Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Free will defense?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Doug is a bit of epistemological train wreck since his particular brand of uncertainty undermines even his own worldview
    I admit the possibility that my worldview is mistaken. Is that what you think "undermines" it? All I am doing is acknowledging my own human fallibility. Is that supposed to be a mistake?

    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    but to his credit, he at least seems to apply his standards consistently, or at least he tries to.
    I sincerely appreciate the acknowledgement.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      When you were a professing Christian. What was it you would have explained as to how to know for sure?
      It changed over time. I was initially converted at the age of 12 by the pastor of a small-town nondenominational church whose members leaned toward evangelicalism. There were only three other churches in the town -- one Catholic, one Baptist, and one Pentecostal. At that age, and having had no prior exposure to Christian teachings, I didn't know much more than that to be a Christian, you had to accept Jesus as your personal savior, and I wasn't aware that there were any people calling themselves Christians who believe any differently. I knew that there were lots of different Protestant denominations, but I had no idea what the differences were among them and little interest in finding out.

      About two years later I was living in a different city and, long story short, the first church I happened to start attending was Oneness Pentecostal. The only difference I noticed at first was how emotional their services were, but that didn't bother me. It seemed sort of commendable, even if it wasn't my own style. After a couple of weeks one of the members took me aside and started asking questions about my beliefs. He proceeded to explain why they weren't entirely scriptural (as the Oneness Pentecostals interpreted scripture, of course), and just that quickly I was converted to Oneness Pentecostalism. For the next four years, I believed that in order to become a Christian, one had to reject Trinitarianism, be baptised "in the name of Jesus Christ" (not "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"), and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, of which gift the necessary evidence was speaking in tongues.

      When I was 18 I started hanging out with some Methodists and, as opportunities arose, tried to show them the errors of their doctrinal ways. This went on for weeks, and to this day I don't know why they put up with me the way they did. As our conversations continued, I started questioning more and more of what the Pentecostals had taught me of what Christianity was all about -- except for their most definitive beliefs. My Methodist friends never tried to convince me that I was interpreting scripture incorrectly. What they questioned instead was my belief in scriptural inerrancy, and what I realized in due course was that I had no good defense of that doctrine, and I realized that without that doctrine, I could not defend Pentecostalism or any other variety of fundamentalism or evangelicalism. And with that realization, I became a liberal Christian.

      From that day until now, I have believed, and would have told anyone who asked, that to be a Christian is just to feel committed to following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, whatever you think those teachings were. For many years afterward, I thought I knew what those teachings were, and I thought they were primarily to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. But I did not believe that those who thought more was required were not Christians.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        As I like to say, I don't have to defend what they believe, only what I believe.
        Good. I say the same thing.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
          It changed over time. I was initially converted at the age of 12 by the pastor of a small-town nondenominational church whose members leaned toward evangelicalism. There were only three other churches in the town -- one Catholic, one Baptist, and one Pentecostal. At that age, and having had no prior exposure to Christian teachings, I didn't know much more than that to be a Christian, you had to accept Jesus as your personal savior, and I wasn't aware that there were any people calling themselves Christians who believe any differently. I knew that there were lots of different Protestant denominations, but I had no idea what the differences were among them and little interest in finding out.

          About two years later I was living in a different city and, long story short, the first church I happened to start attending was Oneness Pentecostal. The only difference I noticed at first was how emotional their services were, but that didn't bother me. It seemed sort of commendable, even if it wasn't my own style. After a couple of weeks one of the members took me aside and started asking questions about my beliefs. He proceeded to explain why they weren't entirely scriptural (as the Oneness Pentecostals interpreted scripture, of course), and just that quickly I was converted to Oneness Pentecostalism. For the next four years, I believed that in order to become a Christian, one had to reject Trinitarianism, be baptised "in the name of Jesus Christ" (not "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"), and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, of which gift the necessary evidence was speaking in tongues.

