that God can handle dealing with alternate timeline considerations while insuring that people get the chances to choose salvation, then surely he should be able to handle alternate timeline considerations to insure people don't eat chocolate ice cream. Or don't do evil.

And yet again we have the question: By what means have you arrived at this "sure" conclusion, other than, "I think so"?

To what ends? What's the point?

The purpose of shame was to serve as warning to others. Within the Christian paradigm the arguable purpose of eternal shame is to serve as a warning to future persons and future worlds. Some have asked the question, "Can you sin in heaven?" -- I have answered that persons will not sin in heaven because of the combination of their glorified body AND the past lessons learned.

Denying a privilege based upon undesirable behavior looks to my eyes as clearly punishment.

By a broad definition, I can agree, as noted -- but in the Greek of the NT, that's open to discussion.

What's wrong with the "modern view"?

Nothing -- until it is used to interpret an ancient text.

You appear to have contradicted yourself because you earlier said that hell is not why people should choose salvation, and hell should not be used by preachers to encourage theism.

You'll have to give me an exact line, but keep in mind that I may have said that with a view towards hell as fire and brimstone. For the ancients, avoiding shame was already a goad to persons in life to act properly; so shame would be a goad to choose the right path in all circumstances -- not for hell particularly.

But for me, I see no relationship whatsoever between our reality here and heaven. After all, children that die as infants and had almost no "contiguous reality" presumably do fine in heaven.

Well, that will just have to be a difference of worldview. :smile: As for those that die as infants, why may I not argue in turn that these are those for whom such a contiguous experience would have been in some way damaging or less beneficial? You see, if one wants to argue for "surelys" it is possible to do so in any direction.

I suppose you might say my explanation is itself another extraordinary claim, in need of more extraordinary explanations--such as some specifications on this nanotechnology. But for sake of argument, say I produced some specifications on this nanotechnology, and lab reports etc. What I would be producing is, is *evidence*. In other words, an extraordinary claim is not validated by an extraordinary explanation until there is evidence for this explanation. Which turns the phrase back into "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

And I, in turn, provide the evidence of theistic arguments; of the growth of the Christian movement, explicable only in terms of a miraculous beginning (per my Impossible Faith series); of testimony from even hostile witnesses that Jesus was a sorceror (Talmud, Celsus) -- indeed, the evidence IS your explanation, so my point is validated.


here is, for all practical purposes, an infinite number of claims that could be true.

True, but I don't see how this means judgment should not be withheld; moreover, the number of possible truths (or those worth time to consider) is severely trimmed once a specific truth is ascertained. By my reckoning, once my study has led me to see Christianity is true, your other candidates go far down the list of things to consider; and some are irrelevant (Elvis) and I can only ask, "Even if true, why should I care?"

merely "withholding judgment"--you are really assuming they are false claims until someone produces good evidence.

Not really. I am being apathetic about them for lack of relevance to myself.

But even if it does exist, there are indeed limits. There are things I can choose to do, and there are things that I simply cannot choose to do. You might say that I can always choose to *try* anything

Hmm. I think you are confusing the concepts of "free will" and "freedom" here. "Free will" means the ability to make choices from available options, not the ability to do anything at all (and without consequences).

How exactly does God make sure I get some specific chance that I need? If you are correct, then is not God manipulating something or someone?

As someone who has worked in prisons and seen manipulation techniques at work, I would be hard pressed to define what I have in mind as "manipulation". For example, God can make sure that someone runs into someone else who will give them the Gospel message; perhaps by as little as giving them a conscience-like impression to go see them. I would not use an example like this myself, but:

. And then, totally unexpected, a deadbeat customer that they had given up on ever paying came through with a $5,000 payment. So, she said that she is sure God played a hand in this. So, did God knock on this deadbeat customer's door and go, "hey, pay up! My good servant Cathy needs the money!" How could God have arranged this payment without violating someone's free will?

Hmm, is it a violation of free will for me to tell you to wash the dishes? :smile: Are mere directives without enforcement coercive? How about God saying, "Imagine how Cathy is suffering now." Or: Having them turn on the TV just when something came up on the news about deadbeats?

All of the terrible things that I think happened in history, don't have to have happened in order for me to act and believe as if they happened

Agreed. But all this tells me is that it would be needless for God to go through such experiences (whether real or imagined), not that it makes any real difference.

You might say that I am thereby making a positive claim that he is not an alien from an alternate dimension. But it is still not reasonable to say we both have a burden to show our side.

Not at all; it just so happens that your burden is light as a feather. :smile:

Well, as I said earlier, what is wrong with "modern value judgments"? In fact, criticizing Doherty for using modern value judgments is like criticizing him for being born in modern times.

Yes, that is indeed his fault. :wink: What's wrong with it is when you demand it from others without making an adjustment and realizing that you are not the center of the universe and time. Doherty needs to consider that his modern thinking may not have been effacacious in prior history if applied then.

Well, God could have chosen believing "dog doo-doo is yucky" as His salvation plan. And that would have has much efficacy as God wants it to have.

Um. Hypothetically, if I came to you offering salvation with such a core belief, would you take it seriously? I think you're again assuming that omnipotence will overrule free will....and that's at the nub once again. :smile:

[Paul Jacobsen]

JPH: ? -- I didn't think that would require any explication; obviously
JPH: omnipotence can use any number of means to accomplish this, no?

Then, in response to my next question:

JPH: And yet again we have the question: By what means have you arrived
JPH: at this "sure" conclusion, other than, "I think so"?

I find it rather humorous (and a bit annoying) how quickly you change from, “gee I don’t have to have an answer, God can do anything” when it suits your purposes, but then instantly do a 180 and demand that I have a complete answer. If it’s good enough for you, then it’s good enough for me: “obviously omnipotence can use any number of means to accomplish this.”

PJ: What's wrong with the "modern view"?

JPH: Nothing -- until it is used to interpret an ancient text.

But we are talking about (supposedly) eternal truths. The fact that you argue that we should analyze the texts in a more antiquated fashion seems almost an implied admission that we aren’t talking about eternal truths--merely ancient myths. Now, if we are just talking about ancient myths, and what they meant to the people who believed them, then the need for historical perspective is indeed reasonable. But if we are talking about eternal truths, then they should be just as reasonably viewed with a modern perspective than with an antiquated perspective.

JPH: You appear to have contradicted yourself because you earlier said that
JPH: hell is not why people should choose salvation, and hell should not be
JPH: used by preachers to encourage theism.

JPH: You'll have to give me an exact line

No problem. In an earlier round, I said:

PJ>Well, do they not do that already, here on Earth, before they die?
PJ>Aren't some people Christians because they don't want to go to hell?

To which you replied:

JPH>Yes, and they shouldn't. It's nowhere used as a kerygamtic appeal.

So, there is where you made the statement to which you are now contradicting yourself.

JPH: but keep in mind that I may have said that with a view towards hell as
JPH: fire and brimstone.

Well, um, you still contradicted yourself. You had said that people shouldn’t be Christians out of fear of hell, and hell should not be used as a “kerygamtic appeal” and now you are saying that the hell is indeed there to help motivate people to “toe the line”.

JPH: For the ancients, avoiding shame was already a goad to persons in life
JPH: to act properly; so shame would be a goad to choose the right path in
JPH: all circumstances -- not for hell particularly.

Well, for one, that says that the ancients viewed shame as a “punishment”—something undesirable and worth the effort to try to avoid. And for two, what might or might not have motivated ancients might be of some historical relevance in understanding their society—but ultimately, immaterial. What motivated some ancients or even what motivates you may or may not motivate me. If what might motivate me to do what God wants happens to be different than what you or some ancients might find motivating to do what God wants shouldn’t be a factor in my eternal salvation.

PJ: But for me, I see no relationship whatsoever between our reality here
PJ: and heaven. After all, children that die as infants and had almost
PJ: no "contiguous reality" presumably do fine in heaven.

JPH: Well, that will just have to be a difference of worldview.

Well, that’s just not an answer--smiley or no smiley. Basically, what you said (paraphrased) is, “I believe it because that is what my religion says.” But the idea of apologetics is that (supposedly) there are good reasons to believe theological tenets beyond simply, “that’s what my religion says.” But you didn’t provide any apologetic here, you just said, “that’s what my religion says.”

JPH: As for those that die as infants, why may I not argue in turn that these
JPH: are those for whom such a contiguous experience would have been in
JPH: some way damaging or less beneficial?

Okay, well, if your speculation here is correct, then indeed it is true that at least for some people, our “contiguous experience” is not necessary and perhaps even detrimental. But you are then contradicting yourself, where you previously said, "I don't see that we can have heaven as it is/will be without the contiguous reality of what we have had here...” Well, aparantly, at least some people can do without our "contiguous reality".

JPH: By my reckoning, once my study has led me to see Christianity is true, JPH: your other candidates go far down the list of things to consider;

And of course a Muslim would say that once his study has led him to see Islam is true, his need to consider other candidates such as Christianity drop down on his/her list. And once my study of Christianity has let me to see it is false means that while there may be many possible pieces of evidence to consider that could potentially alter my view nonetheless drop down on my list of things to consider. Of course, since I’m fairly public atheist, I do try to keep up with at least the most well known of the evidences and arguments used. But ultimately, I’ll never review every possible evidence or argument in favor of Christianity, nor will you be able to review every possible evidence and argument in favor of every possible alternative.

This basically takes us to the simple fact that humans are limited. Conceivably there is some evidence out there that might convince me of Christianity. Conceivably, there might be some evidence out there that might convince you of Islam. But if Allah is the One True God, He would be unreasonable to have expected you to search every possible evidence for this. And if Yahweh is the one true God, He would be unreasonable to expect me to search every possible evidence for this.

JPH: Hmm. I think you are confusing the concepts of "free will" and "freedom"
JPH: here. "Free will" means the ability to make choices from available
JPH: options, not the ability to do anything at all (and without
JPH: consequences).

But of course I don’t control my available options, not entirely anyway. So, if I can only do what is within my available options, and my available options are not within my control, ultimately, what I do is not completely within my control. I can’t do things that are not in my available options. But that means it is unreasonable to base my eternal destination based upon a limited set of actions I do--which were merely among a set of possible actions and the set of possiblities is beyond my control.

JPH: How about God saying, "Imagine how Cathy is suffering now." Or:
JPH: Having them turn on the TV just when something came up on the news
JPH: about deadbeats?

Okay, you are saying that God didn’t FORCE the deadbeat customer to pay, but perhaps gave some kind of subtle encouragement, which the deadbeat customer may or may not have acted upon. Had the deadbeat customer not acted on the subtle hint, Cathy would still be without her $5,000. I can concede this is at least a plausible scenario. But, if God lending a bit of subtle encouragement can help Cathy get her $5,000, well, one would think God could use a lot of subtle encouragements to solve all sorts of problems. If it’s that (relatively) easy to get a deadbeat customer to pay up 5 g’s, subtle encouragement to millions of God-believers in this country and around the world should result in billions of dollars to feed the hungry—enough to feed the world.

PJ: You might say that I am thereby making a positive claim that he is not
PJ: an alien from an alternate dimension. But it is still not reasonable to say
JP: we both have a burden to show our side.

JPH: Not at all; it just so happens that your burden is light as a feather.

Actually, if you were to claim that G. W. Bush is an alien from an alternate dimension, I would be totally without any way to prove you wrong. What possible evidence could I produce that wouldn’t be consistent with your claim that his appearance was well engineered by the aliens? If I instantly have the burden of proof to disprove any theory you come up with, my burden would be impossibly heavy. So I still reject your claim that I have any burden of proof to reject any of your claims. You still have the burden of proof to prove your claims. [But I think I've done a fair job nonetheless... :-) ] It is as simple as that.

PJ: Well, God could have chosen believing "dog doo-doo is yucky" as His
PJ: salvation plan. And that would have has much efficacy as God wants it
PJ: to have.

JPH: Um. Hypothetically, if I came to you offering salvation with such a core JPH: belief, would you take it seriously?

That’s the beauty (so to speak) of my salvation plan. I could think you are completely nuts if you would come to me offering that as a salvation plan—and yet I still believe that “dog doo-doo is yucky”. So, say you come to me and offer that as your salvation plan. Andy say I assume you are a wacko and ignore everything you say. One day I die and God says, “you, for believing ‘dog doo-doo is yucky’ are hereby granted access to heaven.” And then I run into you and you say, “see, I told you so!”

Ready to concede? I think I'm getting better at finding your contradictions. Granted I'm biased, but I think you're eating my dust... (I probably should have avoided grandstanding here, as you so far have avoided grandstanding in this debate. But grandstanding is such a JPH trademark that I couldn't help myself...)

[Paul Jacobsen]

I did another proof read of my response today, while working on publishing it on my site. I made a few minor corrections to grammer and spelling. The updated version is here:

http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/debates/response_tektonics_vii.htm

There isn't any substantial changes, but I think a few wordings are now more clear.

[jpholding]

Hey ho! Grandstanding, huh! :smile: Here's your punishment: I had time to respond right away! God is gonna get ya for that! :tongue:

I find it rather humorous (and a bit annoying) how quickly you change from, “gee I don’t have to have an answer, God can do anything” when it suits your purposes

Eh? Where have I done that? :huh: Even so, you're more or less proving my point. Criticism of omniscience and what it does presupposes one's own better sense than omniscience. If I were on your side of the fence I'd be hesitant to use such arguments.

But we are talking about (supposedly) eternal truths. The fact that you argue that we should analyze the texts in a more antiquated fashion seems almost an implied admission that we aren’t talking about eternal truths--merely ancient myths

Here I sense some confusion between levels of elucidation. The Bible (or any text, really) will contain levels of explication...just briefly, let's say:

1) eternal truths
2) temporal truths (culture bound; often applications of eternal truths)

Items in 2 are what we cannot come at with a bias. Yet I find that many critical persons assume that 2s are 1s and criticize the text on that basis. Not all truths in the Bible are eternal. And really, since any truth requires two parties -- a giver and a receiver -- unless both parties are eternal, something in the relation is bound to change.

Now, if we are just talking about ancient myths, and what they meant to the people who believed them, then the need for historical perspective is indeed reasonable

It's just as reasonable for ancient narrative histories as for any myth, is it not? Do you read Tacitus with an assumption that he shared your values and perceptions?

But if we are talking about eternal truths, then they should be just as reasonably viewed with a modern perspective than with an antiquated perspective.

I think the eternal ones are and can be; but there is a level of difference between "thou shalt not bear false witness" and "thou shalt build your roof with barriers".

Well, um, you still contradicted yourself. You had said that people shouldn’t be Christians out of fear of hell

I see where you get that from. We need to distinguish first of all between being Christian and becoming one. The latter is relevant to kerygmatic appeal. The former is not. I have no beef against hell in terms of the shame paradigm I have described being a motivator for present believers -- though indeed, one may also speak here of the withholding of greater honor in heaven as a motivator as well, or even better. In that respect it is also no different than it would be for public shame on earth; in other words, as Paul shamed the man who slept with his mother in law.

The rub of this is that I'm not sure how much of this will resonate with you unless you've really driven in to the dynamics of an honor and shame society. The shame of hell is no direct threat to the believer; yet to the ancient person it would be a reminder of their responsibility. It won't resonate well with any modern American, actually, because we don't think of shame the same way we did -- not as something as important as paying the bills, as one scholar puts it.

Well, for one, that says that the ancients viewed shame as a “punishment”—something undesirable and worth the effort to try to avoid.

If you define punishment so broadly, well and well. Is it punishment for our mothers too look at us and say, tsk tsk?

And for two, what might or might not have motivated ancients might be of some historical relevance in understanding their society—but ultimately, immaterial.

Because it actually is, or because of your personal predilections? If motives are "where it's at," then I wonder whether our cultural narcisissism and individualism isn't somehow a flaw. We are after all the mutation. Can you blame God for our own effort to destroy a proper motivation? Is it right to desensitive yourself in order to avoid conscience?

Well, that’s just not an answer--smiley or no smiley. Basically, what you said (paraphrased) is, “I believe it because that is what my religion says.”

I can do little else without devolving into what would be a tangent in context for this conversation, and also something beyond my normal scope of study. Can you grant that?

the contiguous reality of what we have had here...” Well, aparantly, at least some people can do without our "contiguous reality".

Given the number of persons who have lived, there may well be some who could do with or without just as well; hence there is not so much contradiction in my position as a recognition of the potential for diversity -- as well as that there is really no way to experimentally know these things, which renders objections such as yours -- what shall I say? Unfalsifiable?

And of course a Muslim would say that once his study has led him to see Islam is true, his need to consider other candidates such as Christianity drop down on his/her list.

That is fair in my perception. On the other hand, that does not absolve the need to work down the list at all. I continue to do so. And really, do you mean "every" possible alternative? Branch Davidianism? Mithraism?

means it is unreasonable to base my eternal destination based upon a limited set of actions I do--which were merely among a set of possible actions and the set of possiblities is beyond my control.

I can't really find anything here but an abstraction that fails to justify the argument.

But, if God lending a bit of subtle encouragement can help Cathy get her $5,000, well, one would think God could use a lot of subtle encouragements to solve all sorts of problems.

That is so. But it remains that for some, no amount of subtle encouragement will be enough to do more than reinforce their own proclivity not to, i.e., repay the debt.

What possible evidence could I produce that wouldn’t be consistent with your claim that his appearance was well engineered by the aliens?

Some would say, given his current policies, none. :tongue: Seriously, though. How far would you theorize this under such presumption? As I know from my dealings with Da Vinci Code fanatics, there are points where a theory becomes unfalsifiable and thus worthless. At that point the burden drops entirely since what is being done is not satisfying the burden, but (metaphorically) shifting it around from arm to arm to arm to arm. Unless you show that I do this, your burden remains.

That’s the beauty (so to speak) of my salvation plan. I could think you are completely nuts if you would come to me offering that as a salvation plan—and yet I still believe that “dog doo-doo is yucky”

Yet you would also still believe that it is an absurd way to be saved, which, by the definition of faith as loyalty, puts you in dog doo doo hell for eternity. Remember that true faith is not merely assent to a proposition, but earnest loyalty to it.

Ready to concede? I think I'm getting better at finding your contradictions.

Nah. :tongue: :smile: For one, I need the intelligent conversation you provide. For another, I think you're not so much finding contradictions as falling victim to by ability to think across variable spectrums. Have a great summer whatever you're doing.

By the way. I have had word that Strobel is busy with a relative in his family who is very ill....

[Lazy Agnostic]

If you torture your data long enough, you can get it to confess to anything. If Mark Twain knows that then God knows that. If it is the work of God, it would seem He has gone out of the way to make it appear as ancient ignorance and myth. If it were the work of God, I don't know why we'd need the obfuscare extraordinaire JPH to explain it to us---certainly not under a rubric of "Believe-it-or-ELSE".

[jpholding]

If you torture your data long enough, you can get it to confess to anything. If Mark Twain knows that then God knows that. If it is the work of God, it would seem He has gone out of the way to make it appear as ancient ignorance and myth. If it were the work of God, I don't know why we'd need the obfuscare extraordinaire JPH to explain it to us---certainly not under a rubric of "Believe-it-or-ELSE".

LA, please refrain from belching while adults are trying to have a serious conversation. Thank you. :thumb:

[Lazy Agnostic]

LA, please refrain from belching while adults are trying to have a serious conversation. Thank you.I've been enjoying the conversation. Mark Twain's quote speaks to the crux of the problem. The amount of tap-dancing you and Mr Strobel must do to flail within the Pale just doesn't stand to the Creator's gift of Reason. Mr Jacobsen has done a good job of showing that.

[jpholding]

The amount of tap-dancing you and Mr Strobel must do to flail within the Pale just doesn't stand to the Creator's gift of Reason. Mr Jacobsen has done a good job of showing that.

As I said, LA, if burping and passing gas is all you can do, please let the adults converse in peace. We can do without the stench of your bodily emissions during this serious conversation. :thumb:

[Lazy Agnostic]

As I said, LA, if burping and passing gas is all you can do, please let the adults converse in peace. We can do without the stench of your bodily emissions during this serious conversation. Puerile pugnacity.

[jpholding]

Puerile pugnacity.

Puerile pugnacity is as puerile pugnacity does. :thumb:

Then again, it's hard to compare this or any exchange we have to any sort of serious fight since you're always either lying flat on the canvas from the start or else hiding behind the ring posts looking for an exit. :teeth:

[Paul Jacobsen]

JPH>Hey ho! Grandstanding, huh! Here's your punishment: I had
JPH>time to respond right away! God is gonna get ya for that!

Okay, so I guess I shoulda avoided the grandstanding. In general, from my perspective, your latest round was stronger than your previous round. I thought your prior round wasn't very good. Anyway, on to this round.

PJ> I find it rather humorous (and a bit annoying) how quickly you
PJ> change from, “gee I don’t have to have an answer, God can do
PJ> anything” when it suits your purposes

JPH> Eh? Where have I done that?

I thought I've been pretty clear about this. I've said that an omniscient Being should be able to create a world where nothing bad happens without violating free will. You've asked me how, and haven't accepted simply "by omnipotence" as an answer. But when I've asked how God can make sure that everybody gets the chances that they need to choose salvation, you have simply offered "by omnipotence". I think this should be pretty obvious to the most casual of observer.

JPH> It's just as reasonable for ancient narrative histories as
JPH>for any myth, is it not? Do you read Tacitus with an
JPH>assumption that he shared your values and perceptions?

I'm, um, afraid I haven't read Tacitus lately. But I can see some validity to the point. To be able to understand what Tacitus was saying, one would be wise to try to learn a bit about his perspective. Bottom line is, I doubt I could fully understand Tacitus (or the Bible) even if I had strong motivation to do so. However, I haven't found arguments that I should have strong motivation to understand the Bible any more compelling that arguments that I should try to to understand the Koran or the Book of Mormon. I haven't seen any compelling reason to think that they aren't all just books of myths -- with perhaps some valid history thrown in.

PJ> Well, for one, that says that the ancients viewed shame
PJ> as a “punishment”—something undesirable and worth the
PJ> effort to try to avoid.

JPH> If you define punishment so broadly, well and well. Is it
JPH> punishment for our mothers too look at us and say, tsk tsk?

A very mild form of punishment--too mild to be effective generally speaking, particularly in today's society. But yes, I would call that a form of punishment.

PJ> Well, that’s just not an answer--smiley or no smiley. Basically,
PJ> what you said (paraphrased) is, “I believe it because that is what
PJ> my religion says.”

JPH> I can do little else without devolving into what would be a tangent
JPH> in context for this conversation, and also something beyond my
JPH> normal scope of study. Can you grant that?

On one hand, yeah, I can grant that some things are difficult to answer briefly. I am often annoyed with Creationists that take pot shots at evolution. But to explain why the "pot shot" is off base is often much more difficult to do--the defense is often much harder than the criticism. So, I can appreciate that you might likewise feel that your defense of the subject is much harder than my "pot shot". But, at least from my perspective, until someone produces a defense, then I feel my "pot shot" is likely on target.

JPH> Given the number of persons who have lived, there
JPH> may well be some who could do with or without [our
JPH> contiguous reality] just as well;

Considering the number of pregnancies that end in miscarriage, (particularly prior to the 20th century,) and assuming that the Christians that argue that fetuses have a soul, then the *majority* of people apparently do not need a contiguous reality. Seems very strange that anybody does, doesn't it?

JPH> as well as that there is really no way to experimentally know
JPH> these things, which renders objections such as yours -- what
JPH> shall I say? Unfalsifiable?

Hmmm, I suppose that indeed many of my claims are unfalsifiable. But if you are going to play the "unfalsifiable" card, I think I can safely dismiss just about everything you've said as unfalsifiable as well. So, where does that leave us?

JPH> And really, do you mean "every" possible alternative? Branch
JPH> Davidianism? Mithraism?

Imagine two people where having a similar conversation as us, about 1930 years ago, say an atheist and a Jew. The Jew might well say, "Do you really mean *every* possible alternative? Mithraism? Christianity?" One man's Mithraism is another man's Christianity. At least that is the way it looks to me.

JPH>That is so. But it remains that for some, no amount of subtle
JPH> encouragement will be enough to do more than reinforce
JPH> their own proclivity not to, i.e., repay the debt.

Well, I could play the "unfalsifiable" card here. For one, how much encouragement still falls under the catagory of "subtle"? If God were to boom in god-like voice YOU ARE GOING TO HELL IF YOU DON'T PAY THAT MONEY BACK every five minutes, while projecting imagines of agony and wailing on the wall beyond "subtle"? If so, why? I can scream in your ear all day long and that won't *force* you to do anything. The point I'm getting at is, you can't really define what is subtle and what isn't. And even if you could, you can't prove that there are some people that cannot be encouraged by the proper subtle encouragement at the proper time. You could try to point to hardened criminals that seem totally immune to all forms of punishment. But, an omniscient God would know better what encouragement would work for what individuals. I can't prove that, but would you deny that God would know better what encouragement would work best for different people?

JPH> there are points where a theory becomes unfalsifiable and thus
JPH> worthless

I agree with this. But I think I could respond to most every claim of your as "unfalsifiable and thus worthless"

JPH> Yet you would also still believe that it is an absurd way to be saved,

And I believe that making someone believe in the unbelievable (the basic tenants of Christianity) is likewise an absurd way to be saved.

JPH> Remember that true faith is not merely assent to a proposition, but
JPH> earnest loyalty to it.

I kind of prefer some other definitions of faith, here are a couple of my favorites. "Faith is admitting that your belief does not stand on its own merits, beliefs that stand on their own merits do not require faith." "Faith is convincing yourself to believe that which you really know cannot be true". At any rate, as far as the validity of faith, even in your terms, as to why it is of value to God and to salvation, remains a mystery.

