Starting with God, the Bible or Jesus?

[ZackMartin]

Settling the matter of the existence of God isn't all that helpful for showing that Christianity is true.

See: all non-Christians who are non-atheists.

I think at least some Christian apologetics works on the assumption that the choice is between Christianity and atheism, and the other options aren't viable ("live options" to use William James' term). On a purely cultural level, I'd say that probably was largely correct, once upon a time, and probably still is true on the level of the psychology of some particular individuals; but it isn't true today considering the immense variety of religious options available to us in our modern multicultural multireligious societies. But go back a few decades (say 1950s and earlier), in Western countries, it probably was true that Christianity and atheism were the only options in most people's minds, and the other choices weren't taken that seriously. It really took the 1960s for many of the alternatives to become viable in the popular consciousness. Maybe some apologetics has a bit of a time lag?

[Seasanctuary]

Yeah, sometimes I wonder if apologetics presentations on Christianity vs. Atheism are set up like that on purpose. As if any points scored against Atheism must go toward Christianity.

[headheart]

Yeah, sometimes I wonder if apologetics presentations on Christianity vs. Atheism are set up like that on purpose. As if any points scored against Atheism must go toward Christianity.

Yes, that is a very good point.

Peace,
Eric.

[headheart]

Settling the matter of the existence of God isn't all that helpful for showing that Christianity is true.

See: all non-Christians who are non-atheists.

I think we've had this chat before. I think that the rigid scientific approach to apologetic argument, discussion or debate fails when it's just that and doesn't flow naturally. It's an art, as too the rest of life. In much the same way that it's easy to tell if a person is in a relationship, a sensitive, discerning and spiritually mature person should be able to figure out where to begin sharing their beggar's bread, fool's wisdom but it's seldom and exact science and I seldom get it right. Just ask my children.

I think this guy has it right.


"Belief in an Age of Skepticism?"
March 4, 2008, at The University of California, Berkeley

Peace,
Eric.

[Cerebrum123]

Rationalize it away? How about struggle to reconcile with Zack's romantic notion of 'the very beautiful' and your half a verse from Psalm 19 'The heavens declare the glory of God ....' with what we've learned and continue to learn everyday about this universe?

Now see you've made me play the role of the skeptic, damn!

Attachment 75865

Notice that Zack is registered as a theist, and not an atheist. So, your argument there kind of fails.

[headheart]

Notice that Zack is registered as a theist, and not an atheist. So, your argument there kind of fails.

It does?


Rubs eyes, pushes hair back and feels two devil's horns emerging.

Hell Boy.jpg

[Tassman]

Myself, I believe in God, but I don't find any form of the cosmological argument convincing. I'm sure I'm not the only theist who feels this way.

Consider e.g .the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which many (e.g. William Lane Craig) claim is the best version of the cosmological argument available:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a Cause

2) The universe began to exist

3) Therefore the universe has a Cause

Let's say that (2) is demonstrated. My real problem is (1). It's clearly true when we are talking about the kinds of objects we deal with in every day life, but I'm not convinced it is universally true, in the sense of applying also to situations distant from our everyday experience (i.e. talking about the universe as a whole instead of the tiny part of it which we interact with). If there's legitimate doubt about (1), the argument doesn't succeed.

Precisely!

"Everything that begins to exist" implies that in a finite universe reality can be divided into categories of things that begin to exist and those that do not. And, given that just one thing can hypothetically exist in the category of things that did NOT begin to exist, this is just another way of saying god, i.e. it is an unsubstantiated assumption.

But, it may well be established that that the universe(s) have eternally existed. At this stage, ALL the current models, theories and hypotheses involving our physical existence work best in infinite and eternal conditions according to the likes of physicist Prof. Martin Bojowald, Penn State University’s Institute for Gravitation and the Cosmos – and many others.

In short, neither scenario requires a deity.

I didn't think that I was. I was just trying to say that getting an atheist to admit that "the heavens declare the glory of God" isn't all that easy. Sometimes they will admit it, but they rationalize it away. Kind of like Dawkins saying that the universe has apparent design, but that it was only "apparent" design, and not "real" design.

What the heavens declare is the glory and wonder of the universe(s), not a god. To attribute this glory to a god (specifically your god) is an unjustified assumption - we have empirically verified evidence of the universe existing. We have no substantianted evidence of a god existing.

But remember that is Tassman.

Presumably you are unable to present rational reasons for holding your beliefs so are reduced to smearing the opponent. Is this a convincing form of apologetics in your view?

[robrecht]

I don't think apologetics should be try to prove anything. It is the art of presenting our faith in a reasonable manner to people who are interested in learning more about our faith and way of life.