          When I was 18 I started hanging out with some Methodists and, as opportunities arose, tried to show them the errors of their doctrinal ways. This went on for weeks, and to this day I don't know why they put up with me the way they did. As our conversations continued, I started questioning more and more of what the Pentecostals had taught me of what Christianity was all about -- except for their most definitive beliefs. My Methodist friends never tried to convince me that I was interpreting scripture incorrectly. What they questioned instead was my belief in scriptural inerrancy, and what I realized in due course was that I had no good defense of that doctrine, and I realized that without that doctrine, I could not defend Pentecostalism or any other variety of fundamentalism or evangelicalism. And with that realization, I became a liberal Christian.

          From that day until now, I have believed, and would have told anyone who asked, that to be a Christian is just to feel committed to following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, whatever you think those teachings were. For many years afterward, I thought I knew what those teachings were, and I thought they were primarily to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. But I did not believe that those who thought more was required were not Christians.
          Thank you.

          Question: If there was a way to know the actual essential truths of Christianity would you be willing to weigh it?

          Or if you have some critical questions that you see are problematic. What are they? We many need to discuss them first.

          I became a Christian at the age of 14 (in 1962). On the presumption that one could know for sure when one died that one could know without a doubt that one would go to heaven. Without giving their explanation here, the following Scriptures were presented, Romans 3:10; Romans 3:23; Romans 5:12; Romans 6:23; Romans 5:8; Romans 10:9; Romans 10:13 and Revelation 3:20. That was at Faith Baptist Church of Canoga Park. Two adults presented that message to me between Sunday school and the church service. And I was all excited that I now knew I had eternal life (John 3:16; Hebrews 13:5; 1 John 5:13). Now it has been some 55 years.
          Last edited by 37818; 09-09-2017, 10:35 AM.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            Question: If there was a way to know the actual essential truths of Christianity would you be willing to weigh it?
            If you claim that there is a way to know about Christianity that is different from the way I know about everything else, I would ask for a proof that does not assume its conclusion.
            Last edited by Doug Shaver; 09-09-2017, 11:35 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
              If you claim that there is a way to know about Christianity that is different from the way I know about everything else,
              While that maybe the case, I do not know that. I need information from you.

              I would ask for a proof that does not assume its conclusion.
              The truth is, all arguers for any proofs, always presume their own conclusions. It is just the way it is. I want you to draw your own conclusions.

              What I need to know from you is when you came to your conversion at your age of 12, what were you convinced of? And I need to ask other detail questions as we go.

              Did you know for sure about having eternal life? About going to heaven? How would you have explained it then? What had you then believed about Christ at that time?

              Also if you would like to limit our discussion between just you and me, I believe we can open a thread in the Arena area for that purpose.
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                Also if you would like to limit our discussion between just you and me, I believe we can open a thread in the Arena area for that purpose.
                Thank you, but I’m OK staying here.

                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                The truth is, all arguers for any proofs, always presume their own conclusions. It is just the way it is.
                No, that is not exactly the way it is, but I have read enough presuppositionalist literature to get the point you’re probably trying to make.

                Every worldview is based on certain assumptions, which can also be called presuppositions. Different worldviews may, and usually will, hold some assumptions in common, but one will accept some other assumptions that the other rejects.

                Regardless of one’s assumptions, valid reasoning must reach conclusions that are consistent with those assumptions, which means only that the conclusions do not contradict any of the assumptions. This does not mean, necessarily, that the conclusions themselves have been assumed.

                You refer to “any proofs.” Most arguments in ordinary discourse do not begin with the assumptions on which the participants base their worldviews. They begin with stated premises that, in the minds of the participants, can be defended with arguments that ultimately rest on certain of those assumptions. If all the participants happen to accept those particular assumptions, then the premises themselves will not be in dispute. A circular argument is one in which at least one stated premise cannot be defended except by assuming the truth of the conclusion.

                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                I want you to draw your own conclusions.
                I believe I am drawing my own conclusions.