[jpholding]

Howdy,


Okay, so I guess I shoulda avoided the grandstanding.

Eh -- as long as its enjoyable. :teeth:


You've asked me how, and haven't accepted simply "by omnipotence" as an answer.

True, and I can't -- that's like saying God can use omnipotence to create a world where a sum of 2 plus a sum of 2 actually equals a sum of 5. I just don't see that it's at all a possibility, practically speaking. Then:

But when I've asked how God can make sure that everybody gets the chances that they need to choose salvation, you have simply offered "by omnipotence".

And there's nothing wrong with that, because there's nothing practically impossible about spreading enough news to every person. One apple, one orange. :smile:

Bottom line is, I doubt I could fully understand Tacitus (or the Bible) even if I had strong motivation to do so.

That you are willing to say this openly puts you at the very top of my reasonable Skeptics list! :smile:

However, I haven't found arguments that I should have strong motivation to understand the Bible any more compelling that arguments that I should try to to understand the Koran or the Book of Mormon.

If nothing else, isn't it worth while to understand the book that has above others driven Western civilization?


A very mild form of punishment--too mild to be effective generally speaking, particularly in today's society. But yes, I would call that a form of punishment.

We'll just have to agree to disagree there. I find that a far too broad definition of the term.

fetuses have a soul, then the *majority* of people apparently do not need a contiguous reality. Seems very strange that anybody does, doesn't it?

I won't know until I can ask a former fetus. :teeth:

are going to play the "unfalsifiable" card, I think I can safely dismiss just about everything you've said as unfalsifiable as well. So, where does that leave us?

Perhaps at a standoff? Barring specific discussion of course...


Imagine two people where having a similar conversation as us, about 1930 years ago, say an atheist and a Jew. The Jew might well say, "Do you really mean *every* possible alternative? Mithraism? Christianity?" One man's Mithraism is another man's Christianity. At least that is the way it looks to me.

Hmm, ok. First of all, I don't think there were any atheists as such in 80 AD; but that's just a technical point. It actually wouldn't be that hard, because all of the mystery religions (Mithra, etc.) were inclusivist. The options were just not that varied -- and I really don't think they are today. Most of what I would call "cults" boil down to the same salvation message: Do works. The rest is accessory...but I still continue to do my homework.


Well, I could play the "unfalsifiable" card here. For one, how much encouragement still falls under the catagory of "subtle"?

I think it is fair to say that that may vary by person; some find public TV's fundraising "subtle" while others find it obnoxious. On the other hand I can't think of any way booming voices and screaming would be that. Beyond that:

I can scream in your ear all day long and that won't *force* you to do anything.

Hmm. I'd ask if you want to try it... :teeth: I'd have to disagree and say it would force you to do something -- either do what I scream for you to do, or punch me in the pazoo to make me stop, or bust your own eardrums out so you don't hear me anymore.

The point I'm getting at is, you can't really define what is subtle and what isn't.

I think I can for myself, and certainly make educated guesses for others -- all you're saying is that the definition is inaccessible, not that it is not definable.

I can't prove that, but would you deny that God would know better what encouragement would work best for different people?

Yes -- and I see little reason to think that enough has not been offered to different people.

I kind of prefer some other definitions of faith, here are a couple of my favorites.

Not bad; but sad that that is how indeed some define it. I used some like that in a sermon recently. But I don't see why, "even in your terms, as to why it is of value to God and to salvation, remains a mystery." If faitrh is loyalty and trust, then what is the mystery?

[Paul Jacobsen]

PJ> I've said that an omniscient Being should be able to create a world where
PJ> nothing bad happens without violating free will. You've asked me how,
PJ> and haven't accepted simply "by omnipotence" as an answer.

JPH> True, and I can't -- that's like saying God can use omnipotence to
JPH> create a world where a sum of 2 plus a sum of 2 actually equals a sum
JPH> of 5. I just don't see that it's at all a possibility, practically speaking.

But you are making the claim that nothing bad happening without violating free will is a fundamental inconsistency--like 2 and 2 being 5. You've asked me to prove it is not a fundamental inconsistency. But it is actually your burden of proof to show it is a fundamental inconsistency. And until you do so, I will play the "unfalsifiable" card, and dismiss your claim as such.

Further, you do agree that God is not obligated to give me every possible option. If I say I don't have the free will to teleport myself to Saturn, you say God is not obligated to give me that ability. You've said that free will only means I have the free will to choose among available options and I need not have every possible option. Therefore, the list of available options need not have anything "bad" amongst them and still not violate free will.

PJ> But when I've asked how God can make sure that everybody gets the
PJ> chances that they need to choose salvation, you have simply offered "by
PJ> omnipotence".

JPH> And there's nothing wrong with that, because there's nothing practically
JPH> impossible about spreading enough news to every person. One apple,
JPH> one orange.

I meant to say, "when I've asked how God can make sure that everybody gets the chances that they need to choose salvation, [without violating free will] you have simply offered 'by omnipotence'". If you surprise me and do manage to demonstrate the fundamental inconsistency in regards to God being unable to prevent evil without violating free will, then I suspect that same demonstration will show that God being able to make sure everyone gets the Gospel without violating free will is also a fundamental inconsistency.

Besides, God clearly hasn't spread the news to everybody--such as to people in other countries, making the point fairly moot. I don't remember how you personally respond to this challenge. You might say they have been shown enough of something that God can tell if they would accept the Gospel if they were to hear it; or perhaps you might say that they have a different salvation method. Whatever--all of these kinds of answers can be dismissed by playing the "unfalsifiable" card. But, more than merely "unfalsifiable", these explanations reek of being obvious dodges. Its plainly obvious that not everybody has received the Gospel and every attempt to explain this are simply unfalsifiable alibis.

PJ> However, I haven't found arguments that I should have strong motivation
PJ> to understand the Bible any more compelling that arguments that I should
PJ> try to understand the Koran or the Book of Mormon.

JPH> If nothing else, isn't it worth while to understand the book that has
JPH> above others driven Western civilization?

Would you believe, "I've read enough to conclude, 'there's no accounting for taste'"? :-) Seriously, back like 20 years ago, when I was still a struggling semi-Christian, semi-agnostic, I took a class from the church I was attending, "Through the Bible in One Year". We were to generally read a major book, or a couple of minor books, per week. Then we would have a Sunday school discussion over the material. I did read Genesis. I did read most of the NT. But I just couldn't stay awake long enough to read most of the OT. I did make an honest attempt, and read a fair amount. And whether I finished the reading assignment or not, I did usually go to the Sunday school discussion. Maybe there's some jewels there that I missed. But maybe there is some jewels in the Book of Mormon...

But, more importantly, your answer of "If nothing else, isn't it worth while to..." is virtually an accidental admission there is no fundamentally clear and obvious reason why I should consider the Bible to be something more than just another holy book. The Bible can't merely be "more than just another holy book"--it must be clearly and obviously so. Anybody can make an honest mistake. If the evidence of the Bible being more than just another holy book is not clear and obvious, then somebody concluding that is in fact just another holy book is not unreasonable. And if it is not unreasonable to conclude it is just another holy book, then it is unreasonable for God to insist that I do discern it is more than just another holy book--and base my eternal fate upon that. Unless you can produce something that anybody should instantly see as being obviously special about the Bible, then you've really lost the debate.

JPH>I won't know until I can ask a former fetus.

Hmm. So, you are agnostic as to whether fetus' have souls? And if not, then presumably abortion is no crime? Interesting. But, no matter. I'm afraid I'm going to pull a number out of my butt, but I figure that throughout history, probably at least two percent of all people have died as infants. Maybe more. (You can debate my number if you like, I'm just guessing.) You'd have to concede that infants have souls, and yet don't experience much of a "contiguous reality" if they die as infants, no? Assuming you make this consession, then these 2% of all people (or whatever number you prefer) don't need a "contiguous reality". This leaves us with the conclusion that God is capable of creating about 2% of people who don't need a "contiguous reality" and yet can't create 100% of everybody to not need a "contiguous reality"? Not very believable. In short, I think I can dismiss everything you've said in regards to people needing a "contiguous reality" as being both unfalsifiable, and also obviously ad-hoc.

PJ> I can scream in your ear all day long and that won't *force* you to do
PJ> anything.

JPH> Hmm. I'd ask if you want to try it... I'd have to disagree and say it
JPH> would force you to do something -- either do what I scream for you to
JPH> do, or punch me in the pazoo to make me stop, or bust your own
JPH> eardrums out so you don't hear me anymore.

Why would you not have the free will to ignore me if you so choose to do so? You seem to be claiming that human personality won't allow you to ignore such a situation. My response is two fold: first, who's fault is that? Who designed human personality such that my screaming in your ear isn't something easily ignored?

Secondly, even in the case where I was subtle and just whispered something in your ear and walked off, human personality won't allow you to really, totally ignore that either. You will wonder why I bothered. The incident will be processed at least to some degree by your conscious and subconscious. The point I'm getting at is you are trying to make a distinction between some level of influence being subtle and not a violation of free will, and another level that is not subtle and an actual violation of free will. And I'm saying there is no such distinction. Even the most subtle of influence--if it is detectable at all--will be mentally processed. And very strong influence can be chosen to be ignored. No true distinction. Or, if there really is such a distinction, it is again burden upon you to prove it.

JPH> If faith is loyalty and trust, then what is the mystery?

I can concede that is a definition that gives "faith" a better connotation that my definitions... But loyalty and trust must be earned. And a God that hides in shadows, but still insists on receiving loyalty and trust with threats of eternal punishment is a God that has not earned loyalty and trust.

PJ> If you are going to play the "unfalsifiable" card, I think I can safely
PJ> dismiss just about everything you've said as unfalsifiable as well. So,
PJ> where does that leave us?

JPH> Perhaps at a standoff? Barring specific discussion of course...

Since you pulled out the unfalsifiable card, I've enjoyed following suit this round. I presume you regret playing that card.

But really, it is not so much that your claims are unfalsifiable, they just aren't plausible either. But I can't prove your claims are implausible, as "implausible" is subjective. Even so, I had been avoiding (until the last round) from playing the unfalsifiable card because I had endeavored to show that my claims are the more plausible regardless of whether or not they are falsifiable. However, you refused to acknowledge that my claims were the more plausible and insisted on me proving my claims. And then you pulled out the unfalsifiable card. That really left me no alternative but to dump the unfalsifiable card on all of your claims. And since you are the claimant, it is your burden of proof. Your burden which you not only have not met, but I believe your claims are fundamentally unprovable. From my perspective, it is clear this is not a standoff, I've beaten you.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Where is the percentage in making the Bible not-unreasonably appear to be the work of humanly-inspired myth-makers? If it's the word of God intent on edifying His precious creations, why should we need so many "divinely-anointed" personalities who can't get things straight amongst themselves to explain it to us? Why would Lee Strobel need to present a quasi-journalistic front which claims to ask the "tough questions" and then allows theologians to get away with answers that a knowledgeable skeptic would not?

If He chooses to not communicate to us directly, couldn't He have made the Bible so that everyone can understand its every intent and nuance?

[jpholding]

But you are making the claim that nothing bad happening without violating free will is a fundamental inconsistency--like 2 and 2 being 5. You've asked me to prove it is not a fundamental inconsistency. But it is actually your burden of proof to show it is a fundamental inconsistency.

Why? Human experience gives us all the proof we need. Find me a single example of an aware human being who did not commit wrong when given the freedom to do so. The burden lying against you beats harshly against your own front door.

to prevent evil without violating free will, then I suspect that same demonstration will show that God being able to make sure everyone gets the Gospel without violating free will is also a fundamental inconsistency.

I see rather a significant scale of difference in the provision of information and the making of choice.



Besides, God clearly hasn't spread the news to everybody--such as to people in other countries, making the point fairly moot

Hmm. :smile: Now talk about something unfalsifiable: How can you indeed say that adequate information for a salvational decision has not been, or will not be, provided to everyone? Maybe you would call that a "different salvation method" but I would not.


But, more than merely "unfalsifiable", these explanations reek of being obvious dodges. Its plainly obvious that not everybody has received the Gospel and every attempt to explain this are simply unfalsifiable alibis.

I await clear indications of the "obvious". As far as I can see, such a claim "reeks" of a desire to create an insurmountable burden, in order to rest in satisfaction...if we wish to put it that way.
But, more importantly, your answer of "If nothing else, isn't it worth while to..." is virtually an accidental admission there is no fundamentally clear and obvious reason why I should consider the Bible to be something more than just another holy book.

Er, no, that takes it too far. My point was more than there is at least a reason beyond any considerations of what is or is not holy, which should have sparked an initial reading at least; whereas it seemed you denied any purpose to read it AT ALL. As far as being "clear and obvious", well, I would argue that it is rather clear and obvious, but that's another issue. And I do not agree with "instantly" -- that has the sound of one who is wanting personalized service and is unwilling to work; and such would not be a desirable disciple to begin with.


Hmm. So, you are agnostic as to whether fetus' have souls?

I don't see how you get that from what I said...but I'd say far more than 2% anyway. Infant mortality was much higher in the ancient world, and still is in modern Third World countries; make it more like 50%.

In short, I think I can dismiss everything you've said in regards to people needing a "contiguous reality" as being both unfalsifiable, and also obviously ad-hoc.

It won't be that easy, I'm afraid. Calling it "ad hoc" is a bit of a spin; such could be said of anything theoretically explained beyond our knowledge, yet it doesn't seem to stop practical theorists in the sciences. In any event, I would retort that I have already cited the potential for diversity and need in this regard -- and that is sufficient as an answer. There is simply not enough information for you to pose this as some sort of definitve problem.


Why would you not have the free will to ignore me if you so choose to do so? You seem to be claiming that human personality won't allow you to ignore such a situation.

More than that: Physical necessity in some cases, if one goes as far as I described.

My response is two fold: first, who's fault is that? Who designed human personality such that my screaming in your ear isn't something easily ignored?

Now this is sounding a little silly. You're asking for, e.g., something that prevents that sort of thing from being a bother; but presumably such would be a desirable thing if someone was screaming in your ear about a fire. Now you're getting into a world in which there is even more "magic" afoot and even more violation of basic free will with amazing bendings of rules and common experience.



Secondly, even in the case where I was subtle and just whispered something in your ear and walked off, human personality won't allow you to really, totally ignore that either.

I rather doubt that. Vast experience tells me that persons are able to occupy their minds such that any such thing is effectively, totally ignored. In any event, if you are trying to argue that there is no essential difference between a scream in an ear and a whisper in the other, I can let that rest as speaking for itself.

And a God that hides in shadows, but still insists on receiving loyalty and trust with threats of eternal punishment is a God that has not earned loyalty and trust.

I of course argue that He has not been so hidden...but that runs into issues from Case For Christ, not CFF.


Since you pulled out the unfalsifiable card, I've enjoyed following suit this round. I presume you regret playing that card.

Not really. I found most of your arguments of this sort from the very beginning; in essence, inadequate grounds for objection based on insufficient knowledge. I have no issue with the same card because I admit that these issues are not falsifiable -- from the beginning, I have objected to your use of these issues as definitive.

And from my view, if you acknowledge that these issues are not definitive, then I have "won" the point I was after. Your whole setup is simply one of subjectivity -- choosing to believe the worst possible setup, as it were, based on non-knowledge.

[jpholding]

Where is the percentage in making the Bible not-unreasonably appear to be the work of humanly-inspired myth-makers? If it's the word of God intent on edifying His precious creations, why should we need so many "divinely-anointed" personalities who can't get things straight amongst themselves to explain it to us?

Spoken like a true armchair resident too lazy to lift a finger. We don't need the likes of you in the Kingdom, who do nothing but belch odiferously.

If He chooses to not communicate to us directly, couldn't He have made the Bible so that everyone can understand its every intent and nuance?

It's not that hard -- except for the lazy and disinterested. Check your mirror for one such.

[Paul Jacobsen]

Why? Human...

For some reason, I didn't get the notification of your response, so I was thinking you hadn't yet responded. I figured I'd just double check, and I see you responded but a few hours after my last post. Okay, well, I'll have to consider your response and get back to you.

By the way, since you are defender of the Strobel, I now have a critique of Strobel's _Case for a a Creator_ on my site.

[jpholding]

For some reason, I didn't get the notification of your response, so I was thinking you hadn't yet responded. I figured I'd just double check, and I see you responded but a few hours after my last post. Okay, well, I'll have to consider your response and get back to you.

By the way, since you are defender of the Strobel, I now have a critique of Strobel's _Case for a a Creator_ on my site.

No worries on any delay. I do have lots on my plate as usual -- including yet another freelance writing assignment. :smile:

Case for a Creator is out of my league to defend, but I thank you nevertheless. Interestingly Strobel told me about his plan for that book when we met for lunch. I was surprised he wanted to plumb those depths, but he is quite the eager beaver, to his credit.

[Paul Jacobsen]

JPH> Find me a single example of an aware human being who did not commit
JPH> wrong when given the freedom to do so.

What? I’ve had many opportunities to do wrong and didn’t do so. I assume you really meant sometime in our life. But, given that there are at least some times that wrong is not done when free will to do so proves that free will is not fundamentally incompatible. It is your burden to prove they are fundamentally incompatible and you can’t because they aren’t.

When I used to go to church, the pastor at my church was very fond of this scripture: “Allow the little children to come unto me, and do not hinder them, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” Ironically, at least for most people, most of the wrongs we do are as children! When we are born, all we are aware of is our own needs and wants. It is part of growing up that we learn that others have needs and wants. Children are inherently selfish, which is “bad”. But, God wants “good”. And yet the Kingdom of God is for children?

What I’m saying is, you are probably right that at least almost everybody has done something “wrong” as people are selfish. But we are born that way. Whose fault is that? And, frankly, it isn't terribly surprising either. Part of growing up is learning that other people have needs and wants. But ultimately, nobody is intimately aware of our own needs and wants except ourselves. The only thoughts we hear are our own. That's just the way it is--at least the way we are designed. And we didn't design ourselves.

JPH: Human experience gives us all the proof we need. [...] The burden lying JPH: against you beats harshly against your own front door.

Well, I’ve already shown that it is not, free will does not always result in “wrong”. You will say that human experience shows that it always eventually does result in some wrong. But human experience doesn’t tell us what is possible or impossible for an omnipotent being to create. You can point all day to things in our human experience and that still doesn’t prove anything about what is possible for omnipotence. Your pointing to "human experience" is useless for your point.

JPH: How can you indeed say that adequate information for a salvational
JPH: decision has not been, or will not be, provided to everyone? Maybe you
JPH: would call that a "different salvation method" but I would not.

Well I suppose that before I can comment appropriately, I need to know for certain what you believe is the requirements for salvation. But if you give a different answer for:

1. People exposed to Christianity daily.
2. People exposed to Christianity occasionally.
3. People exposed to Christianity in a harsh light, such as people who grow up in a fundamentalist Islamic home in a fundamentalist Islamic country.
4. People exposed to Christianity very rarely.
5. People who never heard of Christianity.
6. People born before Christ ever lived.

If you don’t give the same answer for all those different people, then yeah I certainly would say it is a different salvation method. You might try to say the different methods are “equivalent” and perhaps say they give the same results. But if you do so you’d be making an unfalsifiable claim. If you have a different answer for each of these groups then you have a different answer and a different salvation method. Simple as that.

PJ: Hmm. So, you are agnostic as to whether fetuses have souls?
JPH: don't see how you get that from what I said.

I seem to have misinterpreted. Just to be clear, you do indeed believe fetuses have souls? When is a soul “handed out” by God–at conception?

JPH: I'd say far more than 2% anyway. Infant mortality was much higher in
JPH: the ancient world, and still is in modern Third World countries; make it
JPH: more like 50%.

I figured my 2% was on the low side, but figured I’d be better to under-estimate than over-estimate. Your 50% figure sounds on the high side to me, but I acknowledge your number is probably closer to right than mine–I confessed to pulling the number “out of my butt” so to speak. But, aren’t you helping me? Isn’t the higher the number of people that live without a significant contiguous reality the less likely that anybody could really need one?

JPH: There is simply not enough information for you to pose this as some sort
JPH: of definitive problem.

I concede I cannot prove it is a problem. You cannot prove it is not a problem. But it looks to be a rather straight-forward conclusion that if 50% of all people (your number) don’t need a significant contiguous reality then 100% shouldn’t either. You may say that is an unfalsifiable assertion, fine. I will simply say that you haven’t given me good reason to believe it is not a problem.

JPH: You're asking for, e.g., something that prevents that sort of thing from
JPH: being a bother; but presumably such would be a desirable thing if
JPH: someone was screaming in your ear about a fire. Now you're getting into
JPH: a world in which there is even more "magic" afoot and even more
JPH: violation of basic free will with amazing bendings of rules and common
JPH: experience.

The way it really works is, our subconscious acts as a first-level filter. We won’t even notice, for example, an air conditioner running because our subconscious has been trained that hum is normal and not to bother the conscious with it. Of course some people are annoyed by the hum of something like an air-conditioner. For some reason, their subconscious hasn’t learned well that should be ignored.

Also, this filter of our subconscious seems to adjust itself depending on how busy the conscious is. If we are deep in thought, something that we might notice otherwise will get filtered out. Additionally, our subconscious is trained to take higher notice on things our conscious finds important. That is how sometimes we can hear our name spoken out of an otherwise unintelligible din. I know I’m being very simplistic, but that is basically how it works. So, for the purpose of this discussion, I’m referring to things that make it through the first-level subconscious filter--things that we take sufficient note of that we at least hear the words or see some action and take some conscious note of event. I’m also referring to things that below physical pain level. If I screamed in your ear sufficiently loud I would damage your hearing. So, for the purpose of this discussion, I’m talking about influence within the range of being at least noticed, but below physical pain or injury level, okay?

With any form of influence within that range, at least short term, I think people can consciously choose to ignore the influence, at least to any discernable degree. I could yell “Fire!” and you might decide that I’m mistaken or otherwise being stupid and there is no fire and go about your business. Or I might barely whisper “fire” and if you heard me at all, you might decide that maybe there is a fire and you want to investigate it.

But, while I believe that people can choose to ignore influence with the defined range to any discernable degree on a short-term basis, but all influence within that degree becomes part of our experience. I don’t believe there is any dividing line between any influence in that defined range as being a violation of free will and something else not. Ultimately humans are influencable creatures. Ask anybody in advertising. If you see Coke advertised enough, there is a high probability that you will buy a Coke. I don’t have to scream “Buy Coke!” in your ear. I can simply show enough people enjoying a bottle of Coke and there is a reasonably high degree of probability that you will buy a Coke.

Perhaps I can be enough of a pest, I might hang around outside your office and yell “Buy Coke” and maybe you might make a deal and say, “dang it Paul, I’ll buy a Coke if you just go away.” But if I worked for the Coca-Cola company such overt influence might work short term–you might buy a Coke to shut me up. But it might also make you say, “I’ll never buy a Coke again!” after I finally leave. If my goal as a Coke salesman is to influence you to be a long-term customer, subtle, yet pervasive influence is more likely to meet my goal. The point I’m getting at is that may indeed be true that the more subtle influence, the stuff you say God can do without violating free will is actually more effective long-term in influencing behavior! And I don't think I'm making an unfalsifiable claim, I believe my claim is born out by the advertising industry every day.

But, bottom line is, as I said, within the defined range of influence, I don’t believe there is any dividing line between that which is a violation of free will and that which is not. Or if there is a dividing line, it is up to you to show it.

JPH: My point was more than there is at least a reason beyond any
JPH: considerations of what is or is not holy, which should have sparked
JPH: an initial reading at least;

The problem is, there is essentially a limitless number of things that one can say has enough inherent value to be read or seen or experienced, etc. A Buddhist can say that even if I'm not a Buddhist, the Buddhist Sutra has been of influence on millions of people for thousands of years and that in and of itself should be sufficient grounds to read it. And if I go to an Indian reservation, they would probably say that their culture has sufficient inherent value that I should consider it worth study. I live on what was their land, the least I could do would be to learn about the people whose land my forefathers took, no? The point being, I simply cannot study everything that has value enough to be studied. That is simply a limitation of being human.

But, even so, at least for myself, the purported value of the Bible was sufficient for me to spark an initial reading--at least for the parts that I could stay awake for. As I noted earlier, I confess to not getting through much of the OT. But I did read all of Genesis, and then at least some selected portions of the other books of the OT. And I did read most of the NT, including all of the Gospels. And it still looks to me like a hodge-podge of some history, some fiction, some mythology. But it certainly doesn't look divine to me. No, I'll never be an expert on the Bible and I could be completely wrong. But I have spent sufficient effort that I think that if it was divine I should know it.

JPH: And I do not agree with "instantly" -- that has the sound of one who is
JPH: wanting personalized service and is unwilling to work; and such would
JPH: not be a desirable disciple to begin with.

I thought God was supposed to give everyone "personalized service" as we are each His children and doesn't want a one of His children to perish, no? Don't parents give their children buckets and buckets of "personalized service"?

And, its not just a matter of being "unwilling to work", its a matter that nobody can learn everything about everything. And people can make honest errors in judgment. An honest error of judgment is not generally considered a crime. Of course if I make an "honest error of judgment" that the money in my local bank belongs in my pocket and rob it, then that is a crime. But it was the acting on my judgment that was the crime. I can conclude all day long that the money in the bank belongs to me and that isn't a crime at all. If the Bible is indeed more than I think it is, it is merely an honest error of judgment.

JPH: I of course argue that He has not been so hidden...but that
JPH: runs into issues from _Case For Christ_, not CFF.