[headheart]

I don't think apologetics should be try to prove anything. It is the art of presenting our faith in a reasonable manner to people who are interested in learning more about our faith and way of life.

It is an it isn't. I think that the primary witness is a changed life which can be encountered on a day to day basis and within a far more expansive environment than the exchange of letters on an internet forum, though there is some value one can never tell what sort of devil one is dealing with. In the words of the Old Master.

Lao Tzu (Old Master) Tao Te Ching.jpg

'You can buy beautiful words, you can build your reputation with good deeds, but even bad people can use beautiful words and perform good deeds' The Old Master - 6 Century BC.

Peace,
Eric.

[Juice]

Hi Zack, you similarly objected to the KCA here and I didn’t respond because you didn’t really argue against it in the sense of falsifying it. But since it has come up twice now I’ll respond and I’ll respond here in this thread if that is okay.

Myself, I believe in God, but I don't find any form of the cosmological argument convincing. I'm sure I'm not the only theist who feels this way.

What we “feel” about an argument is irrelevant. We can't reject/accept arguments because of how we "feel" about them. If that is all there is to it then there isn't really much point debating is there?

Consider e.g .the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which many (e.g. William Lane Craig) claim is the best version of the cosmological argument available:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a Cause

2) The universe began to exist

3) Therefore the universe has a Cause

Let's say that (2) is demonstrated. My real problem is (1). It's clearly true when we are talking about the kinds of objects we deal with in every day life, but I'm not convinced it is universally true, in the sense of applying also to situations distant from our everyday experience (i.e. talking about the universe as a whole instead of the tiny part of it which we interact with). If there's legitimate doubt about (1), the argument doesn't succeed.

But are there legitimate reasons to doubt (1)? We can conceivably dispute any premise on the grounds that we don’t personally think it has sufficient evidence to support it thereby claiming we are not convinced. However, that is not in itself the same as falsifying the premise. Consider the classic argument:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Does the first premise of that argument have enough evidence to support it considering it is a universal claim? Are there legitimate reasons to doubt it? Well, if we apply your reasoning consistently I think we have to concede that no it doesn’t have enough evidence and thus we can doubt it. Perhaps some immortal man, for fear of discovery, has lived in a remote cave somewhere and managed to escape notice for the last few thousand years. Maybe there is a race of humans on some unknown distance planet or other universe that are indeed immortal. So the question becomes are conceptual possibilities legitimate reasons to overturn the reality of our collective experience? I don’t think they are.

By the way, how much more evidence does that first premise in the KCA need? All our observable data suggests this premise is true and so far nothing has conclusively falsified it. The closest anyone seems to have come is suggesting virtual particles. Even if they are real, which it doesn’t seem to be clear that they are, they do not come into existence without a cause strictly speaking – i.e. a quantum vacuum. Look at it this way, there are many more reasons to think that (1) is true than to think it is false. So yes, as far as an argument can be sound, I would say it is. If the first premise of the KCA can be objected to then I’m not sure any argument can be sound.

[shunyadragon]

I've often wondered about this.

Why do unbelievers who don't believe in the primary character of the Bible engage in argument, discussion or debate about the Bible and Jesus and not settle this weightier matter first?

I've often wondered about this too.

We know that Anthony Flew wrote a book about how he changed his mind about God but was still moving towards the Christian religion. It's my concern that Christian apologetic discussion, argument and debate storms the gate when they haven't even crossed the field yet.

Peace,
Eric

I fortunately pursued the weightier problem of the existence of God in the journey to this point in what I believe. The cultural overburden of the Bible made it difficult if not impossible for me to believe in the biblical God of either the OT nor the NT. My journey is similar to Flew's except I never took the position for a long time as a strong atheist as did Flew. As with Flew i have difficulty excepting the 'special' exclusive revelation as portrayed in Judeo Christian tradition. I am not sure where Flew is now in his journey, because he has been silent in recent years. I am not a fan of some of his arguments concerning the evidence described in his book published in 2008.

If I had to rely on the Bible alone I would not be a Theist.

[Juice]

I am not sure where Flew is now in his journey, because he has been silent in recent years.

Yeah, because he died in April of 2010...

[shunyadragon]

But are there legitimate reasons to doubt (1)? We can conceivably dispute any premise on the grounds that we don’t personally think it has sufficient evidence to support it thereby claiming we are not convinced. However, that is not in itself the same as falsifying the premise. Consider the classic argument:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Does the first premise of that argument have enough evidence to support it considering it is a universal claim? Are there legitimate reasons to doubt it? Well, if we apply your reasoning consistently I think we have to concede that no it doesn’t have enough evidence and thus we can doubt it. Perhaps some immortal man, for fear of discovery, has lived in a remote cave somewhere and managed to escape notice for the last few thousand years. Maybe there is a race of humans on some unknown distance planet or other universe that are indeed immortal. So the question becomes are conceptual possibilities legitimate reasons to overturn the reality of our collective experience? I don’t think they are.