                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                What I need to know from you is when you came to your conversion at your age of 12, what were you convinced of?
                Here is an excerpt from my conversion story that I have on my website:

                The message I got from the Rev. Wantland was as follows:

                The Bible asserts that God created the heavens and the earth. We know this is true because the only alternative is to believe in evolution. Evolution is a ridiculous theory promulgated by atheistic scientists. The Bible further teaches us that, because of Adam and Eve's transgression, we are all sinners and for this reason condemned to burn in hell for eternity. However, because God so loves us, he sent his son Jesus to die on the cross for us, sacrificing himself as atonement for our sins. If we believe this, our sins are forgiven and we spend eternity in heaven. Belief is sufficient; it is also necessary. Skeptics will burn as surely as everyone else who rejects the Word of God.
                I was skeptical at first, but I knew no one from whom to seek another opinion. I did not know that there were any other opinions on these issues besides "It's all true" and "None of it is true." I was confronted with Pascal's wager, many years before I ever heard Pascal's name: The consequences of believing in error were trivial compared to the consequences of disbelieving in error. I stuffed my skepticism and resolved to be a believer.

                No one commits an act of faith just because he is convinced that it would be a prudent thing to do. I was not exercising faith. I was exercising reason. It was a poor exercise, but it was all I could do at the time.

                My major obstacle in this exercise was in persuading myself that evolution was actually a ridiculous theory. Given the limits of my comprehension about scientific matters, this was not too difficult. The Rev. Wantland presented the theory in such caricature that, even knowing it to be a caricature, I thought he had a point. Wishing it were so, I persuaded myself that evolution could not have happened. I accepted, in my ignorance, the false dichotomy that if evolution could not have happened, then the world must have been created the way Genesis said it had been created. I accepted the further inference that if Genesis was right, then the entire Bible was right.

                Nobody had told me that a person could believe in both evolution and Christianity. I was learning one kind of Christianity, unaware that there were any other kinds. I was informed, by a grownup who seemed to know what he was talking about, that if I wanted to go to heaven, I had to believe that evolution was a lie.
                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                Did you know for sure about having eternal life? About going to heaven? How would you have explained it then?
                It depends on what you mean by knowing “for sure.” I never thought it was impossible for me to be mistaken.

                My family was dysfunctional, and I was entering adolescence with a lot of emotional problems. All I could have told anyone at that time was that, based on everything I thought I knew, becoming a Christian seemed like the most sensible thing I could do.

                But I was continually reminded, in sermons I heard and in other ways, that many people were convinced that they were saved but really were not. I could never put that out of my mind. How could I know that I was not one of those people? There seemed to be no way I could know with perfect certainty. All I could do was study God’s revelation to the best of my ability, with my mind as open as I could keep it. More than that, I could not do.

                The closest I came to knowing for sure was after I joined the Pentecostals. The experience of speaking in tongues seemed to be as conclusive a proof as I could hope for that I was doing what God wanted me to do.

                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                What had you then believed about Christ at that time?
                Before my initial conversion, all I knew about Jesus of Nazareth was that (a) he had something to do with the origin of the religion called Christianity and (b) the Christmas holiday celebrated his birth. I knew nothing about his ministry or how he died, and I was unaware of the relationship between him and Easter.
                Last edited by Doug Shaver; 09-12-2017, 01:04 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                  I admit the possibility that my worldview is mistaken. Is that what you think "undermines" it? All I am doing is acknowledging my own human fallibility. Is that supposed to be a mistake?
                  You seem to demand a high degree of if not absolute certainty before you'll commit to something, which does seem to be a mistake given our inherent fallibility, which is why I say it's enough for me that something is probably or most likely true in instances where certainty is beyond my reach.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    You seem to demand a high degree of if not absolute certainty before you'll commit to something
                    That depends on what I'm committing myself to. If a mistake could kill me, then I'm going to need better evidence than if the consequences of being wrong will be only a minor inconvenience. But even in matters of life and death, I don't demand perfect certainty.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                      No, that is not exactly the way it is, but I have read enough presuppositionalist literature to get the point you’re probably trying to make.
                      Well it is true one can discover a conclusion one did not hold. Nevertheless everyone has presuppositions under the views held. The average person is not even aware of the presuppositions that might be held.