The problem in my view is that even if CfC is 100% accurate (choke.. cough..) even if it is 100% right, that is still too hidden to be reasonable. Is everyone expected to read CfC (or equivalent work) AND be capable of understanding the issues sufficiently to discern that it is indeed accurate? Since history is not my forte, I'll be honest, when I first read CfC, I thought it was much better than CfF. I've now read counter-arguments by Lowder, Doherty and others. No doubt you will say they are biased, and you'd be 100% right, they are biased. Of course so is Strobel and his experts, they are biased too. Ultimately, I'm in not a sufficient expert to defend or deny either position. I can say that now that I've heard some arguments on both sides, the skeptical opinions appear to me to be stronger. But I can concede this could be bias. But the bottom line is, even if Strobel and his experts (from CfC) are correct, there isn't sufficient reason for me, living roughly 2,000 years after the purported events to be able to discern it to be true.

JPH: _Case for a Creator_ is out of my league to defend, but I thank you
JPH: nevertheless. [...] I was surprised he wanted to plumb those depths,
JPH: but he is quite the eager beaver, to his credit.

Being an "eager beaver" is one thing, too bad he writes such lousy books... <g> Seriously, I need to reread your original defense over my critique of _The Case for Faith_. I have revised the critique on my site to some degree to address some of your complaints, the ones where I concede you had some valid criticisms. But I suppose I need to reread and make sure that everything that I feel is legitimate of your complaints is now corrected or clarified. I don't believe you have addressed any of my revisions so far in our debate.

[Tophet]

You no doubt have many times addressed the issue of who has the burden of proof of what. Skeptics will generally say the burden of proof lies with the claimant, the theist. And therefore the burden of proof lies with them. Christians will say that skeptics also make claims, and therefore the burden of proof then shifts to them.

When one applies the rules of evidence as administered in courts of justice, the conclusion is that it is the skeptic who has the burden of proof.

Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853), was one of the greatest authorities on common-law evidence in Western history. Greenleaf authored the three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which, according to Dr. Wilbur Smith “is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature on legal procedure.” (In Wilbur M. Smith, Therefore Stand: Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1972), p. 423)

The London Law Journal wrote of Greenleaf in 1874, “It is no mean honor to America that her schools of jurisprudence have produced two of the finest writers and best esteemed legal authorities in this century-the great and good man, Judge Story, and his eminent and worthy associate Professor Greenleaf. Upon the existing law of evidence (by Greenleaf) more light has shown from the New World than from all the lawyers who adorn the courts of Europe.” (Irwin H. Linton, A Lawyer Examines the Bible: A Defense of the Christian Faith (San Diego: Creation Life Publishers, 1977), p. 36.)

Further, “Dr. Simon Greenleaf was one of the greatest legal minds we have had in this country. He was the famous Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university. H. W. H. Knott in the Dictionary of American Biography says of him: “To the efforts of Story and Greenleaf is ascribed the rise of the Harvard Law School to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United States.”

As a skeptic, Greenleaf was challenged to apply the same standards of legal evidence to the Gospel writers as he would any other case.

As a result, Greenleaf wrote The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice, a volume in which he examined the legal value of the apostles’ testimony to the resurrection of Christ. He observed that it was impossible that the apostles “could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact.”

Regarding the burden of proof, he says:

That the books of the Old Testament, as we now have them, are genuine; that they existed in the time of our Savior, and were commonly received and referred to among the Jews, as the sacred books of their religion; and that the text of the Four Evangelists has been handed down to us in the state in which it was originally written, that is, without having been materially corrupted or falsified, either by heretics or Christians; are facts which we are entitled to assume as true, until the contrary is shown.

The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule.

Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

An ancient document, offered in evidence in our courts, is said to come from the proper repository, when it is found in the place where, and under the care of persons with whom, such writings might naturally and reasonably be expected to be found; for it is this custody which gives authenticity to documents found within it. If they come from such a place, and bear no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes that they are genuine, and they are permitted to be read in evidence, unless the opposing party is able successfully to impeach them. The burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection. The presumption of law is the judgment of charity. It presumes every many is innocent until he is proved guilty; that everything has been done fairly and legally, until it is proved to have been otherwise; and that every document, found in its proper repository, and not bearing marks of forgery, is genuine. Now this is precisely the case with the Sacred Writings. They have been used in the church from time immemorial, and thus are found in the place where alone they ought to be looked for they come to us, and challenge our reception of them as genuine writings, precisely as Domesday Book, the Ancient Statues of Wales, or any other of the ancient documents which have recently been published under the British Record Commission, are received. They are found in familiar use in all the churches of Christendom, as the sacred books to which all denominations of Christians refer, as the standard of their faith. There is no pretense that they were engraven on plates of gold and discovered in a cave, nor that they were brought from heaven by angels; but they are received as the plain narratives and writings of the men whose names they respectively bear, made public at the time they were written; and though there are some slight discrepancies among the copies subsequently made, there is no pretense that the originals are lost, and that copies alone are now produced, the principles of the municipal law here also afford a satisfactory answer. For the multiplication of copies was a public fact, in the faithfulness of which all the Christian community had an interest; and it is a rule of law, that,--

In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs.

Therefore it is that, in such matters, the prevailing current of assertion is resorted to as evidence, for it is to this that every member of the community is supposed to be privy. The persons, moreover, who multiplied these copies may be regarded, in some manner, as agents of Christian public, for whose use and benefit the copies were made; and on the ground of the credit due to such agents, and of the public nature of the facts themselves, the copies thus made are entitled to an extraordinary degree of confidence, and, as in the case of official registers and other public books, it is not necessary that they should be confirmed and sanctioned by the ordinary tests of truth. If any ancient document concerning our public rights were lost copies which had been received in evidence in any of our courts of justice, without the slightest hesitation the entire text of the Corpus Juris Civilis is received as authority in all the courts of continental Europe, upon much weaker evidence of its genuineness; for the integrity of the Sacred Text has been preserved by the jealousy of opposing sects, beyond any moral possibility of corruption; while that of the Roman Civil Law has been preserved by tacit consent, without the interest of any opposing school, to watch over and preserve it from alteration.

These copies of the Holy Scriptures having thus been in familiar use in the churches, from the time when the text was committed to writing; having been watched with vigilance by so many sects, opposed to each other in doctrine, yet all appealing to these Scriptures for the correctness of their faith; and having in all ages, down to this day, been respected as the authoritative source of all ecclesiastical power and government, and submitted to, and acted under in regard to so many claims of right, on the one hand, and so many obligations of duty, on the other; it is quite erroneous to suppose that the Christian is bound to offer any further proof of their genuineness or authenticity. It is for the objector to show them spurious; for on him, by the plainest rules of law, lies the burden of proof. If it were the case of a claim to a franchise, and a copy of an ancient deed or character were produced in support of the title, under parallel circumstances on which to presume its venture to deny either its admissibility in evidence, or the satisfactory character of the proof. In a recent case in the House of Lords, precisely such a document, being an old manuscript copy, purporting to have been extracted from ancient Journals of the House, which were lost, and to have been made by an officer whose duty it was to prepare lists of the Peers, was held admissible in a claim of peerage.

***

Such are the brief histories of men, whose narratives we are to examine and compare; conducting the examination and weighing the testimony by the same rules and principles which govern our tribunals of justice in similar cases. These tribunals are in such cases governed by the following fundamental rule;--

In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether is it possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true.

It should be observed that the subject of inquiry is a matter of fact, and not of abstract mathematical truth. The latter alone is susceptible of that high degree of proof, usually termed demonstration, which excludes the possibility of error, and which therefore may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction. But the proof of matters of fact rests upon moral evidence alone; by which is meant not merely that species of evidence which we do not obtain either from our own senses, from intuition, or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life we do not require nor expect demonstrative evidence, because it is inconsistent with the nature of matters of fact, and to insist on its production would be unreasonable and absurd. And it makes no difference, whether the facts to be proved related to this life or to the next, the nature of the evidence required being in both cases the same. The error of the skeptic consists in pretending or supposing that there is a difference in the nature of the things to be proved; and in demanding demonstrative evidence concerning things which are not susceptible of any other than moral evidence alone, and of which the utmost that can be said is, that there is no reasonable doubt about their truth.

In proceeding to weigh the evidence of any proposition of fact, the previous question to be determined is, when may it be said to be proved? The answer to this question is furnished by another rule of municipal law, which may be thus stated:

A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence.

By competent evidence, is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence, is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt. The circumstances which will amount of this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal test to which they can be subjected is, their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and concretion, and so to convince him, that he would of the highest concern and importance to his own interest. If, therefore, the subject is a problem in mathematics, its truth is to be shown by the certainty of demonstrative evidence. But if it is a question of fact in human affairs, nothing more than moral evidence can be required, for this is the best evidence which, from the nature of the case, is attainable. Now as the facts, stated in Scripture History, are not of the former kind, but are cognizable by the senses, they may be said to be proved when they are established by that kind and degree of evidence which, as we have just observed, would, in the affairs of human life, satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man. When we have this degree of evidence, it is unreasonable to require more. A juror would violate his oath, if he should refuse to acquit or condemn a person charged with an offense, where this measure of proof was adduced.

Proceeding further, to inquire whether the facts related by the Four Evangelists are proved by competent and satisfactory evidence, we are led, first, to consider on which side lies the burden of establishing the credibility of the witnesses. On this point the municipal law furnishes a rule, which is of constant application in all trials by jury, and is indeed the dictate of that charity which thinketh no evil.

In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector.

This rule serves to show the injustice with which the writers of the Gospels have ever been treated by infidels; and injustice silently acquiesced in even by Christians; in requiring the Christian affirmatively, and by positive evidence, aliunde, to establish the credibility of his witnesses above all others, before their testimony is entitled to be considered, and in permitting the testimony of a single profane writer, alone and uncorroborated, to outweigh that of any single Christian. This is not the course in courts of chancery, where the testimony of a single witness is never permitted to outweigh the oath even of the defendant himself, interested as he is in the cause; but, on the contrary, if the plaintiff, after having required the oath of his adversary, cannot overthrow it by something more than the oath of one witness, however credible, it must stand as evidence against him. But the Christian writer seems, by the usual course of the argument, to have been deprived of the common presumption of charity in his favor; and reversing the ordinary rule of administering justice in human tribunals, his testimony is unjustly presumed to be false, until it is proved to be true. This treatment, moreover, has been applied to them all in a body; and, without due regard to the fact, that, being independent historians, writing at different periods, they are entitled to the support of each other: they have been treated, in the argument, almost as if the New Testament were the entire production, at once, of a body of men, conspiring by a joint fabrication, to impose a false religion upon the world. It is time that this injustice should cease; that the testimony of the evangelists should be admitted to be true, until it can be disproved by those who would impugn it; that the silence of one sacred writer on any point, should no more detract from his own veracity or that of the other historians, than the like circumstance is permitted to do among profane writers; and that the Four Evangelists should be admitted in corroboration of each other, as readily as Josephus and Tacitus, or Polybius and Livy.

But if the burden of establishing the credibility of the evangelists were devolved on those who affirm the truth of their narratives, it is still capable of a ready moral demonstration, when we consider the nature and character of the testimony, and the essential marks of difference between true narratives of facts and the creations of falsehoods. It is universally admitted that the credit to be given to witnesses depends chiefly on their ability to discern and comprehend what was before them, their opportunities for observation, the degree of accuracy with which they are accustomed to mark passing events, and their integrity in relating them. The rule of municipal law on this subject embraces all these particulars, and is thus stated by a legal textwriter of the highest repute.

***

Greenleaf concluded that the resurrection of Christ was one of the best supported events in history, according to the laws of legal evidence administered in courts of justice.

His treatise is available online – though without the footnotes – at

http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm, http://www.myfortress.org/simongreenleaf.html, or http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

[Paul Jacobsen]

You are using appeal to athority. And your athority may well have been an athority on legal procedures, but he may not necessarily be an authority on history. As such, he may have overstated his case on the issue. Also your athority is from a hundred years ago. You couldn't find a more recent athority to use? Finally, an appeal to athority is unwarrented when there is significant disagreement among equivalently qualified athorities.

On one hand, I want to avoid discussing this kind of issue as I am aware that history is not my forte. That said, I believe I have reason to discount your argument. I will respond in more detail when I have the time.

[Tophet]

You are using appeal to athority.

The law is the authority. If you paid attention to Greenleaf's statements, he is citing the law in its application to evidence. These are the rules of evidence as administered in courts of justice.

The burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection. The presumption of law is the judgment of charity. It presumes every many is innocent until he is proved guilty; that everything has been done fairly and legally, until it is proved to have been otherwise; and that every document, found in its proper repository, and not bearing marks of forgery, is genuine.


And your athority may well have been an athority on legal procedures, but he may not necessarily be an authority on history.

Legal precedent is also historical precedent. Jurisprudence is based upon actual historical events.

As such, he may have overstated his case on the issue.

How so? Did you not read his treatise in its entirety?

If not, click on one of these links:

http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm, http://www.myfortress.org/simongreenleaf.html, or http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/pro.../greenleaf.html

Also your athority is from a hundred years ago.

My "authority" is the law itself.

As for Greenleaf's authority, did you not read my post in its entirety?

"Greenleaf authored the three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which, according to Dr. Wilbur Smith “ is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature on legal procedure.”

You couldn't find a more recent athority to use?

If you wish.

Irwin H. Linton was a Washington, D.C. lawyer who argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In A Lawyer Examines the Bible , he challenges his fellow lawyers “by every acid test known to the law…to examine the case for the Bible just as they would any important matter submitted to their professional attention by a client….” (Irwin H. Linton, A Lawyer Examines the Bible: A Defense of the Christian Faith (San Diego: Creation Life Publishers, 1977), pp. 13, 196.)

He believes that the evidence for Christianity is “overwhelming” and that at least “three independent and converging lines of proof,” each of which “is conclusive in itself,” establish the truth of the Christian faith. (ibid., p. 192.)

Linton observed that “the logical, historical…proofs of…Christianity are so indisputable that I have found them to arrest the surprised attention of just about every man to whom I have presented them….” (ibid., p. 120.) He further argues the Resurrection “ is not only so established that the greatest lawyers have declared it to be the best proved fact of all history, but it is so supported that it is difficult to conceive of any method or line of proof that it lacks which would make [it] more certain.” (ibid., p. 50.)

And that, even among lawyers, “he who does not accept wholeheartedly the evangelical, conservative belief in Christ and the Scriptures has never read, has forgotten, or never been able to weigh--and certainly is utterly unable to refute--the irresistible force of the cumulative evidence upon which such faith rests….” (ibid., p. 45, cf., pp. 16-17.)

He concluded the claims of Christian faith are so well established by such a variety of independent and converging proofs that “it has been said again and again by great lawyers that they cannot but be regarded as proved under the strictest rules of evidence used in the highest American and English courts.” (ibid., p. 16.)

See also http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/apologetics/AP0302W3.htm

You can also find a list of prominent Christian legal authorities here: http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/philjohnsonpap.html


Finally, an appeal to athority is unwarrented when there is significant disagreement among equivalently qualified athorities.

As qualified as Simon Greenleaf? Or Hugo Grotius, the father of international law? Or Daniel Webster? Name them. Explain how they apply the rules of legal evidence as administered in a court of law.

The London Law Journal wrote of Greenleaf in 1874, “It is no mean honor to America that her schools of jurisprudence have produced two of the finest writers and best esteemed legal authorities in this century-the great and good man, Judge Story, and his eminent and worthy associate Professor Greenleaf. Upon the existing law of evidence (by Greenleaf) more light has shown from the New World than from all the lawyers who adorn the courts of Europe.”


On one hand, I want to avoid discussing this kind of issue as I am aware that history is not my forte.

Thank you for being honest. You know, Christianity is based upon actual historical events, otherwise it would not be true. See here for further discussion: http://www.tektonics.org/guest/truthfulness.htm

That said, I believe I have reason to discount your argument.

And that reason is --? My argument regarding the burden of proof is based upon the law itself. Do you believe you're above the law?

I will respond in more detail when I have the time.

OK.

[jpholding]

Howdy,


What? I’ve had many opportunities to do wrong and didn’t do so. I assume you really meant sometime in our life.

That is correct.

But, given that there are at least some times that wrong is not done when free will to do so proves that free will is not fundamentally incompatible. It is your burden to prove they are fundamentally incompatible and you can’t because they aren’t.

Experience and data indicates otherwise. "Some times" is not sufficient. The record of action speaks for itself: The two do not cohabit and never can.

Children are inherently selfish, which is “bad”. But, God wants “good”. And yet the Kingdom of God is for children?

Yes indeed -- for innocence makes all the difference. (I'm also not sure I'd agree that we sin more as children, and certainly not that we do the same degree...but I'll pass unless you have more details.)

What I’m saying is, you are probably right that at least almost everybody has done something “wrong” as people are selfish. But we are born that way. Whose fault is that?

The fault of the person who commits the wrong, inevitably, once one is past a certain age of responsible knowing. Blaming "design" is like blaming a cookie jar for having a lid.

But human experience doesn’t tell us what is possible or impossible for an omnipotent being to create.

If your resort is to a theoretical idea that it is within power to create a being that could never at any point sin, we are back again to what has been my premier issue with your criticisms: They are purely theoretical, rather than actual, and rely on knowledge that is inaccessible. And thus they are not viable as reasons to doubt.


Well I suppose that before I can comment appropriately, I need to know for certain what you believe is the requirements for salvation.

I'll have to refer you to http://www.tektonics.org/af/atonedefense.html for the full view, but it can be summed up as, one must accept the patronage of God and the mediation of His broker (Christ). I don't see a different answer for any of the groups you named, other than that some such as 3 or 5 may accept an equivalent concept; we may say, for example, as Lewis proposed obliquely in one of his Narnia books, that these persos believe about Allah what is true about Yahweh, in terms of His nature, and thus believe in the concept necessary even if they have the names wrong. But I think that would amount to conceptually the same answer.


I seem to have misinterpreted. Just to be clear, you do indeed believe fetuses have souls? When is a soul “handed out” by God–at conception?

Conception is the logical time to suggest; I see no reason to doubt it but would not have a conniption if it were proven somehow to have occured at the moment, say, brain waves were active.

Isn’t the higher the number of people that live without a significant contiguous reality the less likely that anybody could really need one?

I don't see that to be so, unless you wish to endorse a world wherein all are killed as fetuses. Yet I do not see why you are beholden to keep this as a valid reason to object, if it cannot be proven; and if you admit it cannot be proven, then why should anyone else accept it, short of an emotional appeal?

So, for the purpose of this discussion, I’m talking about influence within the range of being at least noticed, but below physical pain or injury level, okay?

Okay...but from what I have seen so far, what you have demanded necessary would have to go above that level.

I don’t believe there is any dividing line between any influence in that defined range as being a violation of free will and something else not.

I cannot agree that such a line would not exist, though I could manage to accept that it might be at a different level of tolerance for different persons.

Ultimately humans are influencable creatures. Ask anybody in advertising. If you see Coke advertised enough, there is a high probability that you will buy a Coke

And yet it seems to me that the "influencability" is itself a matter of personal choice. If ads are the clue, then isn't it arguable that such a person has chosen to make themselves easily swayed -- whether out of laziness or some other choice? I'm not much subject to the whims of advertising myself; I am this way because I have decided that I will not be. I choose to not let my whims move me. So as far as I can see, this just complicates the matter but does not reduce the force of my argument.

The point I’m getting at is that may indeed be true that the more subtle influence, the stuff you say God can do without violating free will is actually more effective long-term in influencing behavior!

Of course that may also depend on prior dispositions as well. Consider that religion as part of our lives, is usually part of them from the beginning and is a fundamental element towards answering critical questions about meaning and purpose. Coke is not (well, not for anyone sane anyway :wink:). Given this complication, it is inevitable that for some a subtle influence will not be enough -- or engender the same reaction as would be gotten from shouting. I spent time on ex-Christian forums recently for research and I'd say some of these were so coarsely hostile that subtlety would be the same for them as shouting -- if not worse, because they'd take it as a form of manipulation.



The problem is, there is essentially a limitless number of things that one can say has enough inherent value to be read or seen or experienced, etc.

Perhaps; however, the problem cited in a practical rather than an epistemic one. The Buddhist is still right and so are the Indians.

But I have spent sufficient effort that I think that if it was divine I should know it.

Of course many become Christians with no perception of the Bible as divine, but as a merely human yet reliable record. So is that indeed enough of a conclusion?


I thought God was supposed to give everyone "personalized service" as we are each His children and doesn't want a one of His children to perish, no? Don't parents give their children buckets and buckets of "personalized service"?

If they do, I don't want to be around them as they will be spoiled and tempermental brats. No, God is not supposed to do that, at least not from what the data tells me. And I would not consider it that cumbersome, given the ease of the path for me this far.

Is everyone expected to read CfC (or equivalent work) AND be capable of understanding the issues sufficiently to discern that it is indeed accurate?

I don't see why not. Any disciple or would-be disciple worth a thought would do so. BTW I have had replies up to Lowder and Doherty on CFC. :smile: Drink Coke!

But the bottom line is, even if Strobel and his experts (from CfC) are correct, there isn't sufficient reason for me, living roughly 2,000 years after the purported events to be able to discern it to be true.

Do you take this tack as well for all recorded history?

But I suppose I need to reread and make sure that everything that I feel is legitimate of your complaints is now corrected or clarified. I don't believe you have addressed any of my revisions so far in our debate.

No, and I won't until you are satisfied. You're careful enough and concerned enough for sound argument that I'd prefer to wait. I'll be here for a while anyway. :smile:

[Paul Jacobsen]

As for Greenleaf's authority, did you not read my post in its entirety?

I confess to skimming your post. I was heading out of town last night. I wanted to leave something quick just so you knew that I got your posting. I'm right now in my hotel room, and I will read in more detail.

I'm not sure if this thread is the appropriate place for our discussion, as it is only tangentially related to my discussion with Holding on Lee Strobel's _The Case for Faith_. But, unless requested otherwise, I'll post here for lack of knowing where else it might should be moved. I'm not much of a regular on this forum, only joining for the purpose of my discussion with Holding.

[Tophet]

Hello, Paul:

I'm not sure if this thread is the appropriate place for our discussion, as it is only tangentially related to my discussion with Holding on Lee Strobel's _The Case for Faith_.

For the record, I was only addressing your statements about the burden of proof, about which the law is very clear in its determination. It was the only item I had intended to address. The rest I can leave up to you and JP.

I confess to skimming your post. I was heading out of town last night. I wanted to leave something quick just so you knew that I got your posting.

What can I say? You're an honest man. In that regard I wish more people were like you.

I'm right now in my hotel room, and I will read in more detail.

I sincerely wish you a safe and pleasant journey.

[Paul Jacobsen]

That said, I believe I have reason to discount your argument.Do you believe you're above the law?

Hey, Chief... you seriously got on my bad side for this comment. As if disagreeing with your expert is tantamount to breaking the law. Guess what, buddy... if the supreme court has a ruling and even if it is unanimous, I still have the right to disagree with it. I'm tempted to respond with a Holding-style taunt to the skeptics that have barged into the conversation. Instead, I will just destroy your argument--it won't be difficult I can assure you.

As qualified as Simon Greenleaf? Or Hugo Grotius, the father of international law? Or Daniel Webster?

Navigating truth and fiction in a subject matter that we are not experts ourself in is a difficult challenge. If we go to two doctors and get two opinions, both opinions are based on more expert qualifications than our own. And yet, we must decide which opinion we think is more correct. Do we merely look at the GPA and other measures of expertness? No, at least most people try to do the best they can as laypeople to discern which doctor's reasoning is likely better for us.

Basically, what you are doing is saying, "my experts are such great experts that their opinions are unimpeachable". Well, the most expert of experts can be wrong. The greatest heart surgeon can make a mistake. If the greatest expert in the world makes a bad argument, it is still a bad argument.

Of course everybody has bias. The expert I will rely upon shortly has bias. So, it will indeed be reasonable for you to consider that my expert's bias has colored his presentation of evidence--and whether the argument is sound despite the bias or not. Your expert is just dripping in bias. That doesn't mean it is wrong, but it does mean that I am reasonable to consider it at least possible that bias has influenced the expressed analysis. And I believe the most cursory of examination of the treatise shows it to be so blantantly steeped in bias as to be worthless.

Here is one simple quote, "If then their tesitmony was not true, there was no possible motive for this fabrication." Do they teach MIND READING in law school? If he would have said, "we find no evidence of motivation of fabrication" that would be one thing. But to declare uniquivacably that there is no motive possible to someone that has been dead for 2000 years is so oulandash as to be utterly laughable. Seriously, as I was reading the treatise, I literally burst out in laughter at the absurdity of the claims.

The main thrust of Greenleaf's treatise is a claim that in legal cases, documents submitted, if they reasonably appear genuine, they are assumed to be genuine. A number of questions arise, such as to what degree? One of the reasons why there is a Statue of Limitations is that simply after time, accessibility to evidence diminishes. If I try someone for a crime 20 years after the fact, it may well be that all of the evidence *that is still available* indicates guilt, but evidence of innocence has been lost over time. That is why trying to apply legal procedures to historical studies is just dimwitted. Frankly, I don't care what Dr. Greenleaf's legal qualifications are, his application of legal terms to his wacky historical analysis is just plain looney to the point where he thinks he's a mind reader.

And you, because I dont agree with your wacky expert, equate my disagreement as putting myself "above the law". Gimme a friggen' break.