By the way, how much more evidence does that first premise in the KCA need? All our observable data suggests this premise is true and so far nothing has conclusively falsified it. The closest anyone seems to have come is suggesting virtual particles. Even if they are real, which it doesn’t seem to be clear that they are, they do not come into existence without a cause strictly speaking – i.e. a quantum vacuum. Look at it this way, there are many more reasons to think that (1) is true than to think it is false. So yes, as far as an argument can be sound, I would say it is. If the first premise of the KCA can be objected to then I’m not sure any argument can be sound.

I do not doubt the premise that 'Everything that began to exist has a cause.' This by objective observation of our physical existence is obviously true as far as we can percieve the evidence. But we have not evidence to justify that there is actually a 'First Cause' for the physical existence itself. The argument needs to justify that our physical existence has a beginning. There is the possibility that our physical existence is infinite and eternal without beginning nor end. We can understand beginnings such as the physical beginning of our universe misleadingly called the Big Bang, but as velinkin describes in his research, theories and models this only describes the beginning of the expansion of our universe as we know it and not evidence for any absolute beginning of the physical existence itself. There are a number of theoretical possibilities that describe the universe as originating within a zero-state infinite and eternal physical matrix, and not appearing 'poof' from absolute nothingness.

Arguments trying to limit infinities in the past based on ancient concepts of Aristotilian infinities fail miserably in the face of modern science and math concerning what may be considered infinite and eternal. It is possible that we exist in a finite temporal existence, but there is not a sound coherent argument that this is necessarily the case.

[Juice]

I do not doubt the premise that 'Everything that began to exist has a cause.'

Okay.

[1]This by objective observation of our physical existence is obviously true as far as we can percieve the evidence. [2]But we have not evidence to justify that there is actually a 'First Cause' for the physical existence itself.

Surely you can see how [1] and [2] are contradictory.

There is the possibility that our physical existence is infinite and eternal without beginning nor end.

Sure and it is also a possibility that not all men are mortal.

We can understand beginnings such as the physical beginning of our universe misleadingly called the Big Bang, but as velinkin describes in his research, theories and models this only describes the beginning of the expansion of our universe as we know it and not evidence for any absolute beginning of the physical existence itself. There are a number of theoretical possibilities that describe the universe as originating within a zero-state infinite and eternal physical matrix, and not appearing 'poof' from absolute nothingness.

There are plenty of theories and possibilities. But how exactly do they falsify the premises of the KCA?

Arguments trying to limit infinities in the past based on ancient concepts of Aristotilian infinities fail miserably in the face of modern science and math concerning what may be considered infinite and eternal. It is possible that we exist in a finite temporal existence, but there is not a sound coherent argument that this is necessarily the case.

The KCA notwithstanding.

[headheart]

I fortunately pursued the weightier problem of the existence of God in the journey to this point in what I believe. The cultural overburden of the Bible made it difficult if not impossible for me to believe in the biblical God of either the OT nor the NT. My journey is similar to Flew's except I never took the position for a long time as a strong atheist as did Flew. As with Flew i have difficulty excepting the 'special' exclusive revelation as portrayed in Judeo Christian tradition. I am not sure where Flew is now in his journey, because he has been silent in recent years. I am not a fan of some of his arguments concerning the evidence described in his book published in 2008.

If I had to rely on the Bible alone I would not be a Theist.

Just something I think I aught to let you know. This silence is due to the fact that he passed from this life on 8 April 2010 and much like late Stephen Jay Gould who left shortly after completing 'The Structure of Evolutionary Theory' we have only what he left us with and that was his final book 'There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind' (2007)

Not everyone is so concerned about the stuff that the scholarly types put themselves through and are often quite content to carry on their lives relying on what their gut instincts tell them, rather than relying as heavily on analytically based thinking and living. < now that'd be a novel experience for some folks who spend their lives stuck with their noses in any book, the Bible included.
I remember one day when I was driving home with my Ma before she got her out and I asked her if she ever read the Bible, she replied that it was much too complicated and that she preferred reading her fictional novels. < I wouldn't shoot that process down for I think I've learned more from fiction than I have from my hard cover studies and I've learned more about God from application than from meditation upon texts. It's after all "life that we've been called to live", not a mental jungle gym but the real one with the slide and the swings and the whole Tutti Frutti en Rooti - Time for some Rock 'n Roll.


Little Richard - Tutti Fruti

Hey, we're part dust and part Rock 'n Roll.

Peace,
Eric.