                      Every worldview is based on certain assumptions, which can also be called presuppositions. Different worldviews may, and usually will, hold some assumptions in common, but one will accept some other assumptions that the other rejects.
                      True.

                      Regardless of one’s assumptions, valid reasoning must reach conclusions that are consistent with those assumptions, which means only that the conclusions do not contradict any of the assumptions. This does not mean, necessarily, that the conclusions themselves have been assumed.
                      Yes, in the case of discovery.

                      You refer to “any proofs.” Most arguments in ordinary discourse do not begin with the assumptions on which the participants base their worldviews. They begin with stated premises that, in the minds of the participants, can be defended with arguments that ultimately rest on certain of those assumptions. If all the participants happen to accept those particular assumptions, then the premises themselves will not be in dispute. A circular argument is one in which at least one stated premise cannot be defended except by assuming the truth of the conclusion.
                      Agreed.

                      I believe I am drawing my own conclusions.
                      Yes. But missing information can change one's conclusion if the missing information is correctly understood and then accepted.

                      Here is an excerpt from my conversion story that I have on my website:
                      The message I got from the Rev. Wantland was as follows:

                      The Bible asserts that God created the heavens and the earth. We know this is true because the only alternative is to believe in evolution. Evolution is a ridiculous theory promulgated by atheistic scientists. The Bible further teaches us that, because of Adam and Eve's transgression, we are all sinners and for this reason condemned to burn in hell for eternity. However, because God so loves us, he sent his son Jesus to die on the cross for us, sacrificing himself as atonement for our sins. If we believe this, our sins are forgiven and we spend eternity in heaven. Belief is sufficient; it is also necessary. Skeptics will burn as surely as everyone else who rejects the Word of God.
                      I was skeptical at first, but I knew no one from whom to seek another opinion. I did not know that there were any other opinions on these issues besides "It's all true" and "None of it is true." I was confronted with Pascal's wager, many years before I ever heard Pascal's name: The consequences of believing in error were trivial compared to the consequences of disbelieving in error. I stuffed my skepticism and resolved to be a believer.
                      No one commits an act of faith just because he is convinced that it would be a prudent thing to do. I was not exercising faith. I was exercising reason. It was a poor exercise, but it was all I could do at the time.
                      Faith and reason are not opposites. It is, I believe, that the correct view of faith, is that faith is to be based on the reason something is understood to be true. We should not be placing our faith [trust/beliefs] in fantasy.

                      The Apostle Paul argues, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world." (Romans 10:17-18.) Paul arguing faith comes from God's word being what would be call natural revelation, Paul citing from the 19th Psalm. Jesus in His prayer said God's word is truth (John 17:17). We study it (nature law) today call it science.

                      My major obstacle in this exercise was in persuading myself that evolution was actually a ridiculous theory. Given the limits of my comprehension about scientific matters, this was not too difficult. The Rev. Wantland presented the theory in such caricature that, even knowing it to be a caricature, I thought he had a point. Wishing it were so, I persuaded myself that evolution could not have happened. I accepted, in my ignorance, the false dichotomy that if evolution could not have happened, then the world must have been created the way Genesis said it had been created. I accepted the further inference that if Genesis was right, then the entire Bible was right.
                      Well there is evolution (change over time). The issue is really about Darwinian view (macro evolution) versus genetic code which must already be in place in order for the change to take place (micro evolution). At issue is over origins, origins being do to direct acts of God (Genesis 2:7, 21-22) or a believed process where man came from other pre-human primates.
                      Nobody had told me that a person could believe in both evolution and Christianity. I was learning one kind of Christianity, unaware that there were any other kinds. I was informed, by a grownup who seemed to know what he was talking about, that if I wanted to go to heaven, I had to believe that evolution was a lie.
                      Wow.