In short, even if Greenleaf's legal analysis is absolutely correct, there is utterly no reason to believe legal analysis is applicable to ancient history. Now I am going to rely upon an expert, but at least my expert has a degree in HISTORY, of all things. My expert is biased. But I think you will find his *reasoning* to be sound--unlike your expert. My expert will be Richard Carrier. I will be quoting from his article where he was discussing similar claims about how well attested the Resurrection is compared to other events in history:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html

Christian apologist Douglas Geivett has declared that the evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus meets, and I quote, "if one takes the historian's own criteria for assessing the historicity of ancient events, the resurrection passes muster as a historically well-attested event of the ancient world," as well-attested, he says, as Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon in 49 B.C.[5] Well, it is common in Christian apologetics, throughout history, to make absurdly exaggerated claims, and this is no exception. Let's look at Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon for a minute:

First of all, we have Caesar's own word on the subject. Indeed, The Civil War has been a Latin classic for two thousand years, written by Caesar himself and by one of his generals and closest of friends. In contrast, we do not have anything written by Jesus, and we do not know for certain the name of any author of any of the accounts of his earthly resurrection.

Second, we have many of Caesar's enemies, including Cicero, a contemporary of the event, reporting the crossing of the Rubicon, whereas we have no hostile or even neutral records of the resurrection until over a hundred years after the event, which is fifty years after the Christians' own claims had been widely spread around.

Third, we have a number of inscriptions and coins produced soon after the Republican Civil War related to the Rubicon crossing, including mentions of battles and conscriptions and judgments, which provide evidence for Caesar's march. On the other hand, we have absolutely no physical evidence of any kind in the case of the resurrection.

Fourth, we have the story of the "Rubicon Crossing" in almost every historian of the period, including the most prominent scholars of the age: Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, Plutarch. Moreover, these scholars have a measure of proven reliability, since a great many of their reports on other matters have been confirmed in material evidence and in other sources. In addition, they often quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading of the witnesses and documents, and they show a desire to critically examine claims for which there is any dispute. If that wasn't enough, all of them cite or quote sources written by witnesses, hostile and friendly, of the Rubicon crossing and its repercussions.

Compare this with the resurrection: we have not even a single established historian mentioning the event until the 3rd and 4th centuries, and then only by Christian historians.[6] And of those few others who do mention it within a century of the event, none of them show any wide reading, never cite any other sources, show no sign of a skilled or critical examination of conflicting claims, have no other literature or scholarship to their credit that we can test for their skill and accuracy, are completely unknown, and have an overtly declared bias towards persuasion and conversion.[7]

Fifth, the history of Rome could not have proceeded as it did had Caesar not physically moved an army into Italy. Even if Caesar could have somehow cultivated the mere belief that he had done this, he could not have captured Rome or conscripted Italian men against Pompey's forces in Greece. On the other hand, all that is needed to explain the rise of Christianity is a belief--a belief that the resurrection happened. There is nothing that an actual resurrection would have caused that could not have been caused by a mere belief in that resurrection. Thus, an actual resurrection is not necessary to explain all subsequent history, unlike Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon.[8]

It should be clear that we have many reasons to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, all of which are lacking in the case of the resurrection. In fact, when we compare all five points, we see that in four of the five proofs of an event's historicity, the resurrection has no evidence at all, and in the one proof that it does have, it has not the best, but the very worst kind of evidence--a handful of biased, uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses. Indeed, you really have to look hard to find another event that is in a worse condition than this as far as evidence goes. So Geivett is guilty of a rather extreme exaggeration. This is not a historically well-attested event, and it does not meet the highest standards of evidence.




Oh, by the way, you might notice Carrier disagrees with Dr. Greenleaf. Boy, he sure must think he's above the law, don't he?

Ok, I guess I'll leave with a Holding-esque taunt: its drivel like your post that give Christians a bad name. Have a bad day. You earned it.

[Paul Jacobsen]

What can I say? You're an honest man. In that regard I wish more people were like you.

Perhaps I was overly harsh in my response. So, sorry for jumping on you too hard.

[jpholding]

I'm not sure if this thread is the appropriate place for our discussion, as it is only tangentially related to my discussion with Holding on Lee Strobel's _The Case for Faith_. But, unless requested otherwise, I'll post here for lack of knowing where else it might should be moved. I'm not much of a regular on this forum, only joining for the purpose of my discussion with Holding.

Heya Paul,

There's no restrictions in my forum section on posting, as there would be in say the Gym. So there's no issue with you and Tophet having your exchange here. :smile:

Enjoy your trip.

JP

[Paul Jacobsen]

JPH: Experience and data indicates otherwise. "Some times" is
JPH: not sufficient. The record of action speaks for itself: The two
JPH: do not cohabit and never can.

Please consider enrolling in a logic class at your neighborhood community college or university. Here is a simple page on logic: http://www.molloy.edu/academic/philosophy/sophia/logic/forms.htm

Basic logic. "If P then Q" is shown to be disproved if there is even one case of P but not Q. You are arguing "if P then Q" where P is "free will" and Q is "evil." I have shown at least one instance where free will did not result in evil. Therefore the argument is shown false. You may then say that evil and free will are generally correlated. But correlation does not prove causation. Even when "if P then Q" is true, that does not prove P causes Q. A third factor R may cause both P and Q. In short, you still have failed to prove your assertion.

JPH: Yes indeed -- for innocence makes all the difference.

If God wants "innocence", he's capable of creating "innocence" is He not? Why not zap up everybody to heaven when they are 5? If you respond that somebody must bear them and raise them, surely God can create some angels or other entities to take care of at least the raising part. And surely God can create them Himself.

JPH: Blaming "design" is like blaming a cookie jar for having a lid.

Bad analogy. Bad argument to boot. If Brand God's cookie jars always seem to ship out of the factory broken, there is something wrong with Brand God's design or manufacturing process. And when customers call to the Brand God's cookie jar factory, the Plant Manager always says, "So, you got a busted cookie jar? Must be the cookie jar's fault".

JPH: If your resort is to a theoretical idea that it is within power to create a
JPH: being that could never at any point sin, we are back again to what has
JPH: been my premier issue with your criticisms: They are purely theoretical,
JPH: rather than actual, and rely on knowledge that is inaccessible.

But we are back to the fact that it is YOUR problem to show that it is NOT possible for God to create a being that could never sin. Besides, you even acknowledge that it is indeed possible, heaven will be without sin.

JPH: and rely on knowledge that is inaccessible.

But you are expecting me to believe in things for which knowledge is inaccessible. They could be true, but I can't know it. There could be an invisible alligator in my pants about to chomp my gonads off. But I can't know it.

JPH: And thus they are not viable as reasons to doubt.

And this relates to my "premier issue" with your responses--it is indeed reason to doubt. If there is an invisible alligator in my pants, the knowledge is inaccessible to me, but I still am reasonable to doubt there is one. (Ouch! He bit my gonads off!)

JPH: One must accept the patronage of God and the mediation of His broker
JPH: (Christ). I don't see a different answer for any of the groups you named,
JPH: other than that some such as 3 or 5 may accept an equivalent concept;
JPH: [...] that these persons believe about Allah what is true about Yahweh,
JPH: in terms of His nature, and thus believe in the concept necessary even if
JPH: they have the names wrong. But I think that would amount to
JPH: conceptually the same answer.

That "conceptually the same answer" sure slides by easy. Buddha doesn't have the same conceptual purpose in Buddhism as Christ does in Christianity. And as far as I know, most Christians would say that Mohammad is not conceptually the same as Christ. Christians used to kill Muslims because they didn't believe the same "concept". Hell, even Catholics and Protestants used to. Of course you would say that Christians should not do this and it is contrary to Christian teachings. But the bottom line here is, Christians have generally not felt other religions were a good substitute or "conceptually the same" as Christianity.

Besides, say I was taught Islam in a fundamentalist Islamic family in a fundamentalist Islamic country. Then I start to study the Koran, and at first I believe it because that is what mom and pop told me to believe. But as I get older, I start to find some of the teachings in my local mosque troubling. If I'm the young Muslim, you would have to agree that I should indeed find these teachings troubling, no? So now at this point, why exactly should I, the young Muslim disillusioned with the teachings of my religion, why should I accept the "patronage of God"?

In short, your claim that what you are proposing is "conceptually the same" is unfalsifiable as you can make the "concept" as fluid as need-be to force-fit different belief systems as "conceptually" the same. So in that sense your claim is unfalsifiable. But, in the sense of any reasonable comparison of "concepts", I think it safe to say that your claim is falsifiable and falsified. The concepts are just not the same to any reasonable degree.

JPH: I don't see that to be so, unless you wish to endorse a world
JPH: wherein all are killed as fetuses.

Sure. Why not? If dying as a fetus would have provided me with eternal life and happiness, and if I was given the choice to change history such that I was killed as a fetus, I'd take that in an instant. Sounds like a great choice to me. How 'bout you? Wouldn't you take that?

Or, if you say no, lets change this a bit. Say that before you were given that choice of reversing history and dying as an infant, you were also shown irrefutable proof that Islam is true, not Christianity. But since you had picked Christianity before giving this knowledge, you are destined for hell. So, your only choices then are to die and go to hell, or have your entire life erased and die as an infant and go to heaven. Which choice would you pick then?

JPH: if it cannot be proven; and if you admit it cannot be proven, then
JPH: why should anyone else accept it, short of an emotional appeal?

Well, to go back to a statement of yours early in our debate, "I don't see that we can have heaven as it is/will be without the contiguous reality of what we have had here." Well, I don't see why you can't see it, given that according to your own numbers, 50% of all people don't need any significant "contiguous reality". Your original claim of the requirement of a contiguous reality is unfalsifiable. I can't prove or disprove whether or not any specific person needs a "contiguous reality". But again, to any reasonable degree, your claim is falsified--50% of all people don't need a contiguous reality. You haven't given me any reason, "emotional appeal" or otherwise, to consider otherwise.

JPH: I cannot agree that such a line would not exist,

Again, an unfalsifiable claim. And it is up to you to give me a reason to agree with you. You haven't.

JPH: And yet it seems to me that the "influencability" is itself a
JPH: matter of personal choice. If ads are the clue, then isn't it
JPH: arguable that such a person has chosen to make themselves
JPH: easily swayed -- whether out of laziness or some other choice?

It is indeed true that people can train themselves to be *less* easily influenced. I personally don't drink any alcohol. And at least so for, no amount of girls in bikinis in beer commercials has successfully persuaded me to buy a beer. (If the girl was actually included in the transaction, I might reassess that... :-) ) Yet on the other hand, I think sometimes we fool ourselves into thinking we aren't so influencable--such as my not buying a beer despite massive exposure to influence to do so--and yet be easily influenced in some other way. Ultimately, I think all of us are influencable creatures, even if some of us can resist some influences that others cannot. I think most anybody who has studied psychology in any significant amount would agree with my assessment.

JPH: I spent time on ex-Christian forums recently for research and I'd
JPH: say some of these were so coarsely hostile...

I can agree that atheists can often be hostile to religion. I try to not, but I confess that I can get "hostile" towards bad arguments. And in general, I find theistic arguments bad arguments. I know I should try to better avoid being hostile. But I can confess that sometimes I get annoyed when people express arguments that I know are just plain bad arguments.

JPH: Consider that religion as part of our lives, is usually part of them
JPH: from the beginning.

Just as an FYI, my parents were "nominal Christians". I was baptized, and my parents did occasionally express some religious beliefs--but this was the exception rather than the rule. We never attended church--not once. I don't know, but I think maybe my baptism was the last time my parents were ever in a church. If someone might knock at the door, like a Jehovah's Witness, my parents would say something like they believe in God but not in church and send them away.

JPH: Perhaps; however, the problem cited in a practical rather
JPH: than an epistemic one. The Buddhist is still right and so are the Indians.

But it is indeed a real problem, if you wish to define it as a "practical" problem so be it. I'll never read all the Buddhist Sutra, Hindu Vedas, Koran, Native American scriptures and history, etc.

JPH: Of course many become Christians with no perception of the Bible
JPH: as divine, but as a merely human yet reliable record. So is that
JPH: indeed enough of a conclusion?

Actually, no. As far as "reliable", ultimately I have no way to know. You will probably point out to various archeological finds that verify that at least some portions are reliable. On the other hand, there are portions that archeology does NOT verify, such as Noah's flood. In short, no, I don't see any reason to feel it is overall reliable, particularly in regards to claims of the supernatural.

PJ: Don't parents give their children buckets and buckets of "personalized service"?

JPH: If they do, I don't want to be around them as they will be spoiled and
JPH: temperamental brats.

My reference to "personalized service" need not imply waiting hand-and-foot on your children. "Personalized service" would even include implementing punishment. But actually, for infants, parents really do have to wait on the children "hand-and-foot", including 2 AM feedings and the like. As the child grows, the form of parenting changes, but it does indeed mean a lot of "personalized service" from helping with school work to punishing bad behavior *and* rewarding good behavior, food, clothing, a game of basketball or other preferred sport, etc. Parenting does indeed include a lot of "personalized service" and your dismissal of the idea as making "spoiled brats" is just too simplistic to the point of being just flat wrong.

PJ: Is everyone expected to read CfC (or equivalent work) AND
PJ: be capable of understanding the issues sufficiently to discern
PJ: that it is indeed accurate?

JPH: I don't see why not. Any disciple or would-be disciple worth a
JPH: thought would do so.

Well, at the very least, the problem is one of "practicality" that I mentioned earlier. I can't read all the Buddhist Sutra, Hindu Vedas, Koran, Christian apologetics, etc. So, I do think it an unreasonable demand, if merely for "practicality." But, beyond that, even though I indeed have read CfC, how am I supposed to reasonably discern if it is accurate or not?

JPH: I have had replies up to Lowder and Doherty on CFC.

I've read them. I think some of your counter-arguments sound to me to make sense. I think some other of your counter-arguments don't sound convincing. And you are indeed biased, so it is reasonable for me to consider the possibility your arguments are faulty. Of course Lowder and Doherty are also biased, which indeed could color their arguments and presentation. At the end of the day, you still haven't come up with a valid reason why I should be expected to know that your presentation (and Strobel and his experts original presentations) are correct despite the bias; and Lowder and Doherty (who are also biased) are wrong.

PJ: But the bottom line is, even if Strobel and his experts (from CfC) are
PJ: correct, there isn't sufficient reason for me, living roughly 2,000 years
PJ: after the purported events to be able to discern it to be true.

JPH: Do you take this tack as well for all recorded history?

Essentially, yes. In my response to Tophet (which I concede I was overly-testy to his "above the law" comment) I referenced Richard Carrier's article discussing Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. Although Carrier gave what seemed like good reasons to believe Caesar did indeed cross the Rubicon, ultimately, I have no real idea. I didn't check Carrier's sources. Maybe Carrier's sources for all the evidence of crossing the Rubicon are all Caesar worshippers. How should I know? I can concede that I think that isn't terribly likely, probably Caesar crossed the Rubicon. But I don't have any "faith" in it. I don't get on my knees and sing, "Caesar crossed the Rubicon, this I know, for Richard Carrier tells me so!" If somehow, it is discovered that Caesar didn't cross the Rubicon, it'd be no skin off my back.

[jpholding]

Please consider enrolling in a logic class at your neighborhood community college or university.

What for? To become a student assistant? :smile:


Basic logic. "If P then Q" is shown to be disproved if there is even one case of P but not Q.

That won't work; put your Ps and Q's together. P here is a collected mass of data, not a single event. Showing one instance where free will did not result in evil does NOT negate the collective evidence that it will, at some point, inevitably result in evil.

You may then say that evil and free will are generally correlated.

Nah, I'll pass on that one.

If God wants "innocence", he's capable of creating "innocence" is He not?

Of course; Christian theology avers that He did. But it does not hold that He is capable of preserving innocence, which requires a choice by a free and independent actor.

Why not zap up everybody to heaven when they are 5?

Why should He? Simply because we want to pout about it and blame Him for our choices and the results? I cannot buy that. It's like the child blaming Mother for his own theft of cookies, because she put the cookie jar where he could reach it.

If you respond that somebody must bear them and raise them,

I'll pass on that one too. :smile:

Bad analogy. Bad argument to boot. If Brand God's cookie jars always seem to ship out of the factory broken, there is something wrong with Brand God's design or manufacturing process.

Misdirected response. To say that freedom is equal to being "broken" is misdirected. Freedom of choice is not an imperfction; if it is, I assume you support absolute tyranny as a form of government, and the best there is. Patrick Henry ought to have chosen death and said, "To heck with liberty."

But we are back to the fact that it is YOUR problem to show that it is NOT possible for God to create a being that could never sin.

Why is it a problem for me at all? I believe you created the problem out of your own personal objections -- not because it has actually been shown to be problematic, or that this is some dilemma with no way out. If God didn't provide a way out (as Christianity says He did) then I would say we had a real problem. But since there is a way given out, I cannot see that any real problem exists -- just a process.

But you are expecting me to believe in things for which knowledge is inaccessible. They could be true, but I can't know it.

I'm sure this is not a problem for you when it comes to knowing if, i.e., a member of your family truly loves you; or that evolution occurred (even though 99.9999999% of the process has been evidentially invisible). "Can't know it" isn't sufficient grounds to create an objection, since you also can't know there is a problem, and if there is one, if there is a solution.

If you want to compare it to an invisible alligator -- I'd have to ask, would you write essays about invisible alligators? No. And so you ought not, by that analogy, to have written essays objecting to these alleged problems.



That "conceptually the same answer" sure slides by easy. Buddha doesn't have the same conceptual purpose in Buddhism as Christ does in Christianity.

You missed the point. I was not speaking of the religions as they are institutionally held. I speak of positions seperate from or independent of the religions, which are conceptually the same as Christianity.

If I'm the young Muslim, you would have to agree that I should indeed find these teachings troubling, no? So now at this point, why exactly should I, the young Muslim disillusioned with the teachings of my religion, why should I accept the "patronage of God"?

That's not enough information for me to answer, but I can't see why this young Muslim might not arrive at the sort of position I have in mind: "Allah, whatever your true doctrine is, I do not know; but I humbly accept that you must be my guide." And more specifics from there...


Sure. Why not? If dying as a fetus would have provided me with eternal life and happiness, and if I was given the choice to change history such that I was killed as a fetus, I'd take that in an instant. Sounds like a great choice to me. How 'bout you? Wouldn't you take that?

No. And I'd have to say that anyone who would take it is, at a minimum, extremely ungrateful...though I have to ask, is this in a scenario where you would still have the option for eternal happiness, if you had lived?


Or, if you say no, lets change this a bit. Say that before you were given that choice of reversing history and dying as an infant, you were also shown irrefutable proof that Islam is true, not Christianity. But since you had picked Christianity before giving this knowledge, you are destined for hell. So, your only choices then are to die and go to hell, or have your entire life erased and die as an infant and go to heaven. Which choice would you pick then?

Given that Islam has a snowball's chance in hell of being true, it's hard to take the question seriously; beyond this, if that is the info I was given, why didn't I convert to Islam? And why was my ignorance resluting in condemnation? I don't think even Islam holds that those ignorant of Islam will be condemned to hell, though I need to check that. The question is like asking what I think the color nine would smell like.

But again, to any reasonable degree, your claim is falsified--50% of all people don't need a contiguous reality. You haven't given me any reason, "emotional appeal" or otherwise, to consider otherwise.

I can live with that -- for I have maintained that your original appeals were of the same nature.

Ultimately, I think all of us are influencable creatures, even if some of us can resist some influences that others cannot. I think most anybody who has studied psychology in any significant amount would agree with my assessment.

I think they would, too. But would they also say that we have no control over how much and to what extent we are influenced? (I don't even need help staying away from beer -- to me it smells like something my dog did on the rug. :lol:)

If someone might knock at the door, like a Jehovah's Witness, my parents would say something like they believe in God but not in church and send them away.

For even more fun, say, "Oh, we're members of the Church of Satan. Would you like to come to our services?" :wink:

I'll never read all the Buddhist Sutra, Hindu Vedas, Koran, Native American scriptures and history, etc.

Why not? It's not a particularly large corpus, and at the very least, if you have any humanist tendencies you can look at it as an exercise in appreciating the human mind.

Actually, no. As far as "reliable", ultimately I have no way to know. You will probably point out to various archeological finds that verify that at least some portions are reliable. On the other hand, there are portions that archeology does NOT verify, such as Noah's flood.

Interesting. You treat the Bible as a collective though it is in fact 66 seperate books. You realize that just because Genesis might be unreliable, this does not mean Luke is as well?

I see you hold the same for all history (we can never know what is reliable), yes? Well, that does leave you out in the woods as far as what the majority of scholarship on history would hold, does it not?

My reference to "personalized service" need not imply waiting hand-and-foot on your children. "Personalized service" would even include implementing punishment.

Buckets and buckets of that, then? No, I don't see that in typical parent-child relationships. Of course that's for modern America -- the ancient client-patron model, which Christianity is rooted in, did not offer any such service, and ancient people did not expect it.

But, beyond that, even though I indeed have read CfC, how am I supposed to reasonably discern if it is accurate or not?

Do you have any truck for the process of scholarship? Your treatment even of Carrier, while consistent within what you have posed, leads me to see the end result as a sort of epistemic despair -- one which cannot even guarantee that you existed a few moments ago.

[Tophet]

Perhaps I was overly harsh in my response. So, sorry for jumping on you too hard.

That’s OK. Though I have to wonder, if you were sincere, why you didn’t edit Post #69 accordingly.

I can only respond to what I see posted by you.



Originally Posted by Jacobsen

That said, I believe I have reason to discount your argument.




Originally Posted by Tophet

And that reason is --? My argument regarding the burden of proof is based upon the law itself. Do you believe you're above the law?




Hey, Chief... you seriously got on my bad side for this comment.

Why? If you challenge the law, then it is reasonable and logical to ask if you believe you’re above the law. Therefore your anger is unjustified.


As if disagreeing with your expert is tantamount to breaking the law.

Once again, you’re not paying attention to my statements. Do you see the statement before “Do you believe you’re above the law?” It says,

“My argument regarding the burden of proof is based upon the law itself.”

And what is the law regarding burden of proof?

The burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection. The presumption of law is the judgment of charity. It presumes every man is innocent until he is proved guilty; that everything has been done fairly and legally, until it is proved to have been otherwise; and that every document, found in its proper repository, and not bearing marks of forgery, is genuine.


And you, because I dont agree with your wacky expert, equate my disagreement as putting myself "above the law". Gimme a friggen' break.


Do I have to repeat myself?

THE LAW IS THE AUTHORITY. If you paid attention to Greenleaf's statements, he is citing the law in its application to evidence. These are the rules of evidence as administered in courts of justice.

What we have is a failure to communicate. Again, you’re not paying attention. Read this sentence carefully:

“My argument regarding the burden of proof is based upon the law itself.”

Now read it again.

“MY ARGUMENT regarding the burden of proof IS BASED UPON THE LAW ITSELF.”

Where in that sentence does it say my argument is based upon Simon Greenleaf? SIMON GREENLEAF IS CITING THE LAW.

Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

And what is the law regarding the burden of proof, Paul? Do I have to repeat it?

The burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection. The presumption of law is the judgment of charity. It presumes every man is innocent until he is proved guilty; that everything has been done fairly and legally, until it is proved to have been otherwise; and that every document, found in its proper repository, and not bearing marks of forgery, is genuine.

And remember this?

The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule.

Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

IT IS A RULE OF LAW, that,--

In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs.

This is not just Greenleaf’s opinion. These are the Rules of Legal Evidence, Paul. The burden of proof and the presumption of innocence is embodied in the Law itself.

As Greenleaf states, it is quite erroneous to suppose that the Christian is bound to offer any further proof of their genuineness or authenticity. It is for the objector to show them spurious; for on him, BY THE PLAINEST RULES OF LAW, lies the burden of proof.

Read this again.

“My argument REGARDING THE BURDEN OF PROOF is based upon the law itself.”

What is my argument regarding? THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

Now, take a look at the topic line of Post #63. What does it read?

Post #63: Burden of Proof

And when I quoted you, what were you talking about?

BURDEN OF PROOF.

And what did I say there?

When one applies the rules of evidence as administered in courts of justice, the conclusion is that it is the skeptic who has the BURDEN OF PROOF.

And what did I say in Post #68?

For the record, I was only addressing your statements about the burden of proof, about which the law is very clear in its determination.


Guess what, buddy... if the supreme court has a ruling and even if it is unanimous, I still have the right to disagree with it.

Do you not know the difference between legal procedure and a court case? “Burden of proof” is embodied in legal procedure. It is not a case like “Roe v. Wade.”


I'm tempted to respond with a Holding-style taunt to the skeptics that have barged into the conversation. Instead, I will just destroy your argument--it won't be difficult I can assure you.

How can you destroy my argument when you haven’t addressed it at all? Nowhere in your comments do you mention the burden of proof. My friend, all you’ve destroyed is your own credibility.




That said, I believe I have reason to discount your argument.




And that reason is --?

Since your posts have not addressed burden of proof, or the presumption of innocence as a matter of fact and as a matter of law, is this a point you’ve conceded?

That said, I will address the other points you raised.


Finally, an appeal to athority is unwarrented when there is significant disagreement among equivalently qualified athorities.



Originally Posted by Tophet

As qualified as Simon Greenleaf? Or Hugo Grotius, the father of international law? Or Daniel Webster?


You have failed to name any "equivalently qualified athorities [sic]." You have failed to demonstrate how they disagree with the law.


Navigating truth and fiction in a subject matter that we are not experts ourself in is a difficult challenge.

And so you “appeal to authority”?

To those of the legal profession, separating truth from fiction is what they do. It is their job.

Greenleaf writes: “Our profession leads us to explore the mazes of falsehood, to detect its artifices, to pierce its thickest veils, to follow and expose its sophistries, to compare the statements of different witnesses with severity, to discover truth and separate it from error.”


If we go to two doctors and get two opinions, both opinions are based on more expert qualifications than our own. And yet, we must decide which opinion we think is more correct. Do we merely look at the GPA and other measures of expertness? No, at least most people try to do the best they can as laypeople to discern which doctor's reasoning is likely better for us.

And so you admit it’s best to heed the one with the greater qualifications.


Basically, what you are doing is saying, "my experts are such great experts that their opinions are unimpeachable".

What I am saying is burden of proof is embodied within the law itself. It is not a matter of opinion. Now, if we’re talking about examining the documents of the Bible, we would apply the Rules of Evidence just as we would any other document, or else you’re advocating a double standard. We make our decision based on the evidence itself. When one applies the Rules of Evidence as administered in courts of justice, the conclusion is that those documents would be acceptable as evidence according to the law.

Well, the most expert of experts can be wrong. The greatest heart surgeon can make a mistake.

Anyone can make mistakes. But if we’re talking about surgery, it is logical to assume that the more qualified the physician, the less likely they are to make mistakes.


If the greatest expert in the world makes a bad argument, it is still a bad argument.

Yes. Except that burden of proof is an established fact of law. The Rules of Evidence as administered in courts of justice – are precisely that.


Of course everybody has bias. The expert I will rely upon shortly has bias. So, it will indeed be reasonable for you to consider that my expert's bias has colored his presentation of evidence--and whether the argument is sound despite the bias or not. Your expert is just dripping in bias.

This may come as a shock to you, Paul, but Simon Greenleaf used to be a skeptic, biased against the Gospel accounts. His students challenged him to examine the New Testament documents and apply the Rules of Evidence as administered in courts of justice as he would any other document. Guess what happened?


That doesn't mean it is wrong, but it does mean that I am reasonable to consider it at least possible that bias has influenced the expressed analysis. And I believe the most cursory of examination of the treatise shows it to be so blantantly steeped in bias as to be worthless.

Since we are discussing matters of historical fact, the charge of “bias” is irrelevant. Greenleaf is applying the Rules of Evidence as applied in courts of law as he would any historical document. Did you not read the treatise in its entirety?


Here is one simple quote, "If then their tesitmony was not true, there was no possible motive for this fabrication." Do they teach MIND READING in law school?

Not at all. Because this statement is the logical outcome of what Greenleaf stated in the prior two paragraphs. Read this again:

Let the evangelists be tried by these tests.

And first, as to their honesty. Here they are entitled to the benefit of the general course of human experience, that men ordinarily speak the truth, when they have no prevailing motive or inducement to the contrary. This presumption, to which we have before alluded, is applied in courts of justice, even to witnesses whose integrity is not wholly free from suspicion; much more is it applicable to the evangelists, whose testimony went against all their worldly interests. The great truths which the apostles declared, were that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling terrors that can be presented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teaching of his disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes imprisonments, torments and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propogate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually rose from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come.

Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for this fabrication.

So you see, Paul, that mind reading is not a factor in this conclusion. He is accepting the testimony of the evangelists based upon the legal presumption of innocence, given the absence of evidence to the contrary.


If he would have said, "we find no evidence of motivation of fabrication" that would be one thing. But to declare uniquivacably that there is no motive possible to someone that has been dead for 2000 years is so oulandash as to be utterly laughable.

“Laughable” is hardly a rebuttal to Greenleaf’s argument.

Remember,

“The burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection. The presumption of law is the judgment of charity. It presumes every man is innocent until he is proved guilty; that everything has been done fairly and legally, until it is proved to have been otherwise;”


The main thrust of Greenleaf's treatise is a claim that in legal cases, documents submitted, if they reasonably appear genuine, they are assumed to be genuine.

Let’s revisit his statements, in context:

The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule.

Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

An ancient document, offered in evidence in our courts, is said to come from the proper repository, when it is found in the place where, and under the care of persons with whom, such writings might naturally and reasonably be expected to be found; for it is this custody which gives authenticity to documents found within it. If they come from such a place, and bear no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes that they are genuine, and they are permitted to be read in evidence, unless the opposing party is able successfully to impeach them. The burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection. The presumption of law is the judgment of charity. It presumes every man is innocent until he is proved guilty; that everything has been done fairly and legally, until it is proved to have been otherwise; and that every document, found in its proper repository, and not bearing marks of forgery, is genuine. Now this is precisely the case with the Sacred Writings. They have been used in the church from time immemorial, and thus are found in the place where alone they ought to be looked for they come to us, and challenge our reception of them as genuine writings, precisely as Domesday Book, the Ancient Statues of Wales, or any other of the ancient documents which have recently been published under the British Record Commission, are received. They are found in familiar use in all the churches of Christendom, as the sacred books to which all denominations of Christians refer, as the standard of their faith.


A number of questions arise, such as to what degree?

Either a document is genuine or it is not. It’s that simple.


One of the reasons why there is a Statue of Limitations is that simply after time, accessibility to evidence diminishes.

Australian barrister Ross Clifford: “It is a principle of legal interpretation that one does not primarily rely on what some ‘expert’ says hundreds of years later, but rather on what the document says and the comments of those who came from that time.” (Clifford, Leading Lawyers’ Case for the Resurrection, 1991, p. 24)

The events of the New Testament accounts were witnessed by hostiles and friendlies alike. The documents of the New Testament circulated throughout the Middle East in the midst of hostiles and friendlies alike. During these time, those with the means, motive and opportunity to refute those testimonies could do so had those testimonies been false.

Consider King Herod Agrippa II.

Of Herod Agrippa II, Encyclopedia Britannica notes that he was born A.D. 27, and died A.D. 93, meaning he was alive during the time the New Testament documents were written and circulated throughout the region.

The Britannica notes that Agrippa II was “king of Chalcis in southern Lebanon from A.D. 50 and tetrarch of Batanaea and Trachonitis in south Syria from A.D. 53, who unsuccessfully mediated with the rebels in the Jewish Revolt of A.D. 66–70. He was a great-grandson of Herod I the Great.

“Agrippa II was raised and educated at the imperial court in Rome. Because of his youth at the death of his father, Agrippa I, in 44, the emperor Claudius returned Judaea to the status of a province. The young prince, however, took an interest in the welfare of the Jews and helped secure them an edict of moderation. In 48 he received authority over temple affairs in Jerusalem. Two years later he became king of Chalcis, and in 53 he exchanged this land for Philip the Tetrarch’s former holdings. Nero, the new emperor, in 54 added territory near the Sea of Galilee to Agrippa’s realm. As his father had been, Agrippa II was an ardent collaborator with Rome and did all in his power to prevent the rupture between Rome and Jewry, but in vain.

“Between 52 and 60, he appointed several high priests and earned the enmity of the conflicting parties. Though he supported the rights of the Jews at Alexandria, who faced trouble from the Hellenized populace, he avoided politics in Judaea, where the Zealots, a terrorist group, were active. In 60, when St. Paul was arrested, the procurator consulted Agrippa concerning the Apostle’s case; the Tetrarch found him innocent.”

According to Luke’s account in Acts 26, Paul tells Agrippa, “you are well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies” (verse 3), recalls Christ’s resurrection from the dead as fulfilling Old Testament prophecies (verses 21-22) and tells Agrippa, “The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.” (verses 26-27)

Now, Paul, would you address a King in this manner if you were telling verifiable falsehoods? Had the Apostle Paul spoken falsely, the book of Acts would have had a different ending (and beginning, for that matter). Instead of refuting Paul, Agrippa says, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” (verse 28).

Paul’s reply (verse 28): “Short time or long--I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.”

Agrippa later tells Governor Festus (verse 32): “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.” Would Agrippa had said that if Paul was lying in his testimony?

This was an eyewitness account from the physician Luke, who recorded these events in the book of Acts. In Acts 12:23, Luke records that Agrippa’s father was consumed by worms because he had blasphemed against God (in A.D. 44, when Agrippa II was 17 years old).

There is a separate, independent account of the death of Agrippa I.

F.F. Bruce writes: “The sudden death of Herod Agrippa I, narrated by Luke in Acts 12:19-23, is recorded also by Josephus (Ant. xix. 8. 2) in a form agreeing with Luke’s general Outline, though the two accounts are quite independent of each other. This is the story as told by Josephus:

“‘When Agrippa had reigned three full years over all Judaea, he came to the city of Caesarea, which was formerly called Strato’s Tower. There he exhibited shows in honour of Caesar, inaugurating this as a festival for the emperor’s welfare. And there came together to it a multitude of the provincial officials and of those who had been promoted to a distinguished position. On the second day of the shows he put on a robe all made of diver, of altogether wonderful weaving, and arrived in the theatre at break of day. Then the silver shone as the sun’s first rays fell upon it and glittered wonderfully, its resplendence inspiring a sort of fear and trembling in those who gazed upon it. Immediately his flatterers called out from various quarters, in words which in truth were not for his good, addressing him as a god, and invoking him with the cry, “Be propitious! if hitherto we have revered thee as a human being, yet henceforth we confess thee to be superior to mortal nature.”

“‘The king did not rebuke them, nor did he repudiate their impious flattery. But looking up soon afterwards he saw the owl sitting on a rope above his head, and immediately recognized it as a messenger of evil as it had formerly been a messenger of good,’ and a pang of grief pierced his heart. There came also a severe pain in his belly, beginning with a violent attack.... So he was carried quickly into the palace, and the news sped abroad among all that he would certainly die before long.... And when he had suffered continuously for five days from the pain in his belly, he departed this life in the fifty fourth year of his age and the seventh of his reign.’

“The parallels between the two accounts are obvious, as is also the absence of collusion between them. Luke describes the king’s sudden stroke by saying, in biblical language, that ‘the angel of the Lord smote him’; it is unnecessary to think that there is any significance in the fact that the Greek word for ‘angel’ in Luke’s account (angelos) is the same as the word for ‘messenger’ applied to the owl by Josephus, though some early Christian Fathers seem to have thought so. The Tyrians may well have taken advantage of this festival to be publicly reconciled to the king.

“In general, we may sum up the comparison of the two accounts in the words of an unbiased historian, Eduard Meyer: ‘In outline, in data, and in the general conception, both accounts are in full agreement. By its very interesting details, which are by no means to be explained as due to a “tendency” or a popular tradition, Luke’s account affords a guarantee that it is at least just as reliable as that of Josephus.”

Had Luke or Josephus been in error, King Agrippa II had the means, motive, and opportunity to squelch these documents as copies circulated throughout the region, or to imprison Luke, Paul and Josephus for false testimony. Indeed, Agrippa had the means, motive and opportunity to stop the entire New Testament, written and circulating within his kingdom, within his lifetime. But he did not/could not refute the eyewitness accounts.


If I try someone for a crime 20 years after the fact, it may well be that all of the evidence *that is still available* indicates guilt, but evidence of innocence has been lost over time.

If the evangelists were erroneous in their testimony, their contemporaries would have refuted them. Why, then, were the evangelists never refuted by the religious leaders of Jesus’ time who knew their Old Testaments and whose murderous treatment of Jesus showed that they had the means, the motive, and the opportunity to destroy his claim to Messiahship had they the evidence to do so?


That is why trying to apply legal procedures to historical studies is just dimwitted.

Nonsense. The same standards of documentary and testimonial soundness which apply to the New Testament are those applied to the entire corpus of classical materials, historical and literary. To throw out the one is, logically, to throw out the other. The same applies in the handling of evidence in ordinary life.


Frankly, I don't care what Dr. Greenleaf's legal qualifications are,

Because of your emotions?
Because of wishful thinking?
Because you’re ignorant of the Rules of Evidence as administered in courts of law?
Because you forgot to eat your Cheerios this morning?
Because J.P. Holding has attained the level of a Super Saiyan?


his application of legal terms to his wacky historical analysis is just plain looney to the point where he thinks he's a mind reader.

Greenleaf a “wacky expert”? How does your opinion supercede The London Law Journal? “It is no mean honor to America that her schools of jurisprudence have produced two of the finest writers and best esteemed legal authorities in this century-the great and good man, Judge Story, and his eminent and worthy associate Professor Greenleaf. Upon the existing law of evidence (by Greenleaf) more light has shown from the New World than from all the lawyers who adorn the courts of Europe.”

Dictionary of American Biography Base Set. American Council of Learned Societies, 1928-1936 discusses Greenleaf’s illustrious career:

“In 1801 he entered the law office of Ezekiel Whitman [q.v.], later chief justice of Maine, and in June 1806 he was admitted to the Cumberland County bar.

“He had commenced practice in Standish, a short distance from Portland, but six months later removed to Gray, where, being the only lawyer in the neighborhood, he enjoyed an extensive connection. The times, however, were not litigious and for a period of twelve years he devoted his leisure to an intensive study of the common law, reading widely and deeply, and obtaining a familiarity with the source material which no other practitioner of his time possessed. In 1818 he removed to Portland, whither his reputation for learning had preceded him, and at once took his place among the leaders of the bar there. On the establishment of the supreme judicial court, June 24, 1820, following the admission of Maine as a state, he was appointed reporter. As such he prepared and published Reports of Cases Argued and Determined by the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Maine, vols. 1-9 (1820-32). Notable for their clear yet concise captions and admirable abstracts of the arguments, their accuracy has never been impugned, and they have always been highly valued by the profession. A second edition was called for shortly prior to Greenleaf's death. For some years before becoming reporter he had been engaged in compiling A Collection of Cases Overruled, Denied, Doubted or Limited in their Application, which he published in 1821. Concurrently with his court duties he continued in practice, being mainly engaged in counsel work, where his attractive personality, profound legal knowledge, and compelling logic made him particularly effective. His resignation in 1832 was prompted by a realization that his official duties prevented his giving adequate attention to his increasing retainers. In 1833, Justice Joseph Story [q.v.], Dane Professor of Law at Harvard, offered Greenleaf the Royall Professorship of Law at that institution, which had become vacant through the death of Ashmun, and he accepted. Removing to Cambridge, he was associated with Story in the law school for thirteen years, and on the death of the latter, succeeded him in the Dane Professorship. His health, however, gradually became seriously impaired, and he was compelled to resign in 1848, whereupon he was appointed emeritus professor.

“To the efforts of Story and Greenleaf is to be ascribed the rise of the Harvard Law School to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United States. In temperament and intellect the two professors were essentially unlike. Story was quick, brilliant, picturesque; Greenleaf was deliberate, thorough, impressive. The former aroused enthusiasm, the latter evoked a desire for learning. "Story prepared the soil, and Greenleaf sowed the seed" (Law Reporter, November 1853, p. 414). Each was the antithesis and yet the complement of the other, and under their dual leadership, the school achieved a nation-wide reputation. As a lecturer, Greenleaf was systematic, meticulously exact, and practical, vouchsafing little indication of the wealth of learning from which his lectures were constructed. Giving freely of his time to the elucidation of their individual difficulties and assisting in their activities, he enjoyed the respect and confidence of his pupils in an extraordinary degree. While engaged in tutorial work he prepared what was originally intended as a text-book on evidence, published in 1842 as A Treatise on the Law of Evidence. The profession at once hailed it as the ablest extant work on the subject, distinguished alike for its deep learning, clarity of style, and practical utility. He added a second volume in 1846, and a third in 1853. In its completed form it came to be regarded as the foremost American authority, and passed through numerous editions under successive editors. After his retirement, Greenleaf's health improved, and in addition to completing his work on evidence he published Cruise's Digest of the Law of Real Property, Revised and Abridged for the Use of American Students (7 vols. in 5, 1849-50), which in the United States entirely superseded the English original.

“Allied, politically, with the Federalist party, he was in 1816 an unsuccessful candidate in Cumberland County for the Massachusetts Senate, but was elected in 1820 to represent Portland in the first Maine legislature, where he took a leading part in framing the initial legislation of the new state. When his term expired he retired and thereafter had neither the time nor the inclination to participate actively in public life. In addition to the books already mentioned he was the author of A Brief Inquiry into the Origin and Principles of Free Masonry (1820); "A Brief Memoir of the Life and Character of the Hon. Prentiss Mellen, LL.D., Late Chief Justice of Maine" (17 Maine Reports, 467); and Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice, with an Account of the Trial of Jesus (1846). He was a frequent contributor to periodicals, several of his articles being republished in pamphlet form, as were also his inaugural discourse as Royall Professor of Law in Harvard University (1834) and A Discourse Commemorative of the Life and Character of the Hon. Joseph Story (1845).”



In short, even if Greenleaf's legal analysis is absolutely correct, there is utterly no reason to believe legal analysis is applicable to ancient history.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The Ancient Documents Rule, which Greenleaf discusses in his treatise, is an accepted legal procedure.

29 American Jurisprudence, "Evidence," (2nd Edition) Section 1201, p.645. [Section 1201] At common law, a document purporting to be 30 or more years old is generally admissible in evidence without the ordinary requirements as to proof of execution and authenticity, as long as it is produced from proper custody and is on its face free from suspicion, and circumstances exist which corroborate its authenticity. Under such circumstances any subscribing witnesses are presumed to be dead. Even where such witnesses are shown to be living, or are in court, their testimony is not required to authenticate an ancient document.

Wigmore on Evidence [Section 2137] Ancient Documents; General Principle. For three centuries the rule has existed, unquestioned in its general validity, that an ancient document, under certain conditions, is to be taken as sufficiently evidenced, in regard to its genuineness of execution, to be submitted to the jury.

In California (Evidence Code Section 1331) a document found to be an ancient writing comes into evidence for the truth of the matters stated therein. It is not just that the document is authentic--the statements therein actually come into evidence (see Estate of Nidever, 181 Cal.App. 2d 367 [1960]; Kirkpatrick v. Tapo Oil, 144 Cal. App. 2d 404 [1956]).


Now I am going to rely upon an expert,

And now you’re “appealing to authority”?


but at least my expert has a degree in HISTORY, of all things. My expert is biased. But I think you will find his *reasoning* to be sound--unlike your expert. My expert will be Richard Carrier.

Yes. A man with no qualifications in the evaluation of legal evidence whatsoever. A fellow so insignificant he’s not even in the Who’s Who or any other Gale Biography.

You want to compare historians instead of legal authorities? Fine. Then consider Thomas Arnold, headmaster of Rugby for 14 years, author of the three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the chair of Modern History at Oxford.

According to Merriam-Webster's Biographical Dictionary, Arnold “introduced mathematics, modern history, and modern languages to curriculum; introduced prefect system; strongly influenced development of modern public schools in England.” According to Encyclopedia of World Biography, “It is as headmaster of Rugby that Arnold is primarily remembered, however. The whole tone of the school was improved during his tenure. He is credited with broadening its curriculum, improving living conditions, raising the status of the masters, and inaugurating administrative reforms (for example, masters' conferences and student involvement in school affairs). What was once regarded as one of England's worst schools was, by the time of his death, famous for its successful graduates. … Through his efforts it became the model for other English public schools and for boarding schools throughout the Western world.”

So, yes, Thomas Arnold was certainly well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. He said:

"The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

And what are the biographical references for Thomas Arnold?

• Biography Index. A cumulative index to biographical material in books and magazines. Volume 2: August, 1949-August, 1952. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1953.
• Biography Index. A cumulative index to biographical material in books and magazines. Volume 3: September, 1952-August, 1955. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1956.
• Biography Index. A cumulative index to biographical material in books and magazines. Volume 5: September, 1958-August, 1961. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1962.
• Biography Index. A cumulative index to biographical material in books and magazines. Volume 8: September, 1967-August, 1970. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1971.
• Biography Index. A cumulative index to biographical material in books and magazines. Volume 9: September, 1970-August, 1973. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1974.
• Biography Index. A cumulative index to biographical material in books and magazines. Volume 10: September, 1973-August, 1976. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1977.
• Biography Index. A cumulative index to biographical material in books and magazines. Volume 14: September, 1984-August, 1986. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1986.
• Biography Index. A cumulative index to biographical material in books and magazines. Volume 15: September, 1986-August, 1988. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1988.
• Biography Index. A cumulative index to biographical material in books and magazines. Volume 16: September, 1988-August, 1990. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1990.
• British Authors of the Nineteenth Century. Edited by Stanley J. Kunitz. Wilson Authors Series. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1936.
• Dictionary of Literary Biography. Volume 55: Victorian Prose Writers before 1867. Edited by William B. Thesing. Detroit: Gale Research, 1987.
• Lutheran Cyclopedia. Revised edition. Edited by Erwin L. Lueker. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1975.
• Nineteenth-Century Literature Criticism. Excerpts from criticism of the works of novelists, poets, playwrights, short story writers, philosophers, and other creative writers who died between 1800 and 1899, from the first published critical appraisals to current evaluations. Volume 18. Detroit: Gale Research, 1988.
• The Oxford Companion to English Literature. Fifth edition. Edited by Margaret Drabble. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.
• Allibone's Critical Dictionary of English Literature. British and American authors living and deceased from the earliest accounts to the latter half of the Nineteenth Century. Three volumes. By S. Austin Allibone. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1858.
• The Bibliophile Dictionary. A biographical record of the great authors, with bibliographical notices of their principal works from the beginning of history. Originally published as Volumes 29 and 30 of The Bibliophile Library of Literature, Art, and Rare Manuscripts. Compiled and arranged by Nathan Haskell Dole, Forrest Morgan, and Caroline Ticknor. New York: International Bibliophile Society, 1904.
• Biographical Dictionary and Synopsis of Books Ancient and Modern. Edited by Charles Dudley Warner. Akron: Werner Co., 1902.
• The Cambridge Guide to English Literature. Edited by Michael Stapleton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
• The Cambridge Guide to English Literature. Edited by Michael Stapleton. Middlesex: Newnes Books, (n.d.).
• The Cambridge Guide to Literature in English. Edited by Ian Ousby. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
• The Cambridge Guide to Literature in English. Edited by Ian Ousby. London: Hamlyn Publishing Group, (n.d.).
• Cassell's Encyclopaedia of World Literature. Two volumes. Edited by S.H. Steinberg. Revised and enlarged in three volumes by J. Buchanan-Brown. New York: William Morrow and Co., 1973. Biographies are found in Volumes 2 and 3 of the revised edition.
• Celebrities of the Century. Being a dictionary of men and women of the nineteenth century. Two volumes. Edited by Lloyd C. Sanders. London: Cassell & Co., 1887.
• Childhood in Poetry. A catalogue, with biographical and critical annotations, of the books of English and American poets comprising the Shaw Childhood in Poetry Collection in the Library of the Florida State University. First edition. By John Mackay Shaw. Detroit: Gale Research, 1967.
• A Cyclopedia of Education. Five volumes. Edited by Paul Monroe. New York: Macmillan Co., 1911.
• A Dictionary of Biography, Past and Present Containing the chief events in the lives of eminent persons of all ages and nations. Edited by Benjamin Vincent. Haydn Series. London: Ward, Lock, & Co., 1877.
• A Dictionary of English Authors, Biographical and Bibliographical. Being a compendious account of the lives and writings of upwards of 800 British and American writers from the year 1400 to the present time. New edition. By R. Farquharson Sharp. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1904.
• Dictionary of English Literature. Being a comprehensive guide to English authors and their works. Second edition. By W. Davenport Adams. London: Cassell Petter & Galpin, (n.d.).
• A Dictionary of European Literature. Designed as a companion to English studies. Second, revised edition. By Laurie Magnus. London: George Routledge & Sons, 1927. The Appendix begins on page 595.
• A Dictionary of European Literature. Designed as a companion to English studies. Second, revised edition. By Laurie Magnus. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., (n.d.). The Appendix begins on page 595.
• A Dictionary of Literature in the English Language. From Chaucer to 1940. Compiled and edited by Robin Myers. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1970.
• The Dictionary of National Biography. The Concise Dictionary. Part 1, From the beginnings to 1900. London: Oxford University Press, 1953. Contains abstracts of the biographies found in The Dictionary of National Biography (21 volumes, New York: Macmillan Co.; London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1908).
• Everyman's Dictionary of Literary Biography, English and American. Compiled after John W. Cousin by D.C. Browning. Revised edition. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1960.
• Everyman's Dictionary of Literary Biography, English and American. Compiled after John W. Cousin by D.C. Browning. Revised edition. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., (n.d.).
• The Lincoln Library of Language Arts. Two volumes. Third edition. Columbus: Frontier Press Co., 1978. Biographies begin on page 345 of Volume 1 and are continued in Volume 2.
• The Lincoln Library of Social Studies. Three volumes. Eighth edition. Columbus: Frontier Press Co., 1978. Biographies begin on page 865 of Volume 3.
• Longman Companion to English Literature. Second edition. By Christopher Gillie. London: Longman Group, 1977. Also published as A Companion to British Literature. Detroit: Grand River Books, 1980.
• The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of World Biography. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1973. Supplemental volumes published as Encyclopedia of World Biography: 20th Century Supplement.
• The New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature. Five volumes. Edited by George Watson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Use the index in Volume 5 to locate entries.
• The New Century Handbook of English Literature. Revised edition. Edited by Clarence L. Barnhart with the assistance of William D. Halsey. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.
• The Oxford Companion to Children's Literature. By Humphrey Carpenter and Mari Prichard. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.
• The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature. First edition. Edited by Sir Paul Harvey. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937.
• The Oxford Companion to English Literature. Fourth edition. Compiled and edited by Sir Paul Harvey, revised by Dorothy Eagle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967.
• The Penguin Companion to World Literature. English Literature. Edited by David Daiches. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971.
• The Reader's Encyclopedia. Second edition. By William Rose Benet. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1965.
• Victorian Britain. An encyclopedia. Edited by Sally Mitchell. Garland Reference Library of Social Sciences, vol. 438. New York: Garland Publishing, 1988.
• Who Did What. The lives and achievements of the 5,000 men and women -- leaders of nations, saints and sinners, artists and scientists -- who shaped our world. Edited by Gerald Howat. New York: Crown Publishers, 1974.
• The World Almanac Biographical Dictionary. By the editors of The World Almanac. New York: World Almanac, 1990.
• The World Almanac Book of Who. Edited by Hana Umlauf Lane. New York: World Almanac Publications, 1980. Use the 'Name Index,' which begins on page 326, to locate biographies.
• The Bloomsbury Guide to English Literature. The new authority on English literature. Edited by Marion Wynne-Davies. New York: Prentice Hall General Reference, 1990. Originally published in hardcover as the Prentice Hall Guide to English Literature. Biographies begin on page 295.
• The Oxford Companion to English Literature. Revised fifth edition. Edited by Margaret Drabble. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
• Encyclopedia of World Biography. Seventeen volumes. Second edition. Detroit: Gale Research, 1998. First edition published as The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of World Biography with six supplement volumes published as Encyclopedia of World Biography: 20th Century Supplement.
• Who's Who in Christianity. By Lavinia Cohn-Sherbok. New York: Routledge, 1998.
• The Cambridge Biographical Encyclopedia. Second edition. Edited by David Crystal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
• Chambers Biographical Dictionary. Sixth edition. Edited by Melanie Parry. New York: Larousse Kingfisher Chambers, 1997.
• The Oxford Companion to British History. Edited by John Cannon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
• The Oxford Companion to English Literature. Sixth edition. Edited by Margaret Drabble. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
• Encyclopedia of European Social History. From 1350 to 2000. Six volumes. Edited by Peter N. Stearns. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2001. The "Biographies" section begins in volume 6.
• The History Today Who's Who in British History. Edited by Juliet Gardiner. London: Collins & Brown, 2000.
• Dictionary of Christian Biography. Edited by Michael Walsh. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2001.
• Almanac of Famous People, 8th ed. Gale Group, 2003.