                      I have come to hold the Biblical accounts are true. But if I had thought that I had to believe in the literal 6 day creation story to become a Christian - I would have never became a Christian. Being that then I was 14 being an amateur astronomer.



                      It depends on what you mean by knowing “for sure.” I never thought it was impossible for me to be mistaken.
                      Only by coming to understanding that it was true and that it was from God.

                      My family was dysfunctional, and I was entering adolescence with a lot of emotional problems. All I could have told anyone at that time was that, based on everything I thought I knew, becoming a Christian seemed like the most sensible thing I could do.

                      But I was continually reminded, in sermons I heard and in other ways, that many people were convinced that they were saved but really were not. I could never put that out of my mind. How could I know that I was not one of those people?
                      Hmm. Unless it was explained how could one know? That would be a difficulty.

                      There seemed to be no way I could know with perfect certainty. All I could do was study God’s revelation to the best of my ability, with my mind as open as I could keep it. More than that, I could not do.
                      Was it ever explained that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2)? 1 John 5:13 says one can know.

                      The closest I came to knowing for sure was after I joined the Pentecostals. The experience of speaking in tongues seemed to be as conclusive a proof as I could hope for that I was doing what God wanted me to do.
                      OK. So it was argued one would know by that experience. But typically they believe one can be saved and can become lost again. I always found that view untenable.

                      Before my initial conversion, all I knew about Jesus of Nazareth was that (a) he had something to do with the origin of the religion called Christianity and (b) the Christmas holiday celebrated his birth. I knew nothing about his ministry or how he died, and I was unaware of the relationship between him and Easter.
                      I did not know much about what the Bible taught. I knew of Christmas being Jesus' birthday and Easter about His resurrection. After I accepted Christ as Savior I did not want to believe what was not true about what the Bible taught. My first study Bible was The Scofield Reference Bible and The Oxford Cyclpedic Concordance.

                      Any specifics that you would like to address?

                      The simplest way I would explain the good news (gospel) would be 4 points. Believe God and His word (God cannot lie). That God sent His Son to die for our sins (Romans 5:8). As evidence that God did this is the claim of Jesus being raised from the dead (Romans 4:25). And the good news promise being God's forgiveness is full and complete, "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." (Hebrews 8:12.)
                      Last edited by 37818; 09-14-2017, 10:39 PM.
                      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        The simplest way I would explain the good news (gospel) would be 4 points. Believe God and His word (God cannot lie).
                        God isn't talking to me. You are. And I don't have to think you're lying in order to disagree with you. All I have to think is that you're mistaken.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                          That depends on what I'm committing myself to. If a mistake could kill me, then I'm going to need better evidence than if the consequences of being wrong will be only a minor inconvenience. But even in matters of life and death, I don't demand perfect certainty.
                          Do you place one's religion and worldview in the "life and death" category? If not then why place such a large burden of proof on Christianity? From a purely historical perspective, it's more likely true than false, but that's apparently not good enough for you.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                            God isn't talking to me. You are. And I don't have to think you're lying in order to disagree with you. All I have to think is that you're mistaken.
                            Well God speaks to all through creation (Psalm 19:1-4) which is the Apostle's argument (Romans 10:17-18). That being said, you believe I am mistaken. Can you give your reason for thinking this?
                            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                              God isn't talking to me. You are. And I don't have to think you're lying in order to disagree with you. All I have to think is that you're mistaken.
                              Now Christians, I am sure you have known, hold the Bible to be special written revelation from God. Now if that is true, the reading of it would be a hearing of God's word. At one time you did consider that. The 4 points I presented is based from that.

                              What I would also like to understand is how was what I had presented the same or different from what you had believed?
                              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                Well God speaks to all through creation (Psalm 19:1-4) which is the Apostle's argument (Romans 10:17-18).
                                You say so. You are not God. The author of Psalm 19 said so. He was not God. The author of Romans said so. He was not God.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                172 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,509 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X