What are Richard Carrier's biographical references? Hmm?

What was that you said earlier?


Finally, an appeal to athority is unwarrented when there is significant disagreement among equivalently qualified athorities.

Compared to Thomas Arnold, Simon Greenleaf, Hugo Grotius or Daniel Webster, Richard Carrier is hardly an “equivalently qualified” authority. Therefore, you have failed by your own standards of “athorities” [sic].

The question for you, Paul, is that why would you believe a lesser-qualified individual over one of greater qualifications?


I will be quoting from his article where he was discussing similar claims about how well attested the Resurrection is compared to other events in history:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...on/lecture.html

Hello, Paul? Nowhere in that article does Carrier discuss the legal burden of proof. And nowhere in that essay does he apply the Rules of Evidence as administered in courts of law.


Christian apologist Douglas Geivett has declared that the evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus meets, and I quote, "if one takes the historian's own criteria for assessing the historicity of ancient events, the resurrection passes muster as a historically well-attested event of the ancient world," as well-attested, he says, as Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon in 49 B.C.[5] Well, it is common in Christian apologetics, throughout history, to make absurdly exaggerated claims, and this is no exception. Let's look at Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon for a minute:

Paul? What does Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon have to do with the burden of proof?

As for Carrier’s claims, they have already been addressed by J.P. Holding at http://www.tektonics.org/af/bananas01.html


Oh, by the way, you might notice Carrier disagrees with Dr. Greenleaf.

Carrier never discussed the law or its applications to discerning proof, and neither did he address “burden of proof.” You know the difference between “proof” and “burden of proof”, don’t you, Paul?


Boy, he sure must think he's above the law, don't he?

He does if he thinks his opinion supercedes the Law.


Ok, I guess I'll leave with a Holding-esque taunt: its drivel like your post that give Christians a bad name.

Well, let’s examine this objectively, shall we?

I have cited the laws regarding the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence.

I have cited legal authorities discussing the Rules of Evidence as administered in courts of justice.

I have cited legal authorities applying the Rules of Evidence to the Biblical documents as any other historical document.

On the other hand,

You have failed to comprehend the meaning of the sentence, “My argument regarding the burden of proof is based upon the law itself.”

You have failed to discern the difference between the law and authorities who cite the law.

You have failed to discern the difference between legal procedure and cases presented in courts of law.

You have failed to refute the burden of proof.

You have failed to discredit Simon Greenleaf other than by name-calling and ad hominem argumentation.

You have failed to take into account Simon Greenleaf’s legal and historical credentials in their entirety.

You have failed to demonstrate why your opinion supercedes the London Law Journal.

You have failed to demonstrate why your opinion supercedes the Dictionary of American Biography.

You have failed to demonstrate why your opinion supercedes the standards of Harvard Law School.

You have failed to refute the Rules of Legal Evidence as applied by Simon Greenleaf.

You have failed to refute the Rules of Legal Evidence, period.

You have failed to explain why your opinion supercedes the Rules of Legal Evidence.

You have failed to indicate whether you’ve read Greenleaf’s treatise in its entirety.

You have failed to acknowledge the statements of attorney Irwin H. Linton.

You have failed to acknowledge the legal presentation at http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articl...cs/AP0302W3.htm

You have failed to acknowledge the list of prominent Christian legal authorities here: http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/philjohnsonpap.html

You have failed to name “equivalently qualified athorities [sic].” You have failed to explain how they apply the rules of legal evidence as administered in a court of law regarding this discussion.

You have failed to indicate when you’ve read my posts in their entirety.

You have failed to acknowledge the essay at http://www.tektonics.org/guest/truthfulness.htm

You have failed to comprehend my statements, “For the record, I was only addressing your statements about the burden of proof, about which the law is very clear in its determination. It was the only item I had intended to address. The rest I can leave up to you and JP.” These statements were posted before your response at Post #69.

You have failed to refute the legal-historical evidence of the Bible itself. You have failed to meet the burden of proof.

Would you like to fail some more? Be my guest.

But if you want to succeed, you should evaluate the documents of the Bible as you would any other document, and apply the Rules of Evidence just as one would any historical document. Otherwise, you’re advocating a double standard.

At your website you stated, “I tried reading the Bible.” As the saying goes, do or do not. There is no try. If you read the Bible, and paid attention to what it said, you would have saved yourself a lot of grief. Instead, you let yourself get bamboozled by a charlatan advocating the Rapture in 1988. All you had to do was heed the verses of Matthew 24:35-37, Matthew 24:41-43, Matthew 25:12-14, and Mark 13:31-33. Jesus is the ultimate authority, not Edgar C. Whisenant.

Please, carefully read my posts in their entirety and don't misunderstand again.


Have a bad day. You earned it.

Regardless of how you feel about me, I still wish you a good day. You deserve it.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Please, carefully read my posts in their entirety and don't misunderstand again. My, my.
"athorities" [sic]"supercedes" [sic]
His was probably a typo; yours probably wasn't.
Simon Greenleaf...laws of evidence... ad infinitum, in condescendre I think the larger point in all this is that Mr Greenleaf must resort to legal technicality which transfers burden of proof because he knows there is no incontrovertible proof for the claims.

Legal technicalities say OJ Simpson is not guilty of murder.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One wonders why God would make it all not unreasonably appear to be the work of ancient, humanly-inspired mythmakers, then leave the explaining to the intellectually dubious likes of Mssrs Strobel and Holding.

[Paul Jacobsen]

That’s OK. Though I have to wonder, if you were sincere, why you didn’t edit Post #69 accordingly.

Actually, I didn't notice that editing a post after posting is allowed. Many forums don't allow that.

I found some of your reponse a bit objectionable, but granted, less objectionable than my last post. So, I will endeavor to avoid personal attacks this time. (But I reserve the right to throw some of your smart-aleck comments back in your direction. Your arguments cause frequent slaps to the forehead, obsceneties screamed at the computer, etc. <g>)

Why? If you challenge the law, then it is reasonable and logical to ask if you believe you’re above the law.

"Challenging the law" is not an apt description of my position. But, regardless, even if I was "challenging the law" that does NOT in any sense whatsoever equate to a belief that I'm above the law. Challenging laws is a basic right of our society for Jeebus Chriminny! To quote you, "Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?" For a simple example, I'm a heterosexual and have no interest in engaging in sodomy, and therefore I have never broken any sodomy laws. But I do indeed challenge sodomy laws as being a violation of personal rights. In short:

"challenging law" Not Equals "law breaking"
"challenging law" Not Equals "claims to being above law"

You said in your last post that I was damaging my credibility. You're clinging to this "above the law" nonsense is certainly damaging to yours.

This may come as a shock to you, Paul, but Simon Greenleaf used to be a skeptic, biased against the Gospel accounts.

It comes as no shock at all that this is claimed. I could just barf at the number of times I've heard such claims. Strobel supposedly used to be an atheist. McDowell supposedly used to be an atheist. If Strobel and McDowell used to be atheists, they must have been some of the most uninformed atheists. As far as Greenleaf, maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But really, immaterial. Clearly at the time he wrote his treatise he wasn't.

And if "changing sides" is of any evidential value, I could point to a number of known preachers that have turned atheist, such as Dan Barker and Charles Templeton. Does this "come as a shock to you"?

SIMON GREENLEAF IS CITING THE LAW.

C'mon chief, what do you think this law really means? Does it mean that anybody that disbelieves a document even if it shows no obvious sign of forgery, they are a law breaker? What's the penalty for this? How many years jail time do I get for this? Shall we go round up all the Bible skeptics and have 'em prosecuted? Where's the penal code on this?

The law is expressing basic rules of evidence in court cases. It doesn't say how much weight any prospective juror must apply to the evidence once it is admitted into evidence. A prosecutor may enter into evidence a gun, or a document, whatever. And it if meets rules of evidence, it can be admitted as evidence. But it is still *purely* up to any juror as to how much weight to attach to any specific piece of evidence. Is this really news to you?

What we have is a failure to communicate.

Well, we can agree on something. I wish I could attach a sound clip from _Cool Hand Luke_. You dropped a word, the line is "What we have here is a failure to communicate".

Again, you’re not paying attention. Read this sentence carefully:

The failure to pay attention is not on this end. Please read this sentence carefully, and repeatedly until it finally sinks in:

THERE IS NO LAW THAT SAYS HISTORICAL RESEARCH FOLLOWS LEGAL PROCEDURES OF EVIDENCE.

If there is such a law, don't quote Greenleaf, go find the penal code on it. What are the penalties? How many historians have been prosecuted?

You have failed to name any "equivalently qualified athorities [sic]." You have failed to demonstrate how they disagree with the law.

Well, at least as far as experts in rules of legal procedures of evidence, I don't happen to know any. I've never studied the subject. So chalk one up for Tophet. But, so what. THERE IS NO LAW THAT SAYS HISTORICAL RESEARCH FOLLOWS LEGAL PROCEDURES OF EVIDENCE.

To those of the legal profession, separating truth from fiction is what they do. It is their job.

So there's never any disagreement among lawyers, they are all experts at finding truth and never fail, its their job. So surely they must always agree on every issue, right? PUHLEEZE!

And so you admit it’s best to heed the one with the greater qualifications.

??? I don't see where you get that from. I said exactly the opposite. I said that one should rely on the expert that makes the better argument. Of course I realize that is error prone, the expert that makes the better sounding argument to the layman may in fact be wrong. But that is all a layman can do. We do this all the time. If we get two opinions from two doctors, we might indeed consider as part of the equation the relative qualifications of the two doctors. But even if one doctor "on paper" is more qualified, but if the second doctor makes the better case for his position, we will likely take the second doctor's advise.

And so you “appeal to authority”?

Admitedly, we all take many things "on authority". We all do. The problem comes when we stake a claim on somebody as being an unimpeachable authority. I certainly by no means take Richard Carrier as an unimpeachable authority. I think he is a better authority than Greanleaf ON HISTORY, but if someone gives a good reason to disagree with something Carrier says, I have no problem with that.

Since we are discussing matters of historical fact, the charge of “bias” is irrelevant.

Where on earth do you get that from??? You've never, ever heard of history books being slanted because of bias? This is completely new to you?

So you see, Paul, that mind reading is not a factor in this conclusion. He is accepting the testimony of the evangelists based upon the legal presumption of innocence, given the absence of evidence to the contrary.

You quoted his reasons for why he doesn't feel it likely that the authors of the Gospels had reason to be dishonest. But he did NOT merely say there was an "absence of evidence to the contrary", he categorically claimed NO POSSIBLE motive. These are VERY DIFFERENT claims. The former he can try to make a case for, the latter requires mind reading, mind reading of someone dead for 2000 years.

Either a document is genuine or it is not. It’s that simple.

No, its not that simple, although I concede my complaint was not sufficiently elaborated. We could possibly get into a debate as to whether the renditions we have today are exactly or nearly exactly as to the original writings. Like I could comment on the fact that the ending of Mark is now generally considered to be a later addition. So I could indeed try to argue that the documents are not entirely genuine. It is not a pure yes or no question as you suggest.

But I don't think I want to debate that. So, for the sake of argument, I will concede that the modern Bible is equivalent to the original writings. So, if we were having a court case, I would concede to allow the Bible to be admitted as being the genuine writings of the people in question. But that just doesn't mean that everything the people wrote is true. I'd probably similarly allow the admission of the Koran as being the genuine musings of Mohammad. And the Book of Mormon to be the the musings of Joseph Smith. But that doesn't mean any juror in this hypothetical case should consider the writings to be factual. The amount of weight that should placed on this evidence in this hypothetical case would be *purely* up to the juror.

The events of the New Testament accounts were witnessed by hostiles and friendlies alike.

There is scripture where Paul says to not listen to the doubters. I don't remember it exactly. If you insist, I could probably locate it. The bottom line is, Paul does not appear to be receptive to those who disagree.

The documents of the New Testament circulated throughout the Middle East in the midst of hostiles and friendlies alike.

Not for at least a hundred years, to which any witnesses would be dead. the Jewish war of 64 killed or relocated 1/3 of the population in the region, making validation of the claims not practical. Similarly, cults were a dime a dozen, and non-members of Christianity didn't really have any motivation to check the claims of Christians.

Of Herod Agrippa II, Encyclopedia Britannica notes that he was born A.D. 27, and died A.D. 93, meaning he was alive during the time the New Testament documents were written and circulated throughout the region.

Well, at least you picked someone from the time. I have to give you credit there. But, you haven't produced any evidence that the NT documents were in any significant circulation at that time. Also, you are relying upon Luke, meaning you are using the Bible to validate the Bible, which is circular reasoning. And even Luke says he is reporting that which was "handed down". Though he says he has endeavored to make sure it is correct, still, by his own account he is producing heresay. That's a nice legal term for you. In our hypothetical court case where I allow you to enter the Gospel accounts as indeed being the original writings, but as heresay, the weight they should be given is negligible.

consider Thomas Arnold, headmaster of Rugby for 14 years, author of the three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the chair of Modern History at Oxford.

Hey, cool, you picked someone that looks to be a good expert. I didn't personally go check out your references, but I'll simply accept that you provided accurate references and your expert is a qualified expert in history. Yet, in what you quoted, I didn't see any actual explanation for his reasons in his analysis. He just said "I've checked it, lots of other people have checked it, its really sound". Well, what did he check? What was his methodology?

As for Carrier’s claims, they have already been addressed by J.P. Holding at http://www.tektonics.org/af/bananas01.html

Oh good, I'm glad you brought that up. But I will respond separately to that in another post to follow.

[Tophet]

"athorities" [sic]
"supercedes" [sic]
His was probably a typo; yours probably wasn't.

"Probably." In other words, you don't know.




I think the larger point in all this is that Mr Greenleaf must resort to legal technicality which transfers burden of proof because he knows there is no incontrovertible proof for the claims.

Except that his treatise refutes your claim. Did you not read it?

Legal technicalities say OJ Simpson is not guilty of murder.

Except he was found guilty in a civil court.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

According to what, your wishful thinking?

One wonders why God would make it all not unreasonably appear to be the work of ancient, humanly-inspired mythmakers, then leave the explaining to the intellectually dubious likes of Mssrs Strobel and Holding.

Except that you have not met the burden of proof.

[Paul Jacobsen]

Well, since you brought up Holding's criticisms of Carrier's discussion on the crossing of the Rubicon, I've decided to post my response in a separate post. Before I do so, I readily concede I'm speaking outside my expertese. I'm simply explaining why I found Holding's response unsatisfactory primarily based on simply what Holding and Carrier say. I will rely upon other facts that I understand to be true from other readings, but I concede that I'm not qualified to state them as facts for sure.

With that in mind, here is my response to Holding's response to Carrier on the crossing of the Rubicon.

> I have to give this statement the Stupid Skeptical Irony Award, because
> we know darned well that "Jesus' own word" on his crucifixion OR his
> resurrection would be rejected by Skeptics as a fabrication!

Ah, the famous Holding ad Hominem. What skeptics might say about any writings of Jesus isn't the issue. The issue is you don't have them. This is a misdirection to try to deflect away from the fact that you don't have them.

> Beyond that, we have addressed the matter of Jesus writing here

What Holding says in the linked paper was that the society was an oral society. (Insert favorite Bill Clinton joke here.) First off, there is the fact that simply human memory is falible, and claiming that they had better memory skills than today is one thing, proving it is another. It is doubtful they had different brain chemistry, and the workings of the human memory are simply known for a fact to be fallible. Very fallible.

Now I don't doubt that they may well could have been more apt at memorization, like a modern actor might be at memorizing lines. But that doesn't mean that you can walk up to an actor and ask him or her to recite everything that was said to him or her that day! (Or 20 years ago...) Even a skilled actor won't remember their lines with just one reading or recitation. And an actor that is memorizing lines is actively trying to memorize. If at the time someone tells you something you don't know that you will be expected to remember exactly what was said, you won't put in the effort to try to do so.

>don't think for one moment that Caesar himself put pen to paper; you
>can bet your patoot he had scribes, just as Jesus did

A professional scribe, that is actively writing down what is said as it is said, and asking the speaker to confirm the writings is hardly comparible to someone writing 30 years later. More misdirection here.

> For the crucifixion, we have enemies of Christianity (Tacitus, Lucian)
> and a neutral (Josephus) as well as all the Gospels.

Misdirection. The comparision was the Resurrection vs. the crossing of the Rubicon. Carrier would agree there is at least rudimentary evidence of the crucifixion. (He is not a mythist, by the way.) But since Holding mentioned, Tacitus, Lucian and Josephus, I will comment briefly. There is extremely good evidence that Josephus is fraudulent. Tacitus wrote 80 years after and couldn't have interviewed any witnesses. He possibly could have read Roman records which would be good evidence of the crucifixion. But, he didn't say what his source of info was, and his reference to the crucifixion appears to be intended to explain who the Christians of his time were, not to actually research Jesus. Lucian was even later, at 170 AD. Also, his motivation again was not to research any historical Jesus but to comment on the Christians of his time.

So, these evidences really aren't even all that good for merely the crucifixion. But regardless if they are or aren't, the bottom line is, Holding is misdirecting. The comparision was the Resurrection vs. the crossing of the Rubicon.

> These are all later than
> Cicero to Caesar; but I wonder whether this makes any difference,
> since whereas had political reasons to mention the conquest,
> Christianity's enemies would have no parallel positive motivation.

WOULDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE??? How about actually have access to any witnesses to know what actually happened??? Also, basically, Holding is making an excuse as to why Christianty's enemies wouldn't mention things. What Holding is not getting is that having a good excuse for missing evidence still leaves you with missing evidence. Christians always claim, "oh, we got all this great evidence". But when confronted that they don't have such evidence, they say, "oh, but there is a good reason why we don't have it" If you don't have it, you don't have it and it doesn't really matter why you don't have it.

> It's a little unfair to demand coins and inscriptions of the sort the
> state only could have the means to produce, especially from Jews who
> would not produce things that could be images,

More misdirection. He wasn't demanding coins per se, he was demanding physical evidence.

> but what about these
> burial cave inscriptions from the first century?

This is new to me. I thought there was utterly no first-century Christian artifacts. Any more information?

> Well, for the Crucifixion, Tacitus, Josephus, and Lucian fill this
> bill, except for the part about citing or quoting sources, which would
> hardly be necessary for such a simple event as the Crucifixion.

For the last friggin' time, the issue was the Resurection!!! And Tacitus, Josephus and Lucian, while giving at least some evidence for the crucifixion, it is not anywhere near the same level--as already discussed. But, notice how Holding says that bothering to quote sources wouldn't be necessary for a simple event as the crucifixion. But that also implies that actually doing much research to verify a crucifixion actually took place wouldn't have been considered necessary either! Tacitus and Lucian didn't have any particular reason to doubt that a crucifixion took place, so the probably didn't bother to spend much time verifing it took place. Therefore, even though they believed a crucifxion took place, their testimony on this isn't very strong because they probably didn't see a need to research it.

> but ideologically, that is what we would expect.

Again, "okay, we don't have it, but I've got this really good excuse..."
If you ain't got it you ain't got it.

> Oh? That's "all" that's needed to explain the rise of Christianity?
> That "all" just slides right by uncritically -- we say, an actual
> resurrection is indeed needed.

Again, he is not directly responding to Carrier, although I can see how it looks like he is. Holding's paper, "The Impossible Faith" essentially claims that belief would have never happened if there was no actual Ressurrection. But that isn't really what Carrier is trying to address. Carrier is saying, for the moment, ignore how a false belief in a Ressurrection might have arose, and ignore how a false belief in the crossing of the Rubicon might have been cultivated by Ceasar. But, if a false belief in the crossing of the Rubicon had arisen instead of a genuine crosing of the Rubicon, Ceasar couldn't have then captured Rome.

But if the belief in the Ressurrection was not based on a realilty, people would do what they did regardless. Once a belief arose, whether it was from a real Resurrection or a false belief no longer matters. So yes, a mere belief is indeed all that is necessary.

Now you and Holding would likely say that Carrier still needs to address how a false belief might have arisen. Holding's paper "The Impossible Faith" explains why Holding believes belief would not have arisen without a genuine Ressurrection. First, I can say that I would be interested to see Carrier directly address the arguments in "The Impossible Faith". But here is the basic problem: Holding, even if he is basically successful in defeating proposed naturalistic explainations is still not the same thing as positive evidence for his side.

Whenever discussing possible supernatural events, positive evidence can never be produced. There is no way to measure the supernatural. The only thing an advocate of the supernatural can produce is an attack on possible naturalistic explanations. I don't happen to personally believe the "swoon theory". But, you'd have to concede that when first confronted with a claim of a resurrection from the dead, a reasonable first hypothesis is that it was faked, right? And so, in this particular case, if I were to propose the "swoon theory", you would produce arguments against the swoon theory to attempt to show it is unlikely.

Similarly if I were to propose the legend theory, you would produce arguments against it. Basically, you would argue something like, "yeah, those naturalistic theories are valid theories to consider, but the evidence doesn't support them." And you argue that since all the naturalistic explanations fail, then the supernatural explanation must be the actual answer. But discounting naturalistic theories is simply not the same thing as producing positive evidence of the supernatural. And you are simply without the ability to produce positive evidence as the supernatural is fundamentally impossible to have positive evidence for.

Basically, Holding's article depends on his understanding of the culture of the time. And, no doubt he knows more about the culture of the time than I do. But, I think that argument based on culture is ultimately not all that strong. There is nothing fundamentally surprising that sometimes some things happen that are against prevailing culture. Its simply not my job to explain how something might happen against culture. It just does. I don't have to explain what happened. I wasn't there. You weren't there. Holding wasn't there. Hell if I know what happened. Why should I?

Also, Carrier has some articles that dispute Holding's presentation of the culture. No doubt both Carrier and Holding are biased, as well as I am. So if I say that I suspect Carrier's presentation of the culture seems to be more believable, you'd probably blame it on my bias. And there would be some truth to that, I am biased. But I also think it reasonable to take Holding's presentation with a grain of salt due to his bias as well.

Also, an argument from culture is, as I said, an argument to discount naturalistic explanations. Which is not the same thing as positive evidence for the for the supernatural. Which you just can't produce because it is unproducable.

[Lazy Agnostic]

"Probably." In other words, you don't know.The conclusion is not at all extraordinary.

Except that you have not met the burden of proof. I can produce twenty people who will tell you I played guitar with John Lennon---now you prove that I didn't.

[jpholding]

Legal technicalities say OJ Simpson is not guilty of murder.


No, you abominable losbter-freak of nature, it was an idiot jury that said this; and as Tophet noted, and to which you had absolutely no reply (per your usual tack of ignoring what you can't answer), a civil jury disagreed. Legal technicalities did not. Do your homework before you mouth off again. Your pissant commentary is becoming a tiring bore when you continually do it without so much as an ounce of homework. Even jimbo can do better than that.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One wonders why God would make it all not unreasonably appear to be the work of ancient, humanly-inspired mythmakers, then leave the explaining to the intellectually dubious likes of Mssrs Strobel and Holding.

One wonders why God is obliged to kiss the rear end of ignorant neophytes like you who will not so much as crack open a single work of scholarship to get down and dirty and provide actual answers. You have yet to answer a single argument ever made here; all you can do is recite the standard mantras from the gullible Skeptical crowd, and suppose that saying that something is "silly" is an actual answer. Pathetic -- ludicrous -- despicable.

Keep it up, LA, and I'll break you down on every corner. I'll put you right where you belong, in the corner of the sewer.

I can produce twenty people who will tell you I played guitar with John Lennon---now you prove that I didn't.

Produce them. Now.


Paul --

Tophet is a bit busy and has asked me to step in for a bit.

Ah, the famous Holding ad Hominem. What skeptics might say about any writings of Jesus isn't the issue

I agree. Nevertheless Carrier is the one who made the original unreasonable demand which I know would produce an inconsistent result with his own worldview. That made it an issue, not of history, but of Carrier's blatant intellectual hypocrisy.

The issue is you don't have them. This is a misdirection to try to deflect away from the fact that you don't have them.

:shrug: This relates to our whole issue over historical knowing. Given your (at least consistent) disposal of almost all recorded history in the same fashion, I applaud you for being consistent even if you stand wholly against the historical method as practiced and understood by the scholarly consensus.

First off, there is the fact that simply human memory is falible, and claiming that they had better memory skills than today is one thing, proving it is another.

It's been proven quite handily and is widely accepted by the consensus of scholarship. We have pre-literate socities today capable of excellent oral recollection. I'm sorry, but you'll need to do better than vague appeals to "fallible human memory" and chemistry. http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/orality01.html is a start.

But that doesn't mean that you can walk up to an actor and ask him or her to recite everything that was said to him or her that day! (Or 20 years ago...)

No, but the actor won't have been reciting his lines over and over and over again for the past 20 years. That would be a better analogy to what the ancients had. They had their techniques. Using such as them I can still recall the Greek alphabet perfectly, for example, though I learned it 20 years ago. I recite it (not willingly; it sticks in my head, like those Mr Clean jingles) at least once a week in my head. Hence I recall it perfectly.

If at the time someone tells you something you don't know that you will be expected to remember exactly what was said, you won't put in the effort to try to do so.

Jesus the teacher...they were told they were expected to remember.

A professional scribe, that is actively writing down what is said as it is said, and asking the speaker to confirm the writings is hardly comparible to someone writing 30 years later. More misdirection here.

From what? I was addressing Carrier's actual objection. How did I not do that?

Misdirection. The comparision was the Resurrection vs. the crossing of the Rubicon.

I know that. Someone else had brought in the crucifixion. That was addressed to them.

There is extremely good evidence that Josephus is fraudulent


Pfah -- http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/josephus.html -- only bits of it. Don't get in over your head.

Tacitus wrote 80 years after and couldn't have interviewed any witnesses.

So? He wrote of stuff even earlier. But I take it from prior comments of yours that you'd at least be consistent (if contrary to scholarship) in rejecting all of that too. But anyway more on them in answer to your idea at the same address, just replace "josephus" with "tacitus" and "lucian". Lot better than you'd like to think...




WOULDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE??? How about actually have access to any witnesses to know what actually happened??? Also, basically, Holding is making an excuse as to why Christianty's enemies wouldn't mention things.

And you're not telling me why they would in the first place.


More misdirection. He wasn't demanding coins per se, he was demanding physical evidence.

He mentioned coins. How is this misdirection? I'm not going to assume what he's talking about otherwise.


This is new to me. I thought there was utterly no first-century Christian artifacts. Any more information?

I have a link somewhere on the site; check under the entry for Jesus or the Resurrection.

But, notice how Holding says that bothering to quote sources wouldn't be necessary for a simple event as the crucifixion. But that also implies that actually doing much research to verify a crucifixion actually took place wouldn't have been considered necessary either!

For an event that was so well known as to be a given, no. I assume you don't need to do any research or quote sources to tell us that 2 planes crashed into the WTC. I think Jesus' crucifixion was of the same level -- if it hadn't been, Tacy and Lucy would have looked into it as needed.


Again, he is not directly responding to Carrier, although I can see how it looks like he is.

I don't claim to be responding directly but indirectly. Come now, don't read more into it than I say.

But, if a false belief in the crossing of the Rubicon had arisen instead of a genuine crosing of the Rubicon, Ceasar couldn't have then captured Rome.

Why? He couldn't have come from another direction?

But if the belief in the Ressurrection was not based on a realilty, people would do what they did regardless

TIF disproves that rather strongly.

First, I can say that I would be interested to see Carrier directly address the arguments in "The Impossible Faith".

Good luck. Carrier is pissed at me for exposing his malfeasance where Zalmoxis is concerned and has pledged to ignore me overall.

Holding, even if he is basically successful in defeating proposed naturalistic explainations is still not the same thing as positive evidence for his side.

Yes, I suppose I don't allow for the space alien Jesus theory eh. :smile:

But, you'd have to concede that when first confronted with a claim of a resurrection from the dead, a reasonable first hypothesis is that it was faked, right?

Only if one is manifestly ignorant of the process of crucifixion and entombment, yes....

Basically, Holding's article depends on his understanding of the culture of the time. And, no doubt he knows more about the culture of the time than I do. But, I think that argument based on culture is ultimately not all that strong.

I'll let the implied self-refutation stand on its own here...

Also, Carrier has some articles that dispute Holding's presentation of the culture.

I don't know of any that specifically address such things by him. He once made some single comment about collectivism or shame being outlandish but he didn't say more than that, and he's way behind the 8 ball there.

[Paul Jacobsen]

No, you abominable losbter-freak of nature

May I request that you use separate posts to respond to me vs. to others that may participate in the thread?

Tophet is a bit busy and has asked me to step in for a bit.

That is fair, in regards to your comments on the Rubicon issue. I hope Tophet will respond to my other post about the legal stuff. The main reason I responded to those in separate posts as I suspected you would either want to or be asked to respond to that.

I agree.

You agree that your response was ad hominem attack and misdirection? Well, that's mighty big of you.

Nevertheless Carrier is the one who made the original unreasonable demand

Well, for one, I don't think the word "demand" is quite right. Somebody else had made the original comparision between the Resurrection and the crossing of the Rubicon. Carrier said "well, this is what we have for the Rubicon". I don't believe it was presented as being "okay, you gotta have Jesus' words or you got nothing". It is simply presented as one thing you have in the case of Caesar and don't for Jesus.

That said, I can concede that Caesars own word is probably the least compelling of his evidences. Caesar could lie. It could even be a lie that Caesar wrote it or said it. _The Civil War_ could be a complete fabrication never written by Caesar.

That made it an issue, not of history, but of Carrier's blatant intellectual hypocrisy.

So, you show how much better you are that Carrier by jumping in with your ad hominems? Let's stick to the facts.

This relates to our whole issue over historical knowing. Given your (at least consistent) disposal of almost all recorded history in the same fashion, I applaud you for being consistent even if you stand wholly against the historical method as practiced and understood by the scholarly consensus.

I had recommended to you to take a class in logic. I suppose I need to recommend to myself to take a class in epistemology and/or metaphysics. In my debate with G. Brady Lenardos, he had made a similar charge as to you are making--that I'm "disposing of all history" or something like that. I've never actually gone interviewing historians to see what their views on the subject are. I suspect I'd probably run into some historians that would say things like epistemology and metaphysics are for the philosophy department and they concern themselves in practical matters. On the other hand, my "gut feeling" is most historians would have some ideas on these subjects. As well as the nature of science.

What I'm about to say, my "gut feeling" is most historians would agree with, though you likely would say they wouldn't. I don't know unless I go interviewing some. But whether they would or wouldn't agree with me, it is a simple fact that the nature of science is nothing is ever proven absolute. Science merely looks for the best explanation given the evidence. There are times when the amount of evidence is sufficiently convincing that it is hard to imagine evidence to the contrary. Yet is it always at least remotely possible. This isn't "throwing away all history" (or science for that matter.) It is the realization that all science and all history is simply the best explanation given the evidence.

Dan Barker has said, "of all the legitimate sciences, history is the weakest." Some historians might object to that, but I suspect most wouldn't. I think most historians would know that history has the decided disadvantage that it isn't directly repeatable. Caesar isn't going to cross the Rubicon again. Jesus, whatever He did or didn't do is done and isn't happenning again. Yet though it is a disadvantage, it may nonetheless be an appeal for some historians. The very fact that history has a higher degree of uncertainty and the challenges therein may have its appeals to those that enjoy history.

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/orality01.html is a start.

I read your article. It was chock full of, "it can be inferred", "it is not unlikely", "it can be assumed". If there were all these scribes running around the countryside, why do we not have any other records of Jesus? Nobody that was healed or fed by Jesus had scribes?

I'm sorry, but you'll need to do better than vague appeals to "fallible human memory" and chemistry.

If I got you some good articles on studies of human memory, would you be interested?

They had their techniques. Using such as them I can still recall the Greek alphabet perfectly,

There are memory techniques one can use. And you say the apostles knew Jesus was the teacher and therefore expected to need to remember. Yet at the same time, emotions detract from these abilities. I could probably buy that for things like parables, the apostles could have sat dispassionately memorizing what the parable says and remember it accurately. But at times of emotional turmoil or exhuberance, Jesus' crucifixion and death, and other events that are filled with action and emotion, I just don't think you can posit the oral nature of the society as a satisfactory reason to believe accuracy in these situations.

I know that. Someone else had brought in the crucifixion. That was addressed to them.

Okay, I re-read your "Bananas" paper. And you do clarify this--you accurately point out that "Bananaz" mistated what Carrier said. So I should have caught this the first time. My bad. That said, it does seem that you took advantage of Bananaz mistake, allowing you to use Carrier's arguments regarding the crossing of the Rubicon vs. the Resurrection and apply them to the less improbable crucifixion. As Carrier is not a mythist and I believe he believes there was a crucifixion, I think he would agree with you that there is sufficient evidence to conclude there was a crucifixion. So I think you unfairly capitilized on Bananaz mistake.

Pfah -- http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/josephus.html -- only bits of it. Don't get in over your head.

Have you improved that article lately? It is better than I remembered it. Yet, you do concede that 13 of the 52 scholars consider it a total fabrication. That's a minory (25%), but still, a fair number. Its not like its one guy out of a 1000. And, you do concede it is at least partially an interpolation. Once you concede that, then the arguments like, "The description of Jesus as a 'wise man' cannot be rejected out of hand, for Josephus and other Jews could have regarded Jesus as a wise man without accepting His divinity" are not compelling. Once you admit it is partially fabrication, you need better positive evidence for your side than merely, "this other stuff could be genuine".

So? He wrote of stuff even earlier.

What "stuff"? "Stuff" related to Jesus?

And you're not telling me why they would in the first place.

You could be 100% right that they wouldn't have a reason to. But as I said, that still leaves you without evidence. It doesn't really matter why you don't have it, you don't have it.

Of course in any dispute of fact, there is always some evidence that could be there potentially that isn't. That is one of the reasons history is difficult. There is always more evidence that we would like to have but don't. There are no doubt that a virually limitless amount of things happened that historians would love to know about, but never will as the evidence is gone. But the bottom line is, if you don't have it, you don't have it. Even if your reason is a great reason, you still don't have it.

He mentioned coins. How is this misdirection? I'm not going to assume what he's talking about otherwise.

Oh, I think I can concede he could have been a bit clearer. He should have preficed the discussion of the coins by saying that for the crossing of the Rubicon, we have physical evidence, and that includes the coins. But, I think it is clear that of the Resurrection, he was simply demanding physical evidence of some kind, not coins specifically. Here is what he said: "On the other hand, we have absolutely no physical evidence of any kind in the case of the resurrection." I think that it is clear that the coins were intended as an example of possible physical evidence rather than a specific demand. But, as I said, I can concede he should have been a bit clearer.

For an event that was so well known as to be a given, no. I assume you don't need to do any research or quote sources to tell us that 2 planes crashed into the WTC. I think Jesus' crucifixion was of the same level -- if it hadn't been, Tacy and Lucy would have looked into it as needed.

The problem is, there are times when something becomes so well known that it is not considered worth investigating--and yet false. That happens.


Why? He couldn't have come from another direction?

Hey, I like this. A fair alternate theory. I haven't looke at the geography, or where various troups were. I had assumed from Carrier's presentation that there wasn't any other practical route, given the terrain and troup locations. But if you produce a map of the region and troup locations and argue a viable alternate route and show Carrier that he's wrong and Caesar didn't cross the Rubicon, go for it!

But, of course, your just helping me out, indirectly. If something as seemingly rock-solid as the evidence for the crossing of the Rubicon can be shown to be error, so can just about anything else.

But if the belief in the Ressurrection was not based on a realilty, people would do what they did regardless

TIF disproves that rather strongly.

No, it doesn't. How can it? If you believe I'm a space alien, you will do what you do based on that belief regardless of whether I'm a space alien or not. TIF attempts to prove the belief would have never arisen without a Resurrection. But for the moment anyway, ignoring how such a belief might have falsely arisen, once the false belief exists, it exists.

Only if one is manifestly ignorant of the process of crucifixion and entombment, yes....

There are lots of theoreticals, like Pilate was paid off. Jesus hired a Pilate impersonator and Roman guard impersonators. Jesus' evil twin watched the good Jesus crucify. Sure, I know all those theories are wild conspiracy theory claims that aren't exactly very likely. I don't believe any of them. But as even Dr. Craig said in Case for Faith, almost any theory is a better theory than rising from the dead, and that would include wild conspiracy theories.

I don't know of any that specifically address such things by him.

The article I was referring to was the article about quaks and frauds in the Roman Empire, or something like that.

P.S. I'll try to get back to our Strobel debate sometime this week if I can. I've spent too much time on this diversion.

[jpholding]

May I request that you use separate posts to respond to me vs. to others that may participate in the thread?

Well -- I did try to indicate different quotes...but I'll try to do it otherwise. It's a little cumbersome with this sputtering Pentium 2 I have. :tongue:

You agree that your response was ad hominem attack and misdirection? Well, that's mighty big of you.

No...that's not what I said. I agree with you that the point was irrelevant; but it was someone else who brought it in and mixed up the rez and the cruc. I was addressing them in my original article, not Carrier at that point. I see you caught this later -- OK.

Well, for one, I don't think the word "demand" is quite right. Somebody else had made the original comparision between the Resurrection and the crossing of the Rubicon.

Do you know who it was and what source Carrier was criticizing?

So, you show how much better you are that Carrier by jumping in with your ad hominems? Let's stick to the facts.

I am. If you want evidence for Carrier's hypocrisy, I have it.


What I'm about to say, my "gut feeling" is most historians would agree with, though you likely would say they wouldn't. I don't know unless I go interviewing some.

At the same time, the way historians write doesn't give any hint that they think as you do. They sound rather definitive in their approach -- not despairing. They do not write like they think nothing is proven satisfactorily. You speak of "proven absolute" but not even our courts demand proof beyond all doubt -- just beyond reasonable ones. Even your idea of "Caesar could lie" I find, well, appalling.

Dan Barker has said, "of all the legitimate sciences, history is the weakest." Some historians might object to that, but I suspect most wouldn't.

Dan Barker? :eek: Can you at least find someone qualified in some relevant field to back you up on this?

I think most historians would know that history has the decided disadvantage that it isn't directly repeatable.

Isn't this true of some aspects of science as well -- cosmology, for example?

If there were all these scribes running around the countryside, why do we not have any other records of Jesus? Nobody that was healed or fed by Jesus had scribes?

Hardly likely. Most couldn't afford a scribe. That's assuming you could find one like Matt that had no ideological problem with Jesus. Then, you have to work out the preservation mechanism. The vast majority of lit just hasn't survived so that's not a good objection to begin with.

But can you cast any doubt at all factually on what I wrote?


If I got you some good articles on studies of human memory, would you be interested?

Only if it cross-corresponded with studies of memory in oral cultures and especially in didactic settings.

Yet at the same time, emotions detract from these abilities.

What you suggest is not a detraction from the ability to memorize per se...but all you're doing is inventing history to explain away history you don't like. You have no evidence for 1) emotional turmoil; 2) such turmoil at specific times that affected memorization of discourse; 3) no method of establishing how and when a specific change occured. I consider this about as valid as "maybe aliens came down and changed the text". You have a burden to prove distortion as opposed to the known facts of ancient perservation ability. Merely throwing "emotional turmoil" in the air without justification isn't viable.


That said, it does seem that you took advantage of Bananaz mistake, allowing you to use Carrier's arguments regarding the crossing of the Rubicon vs. the Resurrection and apply them to the less improbable crucifixion.

Well, I merely anticipated the question I knew readers would have. And I think you know that lesser of my opponents, had I not done that, would have put a spin on it and claimed I was avoiding the issue.

Have you improved that article lately? It is better than I remembered it.

I added stuff from Price recently.

Yet, you do concede that 13 of the 52 scholars consider it a total fabrication. That's a minory (25%), but still, a fair number.

True, but the bulk of those, if not all, are from quite some time ago and are against the current consensus. Feldman surveyed back at least 100 years as I recall.

. And, you do concede it is at least partially an interpolation. Once you concede that, then the arguments like, "The description of Jesus as a 'wise man' cannot be rejected out of hand, for Josephus and other Jews could have regarded Jesus as a wise man without accepting His divinity" are not compelling.

Textual critics would find that sort of reasoning rather unworthy. Guilt by association isn't part of their science.

What "stuff"? "Stuff" related to Jesus?

No, everything. But if you're going to say, "It was 80 years after, you can't trust it then" you just wipe out anything he records that is 80+ years old as well. That's the only route of consistency.

But the bottom line is, if you don't have it, you don't have it. Even if your reason is a great reason, you still don't have it.

Fine. But you also have no grounds to appeal to it as a problem in the first place -- as the critics I answer often do.

The problem is, there are times when something becomes so well known that it is not considered worth investigating--and yet false. That happens.

Nevertheless it would be your burden to explain why this would be such a case. And it does not do to simply contrive a scenario. My "other direction" example didn't show that the original account was in error- all I did was contrive a scenario with no evidence, and thus it would be useless and foolish speculation. So if you want to take that as "help" -- you may wish to think twice.

No, it doesn't. How can it?

Rather easily. The social setting shows that nothing of this sort would grow without surviving investigation. Clearly the facts were run over with a fine toothed comb, and after all other explanations were exhausted, the answer -- however improbable -- was accepted.

None of this keeps someone from a foolish "maybe Jesus was an alien" routine (like William Shatner)....but then, that's "beyond all doubt" as opposed to "beyond reasonable doubt".

But for the moment anyway, ignoring how such a belief might have falsely arisen, once the false belief exists, it exists.

And once it exists, in this social setting, it is not left alone. That ruins any appeal to merely the idea of it existing.

But as even Dr. Craig said in Case for Faith, almost any theory is a better theory than rising from the dead, and that would include wild conspiracy theories.

Of course you know he was being sarcastic...


P.S. I'll try to get back to our Strobel debate sometime this week if I can. I've spent too much time on this diversion.

Take your time...I have plenty to do. Just put touches on a presentation for The Da Vinci Code today. Now that will be quite fun....

[Lazy Agnostic]

it was an idiot jury that said this; and as Tophet noted, and to which you had absolutely no reply (per your usual tack of ignoring what you can't answer), a civil jury disagreed. Legal technicalities did not. It wasn't the most-apt analogy but the point stands, that the vicissitudes and machinations of jurisprudence can often veer afield of truth and erroneous "facts-in-evidence". Greenleaf, et al must vehemently cling to legal loopholes to shift any doubt because there is no incontrovertible evidence for the claims. I mean, you guys can't even get things straight amongst yourselves.
Do your homework before you mouth off again. Even jimbo can do better than that.
I'm spending enough time with the thesaurus, as it is. I'll leave that to my betters.
One wonders why God is obliged to kiss the rear end of ignorant neophytes like you who will not so much as crack open a single work of scholarship to get down and dirty and provide actual answers. ["down and dirty" with scholarship; a telling metaphor]

One wonders why God would have us equate faith with kissing the rear ends of preachers and apologists like a bunch of Eddie Haskells.

One needn't be able to utter a whit of scholarship about his faith in order to be edified by it. Pharisees and those who covet glory for their intellect and personality will try to convince us otherwise. They have hijacked a noble faith from its rightful inheritors. There will always be those who come along and try to sell us what we can have for free.

God has chosen to remain largely a mystery; it is doubtful He has divinely-anointed the plethora of louche, strutting, ministry-centered wannabes who scour the powermongering plain, large and small.

Embracing Christianity can be a noble endeavor; one I can cheerfully nurture in others. I have neither the desire nor need to give them reasons to not believe. The only thing I can reasonably request is an acknowledgment that it is not unreasonable to view scriptures as the work of ancient, humanly-inspired mythmakers. I know how viscerally difficult it is to step-outside those cherished notions; it took me years.

Faith can exist, and even flourish, amidst doubt. Pharisees and apologists are like professional sports teams, in that they conspire to convince us that we are nothing without them; and boy is there a ton of dough out there.

You have yet to answer a single argument ever made here; all you can do is recite the standard mantras from the gullible Skeptical crowd. I'll look at wisdom wherever it may be found. I haven't seen any coming from you; but I know it's in there somewhere.

I'm just tossing in creative and courageous thoughts from the sidelines.


Pathetic -- ludicrous -- despicable.
Feeble, at times, but none of those.

Keep it up, LA, and I'll break you down on every corner. I'll put you right where you belong, in the corner of the sewer.
Lovely metaphor.

Produce them. Now. I've already told you there were plenty of wittnesses; prove that I didn't. There are probably 100 teenagers who can say "My dad jammed with a guy who played guitar with John Lennon." The teenagers will show their kids an autographed photo of their grandad with me.The grandsons will bring their friends to my guitar ranch and soon there will be thousands. One or more of them will make it big and mention my name as his biggest influence in a GuitarPlayer magazine interview. Hundreds of thousands---over the years, millions of people, if asked "Did that guy play guitar with John Lennon?" will be able to honestly say "Yeah, I believe he did."

That's how myths work. There is no good reason for God to predicate perdition upon some level of belief in what not-unreasonably appears to be humanly-based. It it weren't true, what would they have to say to make us believe it?

I don't think God gave us the gift of Reason to have us forgo its use.

[jpholding]

It wasn't the most-apt analogy but the point stands, that the vicissitudes and machinations of jurisprudence can often veer afield of truth and erroneous "facts-in-evidence".

Spare us the indignity of your tortuously vague rationalizations for your profound error in reportage. In other words, your example failed miserably, leaving you to retreat to this sort of non-substantive crapola.

I mean, you guys can't even get things straight amongst yourselves.

Please. You are the one who showed appalling ignorance of the Simpson verdict and its causes. Monstrous hypocrite.


One wonders why God would have us equate faith with kissing the rear ends of preachers and apologists like a bunch of Eddie Haskells.

The metaphor is the most apt available for the laziness and inepititude you show and others like you show. What's wrong? Scared by words?

One needn't be able to utter a whit of scholarship about his faith in order to be edified by it.

Ignorance of this sort is like drinking those artificially-flavored fruit drinks: It tastes great ("is edifying") but gives you liver cancer in the end.

They have hijacked a noble faith from its rightful inheritors. There will always be those who come along and try to sell us what we can have for free.

:violin:

Maybe Eddie Albert will lend you his fife player. :lmbo: Good Zeus, what a load of corn that performance was.

God has chosen to remain largely a mystery; it is doubtful He has divinely-anointed the plethora of louche, strutting, ministry-centered wannabes who scour the powermongering plain, large and small.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah....more of the vague and tortuous generalizations without an ounce of support.

The only thing I can reasonably request is an acknowledgment that it is not unreasonable to view scriptures as the work of ancient, humanly-inspired mythmakers

The most "reasonable" thing is to take no view until the evidence is sifted and weighed. But that would require actual "work" on your part so it would be pointless to give you that as an option.


I'm just tossing in creative and courageous thoughts from the sidelines.

Like Tartarus. Your just farting repeatedly into the air in hopes of blinding those who would see that your emperor is buck naked.

I've already told you there were plenty of wittnesses; prove that I didn't.

Since you think "witness" has two Ts I'm already doubting. But I'm doing exactly what an ancient would do when presented with the claim that 500 had seen Jesus: I want to meet or hear from some. So get your rear end out of the chair and move.

Or was that just another falsehood spewed from your abominable mouth, along with all of the other unsubstantiable vague generalizations?

I don't think God gave us the gift of Reason to have us forgo its use.

He apparently gave some of us here the gift of Bulldada and no way to shut it off.

[Paul Jacobsen]

He apparently gave some of us here the gift of Bulldada and no way to shut it off.

That's it Holding. Cut the crap. I don't know if you have some history with Lazy Agnostic outside this thread. But take it outside. The only one you are embarrassing here is yourself. Apologize now. And no excuses.

[jpholding]

That's it Holding. Cut the crap. I don't know if you have some history with Lazy Agnostic outside this thread.

Then you are in no position to judge matters, Paul. You don't know. Hence you have no place to speak unless it is to ASK first.

There will be no "apologies". LA has repeatedly spread falsehoods and used dirty manipulation tactics in threads that have been on here since before I invited you. He deserves every ounce of academic contempt that he receives.

If you want to say that I have no right to dispense with intruders in my assigned domain as I please, then please find some TWeb rule I have violated and report to a moderator.

Ironic, is it not, that once again, your "I don't know" predisposes you to make a decision anyway...but I digress...

[Paul Jacobsen]

Then you are in no position to judge matters, Paul. You don't know.

I know what has gone on in *this* thread, the only thread that I (formerly) had any interest in. And what has gone on in *this* thread is you making an ass out of yourself. And no, nobody deserves the personal attacks that you have done here. Goodbye. I've dispensed with most of your arguments anyway.

[jpholding]

I know what has gone on in *this* thread, the only thread that I (formerly) had any interest in. And what has gone on in *this* thread is you making an ass out of yourself. And no, nobody deserves the personal attacks that you have done here. Goodbye. I've dispensed with most of your arguments anyway.

Your range of interest isn't an answer. It merely admits further that you don't know. "Nobody deserves" is not an argument but an assertion.

It's rather disappointing to see that a tack has been taken to seek any reason to get out of this discussion. But so be it.

[Paul Jacobsen]

It's rather disappointing to see that a tack has been taken to seek any reason to get out of this discussion. But so be it.

Why is it that you can judge and declare what is and what isn't so? Did Jesus give you the inside track? I can judge what I see, and you dismiss that "I don't know". But you can judge what you see, and how dare anybody say otherwise. I just got tired of reading your crap, that's all.

By the way, I reported your post. I don't know if you are "above the law" here. I suppose you probably are. But if TheologyWeb has any self-respect, they'll ban you. you.

[Lazy Agnostic]

I know what has gone on in *this* thread, the only thread that I (formerly) had any interest in. And what has gone on in *this* thread is you making an ass out of yourself. And no, nobody deserves the personal attacks that you have done here. Goodbye. I've dispensed with most of your arguments anyway.I understand how Mr Holding's egregious comportment can evoke an honorable man to speak-up and leave in indignant protest. If, however, you do depart, he will declare to his audience that this refutes all the good work you've done parrying his specious obfuscations.

Don't press him for an apology; none will be forthcoming. He claims a scriptural mandate to compose cruel-intent and spurious canards. He also claims no need for growth. He claims no incumbency of accountability to anyone in Christianity. He thinks his comportment will have no bearing on his future in apologetic circles.

[Lazy Agnostic]

It's rather disappointing to see that a tack has been taken to seek any reason to get out of this discussion. But so be it.
Tell me what'd I say?

[Lazy Agnostic]

Then you are in no position to judge matters, Paul. You don't know. Hence you have no place to speak unless it is to ASK first.
You're right, there; it would've probably been better to ask for clarification of why such an obviously keen intellect would leap so far from the expected range of propriety. Given your long history, my friend, it is probably disingenuous of you to become indignant with Paul on the matter.
There will be no "apologies". LA has repeatedly spread falsehoods... Twice is not always...and they were inaccuracies; mea culpa.

...and used dirty manipulation tactics...That's your invention.

You have, yourself, repeatedly derided me for being civil and polite.

He deserves every ounce of academic contempt he receives.I've made no claims to academic laudits. One doesn't need much education to discern guile and a lack of wisdom in you.

[Paul Jacobsen]

If you want to say that I have no right to dispense with intruders in my assigned domain as I please, then please find some TWeb rule I have violated and report to a moderator.

You requested that I find a TWeb rule that you violated. From the FAQ:

"gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, abusive/threatening language, or blatant rudeness for its own sake will not be tolerated."

Your post to L.A. qualified as "gratuitous name-calling," "bullying," "abusive" and "blatant rudeness for its own sake". And I did report your post. However, this is your "assigned domain," I suppose you are probably "above the law".

I don't know what it is that L.A. did to annoy you so. But, even if he did some genuinely annoying thing to you, I don't think that gives you the right to attack him in any setting, anywhere. I don't think that means you can go following L.A. around to the the grocery store and go, "why you lobster freak of nature!"

I suppose you may say this isn't following L.A. around to the grocery store, this is "your domain." Maybe so. I didn't realize originally that this was your little kingdom--a kindom in which you are judge and jury of who is deserving of the Holding wrath and who isn't. Since I've called you down, I assume that any further debate will likely be pointless--I expect I will now be the target of Holding's wrath and ad hominems. But, I don't want you to think you've scared me off or anything. So, I will prepare responses to your last entries in our debates, but I will only post them on my site. I don't want to be a part of your little kingdom anymore.

[learning]

I have said this before, but I'll say it again

jpholding, you DO go too far. You have too good of apologetics, to let things like name calling ruin it, but calling names like you to, just turns people off.

From George MacDonald,

"The man who is anxious to hold every point, will speedily bring a question to a mere dispute about trifles, leaving the real matter, whose elements may appeal to the godlike in every man, out in the cold. Such a man, having gained his paltry point, will crow like the bantam he is, while the other, who may be the greater, perhaps the better man, although in the wrong, is embittered by his smallness, and turns away with increased prejudice. Human nature can hardly be blamed for its readiness to impute to the case the shallowness of its pleader. Few men do more harm than those, who taking the right side, dispute for personal victory, and argue, as they are sure then to do, ungenerously. But even genuine unbelief is thus assailed, likely to be brought thereby into any mood, but one unfit for receiving it. God alone can convince, and till the full time is come for the birth of the truth in a soul, the words of even the Lord Himself are not there potent."

[jpholding]

Why is it that you can judge and declare what is and what isn't so? Did Jesus give you the inside track?

No, years of experience did. You obviously have problems with consistency -- for example: you said you were leaving. You didn't. :whistle:

By the way, I reported your post. I don't know if you are "above the law" here. I suppose you probably are. But if TheologyWeb has any self-respect, they'll ban you. you.

TheologyWeb hasn't a single rule that forbids anything that was done here. If it did, you'd have been out the door too along with all 2000+ members by now. Not one bit of it was "gratuitous". But you've already decided in advance that it was, based on non-knowledge, so who can inform you? It's apparently no different than the reasons you reject Christianity...non-knowledge trumps knowledge and is enough to force a decision based on emotion.



********


Given your long history, my friend, it is probably disingenuous of you to become indignant with Paul on the matter.

Who's indignant, cretinous wretch? Given your long history of arbitrarily ascribing motives based on immediate perception and manipulative malice, that ranking is worth a hill of lima beans in a pouring rain.



Twice is not always...and they were inaccuracies; mea culpa.

Please. You spread falsehood of information and intent in every thread you pollute, with your vague generalizations, lack of addressing of actual facts, and fortune-cookie spewings. Then you sanitize it with pretend lapses of memory and inaccurate, decontextualized professions of honor. Tell it to someone less gullible.



You have, yourself, repeatedly derided me for being civil and polite.

You use civility and politeness that way an espionage agent uses his ballpoint pen disguising a dart gun. It's a slow poison camouflaged with a veil of practicability.

I've made no claims to academic laudits. One doesn't need much education to discern guile and a lack of wisdom in you.

The lack of what you have speaks as well for itself.

Do me any small favor at all, wretched one, and do this: Cease reply for a week while I install this new system I just purchased. You'll more likely let your Dyerized ego balloon as usual, but that's the way of LA.

[Paul Jacobsen]

No, years of experience did. You obviously have problems with consistency -- for example: you said you were leaving. You didn't..

You also said it was "disappointing". Do you want me to leave or not? What was this about inconsistency?

TheologyWeb hasn't a single rule that forbids anything that was done here.

Yes it does, I pointed it out. The fact that you can't tell your posts are "gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, abusive/threatening language, or blatant rudeness" speaks volumes for your discernment abilities.

I've reported your last post as well. But, you may well be right that nothing will happen as you seem to be above the law here.

[Paul Jacobsen]

Regardless of how you feel about me, I still wish you a good day. You deserve it.

Tophet,

Well, I could have had a better day without Holding... <g>

I understand you deferred to Holding for discussion of the Resurrection vs. the crossing of the Rubicon issue. Which I expected as it was his arguments that I was addressing.

As far the rest of our discussion, regarding the legal issues, I don't know whether to assume you have conceded the points or if you intend to continue. If you wish to continue though, I request some other venue other than the Tektonics.org area of TheologyWeb. I'm not sure I would be happy even with another area of TheologyWeb as they do not seem to enforce their own rules.

[jpholding]

You also said it was "disappointing". Do you want me to leave or not?

My life will not be affected either way. Hence, no inconsistency.

The fact that you can't tell your posts are "gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, abusive/threatening language, or blatant rudeness" speaks volumes for your discernment abilities.

The fact that you say this while even admitting that you don't know the background information, speaks volumes for the basis upon which you make decisions.

[Lazy Agnostic]

The fact that you say this while even admitting that you don't know the background information, speaks volumes for the basis upon which you make decisions.The background worth noting is yours, Mr T. It will ensure that you will rise to nothing more than a pedantic, mean-spirited big fish in this nepotistic little pool. You could be so much more if you were to learn to gently push-aside ego.

I'll be gone until mid-December.

[jpholding]

The background worth noting is yours, Mr T. It will ensure that you will rise to nothing more than a pedantic, mean-spirited big fish in this nepotistic little pool. You could be so much more if you were to learn to gently push-aside ego.

I'll be gone until mid-December.

We won't miss you. :rofl: In any event, I see your shell is cracking under the weight of your own hypocritical, fault-projecting ego. Little by little I'm breaking you and exposing your true self, just as expected.

Isn't it frustrating to be so effortlessly and aptly controlled by me, little man? :thumb:

When you get back, make sure you bring the three apologies you owe me for your gross carelessness and/or mispresentation of me and my position in the "lobster" thread.

[Benster]

Why did you give up responding to Jacobsen's argument? I can see that he was winning, but you simply stopped replying to the thread!

[jpholding]

Why did you give up responding to Jacobsen's argument? I can see that he was winning, but you simply stopped replying to the thread!

Who the heck are you talking to?

[Lazy Agnostic]

Who the heck are you talking to?I think it's fairly clear he was talking to you, as you are the one captiously avoiding the topic.

[Lazy Agnostic]

We won't miss you. :rofl: In any event, I see your shell is cracking under the weight of your own hypocritical, fault-projecting ego. Little by little I'm breaking you and exposing your true self, just as expected.

Isn't it frustrating to be so effortlessly and aptly controlled by me, little man? :thumb:

When you get back, make sure you bring the three apologies you owe me for your gross carelessness and/or mispresentation of me and my position in the "lobster" thread.It's starting to fall apart on you, Mr T. It was a good inning but now it looks like you're gonna hafta get a real job.

[jpholding]

Abominable Lobster Freak,

I think it's fairly clear he was talking to you, as you are the one captiously avoiding the topic.

Sure thing, Daddy-O. That's why I have answered every post so far. :ahem: There isn't a post I didn't answer; that's why I asked. And that there isn't one I didn't reply to is why Ben-Gay Man didn't answer. Figure it out if you ever become literate. You're the one who can't even remember what you posted from one minute to the next.

It's starting to fall apart on you, Mr T. It was a good inning but now it looks like you're gonna hafta get a real job.

Yea, spew the frustrated madness of your ineptitude until you wilt, little man. :thumb: When and if you produce a real answer to any argument I make, we'll celebrate. How about we pour you into a bottle of the worst French champagne and use you to launch the Titanic II? :thumb:

Come on. Take the pacifier out of your mouth and give us a real answer to a real argument. Not one of your non-answers in a can, like:

"I have serious resverations about your answer."
"Those of us who are rational tend to disagree."
"You spend too much time harbouring cruel intent."
"It's easy to detect guile in you."
"I can use the word 'captious' in a sentence every day. See?"

Not that I actually expect you to come equipped with anything like real scholarship and data-based answers, but since you won't, continuing to publicly shame you is the next best thing.

[Paul Jacobsen]

The fact that you say this while even admitting that you don't know the background information, speaks volumes for the basis upon which you make decisions.

I'll drop out of this game of tit-for-tat. My latest response in the debate based on my critique of Strobel's _The Case for Faith_ is available at my site at this link:

http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/debates/response_tektonics_xii.htm

[jpholding]

I'll drop out of this game of tit-for-tat. My latest response in the debate based on my critique of Strobel's _The Case for Faith_ is available at my site at this link:

http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/debates/response_tektonics_xii.htm

Dropping out but not dropping out. I see.

I'll wait a few months to reply. You might change it a few times before then; in fact I'll probably start over given that you have noted changes.

[Paul Jacobsen]

Dropping out but not dropping out. I see.

I dropped out of the finger pointing tit-for-tat. But as far as the debate, I'm willing to continue. I'll post my posts on my site, or if you know of a *neutral* site for it, I would consider moving it there.

I'll wait a few months to reply. You might change it a few times before then; in fact I'll probably start over given that you have noted changes.

What are you talking about? The "noted changes" are about the fact that I'm not posting my entries here anymore. I think you are just trying to find an excuse to drop out, as you had accused me of doing...

[Lazy Agnostic]

It's starting to fall apart on you, Mr T. It was a good inning but now it looks like you're gonna hafta get a real job.Paul is right about the tit-for-tat aspect and I would've done better to omit that post. I'd like to see the discussion continue.

[jpholding]

I dropped out of the finger pointing tit-for-tat. But as far as the debate, I'm willing to continue. I'll post my posts on my site, or if you know of a *neutral* site for it, I would consider moving it there.

As if that makes any real difference? It doesn't.

What are you talking about? The "noted changes" are about the fact that I'm not posting my entries here anymore.

You mentioned that you have revised your response to CAF in the past. So why should I assume you have a final draft aboard?

In any event, use whatever rationalization you like. I wouldn't be able to respond until early February or March anyway, between travel and work over the next few weeks, as well as a plan to compose a magazine article on Tom Harpur. The reason is that I plan to go back and look again at your original responses, seeing as how you did say you've changed them, and adjust my own responses appropriately. I assume you don't have a problem with that. Or maybe you'll come up with one.



As for the lobster in the pot: It would be the greatest earthly pleasure if you would hop in a pot and boil yourself. :lmbo:

[Lazy Agnostic]

As for the lobster in the pot: It would be the greatest earthly pleasure if you would hop in a pot and boil yourself. Why has the Holy Spirit forsaken you again?

[Paul Jacobsen]

You mentioned that you have revised your response to CAF in the past.

And my site documents which articles I revise. I have a revision history page for my CAF. And, by the way, you revise your articles. You're grasping at straws.

So why should I assume you have a final draft aboard?

Um, because I said so. And I've never modified debate entries before. With the exception of the fact that on my site, I corrected the spelling error of having JP Holdings instead of JP Holding.

The reason is that I plan to go back and look again at your original responses, seeing as how you did say you've changed them, and adjust my own responses appropriately.

That would be fine.

As for the lobster in the pot: It would be the greatest earthly pleasure if you would hop in a pot and boil yourself. :lmbo:

Most third graders I know would consider that too juvenile to be funny.

[jpholding]

Disgusting AbominationWhy has the Holy Spirit forsaken you again?

You're right. I should have said what he said. I'll do that now.

You should go emasculate yourself, you whitewashed tomb. :lmbo:

jpholding, please keep the name parodies within a reasonable standard, that one was overboard

[jpholding]

And my site documents which articles I revise.

Really now. That's not the point.

Um, because I said so.

Where are the words, "final version"?

And I've never modified debate entries before.

I see. What about their nature as "debate entries" changes this, since you are no longer bonded by the TWeb 24 hour limit?

Most third graders I know would consider that too juvenile to be funny.

Then it seems you need to improve the quality of the company you keep. :thumb:

[Paul Jacobsen]

Really now. That's not the point.

Then why the hell did you bring it up Dickhead? You're the one that brought up the issue that I have revised articles on my site. You brought it up, not me, Dickhead.

Where are the words, "final version"?

I didn't know I had to so specify, Dickhead. You're the one that started accusing me of changing my responses without any justification, Dickhead. If you need me to say, "This is the final edition, Dickhead" I will.

What about their nature as "debate entries" changes this, since you are no longer bonded by the TWeb 24 hour limit?

I read the TWeb guidelines, and I don't remember ever seeing a mention of a 24 hour time limit--though I suppose I might have missed it, Dickhead. But, TWeb seems to not enforce their rules, so whether there is or isn't a 24 hour limit is a moot point, Dickhead.

You need to improve the company you keep

I don't usually hang out with dickheads like you.

That was completely uncalled for and a serious breech of our decorum.

[Paul Jacobsen]

That was completely uncalled for and a serious breech of our decorum.

Holding can call people a "Disgusting Abomination" all day long. And I reported it several times to no avail whatsoever. But if I give him a dose of the same medicine, I'm called down for it. Hypocrites.

Paul, please don't argue the moderation in the thread in question, we are discussing this situation amongst the leadership.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Holding can call people a "Disgusting Abomination" all day long. And I reported it several times to no avail whatsoever. But if I give him a dose of the same medicine, I'm called down for it. Hypocrites.Maybe if you gave them money, you could get away with it, too.

[dizzle]

LA, give it a rest in this thread. Take it to the Locker Room - if you want to debate a point fine that is relevant to this thread fine - but the personal spat between you and JP is not giong to spill over in every thread he may have and into the Tekton ministry area - that is what the Locker Rom is for

[Paul Jacobsen]

LA, give it a rest in this thread.

Dee Dee, if you'll notice, it was JP that started it in this thread. To which I reported it TO YOU PERSONALLY, and to the moderators several times. And you did nothing. Now you are getting all high and mighty.

You were told by PM and it is in the footer of all moderator notices not to complain about moderation in the thread.

[jpholding]

I’ve taken time to review Paul’s material for any significant changes that would affect my response. I did find a few points, though not enough for large-scale changes. So now, to continue with what he says in line with this discussion, though on his site and not here.

A secondary topic was started there, discussing Richard Carrier's comparison of historical evidence for Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon vs. the Resurrection. I haven't decided whether to put up a second set of pages here on my site for that discussion, or just drop it. I guess I will wait for what happens after this posting on this topic:

For interest I just this week posted onsite my own evaluation of this issue: http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rubicon.html

PJ: You may then say that evil and free will are generally correlated.

JPH: Nah, I'll pass on that one.
But that is exactly what you did argue in the previous paragraph, where you said, "Showing one instance where free will did not result in evil does NOT negate the collective evidence that it will, at some point, inevitably result in evil." Ergo, you are arguing correlation.

I am not arguing GENERAL correlation. This is SPECIFIC correlation; the collective is composed of individuals capable of specific acts. Paul has perhaps confused my reference to “collective evidence” for an idea of general correlation. There could be no such thing in the first place, since acts of free will are performed by individuals. In fact I am now not even sure what he thinks “general correlation” means.

Which would make sense, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH POSSIBILITIES OF THE OMNIPOTENT! Correlations or causations in our world prove nothing about what is possible or impossible for the omnipotent.

It is hard to see why. This is like saying that God can by His power make 2 and 2 equal 5.

So is God incapable of preserving innocence in heaven?

The word “incapable” suggests lack of power; what I suggest here has nothing to do with power. In terms of heaven, one may note that in Christian theology, heaven is where Satan rebelled from.


Besides, why did He stop creating innocence when Adam and Eve fell, meaning why did he make everybody carry Original Sin?

Since I don’t hold to the view of Original Sin that Paul refers to, this is not really a question I can answer. I don’t hold that it is carried in the Augustianian sense.

PJ: Why not zap up everybody to heaven when they are 5?

JPH: Why should He?
Because I thought He wanted nobody to perish.

And again: Why should He? I don’t want people to perish, either, but the fact is that some will, and some will even if I try to stop them. All of this remains in essence the same “why didn’t mommy move the cookie jar so I would not steal from it” argument.

I wasn't talking about "freedom" per say, I'm talking about Original Sin, that everybody is born a sinner. Everybody is born a "broken cookie jar."

Well, again, my view of OS is not quite in line with that; so I have no recourse for answer. In my view though everyone is born capable of breaking, not broken; and we have the choice to either mend the cracks or widen them as we proceed.

But, as far as "freedom", if "freedom" is 100% guaranteed to result in something "bad" from God's perspective, then freedom must indeed be "bad" from His perspective. Ergo, He shouldn't have created it.

That doesn’t follow in the least, unless what is “bad” far outweighs the good that will result, and I would argue that it does.

certain that a greater good can't come from an apparent injustice is not reason to conclude that a greater good will come.

Granted; but it is indeed reason to withhold criticism.

What "positions" in Buddhism or Hinduism are "conceptually the same as Christianity"? Doesn't Zacharias argue in Objection 5 that other religions are NOT "conceptually the same as Christianity"?

I don’t think he goes that far. I don’t know enough of Buddhism and Hinduism to answer the above, but generally I would note the example of patristic writers (I believe Justin Martyr) who regarded, say, Socrates, as a Christian before Christ. The concept most critical would be that of sin and the need for forgiveness.

Why should he? *You* don't accept that Allah is your guide, why should he?

My hypothetical Muslim is appealing to an Allah of another character than the one known in mainstream Islam. IOW, he is more concerned with conceptual truth than whose name it comes in.

the-less, the point of my hypotheticals is to make the point that there isn't anything really terribly wrong with "endorsing a world wherein all are killed as fetuses"-- the statement of yours that I was responding to.

Well, if indeed they have this problem of not being real, then they aren’t really issues we need to consider, eh? But:

You ask why you didn't convert upon giving the proof of its validity. The answer is the same answer you would give me if I ask you why I can't convert to Christianity after I'm dead--its too late. God or Allah wants you to convert *before* you have proof-positive.

I don’t agree with that in terms of the nature of faith and what it really is. But that will devolve again into arguments about evidence which is something we seem to be less inclined to discuss. I don’t think you are in the Muslim’s shoes; or perhaps, you have seen the shoes and are trying not to get into them as snugly as you can.

On atheist forums, I hear people saying things like that. But I'm surprised you would say something like that. Aren't JW's misguided brethren from your perspective?

No – they are considered too far outside the pale to be brethren. In fact what they believe mirrors the Arian heresy of Constantine’s time.

But for most of the OT, it was just impossible to keep awake for let alone understand. And even in the books that I say are reasonable readable, even among believers, there is a great deal of debate on what much of it means.

Hmm. Member of the TV generation? :teeth: I have to say I have no such problems.

I've generally felt that ineerests make a good case that either the entire Bible is the Word of God, or none of it is. Once you start to admit some of it is wrong, it is hard to make a case that any of it is right.

I reject such thinking as almost paranoid in outlook. It is certainly never applied universally to documents.

[Tophet]

Howdy, Paul:

My responses are in bold.

I found some of your reponse a bit objectionable, but granted, less objectionable than my last post. So, I will endeavor to avoid personal attacks this time. (But I reserve the right to throw some of your smart-aleck comments back in your direction.

Yes, yes. Argument from emotion. Right.

Your arguments cause frequent slaps to the forehead, obsceneties screamed at the computer, etc. <g>)

And do you believe this is the kind of response a mature, responsible adult should have?



Why? If you challenge the law, then it is reasonable and logical to ask if you believe you’re above the law.

"Challenging the law" is not an apt description of my position.

If you disagree with the law then you are challenging it.

Could it be you are experiencing difficulties with the English language?

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

v. chal•lenged, chal•leng•ing, chal•leng•es
2. To take exception to; call into question; dispute: a book that challenges established beliefs.

Main Entry: challenge

Function: noun
1 : a calling into question; especially : a questioning of validity or legality : OBJECTION <when the challenge to the statute is in effect a challenge of this basic assumption —Kramer v. Union Free School Dist. Number 15, 395 U.S. 621 (1969)>

"challenge n. & v." The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English. Oxford University Press, 1999.

3. an act of disputing or denying a statement, claim, etc.

Looks like the dictionary’s smarter than you are, Paul. I’d pay attention to it if I were you.

But, regardless, even if I was "challenging the law" that does NOT in any sense whatsoever equate to a belief that I'm above the law.

It does if you believe your opinion supersedes the law regarding the burden of proof.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.

above the law, usually describing an individual or business behaving as though exempt from rules or laws that apply to others.

Challenging laws is a basic right of our society for Jeebus Chriminny! To quote you, "Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?"

Since I do comprehend that, your claim is false. Look at post #74. I clearly stated,

Do you not know the difference between legal procedure and a court case? “Burden of proof” is embodied in legal procedure. It is not a case like “Roe v. Wade.”

Now, Paul, explain why you were unable to comprehend what I said.

For a simple example, I'm a heterosexual and have no interest in engaging in sodomy, and therefore I have never broken any sodomy laws.

Do you not know the difference between legal procedure and legislation?

But I do indeed challenge sodomy laws as being a violation of personal rights.

Are you not challenging the law regarding the burden of proof regarding a violation of your personal beliefs?

In short:

"challenging law" Not Equals "law breaking"

Inaccurate. If you break the law, you are challenging the law. If you disagree with the law, you are challenging the law. But one can challenge the law by not breaking it, for the reasons you cite. That is what you are doing.

"challenging law" Not Equals "claims to being above law"

It does if you believe your opinion supersedes the law, as the definition demonstrates.

You said in your last post that I was damaging my credibility.

This is true. After 22 posts you have completely failed to demonstrate why your opinion supersedes the law regarding burden of proof.

You're clinging to this "above the law" nonsense is certainly damaging to yours.

Really? In your responses to me from #64 on you failed to address the burden of proof and why your opinion supersedes legal procedure.

Put succinctly:

The law is clear on the burden of proof.

You disagree with the law regarding the burden of proof.

You are not above the law.

You lose.



This may come as a shock to you, Paul, but Simon Greenleaf used to be a skeptic, biased against the Gospel accounts.


It comes as no shock at all that this is claimed. I could just barf at the number of times I've heard such claims. Strobel supposedly used to be an atheist. McDowell supposedly used to be an atheist. If Strobel and McDowell used to be atheists, they must have been some of the most uninformed atheists.

Not at all. They simply applied the Rules of Evidence – both legal and historical -- as they would any other historical documentation. While on the other hand, you’re ignoring the Rules of Evidence and cling to an unjustifiable double standard.

As far as Greenleaf, maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But really, immaterial.

False. Had the Gospel accounts not met the Rules of Evidence as administered in a court of law, he would not have remained a Christian. Neither could he have written that treatise.

Clearly at the time he wrote his treatise he wasn't.

Because he had accepted the facts of the evidence of the testimony of the evangelists. Duh.

And if "changing sides" is of any evidential value, I could point to a number of known preachers that have turned atheist, such as Dan Barker and Charles Templeton.

Ah, yes. A classic example of argument by equivocation. We are not talking about preachers. We are talking a